Talk:Icelandic Police

Vehicles/weapons

There is no citation for the list of weapons and vehicles this agency uses. Where did the information come from? 331dot (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is objection to that, a "citation needed" tag can be added to those subsections, or the information can be removed outright. In light of your work I am pulling off the overall article tag. Thanks! Jusdafax 22:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Icelandic Police Receive Machine Guns, Glocks" m is a recent article related to the weapons being used. This magazine seems to be reliable, but I am not sure. If it is, then perhaps there is a way to incorporate the information into the Icelandic Police#Weaponry. This is the official statement referred to in article, but I am unable to read it. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I also found this, but the site requires registration so I am unable to read the entire article. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be quite a few weaponry related articles at eupolitics.einnews.com/news/iceland-police - Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ice­landic po­lice re­ceived MP5 ma­chine guns as gift from Nor­we­gian au­thor­i­ties is another possible source. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Name change

What do you all think about renaming this to Icelandic police? National Police of Iceland is an agency, however, this article covers more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopper1010 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC+9)

I agree. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Uniform

Question the descriptions of the "traditional black and white checked markings". Are such markings traditional in Iceland"? And "the police star." What is meant by "the" police star? Is that also a traditional emblem for Icelandic law enforcement? 70.106.197.146 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Icelandic Police". DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

---

National Police of Iceland → Icelandic police – National police of Iceland is a single agency within the government, but the article covers all agencies. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Hopper1010 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable move. Per the edit summary of the last page move on 27 September, 2010‎, "moved Talk:Icelandic National Police to Talk:National Police of Iceland: the police website has documents which say either 'Icelandic Police' or 'National Police' but none that say 'Icelandic National Police'." The information in the article also supports the proposed name. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please confirm whether you are requesting a move to "Icelandic Police" or "Icelandic police". DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Since their formal name is simply Lögreglan (Police) and they call themselves the Icelandic Police in English sections of their website, it should be moved to the capitalised Icelandic Police as the proper name of the agency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as well. Icelandic Police, capitalized, seems the best answer. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possibly unfree File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg

The file Icelandic police star (logo) being used in this article has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. More information on the file description page. All concerned are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New politician responsible?

There was a leak in the Ministry of Interior and the police was handed to the Ministry of Justice, shouldn't that be changed?

What's your views? Hopper1010 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. Police matters are still handled by the same ministry. However, there is now a different minister to handle that part of the ministry. At this point in time, there is not a separate Ministry of Justice in Iceland. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content review: "File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg"

A discussion regarding the non-free use of File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg is currently ongoing at WP:NFCR#File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg. Please feel free to add any comments you may have. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Capital Region" and "Southern Peninsula"

Shouldn't it just be Höfuðborgarsvæðið instead of Capital Region?? It's called and Southern Peninsula in the wiki shouldn't it just be Suðurnes? It's like if Vestmannaeyjar would be called Westman Islands, it just sounds dumb.

Opinions?

Hopper1010 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is the English Wikipedia after all and those translations are in common use. The article "Iceland" is not named "Ísland" for that same reason. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You got a point, but it's like if we'd translate New York to Nýja Jórvík in the Icelandic wikipedia, just doesn't work, whereas names of countries is an entirely different matter than names of towns/counties etc. Hopper1010 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic police star

On page 28 of "The Icelandic Police: A historical sketch" there is a good description of the "police star logo" that might be worth adding to the article either as it's own section/subsection or as part of another. The pdf could be cited and added as another source. This might help add some context to the image being used in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bare urls

There are quite a few bare urls being used as citations. These should be cleaned up to prevent link rot per WP:PLRT. This can be easily done using citation templates, unless, per WP:CITECONSENSUS, there use is not preferred in this article. The citations can also be cleaned up without using templates. Is there any preference for this article? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink cleanup

I've tried to clean up the wikilinks as follows:

• I've linked "Innréttingarnar", "kaupstaður", "Ríkislögreglustjórinn", "Útlendingaeftirlitið", "eftirgrennslanadeild" to their respective Icelandic Wikipedia pages using {{link-interwiki}}. I believe this is preferable to a simple red link because it at least lets the reader know that a Wikipedia page for each topic does exist in another language. They can, therefore, go directly to the respective page if they want more information. The template is set up to automatically revert to the English Wikipedia if some day such a page is created for either. I could not find Icelandic Wikipedia pages for " Rasmus Frydensberg", "Ole Biørn" or "Vilhelm Nolte", so I left them as simple red links. The red links should probably be removed, however, if there is really no chance of English Wikipedia articles ever being created for them.
• I've removed redundant wikilinks to "Reykjavík", "Víkingasveitin", "pepper spray", and "special operations team". These do not really need to be wikilinked more than once per WP:OVERLINK.
• I've removed the wikilink for "county" also per WP:OVERLINK. "County" is a fairly common word which should be easily understood by most readers as it is being used in this particular context.
• I've changed the wikilink of "special operations team" per WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:EGG. I linked it to "special operations" and then added a separate wikilink for "Víkingasveitin".

These are just markup tweaks; No content has been deleted from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Transport

I have added a {{OR-section}} to the "Transport" section because some of the information, such as using the word "probably" twice in the first paragraph with respect to the colors of the police cars, makes it seem unencyclopedic and borderline original research in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Page 27 of "The Office of The National Commissioner of Police: An Introduction" is the only cited source for this section. However, there is a mention of a charge being paid per kilometre driven, but there is no mention of (all) police districts paying this charge, only regional units. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.logreglan.is/myndasafn.asp?cat_id=443. Cant sign, on my phone, hopper1010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopper1010 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Hopper1010. I looks like police vehicles to me from 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and some other years. That's fine, but I'm not sure if it's OK to use a photo as reliable source according to WP:RS. It might be a good idea to ask at WP:RSN and see what others think. If it's OK to use as a source, then you should use it in the article.

Moreover, there's nothing wrong with giving a description of what the cars look like; the problem is, in my opinion, saying things like "probably what was left of the time when the whole bottom half of the police cars were black, and that probably what was left of the time when the police cars were all black." (I added the emphasis to "probably"). We can't verify "probably" per WP:V so maybe that part should be reworded to sound more encyclopedic, i.e., just a description of what the cars look like without any supposition as to why they look that way. FWIW, we can, in my opinion, use words like "probably" as long as they are part of an interpretation published in a reliable third-party source, e.g., a newspaper/magazine, which discusses the cars and why they look the way they do. We can't, however, look at a page of photos and then add our own interpretation as to why the cars look a certain way because that would be "original research" or "synthesis". I can't read Icelandic, but if there's something else on that website or something else on another reliable source that supports what is written, then it might be able to be used even if it's not in English. It's just that the link you've given above seems to be a primary source, so we have to be a little careful as to how it is used. Thanks for discussing. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if you spoke Icelandic, you'd be able to read that the materials were re-used. But you don't so you can't know everything. Check Icelandic news sites, there is plenty of info there. Also, if you check the link I sent you, there are some tabs above the first images there are some images of older vehicles. Hopper1010 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Hopper1010. I'm not claiming that "I know everything". In fact, I think it is good to assume that no reader knows everything when writing articles. This is the reason why "No Original Research" and "Verifiability" are two of Wikipedia's three core content policies. It's not really important what we as editors think, interpret or "know" to be true; It's what can be verified by reliable sources that really matters. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So, it's not appropriate for us to say "There's plenty of info there, so go check for yourself." If somebody removes something that from an article that is unsourced, then it's our responsibility as editors to "prove" that the information really belongs in the article through discussion and by providing reliable sources. Any bit of unsourced information may be challenged by any one at any time; therefore, it is a good idea to try and support such information with reliable sources as much as possible so that it stays in the article.

