Talk:Riot control

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Riot control article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

References?

This article presents a lot of information without verifiable references of any kind. Can we work to find some that support the information in the article?

I removed the reference to the use of water cannons to spray sewage since that was particularly inflammatory. If there's some sort of evidence to prove that such a thing happened, fine.

Lastly, the bit about the hunger riot in Vienna (also without a reference) is an interesting anecdote but seems oddly placed in the article.

Alanhaley01 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These officers subdue rioters and subsequently allow the less heavily armoured, more mobile officers to arrest those that are unruly. Or whoever they feel like arresting. This sentence demonstrates the pov in this article. Where is the criticism of riot cops? I don't know enough to write a section on it, but someone should. In the meantime, I will be revising that sentence.

Why does there need to be criticism of "riot cops" in this sentence? Where is the criticism of demonstrators who are unruly, or the recognition that they have to be arrested? I am changing the sentence to read These officers subdue rioters and subsequently allow the less heavily armoured, more mobile officers to make arrests where it is deemed necessary as this is a statement of fact, not opinion (if someone is arrested, the officer will have deemed it necessary, even if you don't agree with their decision). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.98 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'bruises the size of an silver dollar' - but what size is a silver dollar? The silver dollar article doesn't say.

Could we replace this with a metaphor that's meaningful to non-Americans? Or maybe just 'Xcm in size' or something.

Or perhaps we could just omit the reference, the assumption that all readers know the size of US currency is kind of irritating...

--257.47b.9½.-19 17:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great catch, 257.47b.9½.-19! Though I don't have one with me right now, I'd estimate that a modern Kennedy silver dollar is about three centimeters across. I hope you can do something with this information. Best regards, Woodrow 17:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Woodrow!

But - and I'm kind of confused here so please excuse me if I've got this wrong - that's the size of a dollar coin now in circulation, is that right?

Only the silver dollar article says that 'the current Sacagawea dollar is usually referred to as Golden'. It seems to suggest that a silver dollar is, or can be, bigger ('large size').

Past revisions of riot control refer to an 'Ike dollar', which is pretty meaningless to me...

Best, --257.47b.9½.-19 18:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Ike" seems to mean that the coin had Ike Eisenhower's picture on it. The Eisenhower dollar was minted from 1971 to 1978 and was 38.1 millimeters in diameter. - Woodrow 18:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jargon

"Threat-dependent force deployment is easily visible" is pure jargon, and requires either explanation or complete rephrasing. --NcLean 8th Sepember 2006

Bias

Whoever wrote this article needs to get rid of personal bias if he wants to write for Wikipedia. I mean, what is this?

"The use of chemical weapons, such Lachrymatory agents (tear gas) and pepper spray in riot control is relatively common. Curiously, the specific use of such chemical weapons for civilian riot control is legal in many countries, whereas the use of chemical weapons in warfare is widely condemned."

That's not just bias, that's nonsensical. He's comparing PEPPER SPRAY to MUSTARD GAS here.

(No, he's comparing CS Gas to CR Gas actually) 125.236.209.69 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any use of chemical weapons, be it pepper spray, cs-gas or mustart gas, is illegal in warfare, including the substances employed in riot-control.

POV Tags added. - Windows2142, 30 January 2007

I've tried to cleanup the article, refining it as well as trimming POV. I feel the tag could be removed now. Thoughts? --Eyrian 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in fact legal to use nonlethal chemical weapons in war? I don't know. Subsolar 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(No its not. They use Lachrymatory Agents in warfare, as well as Phosphor, among others) 125.236.209.69 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The police law in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (I checked yesterday) designates tear gas not as a weapon, but as an auxiliary instrument of physical force ("Hilfsmittel der körperlichen Gewalt"). --129.13.72.153 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In as much as it constitutes Law, the 1925 Geneva Protocol is generally accepted as prohibiting the use of any chemical agent (lethal or less-lethal) in international warfare. It is an observed irony that this does, technically, make supressing enemy troops with less lethal agents a breach of the Customs and Usages of Warfare wheras killing them is perfectly legitimate. The observation - which the OP regarded as political bias - that the use of less-lethal agents for civil control purposes is generally legal would seem entirely valid, as would the suggestion that this might be considered ironic compared to the perceived illegitimacy of their use in international warfare. Not sure it gets us anywhere though. Designating it as "not a weapon" seems like sophistry to me. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is misleading somewhat.

