Riot shield has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 16, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riot shield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Riot shield appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 May 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This link: http://www.selrackco.com/riotshield.jpg doesn't work for me. Might need to be removed if it doesn't fix itself. -- Ecnassianer 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Under Tactics the situations describes would involve a Ballastic Shield and not a polycarb "Riot Shield" as the article states.
I suggest a new article about Ballistic Shields be created, or added as a specific section in itself.
~~YEPPOON~~
Can someone find and discuss reasons why bullet proof sheilds are not used by most militaries? I am sure I could think of a few (bulkiness, high cost), but not much others. Thanks
~~Kyle Rex~~
Also, assault rifles, which require two hands to use, are the standard military weapon. Pistols are of limited tactical use in non-urban situations. - Toptomcat 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is a large list of games where shields appear relevant or informative?
I would suggest getting rid of this and replacing it with something like: "Riot shields are commonly found in video games, particularly of the first-person_shooter genre, generally to make the player's character more resistant to small-arms fire."
If nobody disagrees I will change this soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprobert88 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The following was on the talk page for Wikipedia's main page. I'd like to repost the discussion here in its entirety to remind people of how the information on this page could potentially be used. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?"
Yeah, I know, how dare people carry around things that only have a defensive purpose, don't they understand that's just begging to be attacked by someone?
That's pretty embarrassing, Wikipedia. Don't you dare tell me that "science" has proved it's legitimate to blame police officers for carrying shields to protect themselves. Don't you dare. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't stop laughing about this. I can't believe someone actually complained about this DYK. Special thanks to the three people who replied who clearly don't have an axe to grind with the world. I don't feel the need to reply directly as they covered all the points. For the record, the article was scheduled to appear at DYK for 12 hours, like all other DYKs. It was there for the whole period it was allocated. One person complaining did not influence its removal. I was going to reply to the bizarre comment about women carrying mace, but I'm worried that might just encourage this editor to keep commenting, and I don't want to talk to them. Thanks for posting this here though as I'm certain other editors will find this discussion as entertaining as I did. Freikorp ( talk) 02:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a well-known phenomenon called risk homeostasis: the amount of risk people are likely to take is inversely proportional to the degree they are protected from what they are risking (for example, when ski boot bindings that released the boot at a certain level of torque in order to cut down on the broken bones that had previously plagued the sport came out in the early 1970s, ski resorts responded by cutting steeper and riskier trails). It doesn't surprise me at all that people would feel free throwing stuff at the police if they didn't think the police were likely to get hurt by it; they could still express their displeasure with the police but not get charged with assaulting an officer.
Similarly, I read somewhere that when the guy in the Negro Leagues who developed the first prototype of the batting helmet stepped up to the plate for the first time wearing it, the pitcher's response was to throw right at his face.
I would commend to Mr. Klaas's attention Edward Tenner's excellent book about this sort of thing and things like it (which he calls the "revenge effect"), Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. I do not think here Wikipedia is telling any police officers anything they didn't already know. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd also say you're taking the wrong lesson from my batting helmet example. If throwing a horsehide ball that can go up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) at someone's unprotected cheekbone makes them a moral monster, then everyone's who pitched a few baseball games above a certain level is a moral monster. The pitcher clearly resented the new constraint on his ability to use the brushback pitch; he was sending a message to the batter that if he thought he could crowd the plate with impunity with that contraption on his head he was dead wrong (Certainly the pitcher threw the pitch knowing the batter would get out of the way; sending that message wasn't worth putting him on base). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Moriori: @ Drmies: @ Crisco 1492: @ Daniel Case: Pinging everyone back who has already weighed in on this discussion. Really sorry to drag you all back into this, but Zachary Klaas is clearly very unhappy with the fact consensus did not rule in his favour and has now resorted to adding unreferenced disclaimers to the article to support his agenda. By his own admission, his motivation for doing this is spite: [2]. He has also now violated WP:BRD by reinstating his edit without reaching consensus on the talk page.
