Talk:Non-lethal weapon

31 March 2Ø11 Neutrality Dispute

“Both pepper spray and electroshock weapons have been misused in so-called "pain compliance" techniques against people attempting to practice nonviolent civil disobedience. For instance, pepper spray has been swabbed directly into the eyes of protesters who were being held immobile with their eyelids forcibly pulled back. Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.”

¿How many KINDS of slanted is this “article”? Beyond AI’s well-documented history of supporting certain groups (amongst them the proto-Taliban) is the choice of wording (“torture and other cruelties”) and the context (for example, maliciously ignoring that these incidents are precipitated by orders to disburse). While I acknowledge that incidents have occurred, they need to kept in proper context, rather than populist propaganda.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

And just to cover myself:

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources… This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.”

AI is not considered a “relaiable source” due to their history of biased reporting, it is NOT proportional, and either the policy applies to everyone equally, or it applies to no one anywhere.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Amnesty International is biased, of course, but they are a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they’re actually NOT. They have a well-known and well-earned reputation for exaggeration, misrepresentation, and even lying. I propose removing anything referencing their “report” as the only acceptable corrective action (other sources should be addressed separately); Anything LESS, and you might as well use the White House Press Office’s briefings Oct 2ØØ2-June 2ØØ3 as “proof” of Saddam HUSSEIN’S WWMD program. 174.25.16.197 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Would require greater community involvement to decide whether it is a reliable source. You can bring it up at WT:MILHIST. Marcus Qwertyus 04:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International is used as a reliable source for more than a thousand Wikipedia articles, ones such as capital punishment, torture and human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They deliver respected research and opinion. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they don’t; They deliver propaganda. That they have been used in “more than a thousand Wikipedia articles” does say a lot, though…174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Sources:

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3402530,00.html
• http://www.nysun.com/opinion/scrutinize-amnesty-international/55021/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/amnesty-internationals-bi_b_28257.html (Huffington Post is itself biased, but Alan DERSHOWITZ has a reasonably good reputation)
• http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international_report_for_ Claims to be a neutral third party, but since I’ve never heard of them before I really can’t judge them too fairly; They did focus on one year, however, and to judge only against that I’d say they’re pretty good.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International This is itself a Wikipedia article; ¿How could you not know about that (other than by pretending)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.16.197 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to offer a counterbalanced perspective? What do you propose?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY: If another source, one that ISN’T biased, could be cited (I don’t know of one, but I also do NOT know that none exist), that would be acceptable; Simply transfer the citations to the new source and remove the dispute tag.174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

The removal of the neutrality dispute tag BEFORE the resolution of the dispute shows a bias in the matter- But I’m going to let that slide for now. No alternative to AI’s (who’s impartiality is disputed here at Wikipedia itself, as shown by the link above) has been presented. As only they can be cited I propose that, at very least, the line "“Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.”'' be removed. (The entire passage SHOULD be removed until an unbiased source can be identified under both neutrality and sourcing guidelines, but I will settle for at least removal of the overwhelming biased claims.) Do so or find an alternative source (and still remove the AI passage), and then the neutrality might be said to be re-established.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON

Uh...no. Try reading WP:DRIVEBY, & understand that if you aren't actively working to improve the article then tags are pulled off. If you don't have a source then you don't have a point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh... Yes. I have cited sources, including Wikipedia itself.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Andering REDDSON

Repeating myself: Wikipedia follows definitions found in reliable sources rather than definitions given by insistent editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating MYSELF: Wikipedia acknowledges that AI is not neutral.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

The debate over this issue appears to have fallen off. If there is still any interest in pursuing the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/Non-lethal weapon could someone please answer the questions I've asked there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing this, I'm of the opinion that the AI quote in this section should be removed. I do believe that this specific AI article has evidence of bias that makes it an unreliable source, but that's not the primary reason for why it should be removed. What I see as the primary reason why it should be removed is because their underlying point lacks relevancy. Specifically, AI's article is simply stating that NL weapons are vulnerable to being misused. Yes, that's true, but so what? Did AI claim that NLW's are unique in the world as being the only physical objects that are susceptible to misuse? No, they did not. As such, their observations simply aren't noteworthy: it adds no value to the article. Because it is thus not germane, it should not be retained. I'll let this sit for a few weeks and if there's no additional comments or points worthy of consideration, update this part of the page accordingly. -hh (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation case now open

