Talk:Non-lethal weapon

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)

I just went back and read the mediation report again. What I get from it is that citing AI is reasonably permissible for documenting their opinions on the subtopic of Allegations, but what would probably more effective (and less controversial) would be to cite the more original UN report (TransporterMan provided the link). However, this does hearken back to a far-older discussion we've had with this page, which is to what degree do we want to allocate time/space to the far more generalizable question of misuse? I'll see if I can find some time to dust off my old attempt to write a reasonably NPOV paragraph on this subtopic area, for editorial consideration. -hh (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

vehicles

I don't think caltrops are effective against vehicles since they remain embedded in the tire nearly closing the hole created. and I have seem demonstrations where they were not effective at all--Commander v99 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, but this borders on a question of what constitutes an acceptable level of effectiveness. We do know that the technology is marketed as & employed by some organizations as a NL vehicle-stopping technology, and it seems to work a TBD reasonable percentage of the time, so we can't really conclude that it is a snake oil fraud. -hh (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On a related note:

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). A. J. REDDSON