Talk:Non-lethal weapon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Moved comment

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? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 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. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 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)

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 talk 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(talk) 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 talk 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that the argument (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural) applied to Hermite polynomials applies here too.FelixFelix talk 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 talk 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably also worth saying that as this is a term which is used on a widespread basis [http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijrdm/vol5n1/lethal.xml][1][2], this page should have a title that the interested reader would search for. "Low lethality weapons" gets 59[3] google hits, "Less than lethal weapons" gets 26,200[4] and "Less lethal weapons" gets 72,100[5].FelixFelix talk 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, there's a category, Category:Less-lethal weapons with the same name too.FelixFelix talk 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 talk 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 talk

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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 >.

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

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,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ 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) [6] 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: [7]. 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. [1] —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 Wikipedia 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 (April 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 (May 2010) Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: This debate has been tainted by sockpuppetry, but even discounting the socks, there is still no consensus here to move the page as proposed. Therefore, not moved, though another discussion may be started at any time. Courcelles (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Marcus Tailertoo (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per harmonia and [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Titles containing "and"|Titles containing "and"] Critias6 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Critias6. Harmonia recruited you while saying he would not engage in discussion. Possibly implying you should not discuss things also. On the other hand you wrote this: "I support 2 separate pages leaving the current page title non-lethal only." So you are saying we should create a page for less-lethal weapons in addition to one for non-lethal weapons? I could live with that. What standards would be used to separate the weapons though? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:14, 15 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 Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Revert tainted move from Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons

The discussion in April (see #Requested move (2010) higher up on this talk page) was tainted by 2 sockpuppets (Critias6 and Elkoholic) and the sockmaster (Harmonia1).

That means the actual vote from non-banned people was 2 supporting the move to Non-lethal weapons, and 2 against the move. Adding my vote makes 3 against the move.

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons the vote is 4 to 2 against the move to Category:Non-lethal weapons.

Since there is no consensus for moving the article or the category to Non-lethal weapons, it seems better to go back to Less-lethal weapons here. Even Harmonia1 acknowledged there are both types of weapons. See #Nonlethal vs less lethal, et al higher up on this talk page. "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." --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the previous move discussion and moved the article to non-lethal weapon, I support this move back to less-lethal weapon. Both move discussions were heavily tainted by socks and should be considered procedurally invalid. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's do it. The category discussion was closed today, and it remains Category:Less-lethal weapons. If there needs to be a new article name another move discussion (without socks) can be started. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the status of this move proposal? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that it has been on the back burner. I've just re-read the Talk page here and have been complentating what the suitable path forward would be. Given that we've not had any citations for what the definition is of Less Lethal (or Less-than-Lethal, etc), I'm increasingly of the opinion that we should organize our structure with a landing page with a broad name - ie, { NL + LL + LTL } - and use this page to introduce/discuss the respective definitions (and how we're looking for authoritative sources of a definition for LL), and from there, then get into the topic itself. Until we are able to identify a clearly differentiating definition with which to defend split a NL Weapon from a LL Weapon, we should probably lump them all under that which does have a formal definition, which is still only NL. Wish I had a better suggestion...but at least this is an approach that appears to have a reasonable rationale to support it. And yes, this does effectvely represent a change in my own opinion. -hh (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We can change it to any title we want if we have consensus. I am in agreement with you that we need a broad name. It passes the common-sense test, too. And common sense is part of wikipedia guidelines and policies. WP:NAME#Common names: "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best. Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What non-lethal means

I do NOT want to get into an extended discussion, only to leave this thought. I object to a redirect of 'less-lethal' to this page. In my view it's inadvisable to promote the dilution of a strong definition of non-lethal.
Criteria need to be developed to help editors decide — without fear of getting gamed into a nasty quagmire — (see Active Denial System). Then two, separate, pages should be created. If NO weapon currently qualifies as non-lethal, then this page should be empty. Else strong, clear criteria are needed.
For what it's worth, in my view, "non-lethal" means a very low probability of death, short-term or long-term, in the great majority of cases. But that's not clear enough. (Don't write me on this, I'll check back now and then.) Twang (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of titling the article Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons for now? The current title "Non-lethal weapons" does not make sense. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
First, a published definition of NL can be found in DoD 3000.3 (previously cited), but what is lacking for LL is an equivalently citeable formal definition from a reasonably similar source. As such, there isn't much of a credible basis for Editors to have a strong and differenting criteria to apply. Similarly, there are products today that are being marketed/sold with both the NL and LL labels on them and with identical hardware and employment, the use of two pages would result in identically duplicative listings - the problem remains the same: a lack of a clear & strong criteria with which to differentiate so that it is only the one OR the other. This suggests to me that an LL & NL title form may be appropriate, at least to the level of a disambiguation page so that searches for either term point there and to serve as an information point where the two nomenclature terms can be documtened & discussed. From there, the follow-up pages would simply avoid the nomenclature dilemma (as much as possible) and just get down to business of describing the hardware, their capabilities, etc. -hh (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
hh. I think that disambiguation is what is happening in this article. Spinning out separate articles (1 for NL and 1 for LL weapons) will continue to have problems on how to separate NL weapons from LL weapons. So the disambiguation is happening in the combined article to a point, and then we go on to describe the hardware in the article. I think all the longterm commenters on this talk page would be happy with the current combined article and calling it "NL and LL".
Then there are the separate articles on each weapon. Those should stick to describing what their effects are according to reliable sources. I don't consider the DOD to necessarily be a reliable source. Medical studies of effects are more reliable sources. News reports from reliable sources, too. Wikipedia just reports the info in the form of X says Y and lets the reader decide. We don't make that choice in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. The DOD, military, police, and corporations that make the weapons are not the NPOV narrative voice of Wikipedia. We report their claims alongside medical reports, news reports, etc.. Wikipedia kisses no one's ass. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Didn't mean to sound pushy, just urging caution. I think the current title is almost always misleading, puts pressure on editors to decide, and potentially leads to unproductive debates. Also, the term is abused by some marketing departments. Lethal/non-lethal is too black-and-white.

My thinking is that most 'weapons' always have lethal potential (e.g. tasers). So 'Less lethal' is a less dishonest and more accurate description for weapons that (wonderfully!) have been devised to avoid killing. 'Less lethal' also avoids the black-and-white approach.

