Talk:Lockdown

message: A new story has been written on a temporary page.
:Where is it? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Sydney example probably belongs under the "Examples in fact" heading rather than in its own subsection. For that matter "Examples in fact" is an awkward-sounding phrase, maybe someone could think of something better. As a Londoner living in the city on 7th July 2005 I'd also dispute the claim that it was actually "locked down" per se unless a reference can be provided.--Lost tourist 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 (NSW) does not use the term lockdown, which is completely contrary to what is implied in this article, and the reason for including the reference.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The article states that: "In the wake of the September 11th attacks a three day lockdown of American airspace was initiated to prevent any remaining perpatrators escaping."
Wasn't that rather done to prevent any more planes being hijacked in mid flight and thus prevent any more planes flying into skyscrapers (rationale: if there are no planes in the air, no planes can be hijacked mid-flight) as authorities were unsure about how many hijackers there were still airborne? Furthermore, if a plane was still flying after the lockdown was put into place it would be easier to identify a possible threat?--Soylentyellow 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective of the purpose, the flight ban was not a "lockdown".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: lockdown of airspace after 9/11

message: The article used to have information at the top regarding other uses of lockdown with over-bolded words, and unverified quotes such as from Whistler. This article has moved this to another section below, and removed the example. Janus8463 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Use

message: "schools practice lockdowns in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings" - once again Wikipedia editors are treating the US as if it were the world. Most British schools don't even have lockdown drills. This one does, but it's different from what's described in this article in that students go to the hall, and do not stay in their classrooms. 86.132.143.88 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's quite a conclusive argument! Anyway, I agree with the initial commenter in this section. I've added "in the United States" to the relevant part of the article as a quick fix. That lead section could do with a proper rewrite, really, but I don't really have the knowledge. Loganberry (Talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that the above response was actually intended to be facetious - the USA does not set the protocol for anything worldwide.  Journalists have a regrettable habit of picking up American slang.  Lockdown remains a slang term.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit parochial 

message: In the past, online exams were protected by locking down the browser.  Wikipedia is closely related to education.  Should'nt browser lockdown be mentioned?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What about browser lockdown?

message: I am not sure if this would fit under one of the other talk sessions, but after an activist meeting last night I came here to see if I could find the synonym suggested—the point of the speaker was that this is a prison word and inappropriate to use outside a prison context; schools and hospitals are not prisons and some feel that it is inappropriate to expand usage of prison terms to free society. Sallijane (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  expansion to other areas and pushback 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lockdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217010311/http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=31b5f3d2-7491-4e18-8766-0c4f974ee44d&k=18879 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=31b5f3d2-7491-4e18-8766-0c4f974ee44d&k=18879
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "During the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, numerous governments responded to the disease with lockdowns of international borders and public spaces, including but not limited to China, Colombia, France, Italy, India, Malaysia, United Kingdom, United States" -- Think we need to re-word this, since it implies that the United Kingdom has locked down its borders - it hasn't. 09:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders

message: I am not convinced by the definition that a 'lockdown' is a restriction policy to stay where they are, presumably, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, to stay at their home. Despite the stay at home requirement being removed in England, several media were still referring to a lockdown afterwards as being able to be eased, thus demonstrating apparently one still in existence despite people able to travel freely and not stay at home. The Daily Mail was continuing to claim a lockdown right up to 19 July, even though basically there were restrictions on some activities such as weddings and indoor hospitality. On that basis, we must have been in lockdown for hundreds of years since Sunday Entertainments legislation in the 1780s and even earlier as the Sunday trading laws that stop larger shops opening for more than 6 hours on Sundays and close them entirely on Easter Sunday are now retrospectively a lockdown on the basis of that apparently just being some business closures and restrictions on activities not requiring people to be 'locked down'. The Daily Mail continued to claim lockdown day number 462 despite in effect there being restrictions akin to this. We now also speak of 10pm curfews under the previous tier system of late 2020, so that, when shops have to close after six hours on Sundays, we must now call this a "curfew". Clearly, as a lockdown still existed on 18 July, despite numerous people being out and about, visiting and meeting friends and family outdoors, it isn't a restriction policy requiring people to stay where they are. A law that bans clubs opening is a lockdown, as are, in retrospect, the Sunday trading laws. I am therefore not convinced: using a similar definition to the Mail, I therefore calculate we have been in hundreds of years of lockdown on the basis that business closures are a lockdown, not a requirement to stay at home! That must have been the case for the non-lockdown situation of 18 July to be capable of being "eased" on 19 July, as opposed to it being impossible to ease something that was already by 18 July non-existent as there was no stay at home at that point required. Having to wear masks in Scotland/Wales: a lockdown! People locked down by being "restricted" into having to wear a mask, not it being a minor inconvenient thing to be done for the protection of everyone. Instead, a serious incursion into freedom and a lockdown. Just like 30 mph speed limit signs are a lockdown as they restrict people to not travelling as fast as they want.  [[User:aspaa|aspaa] (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Not convinced - the term 'lockdown' has a much wider meaning that doesn't require people to stay at home