Talk:Water cannon

Images
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.

Essay?
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

Relevance?
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

Sewage cannon?
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. 69.249.104.185 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)31dusk

Supercannon II
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. 86.21.227.237 (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

Should a link to a commercial product be here?
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 201.79.151.216 (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)

Safety section over-sanitised?
Article appears to sanitize water cannon by referring to them "tearing clothes" (a relatively minor concern) and comparing water cannon to plastic bullets noting that phatic bullets can kill, which may well be read as implying that water cannon don't, while in fact reportedly they can. I'll going to add a link to a page on water cannon fatalities for balance. Bob.Churchill (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Water cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newzimbabwe.com/pages/mdc44.15976.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623035146/http://www.alton-towers.co.uk:80/waterpark/images/guide_watercannon.jpg to http://www.alton-towers.co.uk/waterpark/images/guide_watercannon.jpg

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Water cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sspc.org/regnews/penaltybox/CO1201.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrible
You mean they actually use these things against innocent, law-abiding rioters who just want to peaceably exercise their right to smash and burn things? Just because they chose to join into a large mob or people refusing to obey law or public safety regulations, and are blocking public highways so people can't travel? That's horrible; the First Amendment guarantees peoples right to riot and destroy public property without any fear of serious consequences to them. As long as one is safely in the center of a large and uncontrollable crowd, they shouldn't have to worry about police trying to force them to actually obey the laws and disperse! That's Fascism! Police have no right to do anything other than politely request the rioters cease and desist, and if they exercise their right to refuse, then it's the police's obligation to protect the rioters from harm, not to cause harm themselves! What has this world come to? It's very sad when you hear about innocent people being injured and arrested just for taking part in a large angry crowd of people throwing bricks and petrol bombs at police and justifiably venting their displeasure at society by smashing store-owners windows, looting, beating people and burning cars. I mean, if that's not what the First Amendment is about, I don't know what it is! And the nerve of them, not only using big hoses on people to knock them down, but even adding dye so they can face consequences for their actions even after they left the mob and went back home to install their new TV set? Only a tyrannical dictator would try to arrest people after the fact for taking part in a riot and looting and destroying things! And think of the clothes they would have ruined. without any trial or anything! Appalling. We might as well be living back in the middle ages again! AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to try expressing your ignorant ranting here or here. Wikipedia is sort of for facts, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3899:3370:4823:56C9:5213:951E (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)