I think this addition is unencyclopedic, and also treats the reader like an idiot. This is the equivalent of saying "Studies show women are more likely to get attacked if they walk alone at night.[Reference] It is, of course, still a crime to rape a women if she's walking alone at night." This shouldn't need to be pointed out to people. I guess I might not be opposed to alternate wording saying it is generally illegal to throw rocks, even though I think that is completely unnecessary to say, though Zachary Klaas has made it clear that he is doing things to spite me and is also interested in edit warring so I don't want to escalate the situation by modifying this again myself. If you could please comment on this issue I would greatly appreciate it. Freikorp ( talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Following the advice given to me on the Dispute Resolution Page with respect to the immediately preceding section of this Talk page, I am now submitting a Request for Comments about whether this page on riot shields should clarify that, even if it is true that riot shields somehow encourage people at some psychological level to throw projectiles at the police, it is illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions to do so, and in many jurisdictions it is seriously illegal (that is, a felony). I think the above exchange makes it clear what the matter of contention is, so I'm not going to rehash all that - but I do want to make clear that one editor offered the possibility of putting on the page something that does acknowledge this in presumably less tendentious language that people felt I was offering, and there is no reason that can't be done, whatever one thinks of my own approach to attempting those edits. Don't snatch disagreement out of the jaws of agreement. To my knowledge, no one is challenging the fact that jurisdictions generally do not allow the throwing of projectiles at the police, or indeed, at anyone else. The debate was about whether it is necessary to say this here. I don't understand why people are so dogmatically opposing one sentence that can clarify that Wikipedia is not treating illegal assaults on the police like they are not a big legal deal. The best argument I have heard is that the sentence strikes people as unnecessary because it is presumed people already know that, but I suspect outside the small ecosystem of this page, there are people who might prefer the language were in there because people might indeed not know what it is assumed they know. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Certainly one of the more interesting RfC's I've come across in my 11 years on this site. Most of the ones I tend to get myself involved in revolve around a general theme of "You're undoing my edits, so I hate you", "I don't care; cite policy", "RfC!", and so on. It's refreshing to see editors disagree about content, and not personality. But I digress. As much as I sympathize with what you're saying Zachary Klaas—it isn't acceptable, or legal, to throw a projectile at anyone. Except maybe a flower, or a plush teddybear, or a $50 bill (feel free to do the latter to me, repeatedly)—but... isn't that WP:OBVIOUS? With regard to this specific article, there is a good quality source, with anecdotal evidence from a chief superintendent of the UK police force, to verify the claim in question, and the point you're making seems blatantly obvious [to me, at least]. People should already know it's illegal to throw a projectile at someone, anyone, and it's not as if the prose – as it is now – is insinuating that it's OK to do so, or that a policeman is in anyway to blame when someone does; just that there have been scientific analyses that demonstrate it's more acceptable – in a criminal's mind – to throw something at someone who is potentially equipped to deal with a thing being thrown at them. I'm not sure if I've helped or made things worse here, but those are my two cents, at least. Regards. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Riot shield has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 16, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riot shield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Riot shield appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 May 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This link: http://www.selrackco.com/riotshield.jpg doesn't work for me. Might need to be removed if it doesn't fix itself. -- Ecnassianer 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Under Tactics the situations describes would involve a Ballastic Shield and not a polycarb "Riot Shield" as the article states.
I suggest a new article about Ballistic Shields be created, or added as a specific section in itself.
~~YEPPOON~~
Can someone find and discuss reasons why bullet proof sheilds are not used by most militaries? I am sure I could think of a few (bulkiness, high cost), but not much others. Thanks
~~Kyle Rex~~
Also, assault rifles, which require two hands to use, are the standard military weapon. Pistols are of limited tactical use in non-urban situations. - Toptomcat 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is a large list of games where shields appear relevant or informative?
I would suggest getting rid of this and replacing it with something like: "Riot shields are commonly found in video games, particularly of the first-person_shooter genre, generally to make the player's character more resistant to small-arms fire."
If nobody disagrees I will change this soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprobert88 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The following was on the talk page for Wikipedia's main page. I'd like to repost the discussion here in its entirety to remind people of how the information on this page could potentially be used. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?"
Yeah, I know, how dare people carry around things that only have a defensive purpose, don't they understand that's just begging to be attacked by someone?
That's pretty embarrassing, Wikipedia. Don't you dare tell me that "science" has proved it's legitimate to blame police officers for carrying shields to protect themselves. Don't you dare. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't stop laughing about this. I can't believe someone actually complained about this DYK. Special thanks to the three people who replied who clearly don't have an axe to grind with the world. I don't feel the need to reply directly as they covered all the points. For the record, the article was scheduled to appear at DYK for 12 hours, like all other DYKs. It was there for the whole period it was allocated. One person complaining did not influence its removal. I was going to reply to the bizarre comment about women carrying mace, but I'm worried that might just encourage this editor to keep commenting, and I don't want to talk to them. Thanks for posting this here though as I'm certain other editors will find this discussion as entertaining as I did. Freikorp ( talk) 02:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a well-known phenomenon called risk homeostasis: the amount of risk people are likely to take is inversely proportional to the degree they are protected from what they are risking (for example, when ski boot bindings that released the boot at a certain level of torque in order to cut down on the broken bones that had previously plagued the sport came out in the early 1970s, ski resorts responded by cutting steeper and riskier trails). It doesn't surprise me at all that people would feel free throwing stuff at the police if they didn't think the police were likely to get hurt by it; they could still express their displeasure with the police but not get charged with assaulting an officer.
