Talk:Police riot

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Chicago Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've also heard the word used to refer to the act of the police (off-duty and/or on-duty) themselves rioting.

65.26.141.151 08:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

This article does not have a NPOV.

I agree. The statement In August 1988, a riot erupted in Tompkins Square Park in New York when police, some mounted on horseback, brutally attempted to enforce a newly-passed curfew for the park. Bystanders, artists, residents, homeless people and political activists were caught up in the police action that took place during the night of August 6-7. In an editorial, The New York Times dubbed the incident a "police riot",[2] and it became known as the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot. This is pure pro-activist bullshit. The police weren't the ones rioting, the rioters that were not complying with their orders, were. This entire article is pejorative. Equinox137 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have to agree with Nonsense above. When police willfully ignore human nature they are responsible for the consequences. Police riot is not a pejorative, it is a description. Gregbard 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted: "... a pejorative term that became increasingly more common through the late 20th century, implying ..."

Agreed --DavidShankBone 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the tag, since there ain't much of a controversy brewing back here on the talk page. bobanny 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there...Actio (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about these changes?

I believe I've made some changes that should be acceptable to all parties, toning down the emotionally laden language and making sure multiple points of view are expressed. Does anyone still think this page merits a POV tag? 66.95.123.6 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it also looks like there's no justification for a fact tag, as nobody is disputing anything. I'm clearing out the tags. Jaysbro (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. "Police Riot" is strictly a term used by police-bashers to excuse any action, no matter how extreme, if the police so much as shoot a single can of pepperspray. The pure use of the term, and allowing the article to exist in its current fashion, IS a political statement. The article should be removed in its entirety, or revised to reflec tthe FACTS of the matter; There has not been a "police riot" that was not preceiptiated by an actual civilian riot, witht he sole, and tragic, excpetion being the racism-driven actions during the civil-rights era (which are listed under a diffrent terminology, "police brutality", elsewhere). 174.25.25.232 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON[reply]

Bishopsgate Climate Camp, London G20 summit 2009. To my knowledge, not a single punch was thrown by activists.82.23.135.169 (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]