I'd suggest that 'Non-lethal' weapons are a sub-class of less-lethal weapons, and so recommend that the article should be titled Less-lethal weapon. With a redirect from non-lethal. Then, on the happy day when there exist weapons which have *proven* to be non-lethal on the basis of experience in the field (e.g. incapacitating foam that will never suffocate or severely burn subjects) they'll still belong on the 'less-lethal' page.Twang (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are suggesting seems to be akin to original research. It is based repeatedly on "I think" not on, for example, the citeable DoD definition mentioned above. Find good reliable sources first to support your position. Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The DoD definition is the original research. Many of the DoD statements are fantasy, and are not based on medical effects, actual deaths, etc.. Statements of assertion by the DoD, the police, etc. are not put in the narrative voice of an article, nor in the title. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem as I see it starts in the title, and we're trying to interpret something that was named-by-others, based upon a common languge interpretation of its word-ly contents. To illustrate by analogy, if the title being discussed here was Ford Nova, it would appear that we would be claiming that this is an incorrect title because an autombile clearly is intended to move, yet because the title says No Va - - which in Spanish means No Go - - then we should change the page's title to a be a more correct Ford Va. (Trivia: the Nova name was rumored to have adversely affected sales of this car in Latin America). Sory, but we don't get to rename Ford's car. As such, I would say that if there are reliable published sources of what each proposed title's name is intended to mean, then that is the name that what we should report, regardless of our opinion of the quality of their definition.
Along these lines, my recommendations would be a title of NN and LL, followed by an introductionary area for disambigution (as best as we can), and then we can get into listings of hardware. I'll suggest that these lists be in a table form which includes NL and LL columns (to put checkmarks into) as a strategy to be even more explicit in illustrating how one product can be considered both a NL and LL simultaneously, because of this currently-unresolvable NL/LL definition ambiguity. -hh (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move (August 2010) - Let's go ahead and rename the article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus (again). I have no doubt that this is the last round of discussion for this proposal. In the future, I suggest that discussants try to focus more on information related to Wikipedia's guidelines for article naming, and less on personalities and factual matters like whether or not these weapons kill people. Orlady (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Non-lethal weapon → Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons — The closing admin higher up said: "another discussion may be started at any time." There seems to be more agreement that for many of these weapons there are deaths. There are many disputes in the literature concerning various weapons. The causes of deaths are disputed in deaths after taser and teargas use for example. Different government agencies describe the same weapon differently as to whether that weapon is non-lethal or less-lethal. Wikipedia does not take sides, and only presents info in the form of X says Y. Wikipedia provides references for the info, but no conclusions in the article or the title. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But what is the most common name for this class of weapons? It seems to me they're usually referred to simply as "non-lethal weapons", even if that moniker may not be 100% accurate. Powers T 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Both names are used. Rubber bullets are not called non-lethal weapons by most people. Tasers and teargas are called both non-lethal and less-lethal. It varies depending on the literature, source, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We went over this before. The reason they are called non-lethal weapons is because they are meant not to kill their targets. It is also the common name. The fact that they sometimes kill is simply statistical information fit for being inside the article, but not the title. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They are both common names. You participated in the April 2010 move discussion. See: #Requested move (April 2010). The closing admin for that discussion has stated that he now believes he shouldn't have changed the name to Non-lethal weapon because the discussion was tainted by sockpuppets. Rather than revert the article back to Less-lethal weapon I suggest we use both names in the title. I note that you have only around 20 article edits total for all of your Wikipedia editing history. I also note that you spent a lot of time on talk pages, and at a naming mediation that you lost. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
How exactly is what kind of pages I edit relevant? How exactly does one "lose" a mediation when a compromise was reached? Do you make a habit of investigating the history of every editor that disagrees with you? What's more important is non-lethal is more common. Having both names makes the title excessively long, and goes against Titles containing "and" because non-lethal and less-lethal weapons are the same thing. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect. See previous discussion concerning titles containing "and." Your logic is flawed there. Title is not excessively long. That also is incorrect. Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons are not "the same thing." See previous discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If the term Non-Lethal is the sole common name as you are appearing to assert, then as Wikipedians, we should be able to provide clear documentary proof of that specific assertion. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any such proof. What I do know is that I can prove that NL is the name used by the USA's DoD - - but I also know that NL is not the name commonly used by the USA's Law Enforcement community: the name that group uses is LL. Similarly, when we look internationally (as we must do, to prevent an Americanocentric bias) - - and again looking at both Law Enforcement and Defense Ministries - - we find both NL and LL used quite frequently. Thus, it appears that your position is that despite us being Wikipedians conducting unbiased reporting, we are for some reason here not obligated to document that both names are in fact, in use. Can you please explain why this would be? -hh (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - both names are in common use by various internationally recognized entities, with at least one of them (Non-Lethal) having a clear and formally published definition that can be documented/cited by Wiki. This change will significantly assist in improving disambigution on this topic area. -hh (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, common name trumps all here. Would support a conditional split.Marcus Qwertyus 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite the non-negligible lethality of some of these weapons, they are designed to inflict injury rather than fatality. That marks their distinguishing characteristic as well as their common name. The less-lethal moniker is ironically not just supported by activists who oppose the weapons but by the weapons manufacturers themselves in an attempt to lower the bar to liability. But neither political motivation trumps the sheer usage of 'non-lethal'. Have 'less-lethal' redirect here if it doesn't already. Ocaasi (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Popular Science magazine just referred to these things as less-than-lethan weapons in the current issue. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

(Sept 10) Recent addition of photos: Wiki verifiability requirement

I've flagged the first of the recently added photos to identify the need to (as a minimum) locate the original news story from which it apparently was derived. Please note that I'm not trying to minimize or deny that NL rubber bullets can deliver bruises that are generally similar to those illustrated, but to represent this as a specific example without being verified fails the Wiki standard. As such, the best we can currently state is that it was Alleged to have been from some unidentified Non-Lethal. If we can't verify this specific example, then we should delete this one and go find another to use which includes relevant verification. -hh (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, even if we are able to continue to use this particular example, there is the additional question of if the injury sustained is considered typical or extraordinary. Personally, I counted 55 impacts: perhaps another researcher can use this info to narrow down the list of possible products this might have been (as per Jane's, the USA's M1013 has only 18 projectiles). If there are no such products, then this photo might very well represent being hit with multiple shots (how {un}common is that?) and from an NPOV, this information should be clearly documented as such as well. -hh (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed

I removed the NPOV tag and added the note above.

