Language desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16

"Detective" as a title/rank

As I understand it in Commonwealth policing, "detective" is a designation while other titles are a rank. So e.g. the DCI (Detective Chief Inspector) so beloved of British crime fiction is a real thing that many real senior coppers are called. But when did the detective bit get added?

Now, secondarily - I was about to refer to the example of Lestrade from Sherlock Holmes, who is referred to as "Inspector" in the original stories and is updated to "detective chief inspector" in e.g. the adaptations set in the modern era. Our own Wikipedia article refers to him as "Detective Inspector G. Lestrade" but checking the actual text of the early stories, that isn't his title, he's only referred to as a "detective" in a general descriptive way.

Anyway - my question is, when did "detective" enter the lexicon as not just a generic description, but rather an official title? Dr-ziego (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Police ranks of the United Kingdom I found this link, which is a blog, so not a WP:RS, but in the comments the author answers the question 'When was rank of detective sergeant instigated?' by 'Probably around 1847 when the first detective branch was established by the Metropolitan Police.' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Met's detective force started five years before that. According to John McGowan's Policing the Metropolis of Scotland: A History of Police in The City & County of Edinburgh, 1833-1901, "After Home Secretary authorisation, on 15 August 1842 the Detective Branch was established at 'A' Division with now Detective Inspector Nicholas Pearce in charge of another Detective Inspector and six Detective Serjeants." ^[1] So he seems to consider that Detective Inspector was a rank right from the start. --Antiquary (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reports upon Seperate Constabulary and Police Disricts (1877) p. 139 shows that detective inspectors were paid more than uniformed inspectors, in this case £117 per annum against £98 and 16 shillings (Borough of Derby Police); presumably because a more capable officer was needed for the role, and why a distinctive title was required. This is a decade before Lestrade was written about. Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that this was the approach at the beginning, since the opposite applies now: with a few exceptions, pay is based on rank and tenure, not on role, and British police forces often have problems retaining detectives who have specialist training which is valuable outside policing (e.g. in fraud investigation and cybercrime), because their relatively low pay makes them easily poachable by the private sector. (Indeed, detectives might actually earn less than their uniformed colleagues, because they are generally less likely to work unsociable hours, overtime, or on cancelled leave days. There is also an issue on promotion to inspector, since at this rank entitlement to overtime pay ceases, so a sergeant working a lot of overtime might actually see their total pay decrease on promotion to inspector. Because pay is now set centrally, individual police forces are very limited in what they can do to solve these issues.) Proteus (Talk) 11:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the late reply, but I'd just like to add that in the New York City Police Department, deputy inspector and inspector are both intermediate ranks between Captain and 1-star Chief.

That department is unique in America, though, owing to its behemoth personnel size. In every other police department in the country, there's absolutely nothing between Captain and 1-star Chief.

And as for detective, in New York it's not necessarily a rank but a career trajectory. Namely, those who choose the "command" path become sergeant, lieutenant, etc., whereas those who choose the "detective" path become detective 3rd class, 2nd class, etc.

Pine (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons on no local identity

On articles on people and companies, there are national identities, but no local or state identities. But is there a reason on why these identities, such as “Canadian,” “Australian,” “British,” “American,” “Japanese,” “German,” “Polish,” “Mexican,” “Samoan” and “South African” commonly used in articles, and not state, regional, or local identities, like “Californian,” “New Yorker,” “Hawaiian,” and “Floridian”? Why are regional identities less used and described than national identities? I see that American identity is used, but not Californian or Alaskan identity. 2600:387:15:4918:0:0:0:7 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, their own local identity. 2600:387:15:4918:0:0:0:7 (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I’m talking about why are national identities are used often, but not state identities, when writing an Wikipedia article lead section about a person, a city, an academic institution, or a company. 2600:387:15:4918:0:0:0:7 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National identities are basically exposed to the world at large, state identities rarely come into relevance outside of the US (and the same applies to equivalents in other countries). Also, such subnational identities are much more fluid than national ones. George H. W. Bush was born in Massachussetts and grew up in Connecticut. Yet most people associate him with Texas, where he moved as an adult. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia to label a person with an identity, there have to be reliable sources confirming that label as an identity. In many cases, demonyms only indicate someone's place of residence. The lack of reliable sources may be a major reason for the relative lack of "local identity" labels. If sources exist, there is no impediment. For example, there is no lack of books on Woodrow Wilson identifying him as "a Southerner", and our article on Woodrow Wilson also uses the label. ‑‑Lambiam 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when Errol Flynn was normally described as a "Tasmanian-born actor", even by writers outside Australia. I never understood why they made that distinction in his case when other Aussies were never described by their state of origin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was a devil with the ladies. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secessionism in Tasmania! Card Zero (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Errol Flynn's career got going in 1933, just when that secessionism reached its peak. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could secessionism create new national identities from the local? 2600:387:15:4918:0:0:0:7 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened throughout history. The separate identity of the Israelites was differentiated from general Caananite culture, and maintained, partly through the deliberate promulgation by a priestly elite of differing religious and cultural practices, for example. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Merle Oberon always claimed to have been born in Tasmania, and was long described as "Tasmanian-born", almost never "Australian-born". Her story, which has been utterly debunked now, was created to hide her Indian heritage, which was considered unacceptable to movie moguls of her heyday. She had no birth connection to Australia whatsoever, and only ever visited here two or three times. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few counter-examples: we call Iain Banks a "Scottish author" and Gordon Burns a "Northern Irish broadcaster". Marvic Bermúdez is an "Aruban football manager", not a Dutch one. Filip De Man is a "Flemish politician", not a Belgian one. Jackie Chan is a "Hong Kong martial artist", not a Chinese one, while Tony Leung Chiu-wai is a "Hong Kong actor" not a British National (Overseas) one. In the era of the nation-state, what people think of as their primary nationality - and what is most useful for other people to know - is sometimes strange and contextual. Nevertheless, in most cases we default to either the passport or the cultural driver - someone linked to a separatist political party (like De Man), a football team (like Bermúdez) or a regional art scene (like Banks) is more likely to get a demonym that doesn't correspond to a UN member state. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester Great points, but what about the Bermudan, Guamian, or the Manx? Do indigenous identities like Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Iroquois, Lakota, or the Hopi count? 2600:387:15:4918:0:0:0:7 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We call Bryan Kneale a "Manx artist", as do sources.^[2] We call Dan Namingha a "Hopi painter and sculptor", as do sources.^[3] ‑‑Lambiam 04:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]