Talk:Surrey Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Necrothesp (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 19 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have temporarily created a Criticisms section in the Surrey Police article to redirect posters here.

It is obvious that some posters are less than satisfied with this police force's performance, but for the criticisms so far made (and for any others that there are) to survive in this article I think that they are going to have to be sourced.

If the links to sources are pasted in here, I am happy to do the editing. :-) Ojcookies 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Um, when I suggested that criticisms would have to be sourced, I was thinking of the following I'm afraid: Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Ojcookies 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page. Readers of the article should not be directed here. I have removed the unsourced POV vandalism of the article. -- Necrothesp 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an article that is probably not looked at by that many people, including the line Please see talk page on a temporary basis was in fact the most sensible thing to do to try and achieve a good outcome.
As the unverified criticisms were added to the article by an anonymous user, I figured that they probably wouldn't see any messages on their talk page. Also, having made few edits (so perhaps being new to Wikipedia), and as I only created this talk page recently, I thought it was more likely that they would see my above comments if I included a brief pointer towards this page.
And it seems unlikely that someone would go to all the trouble of creating two or more websites just for the fun of it... Ojcookies 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is not part of the article. It is a forum for editorial discussion of the article (not the subject of the article). Mentioning it in the article is therefore effectively a self-reference and should be avoided. The two webpages referenced appear to be a sour grapes personal attack on a few officers in Surrey Police which is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. All police forces and similar organisations are going to attract this sort of criticism from time to time - it's the nature of the organisation. -- Necrothesp 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I know that the talk page is not part of the article. However, you're missing my point. Just like you, I didn't think that unverified criticisms were acceptable, but the point was how to get that message through to the anonymous user. I figured that they probably wouldn't see any messages on their talk page. And I only created this talk page recently and I wanted them to see it straight away, rather than them keep editing the article to include the non-reputable webpages. I doubt that many people look at this article, but even if they do, as I said at the top, the comment redirecting this user here was only ever going to be temporary.
Also, I am perfectly aware that the two webpages referenced are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - that's why I started this talk page in the first place! But someone is rather unlikely to create two webpages just out of sour grapes - I would have created numerous webpages over the years if that was the case - so I tried to encourage them to link any reputable sources that they might have. Also, I do wonder what your claim that this user is talking "nonsense" is actually based on. Ojcookies 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? When did I use the term "nonsense"? I said it was a POV personal attack, which it blatantly is considering it names individual officers. And my point is that referencing talk pages from articles is not Wikipedia policy, which is why I removed it. Simple as that. I know why you added the note - I'm just trying to explain why I removed it. -- Necrothesp 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't remove it! An anonymous user with the IP 86.0.51.96 did! So you are either confused, or you didn't sign in. But if it was you who removed it (and it would obviously then have been clearer to me who was doing what if you had been signed in) then why did you say previously "This is a talk page. Readers of the article should not be directed here. I have removed the unsourced POV vandalism of the article." You mentioned that you had removed the vandalism, and you said that people shouldn't be redirected here, but made no mention of having removed the Criticisms section (unless you consider that to be vandalism - I don't).

Anyway, as I keep saying, I only intended this criticisms section to be temporary anyway, so even if it was you who removed it, it makes no odds. But I really don't see why you have repeated your point that referencing talk pages from articles is not Wikipedia policy - did you not see where I wrote: "Firstly, I know that the talk page is not part of the article." I have already taken on board your point, and there is really no need to keep going on about it. But, what I was trying to get across to you before when I said "you're missing my point", and why I am defensive about this, is that adding a brief and temporary item to the article was the best way to get the message through to the anonymous user in a timely way. As you yourself have said, self-references should be avoided. But common sense should be used, and so it doesn't need to become a must. The key question I have for you is: I accept your point, do you accept mine?

As for the term "nonsense", I am surprised that you deny saying it, as it is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.156.163.230 You also said that it was "sour grapes", which is rather dismissive do you not think? Ojcookies 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you recheck the edit history of the page, where you will see that I did indeed remove the link after it had been readded. I also removed the criticisms section as there is no point having a section header with nothing in it! As for my note on the user talk page, that was a standard template tag used to signify that Wikipedia has been vandalised. Since I did not actually write it, I did not remember "saying" it! No, I do not think it is dismissive to describe a blatant personal attack plastered over the web as "sour grapes" - such things deserve to be dismissed. Frankly, I fail to see why you are getting so worked up over such a minor issue. I removed something which contravened Wikipedia policy on self-referencing and which was an unnecessary addition to an encyclopaedia article - the link should never have been added in the first place and it was sufficient to say that in the edit history with a pointer to the talk page if necessary. I would remove any such reference in an article, as would the majority of other editors. -- Necrothesp 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrey_Police&oldid=76590241"