Analogy time!

I'm sure you could find reliable sources that state the inaccuracy of the following terms but you will never get them renamed.

Maybe when there is a coherent point to your comment I could reply. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Revised introduction

How about the following, as a new introduction for the page? Original is in plain text; changes are in Bold: -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-lethal weapons, also called less-lethal weapons, less-than-lethal weapons, non-deadly weapons, pain-inducing weapons or, more recently, compliance weapons, are weapons intended to be less likely to kill a living target than are conventional weapons. These various terms do not generally have WP:VERIFY definitions from WP:IRS, which precludes differentation herein; instead, the general literature on the topic appears reasonably consistent in that they all are meant to describe the intended result of applying these technologies, techniques and procedures. Regardless of the name used to describe these technologies, accidental, incidental, and correlative casualties (including death) are possible and are an understood and accepted risk wherever force is applied, regardless of what name is used to describe.

Non-lethal (et al) weapons are used in combat situations to limit the escalation of conflict or where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable or where rules of engagement require minimum casualties or policy restricts the use of conventional force. Non-lethal (et al) weapons may be used by conventional military in a range of missions across the force continuum. Non-lethal (et al) weapons may also be utilized by military police, by United Nations forces, and by occupation forces for peacekeeping and stability operations. Non-lethal (et al) weapons may be used to channelize a battlefield or control the movement of civilian populations or limit civilian access to restricted areas (as they were utilized by the U.S.M.C.'s 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Somalia in 1995).

When used by police forces domestically, similar (and often identical) weapons, tactics, techniques and procedures are often called "less lethal" or "less than lethal" and are employed in riot control, prisoner control, crowd control, refugee control, and self-defense. A generalized observation of this topic area is that while the various terms appear to be used almost interchangably, the Non-Lethal terminology tends to be used by Military and the Less-Lethal terminology tends to be used by Civilian Law Enforcement. However, as far as Wiki Editors have been able to discern, there is no citable documentation that identifies tangible, real differences between the various names used. Presently, the only terminology that has a concise, published definition is Non-Lethal (DoDD 3000.3 citation here), which is also the most popular (Google Scholar citation here), which forms the basis for the Non-Lethal term being selected herein for describing the general category.


Comments? -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of "less lethal" is verifiable in dictionaries. Dictionaries are citable reliable sources. I have cited dictionaries in Wikipedia articles. The meaning of the words "less" and "lethal" are clear in dictionaries. Searching for the individual words is a common way to find the meaning of a phrase since dictionaries oftentimes don't have phrases. Search for "less" and "lethal" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
http://dictionary.reference.com
This is also true for "non-lethal." The meaning of the two individual words is determined by dictionaries, not the military or the police, or any particular organization. The police and military are not the determiners of the meaning of words. So "non-lethal weapon" means non deadly weapon. And "less-lethal weapon" means less deadly weapon. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Intent and lethality

If a regular bullet is aimed at a limb with the intent only to wound it is not called a non-lethal weapon. If a rubber bullet hits someone in the skull then there is the possibility of death. It does not matter if the police, security forces, and government have good or non-lethal intentions.

{Citation Required} -hh (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics article by David Hambling (emphasis added):

"Over the years the IDF has experimented with different types of less-lethal ammunition for standard military rifles. These have included plastic slugs and bullets made of compressed sand that disintegrates on impact without breaking the skin. These do not appear to be in general use, and the standard crowd-control ammunition is a large rubber-coated steel bullet fired from a special launcher. This can penetrate the skull, causing lethal injuries."

Here is an article found linked from the less-lethal.org website:

"In some instances, the less-lethal weapon will never penetrate the skin but death nonetheless results. One such case was exemplified where an individual was killed after being struck in the throat by a beanbag projectile. In another instance, an individual was killed by a beanbag round after being struck in the chest. The non-penetrating round impacted the recipient’s sternum resulting in a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. In two other cases, individuals died after being hit in the chest with a projectile fired from an Arwen. The impact in both cases fractured ribs, resulting in internal hemorrhage and death (Ijames, 1997)."

Beanbag projectile to the spleen can also kill. See news articles about Lester Zachary death in 2005:

Washington Post, NATION IN BRIEF, Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A24:

"COLUMBUS, Ga. -- A man who telephoned a hotline to say he had a gun and was dreaming of killing children died after police shot him with supposedly nonlethal beanbag projectiles, officials said. Lester Zachary, 45, died of internal bleeding caused by a bullet hitting his spleen area, a coroner ruled."

We don't change the meaning of words according to the intent of the police, security forces, military, or government. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming that we can disregard the original source, and instead use the dictionary. If that is what Wiki wants, it should be easy to find that as written guidance within Wiki: the Primary, Secondary & Tertiary lists would be empty of other sources and there would be one line under Primary that says "Use a Dictionary!". Of course, another fly in the ointment is that if we then apply the same exact pedantic application of a Dictionary on "Less Lethal" as was already done on "Non-Lethal", the dictionary identifies the base action as "Lethal", so by dictionary definition, all of these deaths therefore are OK, since they should be occurring. From there, this page stays NL and any LL topics get relocated under conventional (lethal) weapons. While you're at it, you can try to take a stab at why LL weapons are legal, despite the prohibitions on "Maiming Weapons". -hh (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)\
I think you are grasping at straws, and your response is incoherent. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Caltrops section

In line with avoiding terminology that is somewhat obscure and perhaps not of a cultural NPOV, I propose the phrase "Contemporary caltrops look something large jacks from the childhood game" be replaced by a reference more common to a wider group of people such as stars, or at the very least marked up link to the article regarding the object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacks )

Just unfamiliar with mark up syntax, so if this proposal is completed feel free to remove if necessary :)

123.211.77.249 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other weapons

Tranquilliser guns, incapacitating agent delivery systems (such as the Prototype This pneumatic precision launcher, see http://www.grandideastudio.com/portfolio/pt-flying-lifeguard/ ) and sound barriers as Inferno (http://www.inferno.se/products.shtml) arent mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.96 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes what about Tranquilliser gun aka anasthetic dart guns?
a. Why are they not mentioned?
b. Why are they not used by police forces in the west? Are people less important than exotic pets or zoo animals? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation sought on inaccurate name

I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a soapbox to announce the laughable belief (though not laughable to the families of those killed by them) that rubber bullets are non-lethal.