The mediation case at MedCab is now open. I'm prepared to give my opinions about the matter, but before I do I would like to allow another chance for any interested editors to state any additional opinions that they may have about the matter (and if they do, I will give them serious consideration, as I have the opinions which are already there, before weighing in), to express any objections that anyone may have to the mediation, or to me as the mediator. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) PS Everyone has until about 22:00 UTC on September 6, 2011. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the matter would have been easily solved by swapping other sources for the Amnesty International paper from 1997, or by adding those other sources to bolster the AI one. For instance:

• "U.N.: Tasers Are A Form Of Torture", CBS News
• Non-lethal weapons: the law and policy of revolutionary technologies for the military and law enforcement. Describes how pepper spray and other nonlethals can be misused for torture.
• "Tasers can be instrument of torture, says UN"
• United Nations Office at Geneva. Committee against torture concludes thirty-ninth session. Geneva: United Nations; 2007. (This paper is no longer available at the UN website but it can be found mirrored on third party sites.)
• "The Pursuit of Non-Lethal Capabilities" (research paper) Discusses "the proliferation and misuse of such technologies as instruments of torture."
• "Technology & Crime Control". "Technologies of restraint have been used for purposes of punishment, indeed, torture, rather than for humane incapacitation in legitimate circumstances."
• "The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries". This professional paper cites the 1997 Amnesty International article: "USA: Police use of pepper spray – tantamount to torture", giving it credence.

I think all we needed here was some deeper research and more detail with augmented references. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

¿When did all this happen? No matter; If the original source are used, at least some of them pass the “smell test.” ¿Has anyone here seen the original UN report (rather than the CBS version of their report)? I’m personally loathe to use quotes of quotes; Much like copies of copies, they get twisted over time. Either way, the AI statement MUST be removed. A REDDSON

Not necessarily. If well-respected sources cite the AI report, using its data or conclusions, then it gains in stature to the point that we can cite it here. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Copies of copies, biases of biases…. ¿Where would it stop? I accept that the original source could be used (that being the UN report), but the moment the second person has the report, they would have turned it to read the way they ‘wanted it to’ (as, I am finding, the disputed section may itself have been). These biases result in exaggeration of effect (“inflicting massive harm” when, in fact the report says “inflicting harm in the form of X volts through the body”), exaggeration of extent of use (“with massive use through the industry” when the report only says the number of specific times it is used which is in and of itself a large number, but then goes on to say that this is a minute percentage of types of incident), and of course manipulating the numbers the other way (just take the two examples above and flip them over). A REDDSON

I do not know you TransporterMan form Adam. Makes you as fair an option as any I can think of. Trying To Make Wikipedia A tLeast Better Than The Weekly World News. 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In Review

Take a look at this and tell me what you think (bold used here for table of contents reasons alone)

Okay; I'm going to make my comments inline. -hh (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Misuse Potential and Allegations of Torture
Non-Lethal weapons have been misused, with pepper spray and electroshock weapons frequently being mentioned technologies. Some misuse instances have been newsworthy, as well as in the employment of so-called “pain compliance” techniques against people attempting to practice non-violent civil disobedience. (we will insert here the reference to eye-swabbing) In 1997, Amnesty International released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture, which considered the repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on humans to be cruel, if not torture, questioning if such use could be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.
However, these criticism statements have themselves been subject to sharp criticism, with multiple studies repudiating such claims. (hh's .pdf file maybe?) The National Institute of Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police provided strong evidence that the claims were greatly exaggerated, if true at all (hh's .pdf files?). Follow-up studies further supported the use of pepper spray as an effective and relatively safe method of controlling violent people, especially when other alternatives were inappropriate or unavailable, (Source here.) and studies have found that properly employed NL weapons statistically reduce injury rates on Law Enforcement Personnel (another source here). While there are certainly concerns for overuse there does not appear to be any clear evidence that any particular NL techology should be considered noteworthily more susceptible to potential misuse.
I still don’t ‘get’ how to do citations (I can copy and paste the material around, but I can’t get inserting it).A. J. REDDSON

I seem to muddle my way through it; just list the desired URL in parenthesis where it should be a ref and another Editor is sure to help.