The riot police redirects here. And in the non-democratic countries, the intention is not to "intentionally minimize harm and prevent additional violence", but to beat the hell out of demonstrators (including peaceful demonstrations), or even worse. --HanzoHattori 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unverified assertion. And almost certainly not the case in all non-democratic countries. If youve got a cite to indicate that in some countries, riot police can be used to cause deliberate harm, then by all means make that annotation. But breaking up strictly along governmental lines in unverifiable. --Eyrian 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In can assure you, sometimes even in democratic countries, the intention is to beat up the peaceful protesters. I'm speaking out of direct experience. But I do feel that this is not official policy, more like some police officers that got carried away. 217.136.127.52 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So, you think, say, Saddam's or Charles Taylor's "anti-terrorist" units were to protect citiziens from terrorism, and can't be said otherwise just because of the differences between democracy and authoritarian governments? The ZOMO would come around and beat little children and old grannies, sometimes to death. --HanzoHattori 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is irrelevant. The point is that you cannot verify what you're trying to claim. You are attempting to indicate that in non-democratic countries, riot police do not use less-lethal force. You're attempting to prove a negative across a broad spectrum of countries, which is very difficult. Again, if you want to claim that sometimes the term "riot police" is applied to forces that serve a very different purpose, and you can cite that, feel free to insert it. --Eyrian 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you too have to verify your claim across the brooooad spectrum of countries you seem to be hiding behind. The point is that there should be a section regarding violence and the whole function of riot control, from a sociologist's viewpoint for example. You can't rely on how states legally define the role of these units as a NPOV source for this claim. sorry for the anonymity85.73.118.211 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV, guys. In every country, the riot control is meant to protect the goverment. Democratic or not. IT is always meant to harm civillians that are against the goverment. What more is there to say? what does Wiki care if we see democratic as good or not? As this si jsut common sense, it doesn't even need to be mentioned in the article. 92.78.107.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC). The definition of democratic is too complicated to be consistent with riot control.173.180.214.13 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have come to a stalemate years ago but no one bothered to remove the message at the top of the page. Personally, I think this article holds a complete worldwide view so I'm going to remove the message if no replies within a few days. Tomh903 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New images availabe at Commons

If anyone's watching this page: if no one objects, I'm going to replace the lead image with an image from commons:Category:Riot control. I don't believe the current one is very representative of typical riot control gear. I'll wait 7 days for any comments. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it. If you pick one someone doesn't like there are more than plenty others to choose from. MickMacNee (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rogerz's images

User:Rogerz added many images in this edit. Someonme then deleted the links to them. I have restored them and given them captions in the <gallery>, as many of them seem to be relevant. If any are spam, best discuss them individually? I have unlinked some which do not show riot police. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

MickMacNee keeps deleting the photo gallery, a blatent political motivated breache of wikiquette.

OSXfan (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article you are restoring is in violation of the image use policy regarding image sizes and use of galleries. Please read the definition of vandalism, editing an article to meet policy is not vandalism, accusing someone of doing so without cause is a breach of the assumption of good faith. I am not sure how my edit is politically motivated. Given your reply here and my response, I am accordingly re-applying my change. MickMacNee (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to do that Mick. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't follow policies now? MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont be smart, its not needed. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basij - mc mounted riot police

There should be a mention about the Basij in Iran which as I understand has taken the concept of mounted police to the next level, replacing the horses with motorcycles on which two police officers ride, one of them controlling the bike and the other controlling the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Basij count as police? Whilst I understand the concept of a media filter, they do come across as less of a police force and more of a brownshirt mob wheeled out to attack protestors. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Riot control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420062518/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil:80/EARS/tailwnd.htm to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/tailwnd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclusion of Tiananmen Square Massacre & possible mischaracterization of Kent State Shootings

The author of this article seems to be quite biased as discussed before. I have noticed that the Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre are excluded, so I am going to add them. Also has a hyperlink to the Kent State "Shootings", but calls them a massacre. Be advised other hyperlinks may have the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingTiger1002 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Language

The first paragraph under the heading History has informal language that detracts from the encyclopediac nature of this article. Wikikiddo4498 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Global Politics of Policing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2024 and 25 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcaustin2002, Kkfarwell (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Samusiaran, Turtlegirl33.

— Assignment last updated by Flamingo Cregg (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]