Talk:Peelian principles/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one.

Thank you for starting the review Chiswick Chap. The comments make sense and I broadly agree with incorporating these, adding the sources you mentioned to the further reading, or inline citations if needed, and then considering the name change later. I am on my mobile at the moment so not easy to edit so happy for you or other editors to make changes if you wish. Whizz40 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. I've added the map, and implemented the small changes to structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Article's title

• I see that the more familiar phrase "Policing by consent" redirects here. I wonder if it wouldn't be the better title for the article? (Any change would have to be made after the GAN, we can't fix it in the middle of the process.) Here's some (ahem) evidence:

• "Peelian principles" ~5720 hits, 411 hits on Scholar, 13 on WorldCat
• "Policing by consent" ~49100 hits, 2340 hits on Scholar, 161 on WorldCat

Content

• The article is probably sufficiently sourced to cover 'the main points'. One might wonder why Sir Kenneth Newman's Policing by Consent, 1984 (Strathclyde Police) isn't mentioned; nor "Policing by consent : a publication of the National Coalition on Police Accountability (N-COPA)", in The Coalition, (USA) 1994; nor Kenneth Oxford's chapter "Policing by Consent'" in Scarman and after : essays reflecting on Lord Scarman's Report, the riots, and their aftermath, Pergamon Press, 1984. These all look prima facie to be highly relevant.

• Added to further reading. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. Given the historic importance of these documents it would be useful to summarize briefly the history behind these documents and to cite them in the actual text.

• Further to the above, why is the Home Office's useful "Definition of policing by consent" in "External links"? It would seem an obvious thing to cite somewhere near the start of the article.

• the citation is still there (currently cite 11), used five times in the article. It first comes up when the nine principles of policing are discussed. Whizz40 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Then it should be deleted from Ext links. Having a URL in the citation is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• "a number of factors combined to drive" - perhaps "several factors drove".

• Agree with the change, thanks. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Time article also discusses Norway's emphasis on (long) police training, something that the American magazine sees as significant in the light of recent events in the USA. Perhaps this aspect too deserves mention, i.e. consent requires police officers trained in its implementation.

• Added a section on training of police officers. Whizz40 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Police legitimacy is mentioned and linked in the lead, and in the See also section (?) but not in the article body, which needs a paragraph or subsection on the subject, which is clearly related. The two sources in the lead need to be moved to the article body, and used in a little more detail there. Ref #1 doesn't actually mention "legitimacy", though #2 does, defining the concept in terms of "transparency", which should be quoted in the paragraph. The first item in your 'Further reading', Jackson et al 2012, is useful on legitimacy and should be cited in the paragraph or subsection.

• Expanded the Legitimacy section and moved the text and sources in the lead to the body. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The final line "The concept has been applied to other countries as well.[33]" seems a bit of a "throwaway", as much is packed in there of relevance to the article. The (vexed) question of consent in the United States might be thought to warrant more than the brief mention that it gets. The "small club of 19 nations that do not routinely arm their police forces" seems much too central to the article to be relegated to a footnote; should it not get a whole section to itself, i.e. "Geographic distribution"? This could justify a world map with the 19 nations coloured in (I'd be happy to prepare that for you, if you like), and it seems to require at least some mention of what these nations are - some are former British Empire but many aren't, perhaps there's analysis of their police origins somewhere.

• Tweaked the final sentence. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref #33's Time magazine article mentions, in addition to the 19 'unarmed' countries, places like Finland where police may not fire without direct permission, i.e. they are armed but not by default authorised. This too seems to merit discussion, as it's close to the unarmed, community policing model.

• Keeping the scope of the article focused on the Peelian principles and policy by consent. Whizz40 (talk)

• Meaning what? Identifying what is in scope is well achieved by naming boundary cases in the text; Finland seems prima facie to be very interested in consent, and it distinguishes this from the related but different issue of having the police armed, i.e. the question is extremely relevant to the article's core theme. i.e. UK: consent = friendly + unarmed; Finland: consent = restrained + armed. I'm not sure why you'd not think that perfectly on-topic.

• Added a new section on Police use of firearms under the Policing by Consent section. Whizz40 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks, that's great.

• Ref #32 is similarly stepped over very rapidly, appearing mainly as a (very long) footnote. The gist of the note needs to be moved into the main text, the key points being that while Hong Kong was a British colony, and for a time afterwards, policing was by consent, but that the approach has faded out.