We need to go to the next step in mediation. Most people want to change the name to

Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons.

So, is arbitration the next step?

See:

Such "kinetic impact munitions" are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas. However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.

-From Rubber bullet.

Refs:

  • Bozeman, William P.; Winslow, James E. (2005). "Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons". The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine. 5.
  • Millar, R.; Rutherford, W. H.; Johnston, S.; Malhotra, V. J. (1975). "Injuries caused by rubber bullets: A report on 90 patients". British Journal of Surgery 62 (6): 480–486.

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "laughable" probably has something to do with the reason al ot of peeople aren't supportive of your position; I know they're only less-lethal (as in "not garuenteed to kill"), and was op=utrightly offended by your choise of wording.174.25.49.236 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDDSON
Simply state that "non-lethal" is a misnomer and provide a citation. We do not need to go through arbitration for this. Marcus Qwertyus 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Look at the refs I provided. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Rubber bullets have killed many people and continue to do so. See the examples, studies, reports, etc. listed here:
http://www.google.com/#q=rubber+bullet+deaths --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). Civilian police use less-lethal. Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

See this .gov article (emphasis added): "In October 2002, Russians used a 'non-lethal' gas (identified by them as the opiate fentanyl) to subdue terrorists in a Moscow theater, but in the process they killed 117 of about 800 hostages. An expert doctor, in a hospital facility, can apply an anesthesia with fair reliability. To do it safely at a distance is impossible. What were once called 'nonlethal weapons' were renamed 'less than lethal' weapons, and now the preferred and more accurate terminology is 'less lethal.' There are other concerns about LLWs." --Timeshifter (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the author claimed a rename, but where's his citation? It doesn't do us much good to cite sloppy work. -hh (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Citation is Richard A. Muller. "Less Lethal Weapons." Technology Review Online. May 16, 2004. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Checked it. Unfortunately, Muller doesn't provide any references, so his claim is unsubstantiated. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
He is just one of many references for its use in the media. "Less-lethal weapons" is also used in scholarly publications. See this Google Scholar search:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22less-lethal+weapons%22 - I see its use going far back. Here is an example from 1977:
The Evaluation of Less-Lethal Weapons. 1977 - Storming Media. Donald O. Egner; Human Engineering Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. "Abstract: The primary program objective was to establish a methodology for evaluating the merits of candidate less-lethal weapons. The first portion of the work was done in Fiscal Year 1973 and was concerned with weapons that employ kinetic energy as the effects mechanisms. Treatment of other mechanisms (chemical, electrical) was general, with detailed work completed in mid-1975. This report pulls this work together and presents the state-of-the-art as of late 1976."
"Storming Media is a private reseller of Pentagon reports about science, technology, policy and military strategy." See:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/aboutus.html
What you don't seem to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, is that the media, and Wikipedia articles, don't need the permission of the military or the police, to use a name. Are you in the military? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. Consider it to be adequately Wiki-verified that the phrase Less Lethal has been historically used. However, that was not in contention: the contention was that Muller made the specific claim that NL was renamed to LL ... so where is the Wiki-verification of this specific claim? Not necessarily for the Military, but for _any_ WP:IRS organization or source. FWIW, perhaps you've fogotten that I was in favor of the spirit of this NL+LL name change? I'm still in favor of it - IF and only IF I'm convinced that it is the correct thing to do, based upon WP:VERIFY standards for what the specific term of LL actually means as per a adequate WP:IRS source. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of "less lethal" is verifiable in dictionaries. Dictionaries are citable reliable sources. I have cited dictionaries in Wikipedia articles. The meaning of the words "less" and "lethal" are clear in dictionaries. Searching for the individual words is a common way to find the meaning of a phrase since dictionaries oftentimes don't have phrases. Search for "less" and "lethal" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
http://dictionary.reference.com --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Using a dictionary sounds like a reasonably good starting point, but I'm concerned over at least two elements of doing so (regardless of precident). First, you point out that dictionaries don't contain phrases, so how have we verified that the applied common usage of the phrase is indeed congruent with our dictionary-based interpretation of the individual pieces of that phrase? Second, since a dictionary contains all words in a language, then if a listing therein is adequate to rationalize the inclusion of one word, then how does it not apply to all words? In other words, if we accept the premise that if we can find it in a dictionary we can add it, then in addition to LL, we would also be adding Non-Deadly + Pain-Inducing + Compliance + etc. The problem is that we are then running into problems with WP:NAME and Wiki's guidance calls to Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources. Thus, the question we would seek to answer is if this really is one concept, or multiple concepts. If this is multiple concepts, then we should easily be able to provide solid documentation that clearly articulates how they differ. -hh (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word "and" in article titles is allowed. The Wikipedia guidelines for that are discussed in a previous talk section. See: #Requested move .28May 2010.29 Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. The relevant part starts with this guideline quote: "Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article." There are only 2 concepts involved: Deadly, and not deadly. Less-lethal weapons and non-lethal weapons are the 2 most common names that express those 2 concepts. All the other names for these weapons fall under those 2 concepts of lethality. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So your position is that Less-Lethal Weapons are "Deadly", and that Non-Lethal Weapons are "Non-Deadly"? -hh (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Less-deadly and non-deadly. A thesaurus and a dictionary say "lethal" and "deadly" are almost interchangeable. See: http://thesaurus.com/browse/lethal - it says the definition of lethal is "deadly."
Some etymological info from http://dictionary.reference.com is below:
lethal. 1580s, from L.L. lethalis , from L. letalis "deadly, fatal," from letum "death," of uncertain origin. Form altered in L.L. by association with lethe hydor "water of oblivion" in Hades in Greek mythology, from Gk. lethe "forgetfulness." Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed (Deadly=Lethal), which is why I asked the question. I was afraid for a moment that the terminology was going to lead us to an incorrect conclusion of categorizeing conventional pistols/rifles/shotguns as being "Less Lethal" (née "Deadly") weapons.
To proceed on, does the question then become if there is a significant and noteworthy differentiation between the implimentations (not pendant dictionary reading) of "less-deadly" (LL) and "non-deadly" (NL)? I can recognize there being a nuanced distinction (which would still need a little more detailing), but given that there have been examples of products which have been referred to by both names in literature, it would appear that we're bordering on WP:OR because the rest of the world doesn't appear to make this distinction as significant and noteworthy. We've already addressed Wiki's "significant alternative names" in the Lead, and Wiki's guidelines also state "Be precise but only as precise as is needed". As such, is all that we really need to do is to more clearly detail the misnomer aspects of NL in the Lead? -hh (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:NAME says accuracy matters. Therefore the accurate, single-name title for the article would be Less-lethal weapons. I was offering a compromise with both names in the title (which is allowed). You apparently haven't changed your point of view since you initially discussed the DoD point of view years ago. There could be a WP:conflict of interest if you were, or are, in the military, or military reserves. If so, can you set aside that conflict of interest and bias? See WP:NPOV. That means following WP:NAME accuracy. To do otherwise would be trying to create a new expanded meaning of "non-lethal" to also mean "less-lethal". This would go against the dictionary meanings. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
At WP:NAME, the guideline is not so strong as would require us to change the name of this article. It says "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." I do not see "non-lethal weapon" as inaccurate, I see it as one of the terms for the weapon class, the most common term. It is not inaccurate inasmuch as any weapon is not 100% lethal or non-lethal—there's a continuum. You accuse User:-hh of having a conflict of interest which I think is at the bare edge of civility. You and he have been at this for years? Let it go. The compromise offer with both names in the article title is one I think is ugly and unsuitable, one step toward the ridiculous article title of Non-lethal, less-lethal, less-than-lethal, non-deadly, pain-inducing and compliance weapons. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My first comment was May 1, 2010. Other comments on this talk page from others have pointed out the accuracy of "less-lethal" for years. See #Article focus talk section from early 2007. See this name-change diff from Feb. 2007. Since then the article has been named "Less-lethal weapons" (or some singular, plural, non-hyphenated variation) until April 28, 2010. In 2010 a bunch of sockpuppets got involved, followed by some people wishing to ignore the accuracy question of WP:NAME. I say go back to the accurate "Less-lethal weapons" if people don't like my compromise of Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)

