Jump to content

Talk:Non-lethal weapon

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

Title change

[edit]

The term Non-lethal does not represent these weapons because they do kill. The article should be titled to it's first listed synonym, "less lethal weapons." DavidLetanosky (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. However, the question of NL vs LTL has been discussed before and has been voted on, with NL being chosen. Please check the archives and provide context to justify what is materially different this time to reconsider this prior decision. -hh (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure that this is an "opinion" so much as fact. Fact is, "non-lethal" weapons absolutely kill people, making them the exact opposite of "non-lethal". Anything claiming otherwise is in direct contradiction with reality. 3nk1namshub (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in all of Wiktionary's definitions of non-lethal, the inability to cause death is a central part of the definition. As these weapons frequently cause death, and we can demonstrably prove that, they are, by definition, lethal. Anyone who disagrees with that is in disagreement with reality and does not have a NPOV. 3nk1namshub (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not sure that Wiktionary is a recognized Authoritative Source to cite; please provide support. Second, just what is "frequent" here, other than an attempt to invoke an emotional response? Again, provide quantitative measures and a criteria for differentiation. Third, from a hierarchical perspective, competing definition sources are invariably compared against each other, with those published and used by various institutions as formal declarations of Policy, who have been more broadly recognized as Authoritative sources in their fields for purposes of topical application and citation thereof, logically carrying greater weight and credence in the decision. -hh (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→ Just hit my 'submit' too early, losing part of my editorial comment. Complete comment should have been: (rephrasing. Clarified that casualties risk is more than only death (to include severe or permanent injury). Changed NL vs LTL back to NPOV, as to claim that LTL is 'now preferred' does not have a source to cite on this)

