Talk:Europol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Map

Cyprus is missing on the map. - Fabhcún 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EUROPOL logo.svg

Image:EUROPOL logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Information

The article now states: It has been decided that Europol will be converted to a full EU agency on 1 January 2010, thus simplifying the procedure to reform it; until then, reforms have to be made through an amendment to the Europol Convention.

Maybe this text should be removed entirely and instead add some more information as per the Europol website:(http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=facts): The establishment of Europol was agreed in the Maastricht Treaty on European Union of 7 February 1992. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, Europol started limited operations on 3 January 1994 in the form of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) fighting against drugs. Progressively, other important areas of criminality were added. As of 1 January 2002, the mandate of Europol was extended to deal with all serious forms of international crime as listed in the annex to the Europol Convention. The Europol Convention was ratified by all Member States and came into force on 1 October 1998. Following a number of legal acts related to the Convention, Europol commenced its full activities on 1 July 1999. Lars 08:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two infoboxes.

I have added the LEA infobox. The EU infobox I have left, because it does other stuff.

I will look at how the stuff can be combined into one infobox, the LEA one.

In the meantime, any comments or suggestions in this regard?

Peet Ern (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the EU agency box only, firstly because I personally want that box to be used for all EU agencies in a uniform way, secondly because Europol (as opposed to FBI/CIA) has few legal rights to arrest or to do other typical law enforcement. Currently, Europol is a paper-work agency that eases communication between EU member states' national police. At present it's considered to be more an intricate organisation in the EU system, rather than a law enforcer. As far as I've seen, the LEA infobox offers no desirable variables for Europol that the EU box doesn't.

To use a corny analogy; Europol's belonging in the family of EU agencies is stronger than its belonging in the family international law enforcement agencies. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

agree. good as the LEA box is, it's not really suitable here. ninety:one 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

LEA's by definition form very close ties with other law enforcement agencies. Their characteristics are much more similar to other LEAs than to other agencies of the same governing body. So, I would argue that their infobox characteristic family is more with other LEAs.

Note that the definition of LEA in Law enforcement agency includes paper work agencies, that is they actively and directly assist other LEAs, even though they do not have intrusive powers themselves. This is not unique to Europol. For example Crimtrac, an Australian law enforcement agency, has no enforcement or search powers at all, and is solely an information exchange and facilitation organisation, but has been formally declared a law enforcement agency (in part for reasons related to the legal power to handle sensitive and private information).

I do understand the dichotomy we are faced with here. This argument could be had with probably every organisation, infobox by corporate personality or infobox by type of business.

So far I am not convinced.

Peet Ern (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

Sould it not be pointing at Europols headquarters?--SelfQ (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

The Controversy section, to be frank, is not a consistent argument as to why the current situation would be controversial. It reads like the first half of an encyclopedia paragraph. To whoever wrote it: I understand that this section needs to exist, but what are you getting at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.199.113 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest delete this section unless and until there is some citeable controversy worth noting. All it does at present is note who Europol is NOT accountable to (and the mention of national MPs is pointless since no EU structure is accountable in that way). Accountability is reasonably described in the previous section. Davidships (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

legal basis

As of 1 January 2010 Europol is working on a new legal basis. I will try to mention this in the article soon. Ukonwatanabe (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

red dot on the map

what is it marking? definitely not the hague... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.1.1 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I moved the marker. 84.27.15.58 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hague is in England?! I did not know that... 70.137.128.56 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The dot appears in different places for Internet Explorer and Firefox. Given that IE is still the most commonly used browser, this should be fixed. --Douwe20 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Using IE, it appears to be marking Berlin. The Hague is, ofcourse, on the West coast of the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.64.163 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Budget

