Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:45, 21 May 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

moved comment: To do: distinguish less lethal force, introduce continuum of force. Badanedwa 00:26, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sticky foam

An anon, 68.111.252.134, requested that "sticky foam" be added to the see-also list. Unfortunately he did it by editing the page, so it was reverted. It seems to me like a reasonable enough request, so I've added it to the "see also" list. Googling suggests that "sticky foam" is indeed one name for this agent, but it's a red link. Does anyone know whether we already have an article that discusses this? Is there some other, more formal name for it? Has it actually been deployed by police or the military, or is it still in the research stage? ] 22:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uhm I added it to the see-also list that was DELETED by anon 68.111.252.134 when i did the revert. That is the valid term for it as far as i have been able to find. There was no entry for it so i did not wikify it. Alkivar 01:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Actually you added it to "Technique examples, physical," unlinked, and I added it to "See also," linked. Oh, well. ] 01:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutraility and NPOV

I feel this article is does not represent a neutral point of view and is significantly negative against less lethal weapons. There is a lack of presenting a counter argument of positive argument to any negative one, and it is not that such counter arguments don’t exist:

In political situations like Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 conventional lethal weapons were used killing between 400-7000 civilians, if less lethal weapons had been used instead of the lethal ones far fewer would have died. It is hard to believe that less lethal weapons would make better control of the masses then lethal weapons, again china received international backlash having no effect on it despite the killings and still persistent lack of human rights standards, in fact china has grown greatly in the international economy since then. So killing unruly citizens or just suppressing them by say less-lethal means has shown to make little difference to the outside world where a effective counter response could be made. Basically there should be mention that though less lethal weapons do kill they don’t kill nearly as much as conventional weapons.

-I think the very phrase "less lethal weapon" implies that they aren't as dangerous as conventional weapons.

Since you put up the NPOV notice there have been just about the same number of edits to the page as their have been to the NPOV discussion(less than 5)... no one seems to be able to find any POV to make NPOV. I would say that an NPOV notice does more harm than good, in giving readers the false assumption that someone is out to ban less than lethal weapons or give them a bad name. Any POV is trivial and probably unintentional; I am going to remove the notice since no one seems to be able to find any POV to fix. --2tothe4 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

things that don't belong:

I just did an edit, and removed some things I didn't think belonged (in case you only want to revert part of it) I removed the NPOV (see above) reworded parts of the first two paragraphs Removed the paragraph on the european parliament report. The reason is I don't think that possible infringement of civil liberties by such things as biometric readers belongs on a page about non-lethal weapons, since they are not weapons at all. Clarified about pepper spray deaths. That's it for now, maybe more later --2tothe4 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to delete the news section entirely. I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on wikipedia in the next couple of weeks, so if you see this and you agree, and there are no objections, and it's been a couple of weeks, go crazy. Well, not really. Don't go crazy. But do remove that section. --2tothe4 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

entry focuses on the wrong aspect

Parts of this article are focusing on the wrong aspect of less lethal weapons and cast law enforcement in a bad light. The entire concept of les lethal weapons is to minimize civilian casualties. Although rioters are occasionally killed accidentally killed by these weapons, the body count is much lower than if the police opened up on the mob with machine guns and grenades, like the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square. Fatalities are rare and usually accidental, inflicted by a misplaced or ricocheting shot, or an untrained individual using the device. It is better for the police to deal with a few serious bruises than a few hundred dead bodies.

That's your point of view, though. There are serious concerns about 'less lethal weapons' being used inappropriately-for 'pain compliance' (or torture as it used to be known) and in situations where conventional weapons wouldn't have been used at all. This article should certainly reflect these concerns-which are based on how the weapons are actually used, rather than supposition on lives that may or may not have been saved.Felix-felix 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed

I removed the NPOV tag and added the note above.

