Talk:Private police

Confusion between security officers and private police

The title "private police" seems to imply that the article should be about privately owned entities in which the state has granted limited police powers, yet the beginning of the article says they often "lack official police authority." Security guards lack official police authority, but special police or private police do have official police authority. If security officers or a security company does not have official police power, they are, by definition, not private police. This article should not talk about security companies that lack police power, because, by definition, they are not private police at all. Many countries do not have private police, and that is okay, but we should not be confusing security guards with private police which are entirely different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:680:B710:ADEF:DE61:C6F8:8F5C (talk) 6:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Casual language, heavy bias, poorly constructed

I am by no means an expert on the topic; my comments here are just the immediate reactions of a casual reader. This article is pretty poorly constructed from beginning to end.

The language is often casual, vague, and blatantly biased;

informal quips like "...who signs their paychecks" don't do much to inspire confidence in the author's impartiality;

sections seem to ramble from point to point in lieu of any sort of flow or logical progression;

citations seem sparse amd are often absent for many of the of "facts" presented;

a quick skim through this article provides plenty evidence to support attempting a total rewrite (mentioned last year on this talk page).

I was honestly surprised by this article's unprofessional, scattered composition. 174.215.144.21 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have pictures?

Does anyone have pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:9920:FEB6:F9D1:5E08 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)