Talk:Fire Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fire Police is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

	Fire Portal Fire Police is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

Someone explain to me how this deserves a 'context' query??? I don't see the confusion. BlakJakNZ 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think it is clear enough to anyone who reads it. The name fire police itself may be confusing to some, but I think the text of the entry clears up any confusion about it. Having added quite a bit to this page in the past, I don't think it deserves the context flag. Pdblues 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the context tag as noones said anything either way and all comments are in the affirmative...

[edit] Unref & OR tags

No attribution currently exists - there need to be more reliable sources to back up any claims made in the article. - Tiswas^(t) 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; did you read any of the links? The concept of 'Fire Police' is documented in legislation (and there are links to such) but is otherwise a largely undocumented aspect of Fire Brigades around the place, so theres not exactly a lot of 'other' references to quote. Would appreciate an example of an 'uncited' assertation that requires a reference, and perhaps I can find something that'll suit you. BlakJakNZ 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read some of the links, and they provide only limited WP:A:attribution for the content of the article. If there are links to legislation, they should be included (and correctly cited). An example of an uncited assertion would be, at this stage, the entire article. - Tiswas^(t) 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Wiki is moving downhill by people who randomly tag pages they know nothing about. As a contributor to this page when it was just a stub, I've seen many come by and tag this or that to it while BlakJakNZ and I have continually tried to polish its appearance. It would be much more helpful if people would tell what they have issues with. I am a Lieutenant in a fire police organization and have been providing service with that same organization for 10 years now. I'd say I'm about as qualified of a source as any. No one is writing any scholarly journal articles about fire police.Pdblues 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Converselely, WP's value is degraded by editors that don't feel the need to attribute articles to verifiable, reliable sources. But this is not the place to [[WP:|POINT|make a point]]. The tags are there to notify both the authors, adn other editors, that an article falls short of wikipedia standards, and needs improving. From the sound of it, you have the first hand knowledge to bolster the article, but be mindful that, unless you cite any claims made, it would be original research. Journals are not the only source, either. - Tiswas^(t) 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently valued the Wikipedia entry on Fire Police as a way to help explain to people that its not just a local phenomena. A shame that it is a subject which is so hard to establish something that meets verafiability standard. I have begun a restructure on the article which should allow some more room for references, etc, and hope that this is deemed appropriate.... BlakJakNZ 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Marshalls

Merging the article "Fire Marshal" with the article "Fire Police" seems appropriate due to the many similarities that they share. Redsox04 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Fire Police are not investigative, they have quite different roles. Fire Marshalls would be paid employees; Fire Police are volunteers. Fire Police provide operational safety to fire crews, Fire Marshalls investigate fires and appear to have more to share with Fire Safety Officers than Fire Police. (PS moved this to its own subsection) BlakJakNZ 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My god did I start cracking up when I saw this suggestion. Redsox04, did you even read the articles? I was pretty flabbergasted when a woman referred to me as "officer" a couple of weeks ago, but come on, comparing fire police to fire marshals? I just re-read both articles, and can not find any of these "many similarities" you refer to. It's so laughable I'm going to have to be bold and not wait for any consensus and clean this mess up... Search4Lancer 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good man. Well done. BlakJakNZ 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Links Section

I can't say that I approve of an editor arbitrarily removing ALL links due to being 'non-encyclopediac'. I have reviewed Wikipedia:External_links and the links themselves seem to fit very nicely into the category of what _can_ be linked. If you feel the links should be removed, i'd encourage you to discuss it here first. BlakJakNZ 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)