• Incorporated this into the wording. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• It seems that the principles, policing by consent, and firearm use (the main way of policing not by consent) are even more tightly interwoven than has been stated. I understand your desire to separate the article from Police firearm use by country#Unarmed police forces but actually that's a very brief - way too brief - section in an article which is basically just a list; if the principles of consent-based policing are going to be discussed anywhere (and I think mapped), it should be here, as the other article doesn't (and shouldn't) do it. We can easily add the consent-based-but-armed countries (Canada, Australia, Finland, ...) to the map in a different colour; this is a different matter from just mapping or discussing firearm use (no. of guns per head), as it's about consent, which is the topic here. i.e. I think the removal of the map (not just an image) a mistake, even if the map needs additional work, and additional text - central to the article, I'd say.

• Agree a map would be informative for readers. I think though it might be either synthesis or undue emphasis unless there is a reliable source that lists countries that adhere to the principles of policing by consent. But since it is influence rather than say, legislation , it is difficult to be definitive, hence I am not sure the Time source is sufficient and am unsure about using multiple sources to combine into a map. Happy to keep discussing and thinking about it. Whizz40 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The map would be useful and is clearly justified, but the key point here is the textual account which needs to be internationalised.

Agree, let's focus on the text first. If we can find a source for a list or map of countries then we can add it. Whizz40 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Whizz40 On lists, we already have a list (and map) of the unarmed countries. I've had a look about in some other languages for any sort of list or map of consent-but-armed countries without success. My view is that the single-sourced unarmed countries map is useful here but that's entirely up to you. I think we need a few more words on the approach in countries like Finland and Canada, where firearms are carried but used with restraint; Canada too, but it had British influence, so Finland is a useful case (non-Brit, armed, consensual). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• While looking about for such a list, I found this quotation: "Even though the basic premise of policing in UK is by consent, the British Police system as it exists now is more a reverse process of investing more power in people by law, than policing by consent. As such, the policing in UK has now become policing by law, but a law which mandates a police which is accountable to public." You might think the sentiment, and the article that contains it, of some interest.

• Thank you. Added to the article. Whizz40 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Great.

Structure

• 'The nine principles of policing' seem to belong as a subsection of 'Sir Robert Peel's principles', though perhaps the actual text content of the latter should be placed in a historical subsection, something like 'Development'. So we'd get

• 2. Sir Robert Peel's principles
• 2.1 Development (with the existing text)
• 2.2 The nine principles of policing
• 2.3 Legitimacy

• The points in 'Content' lead to a feeling that the 'Policing by consent' section needs three subsections, something like 'Co-operation with the public' (first 2 paragraphs), 'Public-order policing' (3rd paragraph), and 'Geographic distribution' (4th paragraph, with additional material as discussed above). I'm sure you can improve on these headings. So we'd get something like

• 3. Policing by consent
• 3.1 Co-operation with the public
• 3.2 Public-order policing
• 3.3 Geographic distribution

• On "Public co-operation with the police" for 3.1, ok, that's Peel's language (from inside looking out, hmm), but "with the police" is redundant in the heading.

• "with the police" is both central to the concept and perhaps necessary, otherwise it could be co-operation in criminal acts or co-operation against the police. Whizz40 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wonder, but ok.

Illustrations

• The article is currently wholly un-illustrated. This is not grounds for automatic disqualification, but the article would benefit if readers were helped to visualize some of the points made, as the GA criteria state ("Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio").

• The History section should be illustrated with an engraving from the period; I suppose the prime candidate would be Richard Carlile's 1819 File:Peterloo Massacre.png but there are many other ways you could put Peel's principles in visual context.

• The article would benefit from a photograph of unarmed, community-style policing. There's no reason why a pair of Metropolitan Police "bobbies on the beat" like File:Pride London 39.jpg should not serve here, given the centrality of Robert Peel and his police force in the story. Or perhaps a pair on cycles. A wartime image gives a good idea of the historic view of "by consent".

• Indeed you could include a portrait of Peel himself if you liked.

• For 'Public-order policing', you could use an image such as these police and protestors.

• As mentioned above, a map of the world distribution of policing by consent would be useful.

References

• ISBNs should be provided for all books cited.

• Ref #22 needs its author in the citation. I'm unclear why the website is given instead of the publisher, as the document says "London Assembly Labour", implying this is an openly partisan view.

• fixed. Whizz40 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I see no value in "|language=en-GB" (etc) when documents are visibly English in title; the parameter is only of interest when a document comes from a country where another language might be expected, e.g. India, or where the language used in the document is not English (and we get a translated title as well as the original).

• fixed. Whizz40 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Summary

I hope you find these suggestions useful. The article is obviously interesting and informative as it stands, and close to becoming a GA. I look forward to your responses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and your improvements to the article. I've started making additional changes in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Whizz40 - we're almost done, just a few words about the Finland/Norway-type case (armed, without British influence, consensual) and it's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look over the weekend. Whizz40 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Added a sentence on the Nordic model. Whizz40 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, it's been a bit of a long haul, but it's now a GA. Good work! I do hope you feel it's been worth it, and will take the time to review one or two articles from the ever-growing GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)