FYI, the NL vs LTL debate has persisted within the community for over twenty years - basically ever since DoD Directive 3000.3 formally changed the nomenclature for DoD from LTL to NL back on July 9, 1996. The dilemma with this name choice is that DoD is effectively the largest individual customer & user of this technology, and DoDD 3000.3 is a published reference, making their nomenclature choice arguably the 'strongest'. -hh (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NL / LL weapons are a globally relevant topic. DoD naming is a US-specific issue. For example UN documents call these "Less Than Lethal Weapons" and "less-lethal" (interchangeably) in Less Than Lethal Weapons, UN Peacekeeping PDT Standards for Formed Police Units 1st edition 2015 (PDF). 2015. Similarly, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also calls these LL: United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement (PDF). 2020. UK's College of Policing almost exclusively calls these LL "Use of force, firearms and less lethal weapons". College of Policing. 2020. Retrieved 26 June 2020.. GringoCroco (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the use of NL by US DoD is a US-specific example, but that doesn't mean that it is the only instance. For example, NATO has used the terminology of NL (instead of LL) for the past twenty years; see: "NATO policy on non-lethal weapons". As such, there's documentation to support either terminology application. From here, the question appears to be what basis to decide which interpretation to apply to Wiki. In my observation, the naming philosophy used here has been to give greater weight to the nomenclature used by the larger organizations rather than the potentially larger aggregate of smaller discrete entities, as the former has more traceability via published definitions & policies, while the latter tends to generally lack a comparable documentation trail.
For example, while we see that the UN has used a particular terminology (LL), where did the UN document the actual definition of the term that they've chosen to use? Was the term been left up to each paper's individual author to define as he wishes? FYI, that seems to be the case for the two of the three above references that I can currently access. Or has that terminology been formally reviewed, vetted & approved by a suitable panel/lawyers/etc? Yes, this question sounds very bureaucratic, but if we're going to choose one, why is it not rational for the one that's been through more formalities/legal reviews to be given more weight? Or should this be a mere popularity contest conceding to whoever shouts the loudest? -hh (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NL is used in a very narrow context by various organizations to justify the applicability of instrument/weapon to masses. To give proper sensitivity and neutralities to the article, usage of NL in short descriptions and titles should be avoided (like a subscript to the title). It may be ok to use NL within the article. Wikipedia is now perceived as a neutral more than ever and more of a factual source for academic purposes too these days. So usage of NL in headings and tooltips should be revisited. nobody (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose a revisit, and following the process to do so. I suggest that you start your proposal for it to be discussed with a link to the archives where this was previously discussed, so that we can review the discussion points which were made before, rather than to start from scratch. -hh (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a revisit immediately! "Non-lethal" is an obscurantist canard likely originating in my sadly warlike country (America) and obviously has no business being the title of this article, is this really a debate on Wikipedia? Shameful. We place Hysteria and Excited Delirium in their appropriate historical context, why are we letting this weasel word that is used by authoritarian governments to put lipstick on murder slide? We should maybe have a "Controversies" section in this article where we could talk about the various etymology games the US Government has played as well as instances of systematic misuse of such things leading to mass casualties. I also want to go through to all the links to this article and change them to reflect, the Tazer article obviously being high on my list. Advocatejake (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, you appear to be ignoring how it was noted above ″...the use of NL by US DoD is a US-specific example, but that doesn't mean that it is the only instance.″
That's why the challenge on any name-change proposal is to document that an alternative (such as LTL) has equal/higher standing in terms of the industry who employs that terminology, including how they got there (ie, their documentation). It is because Wiki is NPOV which means that we document, not judge, the facts, and when there's competing summaries, we resolve it not by emotion or personal opinion, but based on criteria such as verifiability.
Second, the rest of your comments illustrate that you personally have a high risk of violating NPOV, which suggests that you should recuse yourself of voting on any such name change herein (likewise, please cease & desist with your threats to vandalize linked pages). My personal suggestion that if you do sincerely want to effect change of the nomenclature, then the appropriate place to start isn't Wiki, but in the organizations who have created the name and made it the most popular/best documented. Be successful there, and Wiki will update to document that change. -hh (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: Editors should check the recent versions in this section, as it appears that IP address "74.78.45.141" inserted comments within comments made by Advocatejake, which made them inflammatory and misrepresents who was saying what. -hh (talk)
Yo I own this whole comment post edit, I edited it from mobile and evidently I didn't log in. I found my initial comments insufficiently inflammatory. I came to the talk page to point out this obvious problem, not Threaten to Vandalize... I am not NPOV on murder, I don't propose to vote, this is literally my first rodeo and I didn't presume I got one. My big problem is that the purveyors of "Non-Lethal" are certainly not NPOV. They have exercised vast resources to cloud this issue with ink and this word is implicated. How does Wikipedia typically handle governments and companies that spend lots of money documenting how they are definitely good and not bad and hurting no-one? Advocatejake (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification on how that editorial change occurred. Regarding your question, WP:OFFICIALNAME has guidance on the crux of your 'clouding' claim, and as I wrote in the 12 May 2021 Move Request, allegations don't belong in Wiki, as per WP:VERIFIABILITY: they need to be substantiated. That means factual citations of malfeasance, not wishful thinking or editorial opinions. -hh (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some verifiability of malfeasance from governments and companies using these weapons, listing cases here:

There are the many treaty cutouts where CS gas and the like are banned from warfare but allowed at home: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75

The Tazer company Axon describes their device as a life saver and for many years claimed 0 people were killed by it, because they sued everyone who said otherwise. Reuters wrote about how they behaved in reaction to all the deaths their product caused and it seems their opinion was that malfeasance took place: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taser-strikeback/tasers-defense-tactics-include-lawsuits-against-coroners-and-experts-idUSKCN1B4182

I find the over-abundance of broken heads caused by baton rounds to be another indicator of malfeasance from governments with these weapons, there is ample evidence from around the world that the doctrine around baton rounds to make them safe-ish to use (fire them at the ground and bounce them into the target) is frequently not how they are used. They seem to find their way into a lot of skulls. The American Academy of Ophthalmologists asked Congress to ask police if they could shoot people in the face less: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/news/restrict-use-rubber-bullets-eye-injuries-protests https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-less-lethal-weapons-actually-do/

