Talk:Singapore Police Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Manpower Figures

The numbers for manpower was sourced from the latest annual report 2004, and therefore should be fairly accurate as of the date stated. If the figure for any one of those needs to be updated, it will mean all of them needs to change too, since the "correct as at" date also needs to change to reflect it? What yah think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huaiwei (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

Removal of SPF crest

I refer to your comment dated 20 Dec on the above subject.

I am writing on behalf of my organisation, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with regards to your webpage posting on the SPF's history. We noted that there were no requests seeking consent for the use of our SPF crest for use on this website. All requests to use the SPF crest will have to be submitted formally, either via our webmaster or in writing, to the head of the organisation. Each request will be assessed on a case basis.

We have previously written to Huai_Wei (the initial publisher of this wiki) on 24 Nov, informing him of the unauthorised use of image (i.e. SPF crest) and likely, information from our publications. We did not receive any acknowledgement to date. We are in the process of checking the content posted on the history of the SPF in your website to see if there are any infringement of published information that is copyrighted.

We will be seeking our legal counsel's advice regarding the unauthorised used of our corporate logo and information published by the SPF. While we acknowledge and appreciate the interest in our organisation's rich heritage, and the promotion of such knowledge in the interest of both academic and personal research, we believe that the individuals who sought to use such information should responsibly seek clearance and consent for use accordingly. Until such time, please refrain from posting the SPF crest on the website.

Regards

Public Affairs Dept

Singapore Police Force

We assure you, we hold our copyright standards of the highest quality. Currently all our information is originally written (but it's not original research, and it' sfully verified, too) ... hence no copyright issues in terms of text. It's our current belief that fair use allows us to use the logo under the circumstances, and we will try to avoid any trademark issues. -- Natalinasmpf 11:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I refer to the above reference of an email sent to me, and I acknowledge I received and read the said email. While I may be the main contributor to this article, I would like to point out, that the "initial publisher" does not hold sole responsiblity for the article. If there are allegations of copyright, it may be better for the notice to be posted here so that all may take note and act accordingly. As we can see from the edit history, the attempt to remove the logo led to multiple instances of reversions as no one figured the reasoning behind it. I myself reverted the first instance of its removal, thinking it was an act of vandalism. Only through subsequent attempts did it began to dawn on me the possibility of intervention from the organisation in question, which I then solved recently via the provision of a photo to replace the copyrighted logo.

If the above episode has led to some unpleasantries, I apologise on behalf of users here, and we will exercise utmost care in treating copyrighted materials with due respect to the relevant laws.

As for factual content provided in this page, particularly to the historical section, I, as the main contributor, would like to point out, that it was writtern with reference to several texts as listed in the "References" section below. Lifting of materials are religiously avoided in respect to copyright laws, paraphrased and rewrittern as far as possible. This was done as one would in writing academic literature to avoid issues of plagiarism and copyright.

If I may quote from wikipedia's copyright policy page, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." It was based on this premise, that content was added to this article. Should this effort be considered unsatisfactory, and still deemed as an infringement of copyright laws in Singapore, please do let us know in this talk page so that we can act on it accordingly.--Huaiwei 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is their email. I will make some enquiries. :) --Terence Ong ^|Talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The email used to send me the above notice was from the website's Webmaster. I dont even know if that was the appriopriate email to send to, for I cannot find a single contact direct to senior management in the Public Affairs Department of the SPF in their own website, which is quite ironic for a "public affairs" dept, on hindsight. Perhaps I should suggest this as room for improvement for them. :D--Huaiwei 07:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Long time already. Off-topic. Seems so typical for the civil service to indulge in sanctimonious threats, and signing off with an anonymous "PAD". Nameless faceless bureaucracy. What's so difficult about signing off with your own name, appointment, and organization? At least there's accountability. If anyone wants to get back to this person for clarification etc., at least we know who to look for. --Rifleman 82 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Scooter

Scooter is a disambiguation page. Does it mean motorscooter here? Pissant 13:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Senior Station Inspector, etc.

Many of the articles relating to this topic, such as Senior Station Inspector, really don't need to be separate articles at all. If the article consists of nothing but a dictionary definition, then it should merely be a redirect to this main article, especially as this main article already contains all the information contained in Senior Station Inspector as well as some of the others. I'm going to turn the previously mentioned article into a redirect to this one. If it is desired that these stay as separate articles, then they should contain more than just a dicdef, and they should contain sources to verify that their content is true. --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Names of Commanders

These names change over time, and really are not notable. Should the table be simplified, removing the column, and address? WP:NOT. --Rifleman 82 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Commanders may not be notable persons themselves, but note we arent talking about deleting articles on these people. A list of current commanders should suffice, for you would notice any change in leadership amongst these folks would invariably invite a newspaper article or mention on the news bulletin. It must have been fairly notable for this to happen. Addresses, btw, hardly change very often.--Huaiwei 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Uniforms

New article of SPF uniforms amalgamated from various parts. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Straits Times citations in lead

This quote from the lead looks like pure spin - mainly because the citations are from the Straits Times. For those who have never read a copy of this 'newspaper', it consists of two types of story: pure brown nosing to the government and recycled wire copy (and selective at that). It is utterly useless as an objective source in relation to any of the activities of the Singaporean government. It exists soley to present the government, its members and their policies in a positive light and never has a word of criticism for them.

It enjoys a relatively positive public image, and is credited for helping to arrest Singapore's civic unrests and lawlessness in its early years, and maintaining the low crime rate today

For this purpose, it is most definitely not a reliable source. Unless the statements can be backed up by reliable source then they'll have to go. ninety:one 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of History of the Singapore Police Force into this article

The article History of the Singapore Police Force consists almost entirely of information from the history section of this article (or vice versa). Since that article (and the section here) contain multiple problems, including lack of citations (now noted), need for expansion, and unencylopedic style, I feel those problems have a better chance of being fixed here, and not on a subarticle of an obscure topic. I don't see a need for the history article, so I propose it should redirect here ("merge" isn't appropriate since there is no content to merge). -- Peter ^{Talk page} 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the section "Recent Controversies" necessary?

Though granted that there are black sheeps that tarnish the reputation of the force but do we really need a section that shows the force's negative aspect? 32cravenfan (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore Police 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/20050429144319/http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/socsja/rice/idris/index.htm to http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/socsja/rice/idris/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422232311/http://www.getformesingapore.com/Info_police.htm to http://www.getformesingapore.com/Info_police.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316011332/http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/independence/lifeline/bcspf.html to http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/independence/lifeline/bcspf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Crime rate

The source does not support a low crime rate statement as written originally. It only makes reference to murder. Neils51 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Spf org chart2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

November 2020 stealing case

I would like to recommend for the removal of the entire section where the sentence is concerned. The case itself is not linked to the Singapore Police Force as an organisation, but the conduct of a former member. Nor was his purported misdeeds done in the name of the organisation itself. Seloloving (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Media outreach efforts

Do we really need such a huge list of TV shows, movies and dramas? I am proposing to remove the entire section completely, but will be open to recommendations. Seloloving (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)