|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Start-class)|
The images are placed in a solid bloc, and for some reason the subcategories of "Images" are about controversy and use. Those should be placed under the "Riot Control" heading. As for the images, should they be placed differently? Maybe at the bottom of the page? It just seems awkward that they're all together in the middle of the article like that.
This article has not a single reference in it. I'm tempted to put the page up for a Prod, or AfD, but I'm marking it for cleanup. --RedHillian 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are thousands of people who have seen watercannons in use, and hundreds of police who have used them, who could comment on this article. Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are any of them notable and verifiable? If so please, add them in and help turn this into a good article. --RedHillian 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Water Cannons are not real. Just a myth sensationalized by the media Deathward 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This article reads too much like an essay and less like an ecyclopedia article. Phrases like "There can be no doubt" and using words like "thus" and "therefore" over and over makes this sound too opinionated.--Piemanmoo 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is also quite "anti-water cannon", it is used in many contries in Europe without any public opposition. Thus, the neutrality of this article could be questioned (as with the sewer water thing), furthermore water cannon for riot supression should be separated from water cannons/monitors for fire supression. I am a fireman and could add a few things about water monitors myself, but this page is too messy. Dvortex 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Once the article is cleaned up a bit, could you add a section on water monitors? I think that would help the neutrality a lot. I mean the tone is very anti-water cannon, but by presenting a good aspect of water cannons I think it'd help a lot. 31dusk (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)31dusk
Several sections of this article, especially those which discuss anti-riot use of water cannons, are full of irrelevant information. For example the study on the mortality rates of rubber bullets in the UK is of no meaning to the topic. Moreover, the paragraph long entry on the use of pepper spray is also baseless. Finally, the author has not added citations to back up his seemingly made-up statements like, "In 2002 in Salt Lake City, during the Winter Olympics, an unruly crowd was dispersed with a few pepper ball guns. This was covered by the press and seemed to play better on television than water cannons would have." Article needs substantial revision. Rugz 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree on the rubber bullets comment. It displays why Britain prefers the use of water cannons due to mortality rates associated with rubber bullets. Might want to add something on why they kill? 31dusk (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)31dusk
The article cites an article which describes the use of sewage in water cannons as opposed to plain water. This citation links to the "China Workers" page. I can't be certain but this source seems heavily biased as it is a pro-union, semi-anarchist orginzation which may be opposed to globalization. Someone who is more versed in the material should review this links credibility. Rugz 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
* I checked out the "China Worker" page. It's connected to a page, "socialistworld.net" with the acronyms CWI and CIT. Not sure what it stands for, possibly Chinese socialist workers groups? Anyway, the article cited on the China Worker page was about Korean protests on Dec 17 2005. I did a Google search; two other sites had articles. Both mentioned water cannons. Neither said anything about sewage. So, I'm deleting the source. If anyone disagrees and thinks it should be reinstated, it's http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/88/?tpid=7. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)31dusk
http://www.sscentral.org/homemade/supercannon2.html A homemade, man-carryable water cannon. Output is about 4L/s with a range of 70 feet. Don't know if it's notable or relevant to this article. To me it sort of falls between toy water blasters (the CPS 2000 outputs 1L/s) and full-on water cannons. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
*Is it used as a water cannon? Like firefighter/riot control water cannon? 31dusk (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)31dusk
Under "Other Meanings", in the very last sentence of the article it says: "Tool for powerwashing large construction equipment. See riveer.com for images, details and video" I'm not editing because I don't know the rules of Wikipedia but that looks weird, so I just hope someone sees this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikifying 'Safty' section
"On September 30th 2010, during a protest demonstration against the Stuttgart 21 project, a man suffered severe eye injuries after being hit in the face by a water cannon. The man has lost almost all of his eyesight (police terrorism)".
Altough the events detailed in this section are factually true, its style does not meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic and linguistic quality standards. Hence, ameliorative editing will be applied. --YeOldeMonseigneur (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Tanqueta.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Tanqueta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tanqueta.jpg)