Sticky foam, again

Somebody removed the See also: to sticky foam; since it is a prime example of the category, I've restored the link and added this note here in case somebody wants to discuss it. --Orange Mike 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sticky foam should not be in the see also section as it is already in the text (and right above the section anyway.) Rmhermen 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Article focus

The article is currently focused on non-lethal weaponry but makes no mention of non-lethal non-weapon martial arts, incapacitation and arrest techniques. Rmhermen 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point-"Non lethal weapons" would be a much better name for this article, rather than the pretty ambiguous non lethal force, which could concievably cover a large and diverse range of things (like sarcasm, for example..). How about renaming it?Felix-felix 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should be ccalled "NON-LETHAL WEAPONS"instead of "les lethal weapons" because i havent heard it being called like that. Smith Jones 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Non-lethal" presumes that these weapons will not cause deaths, which is not the case, and thus fails NPOV. They are less lethal, but deaths do sometimes occur when they are used. If there isn't a re-direct from the other page, I'll make one.--Orange Mike 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 'less lethal' is the more accurate and technically accurate term. A redirect would be cool though.Felix-felix 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are already a couple of redirs for this very reason. --Orange Mike 15:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ta!FelixFelixtalk 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

According to conventions of article naming and English grammar, this article should be entitled "Less-lethal weapon". --Smack (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

..without wanting to sound stupid, ..er, why?FelixFelix 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was PAGE MOVED to Less-lethal weapons per discussion below. There does not appear to be consensus to move this page from the plural to the singular form of the title, but adding thy hyphen to the compound adjective "less-lethal" seems uncontroversial enough. -GTBacchus 01:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Less lethal weapons → Less-lethal weapon – WP:NAME and English grammar —Smack (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support - the singular form is correct according to naming conventions. --Yath 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose only because it's about different types of less lethal weapons, rather than one, so the singular seems less grammatical/appropriate.FelixFelix 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that the argument (Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural) applied to Hermite polynomials applies here too.FelixFelix 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons cited by happy Felix --Orange Mike 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Why not Low lethality weapons or Less then lethal weapons? Those seem to be common terms that read better and seem to be a better introduction to the topic. Retaining the phrase 'less lethal' is totally ambiguous. What is it less lethal then? An 2,000 lb bomb? A firecracker? Vegaswikian 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'Less Lethal' is a term used to replace 'non-lethal'; mainly to underline the fact that these weapons can, and do, kill on a regular basis. As such, they are 'less lethal' than weapons intended to be lethal.FelixFelix 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably also worth saying that as this is a term which is used on a widespread basis , this page should have a title that the interested reader would search for. "Low lethality weapons" gets 59 google hits, "Less than lethal weapons" gets 26,200 and "Less lethal weapons" gets 72,100.FelixFelix 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, there's a category, Category:Less-lethal weapons with the same name too.FelixFelix 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The category name usually follows the article name. So, depending on the outcome here that may need changing. Vegaswikian 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on singular or plural, but I agree that "less-lethal" should be hyphenated. GassyGuy 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

This page is not very well done. It mainly provides information on the problems and use of LTL weaponry, but provides almost not actual information about the weapons, development, and history of LTL technology.

Well, feel free to contribute!FelixFelix 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was very disappointed with this article. I would like to have seen more on the sorts of weapons that exist and how they work with less on their political implications. Perhaps have more objective sections describing the weapons, and then a seperate section that discusses both sides of the debate on whether or not they are really "better" than lethal weapons ? It seems evident from the discussion page that both positions are defensible and should be honored as such.

I'd be interested to see your edits....FelixFelix

Suggestion to add/merge/etc Electromagnetic Weapon into Less-lethal weapon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• EW = Electromagnetic Weapon, NLW = Less-lethal weapon. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure who/what/where made the suggestion to merge EW into NLW, but this section has been added to discuss the matter.

  In broad terms, the general question is if EW sufficiently fits within the scope of the definition of NLW to consider EW to be a subset of NLW.