Is it not accurate to say:

  • that our literature searches found NL to be the commonly used name?
  • that the US DoD has published the term NL as a formal name?
  • that NL is a misnomer, as per a pedantic dictionary interpretation?
  • that Law Enforcement commonly (but not always) uses the term LL?
  • that the term LL appears to be pedentically more correct?
  • that we've not located a non-dictionary publication of LL as a formal name?
  • that there are also other terms also in use, besides just NL and LL?
  • that are examples of specific products that are called a NL, or a LL, depending on the source?

Given all of the above, what can we offer that faithfully takes all of these factors into account and develops a fair, balanced and NPOV entry that advances the understanding of the Wiki readership? If we don't take all of these factors into consideration, then we're not doing a good job as Wiki Editors. -hh (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Google search results:
"less-than-lethal weapons". 282,000 results.
"less-lethal weapons". 171,000 results
"non-lethal weapons". 179,000 results.
WP:NAME says that concerning article titles accuracy trumps commonality. Less-lethal weapons is the most accurate. Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons is an accurate compromise I like.
Less-lethal weapons is the name preferred by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). See the website they host: Less-Lethal.org.
From that website's home page:

This website was created by the Less Lethal Working Group (LLWG) to assist local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in developing, implementing and enhancing policies governing the use of less lethal technologies. The site is hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), also a participating agency in the LLWG. Other agencies in the working group include: the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA); the Major City Police Chiefs Association; the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP); Montgomery County Police, Maryland; the Police Foundation, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE).

The United States Department of Justice and its components partnered with IACP and the LLWG to assist in the development of this web site. The website is funded through a cooperative agreement with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice.

Note the many umbrella groups using "less lethal". Here is one of the articles found from that website:
The Risks Associated with Utilizing Less-Lethal Weapons. By Dr. Rick Parent. Some deaths are discussed, and there are references at the end of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
First, less than a month ago (at 19:46, 15 December 2010 UTC), you argued for the "common name" approach ("..."less-lethal weapons" is more popular. See WP:NAME."). But now that it is clear that this claim was not correct, you've changed to this "accuracy" approach. As best, it is inconsistent; at worst, it is selective and predetermined. But either way, it requires remedy.
Second, if you're going to cite LLWG as a WP:IRS, then perhaps you can provide where they provide their definition of less-lethal, or a "Best Practices", or a Policy (etc). While you're doing so, please note that their homepage's "Academic Perspectives" link includes 4 of 12 articles whose title explicitly includes "non-lethal", which carries implications here on the totality of nomenclature interchangeability that everyone else seems to accept.
Third, a check of the LLWG's website in the Wayback Machine indicates one page in 2007, which raises additional questions regarding currency. Link is here. The good news is that the website at least appears to have a legitimate owner; going through their THEIACP.ORG, one logical place for a LL policy would have been Publications and Guides, under > Training > Best Practices (no mention for LL/NL, unfortunately).
Fourth, please recall that I'm not disputing that LL isn't also often used, or that we need to have a good discussion of these two names in the Lead. For the title, our answer comes down to the question on what the experts in this field consider the two terms to mean: are they meaningfully different (and if so, how?), or pragmatically synonymous? If we were to claim a difference when the subject area's experts don't say there's one .. we would be in error. And with the LLWG referencing NL in their papers, there's additional credence for us to conclude that in this topic area, "NL = LL" (synonymous terms). So what does Wiki recommend regarding Title redundancy? -hh (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) On Dec. 15, 2010, I was responding to Binksternet claiming that "non-lethal weapons" was the most common name. He wrote: "...Instead, we go by the most common name for the condition: life. The weapon category in question is most commonly called 'non-lethal weapon' but of course it sometimes is lethal." In that same Dec. 15, 2010 thread I also wrote this:

"less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results
"non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results. See WP:COMMONNAME: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."
Why not use the most accurate name: Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. That is accurate since most of the weapons can be both lethal and not-lethal. Some of the weapons are rarely lethal, if ever.

hh, you wrote: "For the title, our answer comes down to the question on what the experts in this field consider the two terms to mean: are they meaningfully different..."