Similarly, I read somewhere that when the guy in the Negro Leagues who developed the first prototype of the batting helmet stepped up to the plate for the first time wearing it, the pitcher's response was to throw right at his face.
I would commend to Mr. Klaas's attention Edward Tenner's excellent book about this sort of thing and things like it (which he calls the "revenge effect"), Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. I do not think here Wikipedia is telling any police officers anything they didn't already know. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd also say you're taking the wrong lesson from my batting helmet example. If throwing a horsehide ball that can go up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) at someone's unprotected cheekbone makes them a moral monster, then everyone's who pitched a few baseball games above a certain level is a moral monster. The pitcher clearly resented the new constraint on his ability to use the brushback pitch; he was sending a message to the batter that if he thought he could crowd the plate with impunity with that contraption on his head he was dead wrong (Certainly the pitcher threw the pitch knowing the batter would get out of the way; sending that message wasn't worth putting him on base). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Moriori: @ Drmies: @ Crisco 1492: @ Daniel Case: Pinging everyone back who has already weighed in on this discussion. Really sorry to drag you all back into this, but Zachary Klaas is clearly very unhappy with the fact consensus did not rule in his favour and has now resorted to adding unreferenced disclaimers to the article to support his agenda. By his own admission, his motivation for doing this is spite: [2]. He has also now violated WP:BRD by reinstating his edit without reaching consensus on the talk page.
I think this addition is unencyclopedic, and also treats the reader like an idiot. This is the equivalent of saying "Studies show women are more likely to get attacked if they walk alone at night.[Reference] It is, of course, still a crime to rape a women if she's walking alone at night." This shouldn't need to be pointed out to people. I guess I might not be opposed to alternate wording saying it is generally illegal to throw rocks, even though I think that is completely unnecessary to say, though Zachary Klaas has made it clear that he is doing things to spite me and is also interested in edit warring so I don't want to escalate the situation by modifying this again myself. If you could please comment on this issue I would greatly appreciate it. Freikorp ( talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Following the advice given to me on the Dispute Resolution Page with respect to the immediately preceding section of this Talk page, I am now submitting a Request for Comments about whether this page on riot shields should clarify that, even if it is true that riot shields somehow encourage people at some psychological level to throw projectiles at the police, it is illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions to do so, and in many jurisdictions it is seriously illegal (that is, a felony). I think the above exchange makes it clear what the matter of contention is, so I'm not going to rehash all that - but I do want to make clear that one editor offered the possibility of putting on the page something that does acknowledge this in presumably less tendentious language that people felt I was offering, and there is no reason that can't be done, whatever one thinks of my own approach to attempting those edits. Don't snatch disagreement out of the jaws of agreement. To my knowledge, no one is challenging the fact that jurisdictions generally do not allow the throwing of projectiles at the police, or indeed, at anyone else. The debate was about whether it is necessary to say this here. I don't understand why people are so dogmatically opposing one sentence that can clarify that Wikipedia is not treating illegal assaults on the police like they are not a big legal deal. The best argument I have heard is that the sentence strikes people as unnecessary because it is presumed people already know that, but I suspect outside the small ecosystem of this page, there are people who might prefer the language were in there because people might indeed not know what it is assumed they know. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Certainly one of the more interesting RfC's I've come across in my 11 years on this site. Most of the ones I tend to get myself involved in revolve around a general theme of "You're undoing my edits, so I hate you", "I don't care; cite policy", "RfC!", and so on. It's refreshing to see editors disagree about content, and not personality. But I digress. As much as I sympathize with what you're saying Zachary Klaas—it isn't acceptable, or legal, to throw a projectile at anyone. Except maybe a flower, or a plush teddybear, or a $50 bill (feel free to do the latter to me, repeatedly)—but... isn't that WP:OBVIOUS? With regard to this specific article, there is a good quality source, with anecdotal evidence from a chief superintendent of the UK police force, to verify the claim in question, and the point you're making seems blatantly obvious [to me, at least]. People should already know it's illegal to throw a projectile at someone, anyone, and it's not as if the prose – as it is now – is insinuating that it's OK to do so, or that a policeman is in anyway to blame when someone does; just that there have been scientific analyses that demonstrate it's more acceptable – in a criminal's mind – to throw something at someone who is potentially equipped to deal with a thing being thrown at them. I'm not sure if I've helped or made things worse here, but those are my two cents, at least. Regards. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)