  In my view, I believe that the answer is No, for a combination of two basic reasons. The first is that EW can broadly fit under the existing catagory of Electronic Warfare. The second is that a frequent attribute of an EW is that it is intended to "kill" another piece of electronics, but because of its form, it doesn't adversely affect humans: that type of weapon is better described as 'precision kill, low collateral damage'. The crux of this is that in order to be considered to be a Non-Lethal, having low collateral damage isn't an adequate definition: the effect on the intended target must be NL as well. Otherwise, we have the slippery slope that any demonstration of lethal force is "non-lethal" to a third party observer -- the (likely politically incorrect) analogy is that a very lethal nuclear bomb dropped on North Korea has a "Non-Lethal" influence on Iran.

  Comments?

  -hh -hh (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009

• Do not merge. Less-lethal weapon is a semi-disambig-type article with a stub-and-link for each type of supposedly non-lethal weapon. Electromagnetic Weapon describes one type of such weapon in detail. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Do not merge. Exposure to electromagnetic energy is lethal, as exemplified by the effect of excessive short term exposure to x-ray. A weapon built to subvert lethality may be less-lethal, however electromagnetic energy remains lethal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.253.177 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Do not merge. There exists both lethal and non-lethal electromagnetic weapons. Joshua Etu 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaetu (talk • contribs)
• Do not merge the ABL laser is an EM weapon, which is surely deadly if you stepped in front of it. The naval railgun is an EM weapon, and is designed to sink ships, surely lethal, if you stepped in front of it. The artillery gauss gun is an EM weapon, and is designed to kill tanks and bunkers, and is surely lethal if you stepped in front of it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

active_denial directed_energy sticky_foam sponge_grenade

I got to this page via the following search:

< http://google.com/search?q=%22active+denial%22+%22directed+energy%22+%22sticky+foam%22+%22sponge+grenade%22 >.

• active_denial
• directed_energy
• sticky_foam
• sponge_grenade

This article does list some eye effects, which is good:

• less-lethal_weapon
• less-lethal_weapons

However, the article needs extensive editing, for various reasons.

Further, these articles should discuss the potential effects on persons who are too scared to move, or are otherwise immobile, due to previous physical-disability, emotional-disability, cognitive-disability. All articles should consider disability-access.

Thank You,

] 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Official"/DoD term, classification

Does anyone know what the official term is ("less-lethal", "non-lethal", "non-deadly"), and how a weapon receives the classification? As far as I can tell, DoD means United States Department of Defense. Flatscan (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

For the USA's DoD, the nomenclature was changed in ~1996 from "Less-Than-Lethal" (LTL) to "Non-Lethal" (NL). There's a policy discussion and definition of NL in the DoD Directive 3000.3 (9 July 1996) which may also help shed light on this. Most briefly, it says:

"...weapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment."

Note that it says 'minimize' and not 'eliminate'.

The explanation for why DoD changed from LTL to NL is not in DoDD 3000.3 My personal recollection is that the gist of the explanation provided at the time was that they believed that the phrase "Non-" was better for public understanding that the philosophical intent was to strive to make the NLWs as good as possible, with the ultimate (if not achievable) goal of zero deaths. IMO, this appears to have parallels to the Quality Assurance "Accept on Zero" (AOZ) sampling philosophy that also comes from that general time period. Sorry...I have no cites for either.

For USA Law Enforcement, they have generally not adopted the NL nomenclature, but stayed with the "LTL" nomenclature. Personally, I suspect that it could not have been not related to Media reports that frequently used the phrase "So Called Non-Lethal Weapons" when reporting a civilian fatality that occurred during the use of a LTL/NL weapon. Again, no cites.

For other Nations, some use LTL. Some appear to try to draw a distinction between LTL and NL, while others tend to use the two terms fairly interchangably.

-hh (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and especially for the document link. My recollection (which could be wrong) is that media coverage in the USA progressed from "non-lethal" (late 1990s, re: pepper spray) to "less-lethal" more recently. The phrase "so called" rings a bell. I'll try looking through the New York Times online archives. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the NYTimes.com Search to search for non-lethal weapon versus less-lethal weapon. non seemed to have slightly more relevant results, but I didn't see any distinguishing date ranges. Flatscan (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: . Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a weapon ?