Concerning Less Lethal Working Group (LLWG) and its referencing of papers using both "less-lethal" and "non-lethal"; it does not change the fact that they chose "less lethal" for their working group name.

It seems that more and more previously non-lethal weapon categories end up causing deaths. So the solution is to do as the police experts do, and use "Less-lethal" to cover all future possibilities. I am also happy with the dictionary experts since some of the weapons are non-lethal up to now. I prefer Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons since that is the most accurate article name. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First, the qustion of what Wiki recommends regarding Title Redundancy is still not addressed.
Second, Wiki does not currently list Dictionaries as a Primary, Secondary or even Terciary Source.
Third, where is the Primary, or Secondary Source(s) that clearly claims differentiation (that of NL != LL)?
Fourth, it seems that you're claiming that Police experts trump Military experts..? Do we have a citeable NPOV basis for us to make such a claim?
Fifth, I think that we need to understand and articulately parse the differences between intentions and outcomes. To take what we've mentioned here before with a different perspective, does the term "LL" mean that these products' explicit intent is to kill 10% (or 5%, or any other non-zero value) of the people that it is shot at?
-hh (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
They are not redundant names. As previously discussed non-lethal weapons does not mean the same thing as less-lethal weapons according to the dictionary meanings of the words in the phrase. Deadly and not deadly. Dictionaries are reference books, and so they are citable sources for the meaning of words. See the policy pages. They don't say dictionaries are not citable. That is ridiculous.
I agree that Dictionaries are useful reference books - - but that opinion doesn't reconcile the fact that Dictionaries are not listed by Wiki as a Primary, Secondary or Tertiary source. They are listed as a "See Also", so it is hard to argue that this is an accidental oversight. In any case, you're now trying to elude the point of using the dictionary on the "Less Lethal" term: as per strict dictionary definitions, the "LL" term has to be interpreted as strictly as we did the "NL" term: it describes a weapon whose intent is to be Lethal (but merely somewhat Less so). Thus, when we list examples of fatalities in the Intent section, what needs to be included is to identify which shots were fired with the intent to be lethal. -hh (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the main points of this discussion is that the police and military do not trump each other. Neither decide the meanings. It also does not matter what their intentions are. You are repeating some of your points. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
He's repeating?? The repetition here is mainly coming from you. Over and over the same arguments, reworded. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
hh sometimes adds new twists, and so I reply. When people ask the same question without any new twists, I say "Please see my previous replies." --Timeshifter (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


hh is editing on no one's behalf. "The definition of "too close"... is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." Marcus Qwertyus 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a majority of reliable sources prefer non-lethal weapons is an outside interest? Marcus Qwertyus 00:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
See my previous replies concerning accuracy. The Dod and its non-accurate name of "non-lethal weapons" is an outside interest. It is not Wikipedia's aim to be inaccurate in article names. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: Israel's Arsenal of "Less Lethal" Weapons. "the standard crowd-control ammunition is a large rubber-coated steel bullet fired from a special launcher. This can penetrate the skull, causing lethal injuries." --Timeshifter (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The .gov article is just a mirror of another article. It does not represent the military's view of non-lethal weapons. Again, the name does not have to be accurate, just common enough to be recognized by the average reader. Marcus Qwertyus 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). Different branches of the government (police, military, etc) emphasize "non-lethal" or "less-lethal". The media uses "less-lethal". The .gov article is from Technology Review Online. Israel's Arsenal of "Less Lethal" Weapons is from Popular Mechanics. See also: "Less Than Lethal." International Defense Review 27:28-30+ Jul '94.

Even the military sometimes uses the phrase "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal". See:

Lorenz, Frederick. Less-Lethal Force in Operation United Shield. Marine Corps Gazette 79:68-76 Sep '95. Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=5024739&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a 1995 citation, whose nomenclature was obsoleted and superceded by higher authority, specifically, the 1996 DoD Policy statement of DoDD 3000.3 -hh (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
We can mention the change in the DoD naming policy in the Wikipedia article. And in any case the military is not the authority for Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
But that line of argument doesn't prove anything, because it is not in dispute that LTL was in use prior to 1996. What we want to know is what is being used today, and a reference from before-the-DoD's-1996-name-change-to-NL doesn't tell us what happened afterwords. Specifically, did everyone follow the DoD's rename to NL, or did only the DoD change? We simply can't answer this question with any reference prior to the 1996 event. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See my previous replies (Pentagon reference, Google Scholar) concerning the permission of the military to use "less-lethal weapons." Are you in the military? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Your previous replies merely provided more verification of something that was not in contention: the existance of a word. Please understand that WP:NPOV motivates us to understand and parse the difference between the mere existance of a word and the meaning of that word, as per (WP:VERIFY + WP:IRS) guidelines. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of "less lethal" is verifiable in dictionaries. Dictionaries are citable reliable sources. I have cited dictionaries in Wikipedia articles. The meaning of the words "less" and "lethal" are clear in dictionaries. Searching for the individual words is a common way to find the meaning of a phrase since dictionaries oftentimes don't have phrases. Search for "less" and "lethal" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
http://dictionary.reference.com --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this book chapter has the best idea:

