Talk:Europol

More into an encyclopedic article

This page should be made more into an encyclopedic article, no? --Vikingstad 02:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It certainly should. Particularly because nowhere here or on the article page does it say anything about their having given us permission ("The materials provided in this web site may be used for private purposes. For use, reproduction or transmission for purposes other than private use, please request permission from EUROPOL.") to cut and paste their entire faq. –Hajor 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have now fixed the page, but I have still a lot of text from the original article. This shouldn't be a problem though, it is an official governmental website after all! --Vikingstad 03:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, good work! –Hajor 03:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Getting the temp back?

Maybe we should move the temp back now? Haven't really worked on it, but it's a lot better than the old FAQ... --Vikingstad 00:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure... I thought if it's been listed on the CopyVio page then we have to leave it here for at least a week -- at the end of which someone comes along, deletes the main page, and moves the /temp page over there, thus removing the CopyVio version from the history? With a bit of luck, someone more knowledgable will be reading this and help us out. –Hajor 01:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I have now sent an email to EUROPOL requesting permission to use this information. Let's hope they respond, and as soon they do I'll move the temp section over to the real article page. --Vikingstad 01:13, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The copyvio has been deleted and your /temp new article has been moved here. - Texture 18:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If this is not what was intended, please contact me. - Texture 18:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re-writing

I'm writing my thesis on this topic so I'll post up an extended version shortly & update it fairly regularly.

Niall

History

Put in a history section. Is it relevant enough? Too long/short? Have I overlooked anything? Will put in other sections or edit/update existing ones shortly.

HEY! Why is "Police" linked in the expansion of "Europol" ? Not a single person on this earth knows with "European" means but doesn't know what "Police" means. Knock off the gratuitous links!

hey! IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE EXPANSION AND SECURISING EU SO THAT'S WAY POLICE IT IS MENTION HERE AND HAVE A VERY HIGH IMPORTANCE.. READ MORE KNOW MORE!!!

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 is currently 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)