Not sure whether the Crowd control munition and gas mines can be mentioned. These too are less lethal, but could be considered traps rather than weapons, not sure wether a "weapon" means its portable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.45.147 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonlethal vs less lethal, et al

This Less Lethal article is factually poor, based too much on sensationalized press. DoD terminology is 'nonlethal'; police terminology is 'less lethal' or 'less than lethal': Different names for different agencies with different goals, regulatory practices, and different funding channels.

Suggest not combining less lethal and nonlethal together in one article, or equating them as closely: they are the results of two different programs with different rules and requirements and only some small arms in common. DoD institutionalized NLW development through the creation of the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate, with the Marine Corps Commandant as Executive Agent; Congressional mandate required DoD to take this action, which appeared as Senate Authorizations Bill (for 1995, and/or 1996 I recall),and thus is public law; this information is on the public record. Congressional language mandating the creation of the DoD NLW program, was put into the Senate Bill and thus became law as written, and the draft of the DoD Directive, which was subsequently edited by ASD SO/LIC, to whom the Commandant still reports, at this writing.

This Misplaced Pages article is disappointing; the article is full of inaccuracies that I haven't time to correct and many of the sources and references quoted are agenda-laden press articles, not professional defense policy or military sources. If someone doesn't separate the articles, suggest you make a clear differentiation between non and less than lethal/less lethal. Interested persons can contact Institute of Justice in DoJ for less than lethal info, JNLWD for nonlethal info. DoD charter for NLs was written as it stands because anything with mass can kill you if we drop it on your head from a height; it is the nonlethal intent that is emphasized, more than the per cent of nonkill attained: lethal weapons are required to be only 30% lethal; nonlethal weapons are not held to a different standard. A huge and expensive, multi-year wrangle occurred in the Department of Defense over what would constitute a nonlethal weapon and whether NLWs should be held to a different standard; legal consensus was eventually attained. DoD has different criteria than DoJ.

Nonlethal weapons were first fielded militarily by the US by Gen. Tony Zinni and 1-MEF (USMC) in Somalia and are now in use with the U.S. military and other militaries around the world. US Army and Marines now deploy with nonlethal kits in low-intensity conflict and peacekeeping venues and have NLWs in their arsenals. The first lethal weapon was the rock; the second was the wooden stick or club; the first nonlethal weapons were fire and water; next came the cavalry horse.

Places where information is lacking or outdated: Active denial system has passed its legal and safety checks; your info on this should be updated. The difficulty with fielding aerosols, and to some extent nonblinding lasers, is based on old and sweeping treaty language that was well-meaning but unhelpful, too restrictive to allow selective use of casualty-limiting force: you can kill someone on the battlefield but you can't chase them away with tear gas, as U.S. law enforcement (or National Guard if required) is legally free to do domestically; it would be responsible to put charges of illegality in context. Experts agree those treaties should be relooked and modified; doing so will be a very slow process.

Perhaps someone with the time can separate this into two articles: less lethals or less than lethals used by police, and nonlethals for military use. The rules of engagement for domestic and international application in some cases vary widely. Also someone needs to remove the speculative discussions on electromagnetic capabilities and elsewhere and stick to the facts.

Export of electricity in the context of this article means that the vehicle can produce more power than it needs to function and that excess power can be used for other purposes.