Wikipedia allows non-English sources to be used per WP:NOENG. "English" Wikipedia doesn't require that any of its readers be able to understand a foreign language, but it does require that non-English sources used to support information in articles comply with WP:RS. The website you gave above appears to me to some kind of official site of the "Icelandic Police". If this is the case, then it would seem to be a primary source, which means that there are limitations as to how it can be used. We can use primary sources to cite certain straightforward factual information, but not as an interpretation of those facts. So, we can say "In Iceland, police vehicles are white with the Icelandic word for "police", Lögreglan, written in blue letters. The cars also have blue and red stripes with the Icelandic police star overlaying the stripes on the front doors. " because that's straightforward and factual; However, we can't say "Until few years ago the red stripe was thinner and black, probably what was left of the time when the whole bottom half of the police cars were black, and that probably what was left of the time when the police cars were all black." because "probably" implies we are adding our own interpretation or original research which is something not permitted per WP:SYN. We can only use that type of wording when some reliable third-party source, e.g., a newspaper, states that "this is probably why the red stripe was thinner and black until recently", and only to report what the newspaper says, e.g., "According The XYZ Times, 'Until a few years ago the red stripe was thinner and black, probably what was left of the time when the whole bottom half of the police cars were black...'".

Anyway, here are the sentences in that section which I feel should be properly cited with a reliable source. If no sources can be found, then at the very least a {{citation needed}} template should be added per WP:UNSOURCED.

1. "Until few years ago the red stripe was thinner and black, probably what was left of the time when the whole bottom half of the police cars were black, and that probably what was left of the time when the police cars were all black. In recent times, blue and yellow angular stripes on the sides of the cars have also been applied." — This sounds like original research as currently written. Why not simply say "The cars currently have blue and red stripes with the Icelandic police star overlaying the stripes on the front doors. The red stripe, however, was thinner and black until a few years ago."
2. "The riot division in the Reykjavík metropolitan police often rents vehicles from car rental agencies for operations, due to lack of funding." — This is something factual that should be able to be supported by some kind of reliable source. If the police are actually "renting" vehicles from rental agencies, then there should be some kind of public record, right?
3. "The police districts then rent them from the National Police Commissioner." — The cited source actually says "The regional units pay a charge for each kilometre their vehicles are driven, this consisting both of a component to cover operating costs and a fixed component covering 90% of the replacement value of each vehicle, spread over five years." Why not simply say "Regional districts rent their vehicles from the National Police Commissioner, paying a per-kilometre charge to cover operating costs, etc. for a period of five years." or something like that?

Anyway, I'm not trying to nitpick the article to death. I'm just trying to think of ways it can be further improved. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Then improve it and don't nitpick it, Marchjuly. Remove what you don't like, you don't need my permission. Hopper1010 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't asking for your permission; I was just making some suggestions and trying to discuss them before actually editing the article. I have removed the "OR-section" template and edited the wording of the section in a way that I believe is more encyclopedic per WP:WEASEL, WP:NOR, WP:RELTIME, etc. I removed anything which seemed irrelevant, e.g., the riot division using shields and being different from the "Víkingasveitin", to subject of "Transport" per WP:TOPIC. I also assumed that the original wording "Icelandic congress" is referring to the Althing and not this Icelandic Congress. Finally, I looked for additional sources which might be used to support this section, but have not found any so far; therefore, I added {{cn}} templates where I feel they are needed until such sources can be found per WP:UNSOURCED. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Icelandic Intelligence Service" citations

"Surveillance and Registration in Iceland during the Cold War" seems to touch on some of the things mentioned in Icelandic Police#Icelandic Intelligence Service. It seems to be a Reykjavik University page so it's probably OK. Even if it isn't, however, perhaps the source it cites are of some value. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Photos

There are four photos of police vehicles at commons:Category:Police automobiles in Iceland. Maybe one or more of them can be used in Icelandic Police#Transport as part of a {{gallery}} or in other parts of the article.

There are also some photos at commons:Category:Police of Iceland which might be able to be used. File:Iceland police districts.png in particular might be a good way to illustrate the different districts if it is still up to date. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Icelandic Police. 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/20141030080145/http://www.logreglan.is/upload/files/New%20Structure.pdf to http://www.logreglan.is/upload/files/New%20Structure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108185323/http://www.logregla.is/upload/files/RLS280504.pdf to http://www.logregla.is/upload/files/RLS280504.pdf

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: 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) 07:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)