Talk:Border Force

Wrong Type of Organisation

Untitled

This is still on here as an Executive Agency. The UK Border Force directorate used to be part of the UK Border Agency (which IS an executive agency) but has now been moved to located within the Home Office. The UK Border Agency is still in existence in charge of other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.74.150 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong logo

The new logo is: https://www.online-jobs.co.uk/ukba/graphics/Border_Force_logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monabob (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Undermining

The following sentence is not-neutral ("undermining"), confusing for anyone - like me - who doesn't know the actual events, and futhermore lacks sources: The subsequent undermining of Director General, Brian Moore's handling of airport authorities by the Home Secretary and the enforced focus on Heathrow queue-busting quickly dispelled any remaining confusion about a new law enforcement ethos. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done I agree. It's gone. Pol430 talk to me 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oversight?

The box says ‘Overviewed [sic] by Independent Police Complaints Commission/Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary’. The text says ‘The work of the Border Force is monitored by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.’ Which one is correct? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Both, I believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.218.162 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Border Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011174219/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790002_en_21 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790002_en_21#pt14-pb1-l1g177

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

paramilitary force?

Since the cutters seem to armed with guns, is this a paramilitary force? Are the members/officers combatants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabauz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not armed...and no, border force officers are not combatants or a paramillitary force.

ambiguous article name

Although there's a redirect from "UK Border Force" to "Border Force", I think it's confusing that a generic term is used to refer to the forces of a specific country.

My thinking would be to rename the article (e.g. to "UK Border Force") and let "Border Force" ("Border force"?) be a redirect to some sort of disambiguation page. Fabrickator (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose its only an issue if there is any other nation with an organisation named "Border Force". I don't think there is one? Bowchaser (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bowchaser: Thanks for responding! Mostly when I post on an article talk page, nobody notices.

My perspective is that "border force" is a generic term, and even if each country with some kind of group to guard, patrol, or otherwise try to ensure that the border is not crossed in accordance with law, I would argue that when used without qualification, "border force" is ambiguous. But this is moot, since we have the Afghan Border Force and the Australian Border Force.

Normally I would think of following it with a qualifier, e.g. "Border Force (UK)", but "UK Border Force" already exists as a redirect to "Border Force", so what I'm leaning towards is to rename "Border Force" to "UK Border Force" and to have "Border force" redirect to Border guard, of course, changing existing "Border Force" links changed in accordance with the rename to "UK Border Force".

On the one hand, this may seem like much ado about nothing, but OTOH, I'm leaning towards the belief that it is an actual improvement. Fabrickator (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered re it really but all I would say is that the two other organisations specifically mentioned as other examples specifically have their country name in the title of the organisation. Border Force in the UK does not.

Also I'm not sure "border force" is a particularly generic term - "border guard" I would say is used a lot around the world but not "border force" and the two examples given specifically have the name of the country in the title. There will be those who will be far more experienced with wikipedia article naming protocols than me, but I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve. If there is only one "Border Force" (real name) in the world then I would have though that should stand as it is. Bowchaser (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"Australian Border Force" is the Australian organisation's actual name. The UK organisation's name is Border Force. Thus I'd suggest the properly disambiguated name should be "Border Force (United Kingdom)". 10mmsocket (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the question of what problem I am trying to solve, it iS the principle of least surprise. When I click on "Border Force", should I expect an article about "border forces" in general or about some organization the U.K. has that's called the "Border Force"? FWIW, the qualification that's used in those places where a distinction is made call it "UK Border Force". As for the idea that any random editor has enough awareness to ascertain that "border guard" is the widely accepted generic term among the world's English-speaking population, well, that takes a lot of temerity. Fabrickator (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm... so I notice that per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title, and the obvious issue with the official name in this instance is that it needs to be qualified. But in typical usage, the qualifier portion of an article name is not displayed and so it becomes annoying.

In this case, we have a pre-existing use in which there is a qualifier that is part of the former official name, i.e. UK Border Force. This is at least somewhat akin to US Department of Justice ... In the U.S., we might freely refer to this as "Department of Justice" or perhaps "DOJ". Of course, those are ambiguous.

While I've stated my preference, I'm not trying to demand an immediate resolution, but I'm hoping to encourage some additional inputs about what's really the best choice. Fabrickator (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bowchaser's point 'its only an issue if there is any other nation with an organisation named "Border Force"' is important here. There is no other organisation, there is therefore no compelling need to rename the article as there is nothing here that is actually broken, so I would oppose any move. If anything, just put a hatnote on this article that points to border guard. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a very satisfying answer. There are "border forces" in other countries, several of which actually are officially called "Border Force", whether or not they consistently prefix that with the name of their country.

We can't insulate the user community from every idiosyncrasy of WP, but we should consider what we can do to avoid unnecessary confusion by people who are not experienced editors. Fabrickator (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Who is getting confused? Where are these other border force articles? If there's a problem that needs fixing then fine, but otherwise there's no need for change. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)