Talk:Greater Manchester Police

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester High‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of serial killers by number of victims#Serial killers by number of victims|the most prolific serial killer in history]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

untitled

Deleted the Police Stations for F and K divisions as they do not co-incide with the other divisions. Until there is a definitive list of all the Police Stations, then this should ideally stay the same. Jusitification is to keep it all in order. (Darktrial 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

untitled

"It was the first force in England after the Met to set up a dedicated counter-terrorism unit" - Not sure about this. Many forces had one in the 1970s - 1980s. I would like this to be more specific otherwise it should be removed --Gaspode the Wonder Dog 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest?

Can someone provide a cite for GMP being the second largest police force. According to the West Midlands Police website [1] WMP is the second largest. G-Man * 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I don't think it is, I can't seem to find any staff figures to back up the opening paragraph. --77.101.181.88 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.182.43 (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GMP is now lightly larger than WMP due to increased uplift in 2022/23. The figures are marginal but subscription figures for GMP is larger than WMP illustrating more officers in the former. Smervers (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Chief Constable

I've changed the Chief Constable field, as Dave Whatton is technically in charge, it can be changed once a Chief Constable is appointed. I just thought it seemed wrong for it to be listed as vacant. Calvin (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've reversed most of PMJs recent edits to remove some encyclopedic language and some generally comic book stuff about uniforms and equipment and restore a deleted reference. PMJ please think before you make these sort of changes. If you want to discuss do so here. You accused me of removing content - please justify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumtree100 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to refresh yourself on "comic book stuff", what comic is my information from? Can you name it? If not, I suggest you do not lable it as such. I have further reverted you because you have wrongly linked the baton, placed fact tags despite the banner at the top of the page, and again whitewashed the revision back to your preferred version. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make the corrections you see fit, that is fine, I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But please do not just change the whole section, rather just minor details that you have stated you do not agree with. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Format of article

I have attempted to format the article with columns outlining the divisions. It seems my efforts haven't quite worked properly. Could someone who knows how to format these things sort out placement of the picture etc... Thanks Dibble999 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WP:HELPDESK for someone to have a go at fixing it. Smartse (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising GMP?

Is it me or is this article just one advert for the GMP from top to bottom? It seems as though it has been written - and maintained by their press office... --77.101.181.88 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with improving but I hardly think its an advertising article. If you can improve it, do so. I've reverted your edit re size of force. This is quite important in terms of positioning the force with regards to mergers and their capacity compared other police forces. There is a bit of debate at national level about small forces struggling to cope with certain aspects of serious crime etc etc Dibble999 (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source

There's a fairly useful source here (courtesy of the BBC) which gives an overview of the GMP. Thought it worth putting here if any other editors are interested in building/updating the page. --Jza84 | Talk 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies: YouTube as source

I've removed the self-published YouTube video from this section. Wikipedia does not generally permit material of this type. Please refer to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Mongoletsi (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Side riots

That occurred in the early 1980s could do with a reference in the 'incidents' list. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised it wasn't added given that a separate article exists about the riot. Now done.--10mmsocket (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5m8gYR9Ia to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1084169_cops_issue_video_of_thug

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greater Manchester 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:

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) 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester 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/20051109091153/http://www.gmpa.gov.uk/ to http://www.gmpa.gov.uk/

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) 22:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Todd

I've removed the claim that Todd died by suicide, as the official finding was that he died from the effects of exposure.

Todd death not suicide --DSQ (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News not worth of inclusion

An IP editor has repeatedly added information about a GMP officer who was convicted of hitting a dog. While this was newsworthy for local media, it certainly doesn't merit inclusion within the GMP wikipedia article (Here's the edit c/w reference). For example, if you search the Manchester Evening News (just one local news outlet within the GMP area) for "constable convicted" you will get dozens of news articles about police officers, but none of those are included in this article - and some are more serious than the dog incident involving assault or even rape of humans. It would be useful to hear from the IP editor why he/she thinks this one incident among many is worthy of mention in the GMP article. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fully agreed with 10mmsocket.--Uranium Site (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reply is given: YOU have been pestering me to say something here for quite a while now, and now I shall. First of all, I am not entirely ignorant of the Wikipedia editing system, indeed I have studied it all in quite some detail, but I choose not to have an account, and I'm not quite sure why anyone else at all should need such a thing, except that I suspect that without an account some people can't quite decide precisely what they feel they ought to write here. A real pity that it has come to this. Most certainly, the events of today would seem to amply demonstrate it. Naturally, you and your associates will vehemently and fervently disagree. Secondly, I am dismayed/appalled/horrified/ at what has happened. You are probably feeling very proud and victorious at having ousted my important contribution. You probably feel quite justified with the technicality of it all as a representation of "what Wikipedia is about" and, who knows, you may be right. After-all, an encyclopedia is just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.239.132 (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First, thank you for adding a source to your info. Thank you also for bringing your reasoning to this talk page. 10mmsocket's and Uranium Site's may have felt like pestering to you, but they are trying to avoid edit warring; WP:EW encourage disputes to be settled via talk page instead of continuing in back and forth edit summaries.

I agree with those that are advocating for keeping that info out of this article. I am appalled at the the animal abuse, but that information is just not key to an understanding of this broad topic. Please see WP:PROPORTION.

I am glad you are studying our policies, and I hope these links are helpful. The last I want to share with you is WP:CIVIL. I've definitely seen worse, but I encourage you to present your reasoning without threatening to call the media in on other editors who are just trying to improve this encyclopedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]