BTW, please note the reference I've added for overuse, which is a bit improper since it really references the suicide of the Police Officer involved with the prior Iman Morales reference and mentions overuse as almost an afterthought...I doubt this is the best way to mention the consequences of human errors (misuse), but this is another aspect of the topic and having found the reference, I don't want to accidentally misplace it. Thoughts? -hh (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m going to have to object to the Rodney KING reference at minimum on other grounds. As for the MORALES reference, he FELL to his death after being Tased; The Taser itself did not kill him, nor was it being specifically used for “pain compliance.” (That there were issues in this incident appear not to be in dispute.) A. J. REDDSON

On the KING reference, I have no problems with finding a replacement. My intent is that it is IMO a decent example of controversies and Police misconduct, which included excessive force that happened to employ Non-Lethals (versus other cases which involved lethal shootings). Next, on the MORALES case, what I think makes this one noteworthy was for the very reason that it wasn't for "pain compliance", yet there still was a bad outcome that can be attributed to misuse. IMO, I think that there's an implicit assumption that the primary purpose of a NL is merely to inflict pain (punishment). While many NLs certainly do happen to deliver painful effects, the NL employment's objective is to change outcomes. For example for an outcome of "compliance", can it not be achieved in different ways? Such as: "compliance through authority" (mere presence), "compliance through intimidation/fear" (show of force), "compliance through pain" (demonstration of force), "compliance through incapacitation" (Taser, Obscurants, etc). In some circumstances, the NL's modality may very well be nothing but a whack to cause pain, sure. However, in other instances, pain may merely be a side effect. For an example of the latter, Taser's incapacitation waveform has been improved between their M26 and X26 models,and the later one is more effective at temporary incapacitation while also being *less* painful. Sure, it is't totally pain-free yet (if ever), but the fact that its pain perception was reduced shows that the generation of pain was not the primary objective of the technology. Thoughts? -hh (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you can find clear-cut examples of non-lethals being distinctly used in ways other than intended for the purpose of pain compliance. Multiple tasings of non-combative persons (that I can’t pull an example out of my anyhow DOES NOT mean there aren’t any), eye swabbing incidents (there was one, three protestors in some office, not really sure what it was about now since I saw it 10-plus years ago). In the interim, use the “Citation Required” tag where needed. A. J. REDDSON

We need reliable sources in order to discuss proposed article content. Placeholders are not enough. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, if a particular reference is conveniently available, it should be included. However, placeholders are merely an Editorial tool, so that we don't inadvertantly overlook an attribution need. Sure, it would be nice to be Editorially perfect on the first draft, that's an unrealistic expectation to place upon volunteers. FYI, two references that may be considered as potential citations on LEO injury rates may include: this (a PhD disseration?) and this NIJ report. Neither is the one I was thinking of, but are nevertheless interesting; I'll keep looking for a more relevant (more direct) cite. -hh (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahk. My computer hates PDFs. ¿Would you be kinds enough to summarize? (By what’s here, it appears to be a slightly biased document in favor of police, rather than taking them to task for abuse of these tools.) A. J. REDDSON

Due to circumstances, I have elected to add the passage immediately. I found tag on the page and have inserted it for the time being. A. J. REDDSON

As Binksternet has correctly stated, you need to have the citations before you insert material. We don't perform synthesis...that is one of our key policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, hh already provided those. See above. (That’s the reason I’ve been dealing with him.) A. J. REDDSON

Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we work with one another. You have made the claim that text here was agreed upon (in the 3RR report you have filed on me). Do other editors here believe that the text has been agreed upon? This issue is also at AN/I currently.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The text added by Reddson is not satisfactory. It contains synthesis and original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we are not yet ready to update this section on the main page. Optimistically, I believe that we are getting close, but we still clearly need to have all of the citations provided -- and vetted. Given the history of dispute on this topic, vetting is appropriate to minimize any individual Editor's personal interpretation where it is practical (yes, this includes myself). IMO, the cites should be read in full by each Editor, before we agree to if it should be included, etc. If we don't do this correctly, we're only going to perpetuate the disputes. -hh (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough. I’m taking this back to Mediation. Thank you. A. J. REDDSON