"Europol is accountable at EU level to the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs. The Council is responsible for the main control and guidance functions of Europol. It appoints the Director and the Deputy Directors and approves together with the European Parliament, Europol’s budget, which is part of the general budget of the EU." cited frm website: https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/management-147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.191.131 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And: "The monitoring of the commitment and disbursement of expenditure as well as the establishment and collection of the income of Europol follows the general rules of the EU. Europol has to abide by the same principles as any other agency and institution of the EU, such as budgetary discipline and sound financial management. The annual accounts of Europol are subject to an audit carried out by the European Court of Auditors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.191.131 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Shadowdasher thanks for improving this article but you are relying way too much on Europol for sourcing. Please use independent, secondary sources. This page cannot become a proxy for Europol's website - see WP:PROMO as well as every content policy and guideline, which all say that articles should be built from independent, secondary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, totally valid point. I would just rather build the basic, descriptive blocks from primary sources at the moment, since 90 % of the article was way outdated or uncited a few weeks ago. See WP:PRIMARYCARE and especially "An article about a business". Will focus on more secondary sources later on. Shadowdasher (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Articles need to be built from secondary sources. I will end up reverting pretty much all your work if you continue converting this Wikipedia page into a proxy for Europol's website. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. This is fundamental to what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. There is no way in hell an article can be WP:NPOV if it is built from any organization's or person's self-presentation on their own website. Please review WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! Calm down a bit and read policies a bit more comprehensively: For example WP:PRIMARYCARE: "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.", WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." and similarly supported by WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. None of my edits should be in conflict with WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO as using a primary source alone does not constitute a violation of them (f.ex. WP:NOV contains no guidance whatsoever on use of primary, secondary or tertiary sources). Furthermore, I said I would include secondaries later on where possible. Shadowdasher (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have read our policies many times. I have over 100,000 edits and have been here several years. You have around 700 and have been here a few months. I suggest that you read User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. If you continue hijacking this page i will start removing things as being UNDUE. You can waste your time if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I will comply with WP policies, nothing more, nothing less. Ofc WP:DR is here if you think my edits are in violation of them. Cheers Shadowdasher (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As you will. We can easily avoid drama if you do what you should do. (people can do lots of things. They can -- and do -- fill pages with "cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow.") Everything good in Wikipedia is the result of people doing what they should do. If you read the policies and pay attention to "should", your editing will change dramatically. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've referenced and taken into account all the relevant policies in detail and rationally as well as proposed further action to rectify any gaps based on them. I have no idea where you are getting at and I'll stop here since there doesn't seem to be anything constructive going on. Cheers Shadowdasher (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, just noticed you added the third party tag. Could you kindly pinpoint the problem since this seems to be getting silly and I'm at a loss what you want to rectify. You say there's way too much reliance on Europol material. Ratio of Europol primary sources to other sources is currently 17/55, must have been around 17/45 when you put up the tag. You claim articles need to be built on secondary sources, whereas WP:PRIMARYCARE totally contradicts this in certain cases, such as this one. Let me quote a relevant part in addition to the above ones:

The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or child organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").

All primary sources in this article point to simple, objective descriptions (as I tried to point out in the very beginning), such as budget, staff, location, status of agreements, history or very basic set-in-stone legal paraphrasing as per the policy. They are likewise supported and expanded by secondary sources as much as possible (and I keep adding more as time goes). You also claim that "There is no way in hell an article can be WP:NPOV if it is built from any organization's or person's self-presentation on their own website", whereas the above and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD contradict this claim. Let me quote one more relevant part in addition to the above:

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher.

I am verging onto the opinion that the above WP supplements are very much in order and adhere to WP policies & principles; and thus, my editing should be pretty much in order. So, please, if you have any constructive arguments (instead of "I have over 100,000 edits") or pinpointed corrections (like where exactly is there WP:PROMO or violation of WP:NPOV instead of blanket opinions), do share. Cheers Shadowdasher (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The tag is for me and others to remember to make this a Wikipedia article at some point. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to stop if this is your attitude and you want to wage one-man war with some very, very vague arguments, an apparently lacking understanding of government institutions as well as a clear disregard for the guidelines you claim to hold so dear. Please note that you just removed the objective of Europol that has been defined to it by the European Union per EU law and the very reason it is notable; and not its mission statement (referring to your odd interpretation of WP:Avoid mission statements). Good luck in amending the rest of EU-based and most other governmental articles (e.g. Interpol) in a similar fashion.

I am not making arguments but rather describing policy. With regard to the "objective", please do read WP:Avoid mission statements. And yes there is a lot of bad content in WP all nestled up next to the good content. Too many people do what they can do and not what they should. It is part of the nature of WP as an open project - it really relies on new editors trying to learn and not assuming they fully understand what we do here, when they are just getting started. Too many people grab bits of policy and use it to do what we call "wikilaywering" to justify doing what they want to do, arguing that they can. Please do also read WP:CLUE, the most important little essay in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not clearly reading and/or registering anything I say or refer to. First of all, an argument is "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory". You have not provided arguments on why my actions based on referenced WP guidelines are wrong and your opinions right (and still you somehow manage to paste WP:CLUE: "Disputes are resolved in favor of whoever offers the best reasoning", gimme a break).

Secondly, an objective as set by EU law is not a mission statement. Its not what something wants to do, its what they have to do and can do as decided by their people, so clearly most stuff in WP:Avoid mission statements (as it refers to businesses and non-profits) goes out the window. I agree with most of your edits and most likely I would have chiseled them down similarly at some point as I was writing the article and got the basic blocks together and could read it more critically.

Thirdly, if you still want to keep that holier-than-thou attitude, please check out for example European Parliament, a featured article that boasts a very impressive number of primary sourcing to the EP website and is likewise very much constructed as a proxy of their website (and the direction I was trying to head into). But altogether if this kind of poison is the attitude of a 100 000 edit veteran, good riddance. Cheers and have a nice weekend Shadowdasher (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What you have written has been written by many, many new editors before you. There is nothing new under the sun here. You will do as you will. Of course you will. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kennethlamkl4997 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kennethlamkl4997 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)