Talk:Tear gas

Tear gas

Tear gas links back to this article, which doesn't help much if people click on the links in, um, this article! 86.149.2.192 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

this article sucks 24.113.113.216 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of military designations

It seems there are uncited claims on Wikipedia about the origin of the military designations CS, HS, SK, etc. I've found this source which attributes SK to "South Kensington" and HS to "Hun Stuff" - does anyone have more sources that clarify these designations? ----IsaacAA (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to tear gas

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the common name of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Lachrymatory agent → Tear gas — It seems that tear gas is the more common term. Kaldari (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Or "teargas" as one word.

  As Lachrymator redirects here, should there be a hatlink to lachrymators encountered as an industrial hazard, rather than in riot control? (E.g., around 1960 my mother once complained "teargas" about chlorine gas coming out of the water of an over-chlorinated swimming pool.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the intro reads "commonly referred to as tear gas", then, assuming no ambiguity or other issues, that should tell us where to go. Support per WP:UCN. — AjaxSmack 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment isn't it also Lachrymating agent ? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I support moving the article to Tear gas (not teargas) because it is overwhelmingly what most people call it. The words lachrymatory or lachrymating agent may be retained in the article to introduce the term to people unfamiliar with it. --O'Dea (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antacid is NOT a Defense Against Tear Gas

Despite several media references to instructions for using liquid antacids to counter the effects of tear gas, this information is false. Tear gas is not an acid. Spraying liquid antacid solution on someone may increase external pain because the dust adheres more readily to wet skin and the liquid can carry the dust through clothing onto the person's skin underneath. These "defense" instructions are harmful. And by giving people a false sense of security their lives may be endangered by continued and aggravated exposure. Rick MILLER (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

chlorobenzylidene malononitrile

Why is it missing from this article? 173.174.212.164 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin?

"Lachrymator" coming from Latin? Unlikely. If a scientific-looking name contains 'ch' and 'y', the chance that it is Greek is overwhelming. I'll dig a little... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all sources claim "Latin". Odd! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Effects

I think for such a dramatic claim that it causes blindness one needs a citation for that..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Malversion of Reigners

The last acapit mentions tear gas is forbidden in military use, but not for police to counter riots. Thats truly show malversation of reigners since they force humanitary treat on soldiers (soldiers are fighting another soldiers), but they don't mind unhumanitary treat on civils (where from humanitary point of view it's more important to keep civils safe).

I believe the sentence but I prefer to have more sources. Anyway any amount of information showing the spoil of reigns especially ones so called democracy isn't too much. Don't say us the scary stories people repeat but are not allowed to or laughed at are just Conspiracy Theories as a result of incidence and mistake. Maciek.czerniawski (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DIY "treatments"

Please note that any "Treatment" information for this page must be based on reliable medical sources—something which is currently lacking in the articles for DIY remedies such as Maalox, lemon juice etc. Since carrying these substances on one's person may be considered a counter-measure, in a broad sense of the term, I feel it is preferable to retain the content on the subject in the "Counter-measures" section, rather than having to remove it from the page altogether. For this reason, I propose to undo this revert. Regards, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that putting the text in a different section makes any difference there - people are just as likely to try and rely on that info in that other section. The text should make clear the reliability of the sources, and then people have to make up their own minds. Or else we should remove it altogether. Podiaebba (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from, but the issue does exist. I was trying to find an editorial way to preserve the information, but not in a strictly medical context. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)