Right now, I’m awaiting legitimate criticism of the text above. Other than stall tactics, there’s reason not to present.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, personal & work commitments are impeding with my ability to contribute right now; if I don't get to it within the next week, my next free window will be 20 Nov. Hopefully, you've been able to make some progress in getting a PDF reader on your PC to read through that one long citation I provided so that we can discuss it's appropriateness. Also, have you been able to find any suitable replacement to the Rodney KING citation? I'm open to changing it, but need a concrete suggestion. -hh (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. I would just put the cites in parenthesis as you suggested, but since I don’t know which goes where, that’s not really an option. (I could just make it up, but that’s not very nice…) I also found another source, sashley.com/articles/effectofpoliceofficerconfidence.htm, for review. (I actually have a copy as a .doc on my computer at home.)20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

[I understand the process, this is FORMAL mediation request.]Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok… Mr Stradivarius went a bit further than I thought (I am NOT complaining), but let’s try doing this RIGHT from here on, ¿ok? I have proposed (above) a preliminary text for presentation. Mr Stradivarius also stated one of the anti-NLW sources has issues; For the interim, I propose keeping that source until a better source can be presented, and in the interim using the “Citation Needed” tag behind it (I don’t know how to do that).
The source in question has been ruled not neutral, but I would not recommend using a neutrality dispute tag there; I “get it” there’s an issue and you have to use the sources available, not always the sources you WANT. (Hey, I wanted an FBI article as a source for misuse, but I can’t find it and apparently no one else can either.)
Ok, let’s get the section OFF in the meantime and get this thing fixed properly.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Amnesty International source, "USA: Police use of pepper spray -- tantamount to torture", has been cited in some 11 books and perhaps 200 scholarly works. It is a fine, high quality source perfectly useful to us in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let’s try this AGAIN. Go UP↑ and we’ll start the discussion on how to get the section back into compliance with Wikipedia standards on Neutrality. Then, we take the finished product and put that on the article page. (TransporterMan already settled that, I’m not even sure why you’ve brought it up.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get you. When I look at the version rewritten by Stradivarius, I see a perfectly fine paragraph about pepper spray. That means when you say it must be brought into compliance, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, other than the citations are not in-line, it is ready to roll. Unless the no pepperspray reference is ready to be replaced it’s actually ready to be replaced. I edited the section right where it was for simplicity.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not "ready to roll" if there are placeholders for citations. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

¿Do I have to go BACK again? ¿Really? ¿Less than 24 hours after they closed the matter? Stop obstructing, stop stalling, and start acting in the good faith you’re supposed to be. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Binksternet is acting in good faith...there shouldn't be an assumption that he isn't. This may be miscommunication. If I'm understanding correctly, Reddson acknowledges that it needs citations before the text could be added to the article. (If I'm wrong, please say so).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That is mostly correct; hh supplied sources, I just can’t get them in-line; EDIT: Additionally, since I can read .pdf’s (and no, I don't know why), and as the lack of in-line citations is the ONLY OBJECTION (as hh has already supplied citations, and no objection has been made to them), the refusal to allow it to move forward (either with “citation need” tags as has been done in the past or otherwise) makes me strongly suspect I will have to go back again. You may believe what you like./EDIT21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Page Lock Request