Good luck,

Harmonia1 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Listing discussion on Wikiproject:Military history so it won't go unnoticed. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Dividing an article apparently based on U.S. military terminology will not make the article more correct but will make the U.S. POV even worse than it already is. It would also require much duplication as many of the same weapons used the military somewhere in the world as non-lethal will be used by "civilian" police forces somewhere in the world. Rmhermen (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following is a closed 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 moved. harmonia1's explanation is particularly convincing.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Less-lethal weapon → Non-lethal weapon — In terms of reliable sources Non-lethal gets twice as many hits:Non-lethal: 1,880, Less-lethal: 989. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - this article was originally at non-lethal force which was merged with non-lethal weapon before being moved to less lethal weapon. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As the article explains, they are not always non-lethal: they can kill. Why should Misplaced Pages go along with the blatant lie that is the public relations bullshit? Skinsmoke (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Skinsmoke, as is clear above, I agree with Marcus: rename this article Non-Lethal or Nonlethal Weapons. Weapons should be type-categorized by their intent, not their effect. "Lethal" weapons average 30% lethality. Should we change the name of lethal weapons to less-than-lethal based on their (generally poor) level of effectiveness? Anything with mass can kill you if someone bludgeons you or strangles you or runs over you with it. There are enough sticks and stones on the planet to kill everyone three times over; you were born with teeth and feet and hands and fingers, all potentially lethal weapons -- not to mention the human brain. Lethality in nomenclature should be determined by intent, not result. People walked away from Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the U.S. dropped the A-bomb; does that mean that nuclear weapons are "less lethal?" The question then is, less lethal than what?Harmonia1 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can kill you with my brain!!. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Non-lethal weapon is the more commonly used name, and the weapons should be named for their intent, not their risks. There is no 100% safe weapon guaranteed not to kill anyone.--WikiDonn (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "less lethal weapon" is a better descriptor, and also a broader topic, which there are less lethal weapons that are sometimes confused with "non-lethal" branded ones. (I do not mean that some non-lethal weapons can kill, I mean that some weapons are designed to not kill so easily, and are branded "less lethal") 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have worked extensively in this area and the term "non-lethal" is more appropriate and inclusive.Critias6 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I support the change to Non-lethal Weapons.Elkoholic (talk) 19:48, 27 April 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.

MAA, categories may need to change or be augmented

Marcus, now that this article has moved to Non-lethal, shouldn't the categories reflect the military applications, such as military police, crowd control, peace keeping, peace enforcement, etc. as well as the law enforcement categories? Harmonia1 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Need merge review or combined name

How does one do a merge review? Kind of like a deletion review? Where does one do a merge review?

Non-lethal weapons and less-lethal weapons are 2 different things. Classifying rubber bullets as non-lethal is incorrect.

See for example: "Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons". Title alone should show notability of "less-lethal weapons."

The line between the 2 types of weapons depends on the latest evidence and conclusions. And who is involved. I was bold and changed the article name to Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article once can qualify as WP:BOLD. But, moving it again after the move is reverted is verging on a move war. Since this title is from a recent move discussion, I've move protected the page until a consensus for moving it or merging it emerges. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons. There are currently 4 people opposing getting rid of "less-lethal" from the category name. So there is no consensus. I believe using both names in the title of the article and the category makes more sense. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-lethal Page

I support 2 separate pages leaving the current page title non-lethal only. Critias6 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move. Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons

It has been proposed in this section that Non-lethal weapon be renamed and moved to Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Non-lethal weapon → Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons — Classifying rubber bullets as non-lethal is incorrect. The line between non-lethal and lethal use varies. It is NPOV to use the longer, more accurate, descriptive article title. See also: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose changing title of this article to "non-lethal and less-lethal weapons." That language makes it sound as if they are two different items and that there is a metric for defining which is which when no such metric exists. Perhaps what you mean is 'non-lethal OR less-lethal.' Not the same thing at all. And with a multiple-name precedent, what's to prevent proponents of every other odd name for this class of item insisting that their pet term be part of the title?

