Content deleted Content added
Line 272:
:Telling officers, staff, and volunteers to suspend Ten-codes during an incident is impossible when they're your daily lingua franca; you're going to slip and use them. I don't see an issue of a short list of 5-7 Ten-codes to show the beginnings of what a list looks like, but in reality Ten-codes shouldn't be used anymore, it's too confusing. The initial purpose was to keep laypeople from being a part of a radio conversation by overhearing it (both on site and over a scanner). That's not as much of a problem today, as most police and law enforcement do the majority of communications on computers in their car (which are digital, encrypted and not available to laypeople) and just use the radio for mobile unit movement and tactical placement.
:Finally, none of this is censorship. Removing unsourced information, conflicting information that is clearly original research, and above all, removing a list from an article without deleting the article that still adequately describes what Ten-codes are is not censorship. If someone pushed to AfD/CSD this article or delete information because authorities would prefer that citizens not know how Ten-codes work, that would be censorship. That isn't happening here. [[Special:Contributions/71.84.227.69|71.84.227.69]] ([[User talk:71.84.227.69|talk]]) 18:
I completely agree, fwiw, that the article needs the basic APCO list. The self-justifying words on the talk page illustrate the lack of common sense that led to the list's removal. When Wikipedia has been completely cleansed of all that pesky information, it will cease to be useful. [[User:Adallas|Adallas]] ([[User talk:Adallas|talk]]) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||