I’m requesting the page be locked due to the use of biased sources.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that page protection does not apply here. I am at a loss to understand what the issue is now. I would suggest that you create your sandbox and using the citations page and this example page learn to form citations. It isn't that hard really. When you have a suitable writeup bring it here into a new section and seek consensus. Placeholders will not work as a matter of policy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I think I see the issue — using ACLU as a source. When you disagree with someone's references, it would be normal protocol to first raise the issue here on the talk page and if a consensus can not be reached then you would pose the question asking for further comment on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Right SO… ACLU has a financial agenda in promoting anti-cop rhetoric. There, it’s said. The new text adds nothing of real value to the piece nor does it address new ideas, but does “front load” the matter with additional anti-police material, which in view of how the Mediation and Arbitration went, strikes me a deeply counter-productive; It’s ballot stuffing (“Let’s get as many voted in now BFORE they catch us.” thinking). Until this whole thing is finally CLOSED, I’m asking the page be locked to prevent FURTHER vandalism.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The ACLU source is used neutrally. It describes their conclusion about prone holds, which you were trying to put into the article anyway. You wrote, "To prevent against this, they advice peppersrayed suspects be kept out of a prone position once resistance ends, and to the greatest extend possible in open air." You implied that the IACP advised a restriction about the prone position but I could not find such a recommendation from them. You didn't include any cites and your English is nearly incoherent in the sentence but I puzzled it out and guessed that you wished for some text to be included about how bad the prone position is following pepper spray. The cite I found was not IACP but ACLU. I don't understand the problems you keep having with the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It’s purely anti-police rhetoric form a corporation whose sole source of income is suing government agencies (police being only their largest single target), all other excuses aside. Further, both mediation AND arbitration said “Get the bias out.” (Had you included the other side of the story, I wouldn’t be making the complaint now; You didn’t. Take a hint.)
EDIT: Further, the “source” provided (currently #15) states: “The tons of tear gas and pepper spray munitions Seattle police used on demonstrators and bystanders alike at the anti-WTO demonstrations last December contained chemicals implicated in lung problems, eye damage and even death. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the effects of these chemical weapons are not always confined to 15 or so minutes of intense pain and incapacitation. According to manufacturers' documents, military research and medical literature, each of these agents carries short- and long-term health risks; various formulations contain potential carcinogens.” I’d like to see any evidence that it was “tons” or this documentation of long-term health effects; I’ve been peppersprayed TWICE (once in the service, and once in backspray after pepperspraying a combative drunk at a bar), and the worst that happened was a slight re-flash a couple hours later (when I rubbed my eyes). I acknowledge that things can happen (that’s why I left the positional hypoxia reference in there), but you’d better do better than some cop-bashing, muck-raking conspiracy nutjob as a “source.” (I left it in for the time being, but I’m liking it less and less the more I think about it.) Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see bias in the information that you removed. The text is well cited by reliable sources, and is correct. Your personal experience is not evidence we can use. Research groups including police and military units have tested pepper spray and found in some cases negative effects lasting as long as a week. People are all different in their reactions to it. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Using a source with a conflict of interest is bad enough, but stuffing such information in there to game the system is, really, quite despicable, especially after this matter had been addressed at Arbitration.
EDIT: If the BIASED section goes back up, the whole thing goes back to Arbitration.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

All I'm getting from you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The accusations of gaming the system and of stuffing the article with conflicted sources are without substance. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Badder Fish To Fry

¿When is the overall anti-police propaganda going to be removed? (Do not bother with “Well, ACLU isn’t anti-cop” my tolerance for this BS is long GONE.)
Interestingly, my original objection (caltrops and batons) are still there.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable ones. Your complaint is not actionable. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see problems in the caltrops section in that it may not be sufficiently clear in stating that contemporary application is (to the best of my knowledge) exclusive to vehicle-stopping today - - do we know of anyone who is actually using them as a counter-personnel weapon? -hh (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and

Insofar as batons, I don't see any noteworthy mention of them that could be construed as incorrect or even anti-police - - can we have some more details on exactly what was said where and why it is a concern? -hh (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the title of this thread supposed to mean? I like Battered fish to fry or Fried battered fish better.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actionable: Out of context quotes, use of fiscally and politically motivated biased sources (ACLU; anti-police AND is a private, for-profit corporation that makes it’s money by filing frivolous, often purely harassing lawsuits), inaccurate information (here’s a hint, when a car goes out-of-control, people often die- they’re called “deadly traffic accidents” for a reason, but yes, there IS a way to stop a car guaranteed not to cause the car to crash, and it’s not listed anywhere on Wikipedia that I could find). That’s just the starter categories of “actionable” issues- that is to say, the problems that existed LAST JUNE, as opposed to the malicious insertation of biased information (by Binksternet, not Berean Hunter). So ya. It is actionable.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, I been sitting on this a while: I askeded myself, “¿Is it worth it?”
I answereded myself: Ya, it probably is.”
I took a look at one of your references, “Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare” (John B. ALEXANDER), and nearly sh** myself: “If a mere temporary flat tire is the objective, a simple caltrop of hollow tubes that let the air escape, even from self-sealing tires, is sufficient. However, if permanent damage is necessary, then improved caltrops are required.” Let’s start with the first line: ¿Does it occur to you what will happen if you impale THAT on your foot? Here’s a hint: ¿What do you thing will happen if you sharpen a metal pipe and impale it in yourself? Let’s address the second sentence: “Permanent damage” to a human being is within the definition of “serious injury” (indeed, is specifically in the definition in most jurisdictions). ¿Remember that thing I said about “Out of context quotes”? This was the FIRST one. A. J. REDDSON