The issue of whether a rubber bullet is a non-lethal is no different from the issue of whether a rubber bullet is a less-lethal. Anything with mass is lethal if we drop it on your head from a sufficient height. To my knowledge, there is no metric to differentiate non-lethal from less-lethal, We discussed here that no separate standard of non-lethality exists -- although organizations have tried to propose such, let alone a metric which will reliably determine non-lethal from less-lethal since it isn't a performance characteristic that can easily be measured. If you can find such an accepted and utilized metric, everyone would be pleased to read it, learn from it, and apply it -- assuming it is in use at the DOJ or DOD level. Otherwise, this is a political argument about terminology that seems fruitless and obfuscatory. If you want a separate less-lethal page, that is up to you and the Wikipedian powers that be.

On rubber bullets: Attended a conference with Andrew Hughes, APM, Police Adviser, Director, Police Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations at the UN a few months ago and he wants bigger rubber bullets that won't penetrate the eye-socket, to further reduce the chance of death should a rubber bullet penetrate through the eye socket to the brain. Perhaps the UN has some clarifying policy material on rubber bullets and their lethality, or on non-lethal vs. less-lethal. Rubber bullets need not be included here, but some kinetics must be here. This article needs much more basic help in data and topic organization and in getting out the fluffy, sensational, insupportable bits so that it is a serious article about capability and hardware, not about politics. Harmonia1 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The above oppose argument was made by a user now indef blocked for disruptive use of socks. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. Most people at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons disagree with you, Harmonia1, concerning changing the name from less-lethal to non-lethal. You wrote: "Rubber bullets need not be included here." Following your logic this article should have been kept named as "Less-lethal weapons", and a separate article created for "Non-lethal weapons".

An admin (inexperienced in my opinion) changed the name of this article a few weeks ago from "Less-lethal weapons" to "Non-lethal weapons". According to your logic, some non-lethal weapons can become lethal in some circumstances. A beanbag round can kill someone if it hits their spleen, and it ruptures, and they don't get medical help fast enough. I know of one instance where a woman's spleen was ruptured, and she almost did not get medical treatment in time. There are many examples of "non-lethal weapons" killing people during normal use of those weapons.

Deaths (and risk of) in normal use:

Rubber bullets. "They may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death."

Bean-bag rounds. "A flexible baton round can severely injure or kill in a wide variety of ways."

Taser. Many deaths. Also, skull fractures (and deaths) from falling without muscle control.

Teargas. Deaths from teargassing prisoners in restraint chairs. Also, prisoners lying on their stomachs with hands and legs shackled all together behind them ("hogtied"). Leading to suffocation combined with cardiac problems, etc..

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per harmonia and Titles containing "and".Marcus Aurelius (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per harmonia and Titles containing "and".Ellieherring (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per harmonia and Marcus Tailertoo (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per harmonia and Critias6 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts "big-endian" and "little-endian". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, construct an article title using "and", as in Acronym and initialism; Pioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9; Promotion and relegation; and Balkline and straight rail. (The individual terms – such as Acronym – should redirect to the combined page, or be linked there via a disambiguation page or hatnote if they have other meanings.)

If there is no obvious ordering, place the more commonly encountered concept first, or if that is not applicable, use alphabetical order. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Initialism and acronym) should be redirects.

Avoid use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism".

Note: Above info is from Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Titles containing "and". --Timeshifter (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose While I think that the intent here is good, the problem that we have is that the two terms (NL & LTL) are sometimes, but not universally, considered to be interchangable, whereas other sources claim that there's a clear distinction. To try to resolve, I would suggest that we first try to nail down NPOV definitions for both LTL and NL which is very clear in terms of how they're the same and also how they're different. These definitions are a logical prerequisite to what needs to be decided here, which is merely how to organize the Wiki. If we don't do this, it would appear that we fail NPOV because we're effectively picking sides. To help this discussion along, I'll point to Timeshifter's initial comment at the top of this section which says The line between non-lethal and lethal use varies. While this is true, its not the issue: the question is the line between non-lethal and less-than-lethal. Non-Lethal has has been defined by its proponents: see USA's DoD Directive 3000.3 (9 July 1996), plus NATO (documented in: PFP(NAAG-TG/3)WP(2009)0001 ). In comparison, exactly what authority has published an equivalent definition for Less-than-lethal? -hh (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. 2 possible sockpuppets.