U.S. Intervention Policy for the Post-Cold War World. New York, Norton, 1994. 256p. New applications of Nonlethal and Less Lethal Technology, by Richard Garwin, pp 105-131. Book call no.: 327.73009049 U582 --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also a Pre-1996 citation, so its nomenclature use isn't necessarily still authoritative. -hh (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
W. W. Norton & Company is an independent book publishing company. So its nomenclature is authoritative outside the military name changes. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The reference is reasonably verifyable (WP:VERIFY) that the name LL is used, and we can easily find many more LL references, However, doing so doesn't resolve the recurring problem that we have, which is that we still lack a solid (WP:VERIFY + WP:IRS) definition of what that word means. For example, is the defintion of LL exactly the same as NL? Regardless of if the answer is yes or no, Wiki Editors are obligated to provide the relevant citations that document whichever answer: the NPOV requirement is that it should pass the (WP:VERIFY + WP:IRS) standards. Have we done the first part? YES. Have we done the second part? NO. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of "less lethal" is verifiable in dictionaries. Dictionaries are citable reliable sources. I have cited dictionaries in Wikipedia articles. The meaning of the words "less" and "lethal" are clear in dictionaries. Searching for the individual words is a common way to find the meaning of a phrase since dictionaries oftentimes don't have phrases. Search for "less" and "lethal" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
http://dictionary.reference.com --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than decide to support the labeling of the media, or the police, or the government, we can label the Wikipedia article Non-lethal and Less-Lethal weapons. I think it makes a lot more sense to support reason. And reason states that we shouldn't continue to deny reality, as does the military, and Wikipedia shouldn't decide how lethal or non-lethal each weapon is. Let the readers decide. High-pressure water will kill someone if it pushes them in such a way that they fall and fracture their skull, or they fall against a sharp object like the top of some iron fences. As the Technology Review Online article said "Truly nonlethal weapons do not exist. When the Lone Ranger whacked a bad man on the skull with the butt of his gun, most viewers assumed (incorrectly) that it causes no more than a few minutes of healthy unconsciousness. In reality, it is tricky business to disable without killing." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're cherry picking references again. Marcus Qwertyus 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the fact of the matter is that only the military continues to deny reality. A large group of sockpuppets convinced an admin to change the name of this article to Non-lethal weapon. Most real editors on this talk page prefer Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons (see previous discussions). The military uses non-standard English like "collateral damage" instead of "civilian casualties". And "I.E.D." instead of "homemade bomb". Civilian police use less-lethal. See: Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This claim is also contrary to the reality what the DoD specifically says in their DoDD 3000.3 Policy. Specifically, read paragraph 4.6 -hh (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Police and laws trump military. Civilian government rules still in most democracies. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Civilian government laws rule supreme...and yet the facts are that the DoD is still using the term Non-Lethal, so what does that mean? The two possibilities that I can think of are that either (A) the DoD is in violation of US Civilian Law, or (B) US Civilian Law doesn't regulate this nomenclature. As researchers, we're obligated to default to (B) unless we can definitively prove (A) by citing the law. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. See previous replies concerning your ridiculous requirement that Wikipedia, the media, or the police need the approval of the military for naming anything. Are you, or have you ever been, in the military? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
YMMV, but I do not consider it to at all be rediculous to ask that all Five Pillars of Wiki be addressed. Similarly, please also do not neglect to note that the [[8]] also includes civility. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you, or have you ever been, in the military? It is a simple question that relates to WP:conflict of interest. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the attempts to rename the category on Wikipedia from less-lethal to non-lethal had more participation, and the decision was "no consensus for proposed rename. The target category remains a soft redirect. There was also no consensus in the discussion to move the article, so right now the two do not correspond." See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons. The October 2010 category renaming discussion on Wikipedia did not have much participation (I did not know of it), and the decision to rename to Category:Less-lethal weapons occurred even though there was no consensus. The admin at that category renaming may not have read this talk page, or the previous category renaming discussion.
The names are evenly divided on the web. Google searches:
http://www.google.com/#q=%22less-lethal+weapons%22 "less-lethal weapons"
http://www.google.com/#q=%22non-lethal+weapons%22 "non-lethal weapons"
Marcus Qwertyus, you asked for citations and I have given you many citations. Here is another one (with injury photos):
Oakland Tribune. December 13, 2003 article: 'Less-Than-Lethal' Weapons Come Under Scrutiny. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Google searches do not give accurate numbers. They change all the time when Google changes the algorithm. Non-lethal search results vastly outnumbered less-lethal search results just a few weeks ago. Non-lethal still outnumbers less-lethal on Google Books which is all that matters. Marcus Qwertyus 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In the overall Google searches you did previously you may not have added quotes around the phrase "less-lethal weapons" or the phrase "non-lethal weapons". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
And by saying (with injury photos), it give the impression (right or wrong) that you're trying to use emotions to bolster your case. -hh (talk)
Reality may be emotional. I believe the top photo in the article may be usable here since I believe it is a free image taken from an Independent Media Center article. Not sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there's a significant emotional dimension to this topic. Unfortunately, while LTL is a popular term, it still has ambiguity problems because no Wiki researcher has been able to cite a clear & authoritative definition. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Readers searching any of the terms will end up at this article and will read in the first line about all the terms which have been applied to the general weapon concept. It's not like we are losing or confusing readers.