Yes, stepping on a coltrop would probably be a pretty bad thing - - but (and this is a very important distinction) we have to look at the intended application of the NL tool: was it to have people step on it, or have a car run over it? Answer: the intent was to stop cars, not people. As such, the issue you point out is a risk, but it is basically a risk of unintended effects (ie, side effects) and not necessarily a primary risk from its intended method of use/employment. So the question basically comes back around to a key point: is the Wiki Page's discussion on coltrops talking about NL vehicle stopping only, or is it also referring to using coltrops as a NL counter-personnel too? Next, note that even if we are able to find organizations (police/military/etc) that are indeed using coltrops for counter-personnel, then there's one final hurdle: is their employment considered a NL engagement ... ie, being covered under non-lethal engagement policies ... or is it a "Not NL" engagement, where lethal engagement policies are being applied? We have to remember that Non-Lethals aren't the only legal tools out there: a lethal firearm is still a legal weapon of war, of civil law enforcement, and of personal protection (in most regions). -hh (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for your observations. Please suggest a workable change to make to the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I point out that the sources YOU have been hiding behind do not say what you claim they say, now you want to hide behind “not a forum” and “demand” that I present a “workable solution.” I did. A long time ago; Indeed, this whole thing started with a mere request to remove that section and one other (on batons). Stop dodging (I’ll wager there is a poicy on THAT, too, and “I Don’t Like It” would only be the FIRST one listed).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. -hh (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reddson still seems to be confused concerning the matter that went to mediation. Lest there be any doubts about the matter, the mediator has commented here that the AI source is/was fine.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, he did not: “However, for how it was intended, it clearly doesn't belong because all it is really doing is introducting the concept of item misuse, which is indisputably not unique to this topic only.” Copied and pasted from the Mediation report on this specific issue (with spelling mistakes included). Additioanlly, EVEN MORE bad-faith edits have been made while my back was turned. ASAP I will be putting the page BACK the way it was after the arbitration was complete (at which point, the neutrality of the article was intact).

This is clearly a bad-faith attempt to dodge the ruling, which stated that AI was “inappropriate.” AI has a financial stake in the matter; ¿Would you ask BP to report on DWH? Equally, ¿would you allow a DA to serve as Judge in a matter? Clearly, when a conflict of interest (especially a financial conflict of interest) exists, you can NOT expect a “fair and balanced” assessment.
The matter here: I acknowledge abuses HAVE occurred: I haven’t said ANYTHING about the Oakland incident, even though there is more to the story than just the “rogue cops beating innocent protestors” propaganda that has been perpetuated (there WERE issues, and I haven’t gotten all the facts because it appears BOTH sides are lying to some degree, so neither can be believed at all). I myself even alluded to an incident (though I can’t recall when or where the exact incident occurred, so I really can’t reference it).
The use of AI’s reporting, however, is unacceptable- Many other reliable (that means unbiased) sources exist, ones that do not have an agenda (financial or otherwise) to repeat flat out falsehoods, which AI has been caught doing. Going back to the analogy- If you asked BP, DWH was an “accident” (there was even talk of them trying to pawn it off as a terrorist attack at one point, but this was laughed off). That would have them off the hook for the clean up, which would have been in their financial interests. AI makes their money by filing lawsuits on behalf of people who’ve had confrontations with police and other government agencies, to the point that even frivolous and harassment suits have been filed (as defiend by having been thrown out specifically for those grounds, most especially I remember one such case in the wake of the King Riots)- Therefore it is in their financial interest to cast as wide a net against the actions of any government agent as possible.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)