Special:Contributions/Tailertoo

Special:Contributions/Ellieherring --Timeshifter (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tailertoo actually picked up a physical telephone (not a sockpuppet phone) and called me about this matter. I am a real person, I used my actual real name, not many of you will even do that. I am not a sockpuppet and neither is Tailertoo, I personally know him and he's not so bad himself. These accusations are false. Is this the treatment one receives from merely being within an opposition?Ellieherring (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tailertoo and Ellieherring have been determined to be sockpuppets of Harmonia1. See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am Tailertoo and I am not a sockpuppet

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

I have been called many things, but never before have I been called a sockpuppet. Just because I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't exist. Deception is no part of my agenda. I find this accusation untoward. And I actually have met Ellie Herring. She's really cute. Did I do something wrong when I signed up as a contributer? I've been judicious and slow about editing sites, trying to learn the rules. I just looked up sockpuppet. Then I looked down at my body. Yep, I really have one. I'll call Ellie on Monday at work and tell her you don't want her to be a real person because she disagrees with you. Tsk.Tailertoo (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first article-related edit was May 12 here on this talk page concerning this name change. See diff. Ellie's first edit on Misplaced Pages was May 12 here on this talk page concerning this name change. See diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I have not been recruited by Harmonia in regard to separating non-lethal from less than lethal. It is my experience that the military uses "non-lethal weapons (NLW) " and police forces "less than lethal weapons." I find this a useful distinction because the military and police employ non-lethal technologies in very different tactics, techniques and procedures. During the the redeployment of Marine forces from Somalia in 1985, the threat of employment of NLW was sufficient to cause the rebel clan factions to not attack the withdrawing Marine forces in spite of significant anti- American sentiment. In fact, if memory serves me, Marine snipers took out 11 rebels who threatened the withdrawl with no large rebel forces involved. Also, there is a significant distinction between the kind of non-lethal technologies the military and police forces want to develop because the military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan require different non-lethal technologies than do police forces. Finally, I find Tailertoo's comments useful as we try and clarify a frequently murky understanding of NLWs. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critias6 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of Harmonia1's recruitment of you, Critias6, to this name change discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Critias6 has been determined to be a sockpuppet of Harmonia1. See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider HH's very discerning comment and let's refocus our efforts

HH said, above: "To help this discussion along, I'll point to Timeshifter's initial comment at the top of this section which says The line between non-lethal and lethal use varies. While this is true, its not the issue: the question is the line between non-lethal and less-than-lethal. Non-Lethal has has been defined by its proponents: see USA's DoD Directive 3000.3 (9 July 1996), plus NATO (documented in: PFP(NAAG-TG/3)WP(2009)0001 ). In comparison, exactly what authority has published an equivalent definition for Less-than-lethal?" -hh (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

HH has cut to heart of the matter. This page should be about clearly-defined weapons and what the weapons do, not the ttps involved, which vary in time and by mission and by the force employing the items: an article about weapons, not their use or abuse. If we could remove from this page the sensationalizing speculations such as how these weapons might be used to torture or in terrorism (which concerns apply to any weapon, or almost any item with mass, including water, we have seen) or as magic wands, then it should be easier to order this site rationally and usefully. One thinks that the page should be about the items themselves, which are clearly defined as 'weapons,' not assorted cultural impacts, concerns, or issues that should be outside the scope of a page about non-lethal weapons (including all the other names for them listed once in the lead section). Then a sensible outline could be made to improve the article.Harmonia1 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Tailertoo blocked as sockpuppet of Harmonia1 (also blocked)

See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. Tailertoo has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Harmonia1 (who has been blocked for one week so far). --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Critias6, Elkoholic, and Ellieherring determined to be sockpuppets of Harmonia1

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Crowd control munition

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Unassessed Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Unassessed military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Unassessed weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• Unassessed Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• Requested moves