We don't call the Life article Fatal life, even though being alive is a deadly condition which unquestionably ends in death. Instead, we go by the most common name for the condition: life. The weapon category in question is most commonly called "non-lethal weapon" but of course it sometimes is lethal. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/#q=%22less-lethal+weapons%22 "less-lethal weapons"
http://www.google.com/#q=%22non-lethal+weapons%22 "non-lethal weapons"
"less-lethal weapons" is more popular. See WP:NAME. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Where do the Wiki guidelines state that just because something's popular means that it automatically merits equal billing? Part of the problem of this longstanding debate has been because no one has been able to find an authoritative, published definition of LLW that is equal (or even equivalent) to the existing published NL one. So how does this sound as a solution: our position will be that to rename the page to LL+NL, we must be able to cite an authoritative LLW definition, to effectively put LLW on the same standing as NL ...ie, equal billing. For as long as we cannot find such an acceptable definition, then we maintain the status quo, which that the only official name is NL, with the popular name of LLW receives a soft redirect to NL. Is this an agreeable solution? -hh (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No. See my comments farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that there is literally nothing that you can offer as a potential compromise? -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You are the one who is not compromising. "Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons." --Timeshifter (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The facts say otherwise. Specifically, there is a compromise proposed immediately above. Additionally, I've detailed the criteria for what documentation needs to be provided to garner my vote extremely clear back on 19 May 2010. Please be civil and withdraw your accusation. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
See my previous replies (concerning dictionary citations for the meaning of "less" and "lethal"). --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Less-lethal is not the popular name as Timeshifter claims. I get where you are coming from but what is the purpose of the soft redirect? Marcus Qwertyus 20:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is the most popular name. There are many publications that can be cited for "less-lethal weapons." See WP:RS and WP:NAME. The name is authoritative in the world outside the military. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
To authoritatively prove that a particular term (LTL) exists is not the same as authoritatively proving that said term (LTL) has an authoritative definition. The former is not in dispute; merely the latter. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And continuing, for how long do we as Wiki researchers have to be repeatedly unsuccessful in searching for a reference for something, before it is reasonable for us to conclude that our failure is because it does not exist to be found? -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hundreds of references. None so blind as those who refuse to see. Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22less-lethal+weapons%22 --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Google Scholar merely reports that the words exist - - it doesn't address what the word's definition is, as per (WP:VERIFY + WP:IRS) guidelines. Insofar as the blindness accusation, this is a Wiki Civility Violation: please go report yourself for the appropriate disciplinary action. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Open your eyes: The meaning of "less lethal" is verifiable in dictionaries. Dictionaries are citable reliable sources. I have cited dictionaries in Wikipedia articles. The meaning of the words "less" and "lethal" are clear in dictionaries. Searching for the individual words is a common way to find the meaning of a phrase since dictionaries oftentimes don't have phrases. Search for "less" and "lethal" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
http://dictionary.reference.com --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Example: google "non-lethal" but ask google to omit pages without the word wiki [9]. Somehow there are four times as many search results. Just use google books. It's not perfect but it works. Marcus Qwertyus 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Less-lethal weapons" is the most popular name overall. The quotes around the phrase make it a phrase search in Google. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
On Google books, I got the following:
  • 293 hits with "Less-lethal weapon"
  • 1543 hits with "Less-lethal weapons"
  • 182 hits with "Less-than-lethal weapon"
  • 939 hits with "Less-than-lethal weapons"
  • 1020 hits with "Non-lethal weapon"
  • 7180 hits with "Non-lethal weapons"
Looks like 'non-lethal' wins this round of Google books. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
"less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results
"non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results. See WP:COMMONNAME: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."
Why not use the most accurate name: Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. That is accurate since most of the weapons can be both lethal and not-lethal. Some of the weapons are rarely lethal, if ever. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If we take your proposal farther along the same continuum we will eventually have an article entitled Non-lethal, less-lethal, less-than-lethal, non-deadly, pain-inducing and compliance weapons. Is this the direction you want? Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It says "are often avoided" which is more of a suggestion than a rule. Marcus Qwertyus 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Let us not go that far. It is simple: Life and death. Non-lethal and less-lethal. The line is hard to draw as to lethality. People die from complications of weapon use such as falling, heart attacks, suffocating from restraint positions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you're claiming that there's differentiation between Non-lethal and less-lethal. If so, and to prove your assertion, you'll need to provide the authoritative definitions for both, side by side, to illustrate exactly where the difference lies, and why it is sufficiently noteworthy for Wiki to document. -hh (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dead. Not dead.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22less-lethal+weapons%22
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22less-than-lethal+weapons%22
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22non-lethal+weapons%22 --Timeshifter (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are WP:IRL compliant papers on NL as well as on LL that state that risk of death exist. Similarly, there are specific products (eg, Rubber Bullets) which have been implicated in deaths, but are called a NL by some sources and the exact same hardware product is called a LL by other sources. There is no doubt that both names are in use, by varying parties, but what remains ambiguous is the specific definition of LL. For all practical purposes, it appears to be identical to NL, but this has not been clearly substantiated, as per WP:VERIFY + WP:IRL guidelines. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
And don't forget:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22nonlethal+weapons%22
The net sum count of the above is NL: (3060+1800), LL: (584+445), which is a ratio of 4860:1029, or over 4:1 (4.7:1). By this standard, we should consider NL to be the overwelmingly more common name, even before we consider other factors (such as historical, or the continuing lack of a WP:VERIFY/IRL definition for LL). As such, while I'm still open to compelling logical arguments, I'm increasingly convinced that a Soft Redirect of LL to NL is the appropriate Wiki compromise solution for today. -hh (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAME says that accuracy matters. As do the police who use "less-lethal". Who also don't use deceptive euphemisms like "collateral damage" in place of "civilian casualties."

From WP:NAME:

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title.[1] For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.

Dead. Not dead. There is a precise difference. To say that a possibly deadly weapon is not lethal is not precise. Until relatively recently this article was called "Less-lethal weapons" until a group of sockpuppets controlled by one editor convinced, or tricked, an admin into changing the name of the article. See previous discussion sections. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, in April Rmhermen said "this article was originally at non-lethal force which was merged with non-lethal weapon before being moved to less lethal weapon." It was moved from less- back to non- because the sockpuppeter Harmonia1's good argument, not because of the socks. The good argument continues to inform this debate, and the article continues in its current name of Non-lethal weapon. If you think User:RegentsPark was tricked, you are fooling only yourself.
You know, if you dedicated half the energy spent on debating the name to improving this article, it would be much better. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You should stop fooling yourself. See the talk section higher up: #Revert tainted move from Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons where the admin who made the article title change wrote:
:As the admin who closed the previous move discussion and moved the article to non-lethal weapon, I support this move back to less-lethal weapon. Both move discussions were heavily tainted by socks and should be considered procedurally invalid. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
--Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That does not say RegentsPark was tricked into moving the article. What you see there is a simple statement by RegentsPark about procedural issues. RegentsPark did not see fit to weigh in on the question of whether less lethal or non-lethal is the best article name. RegentsPark does not say "I was tricked". Even though RegentsPark's !vote was for overturning the move, no consensus for such an overturn was formed. This is all in rebuttal to your statement that "a group of sockpuppets controlled by one editor convinced, or tricked, an admin into changing the name of the article." That statement is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
After all the sockpuppet comments were struck out there were 2 opposed and 2 supporting the name change. I am not counting the anonymous supporter since they could be another sockpuppet. It doesn't matter whether the admin was convinced or tricked. There was no consensus to change the name in that discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You mistake !votes for consensus. RegentsPark specifically pointed to the better argument put forward by Harmonia1 as the reason for proceeding with the move. That winning argument, not the socks, determined the outcome. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No winning argument since it is not about winning and losing. One argument is not deemed "the winner". An article can be moved to other titles later. And regardless of what he thought of the issues then RegentsPark has since said this: "I support this move back to less-lethal weapon." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). There is related discussion concerning article title accuracy and precision here:

  1. ^ Crowd control munition
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-lethal_weapon/Archive_1&oldid=1073886457"