Documented deaths wherever baton rounds are tried https://books.google.com/books?id=VbrDbbHAflsC&pg=PA305

I think these sources would be usable based on my understanding of the rules of notability, I am not making any changes to any articles until this vote resolves. Thank you hh for shepherding my nebulous hasslement into actual constructive consideration. Advocatejake (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 12 May 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. While supporters of the move argue that the current name is misleading, those against it argue that "non-lethal" is more common, and not necessarily misleading. I think there is a valid argument made on either side, so the result is no consensus. If the supporters of the move are correct that usage is changing to favor "less-lethal", then it may be appropriate to revisit this discussion in the future. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Non-lethal weapon → Less-lethal weapon – A number of reliable sources (including, but not limited to Scientific American, Washington Post, NPR...) refer to these as less-lethal weapons, and the expression "non-lethal" is seen as a misnomer and inaccurate. 162 etc. (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times returned 682 results for "nonlethal weapon" and 134 for "'less-lethal' weapon"
Received similar results with NPR. Tried the same test with Scientific American, but search returned too many irrelevant articles to say either way. Schierbecker (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those WaPo search results for "non-lethal", here are the first three, all from 2020:
1 - Federal officials stockpiled munitions, sought ‘heat ray’ device before clearing Lafayette Square, whistleblower says - Uses "non-lethal" twice, both in quotes from an e-mail written by the "lead military police officer in the National Capital Region", not in the writer's own voice. The phrase "non-lethal weapon" does not appear.
2 - Police in the U.S. are abusing tear gas and rubber bullets in possible violations of international law - Uses "less-lethal" 8 times, "non-lethal" 4 times. In front of "weapons", it's 6 and 2, respectively. One of the uses of "non-lethal" is the paragraph First, less-lethal does not mean nonlethal. As human rights organizations around the world report, less-lethal weapons have killed and also wounded horribly, leading even to permanent disability. (Italics in original)
3 - Rubber bullets are touted as a ‘safe alternative.’ My patient’s wound tells a different story. - Uses "non-lethal" twice, both in context that the writer doubts the accuracy of this term: Rubber bullets are touted as a “safe alternative” to firearms. They are considered non-lethal weapons designed to generate blunt rather than penetrating trauma, and they are widely used to control protests around the world. and The classification of rubber bullets as “non-lethal” is misleading and inaccurate. Anyone who has access to these weapons, as well as the public, should know of their ability to inflict significant trauma and death.
The second and third are both opinion pieces, not regular reporting. Most of the remainder of the articles on the first page are older, with only two from 2019, one from 2020, and none from 2021. The first page of search results for "less-lethal" is all from 2019 onwards, with two from 2019, five from 2020, and thirteen from 2021. The results suggest WaPo has changed what they refer to these weapons as. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both terms are commonly and interchangeably used in media & literature, but determining then which to use comes down to the comparative merits of their definitions published by Authoritative Sources. For NL, formal/legal definitions from such authoritative sources (Fed Govt, NATO, etc) exist, and have been documented in Wiki. For LTL, the same level of formal legal rigor has not been sourced. As such, LTL lacks an equally formal/legal definition to consider choosing. For this, our personal opinions are irrelevant: we are documenting what is and using the most reliable/authoritative sources thereof. I don't like NL either, but trying to bend the Editorial standard to a less formally documented source of LTL is AFAIC an ethical violation. -hh (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While such sources may establish "non-lethal weapon" as the more official name, that is not necessarily the one we use for article titles. See WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:TITLE. 162 etc. (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Editing to add: Some pretty authoritative sources like the US Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice Journal, the American Journal of Public Health, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have published articles on the subject of "Less-lethal weapons". 162 etc. (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, but note that with WP:OFFICIALNAME saying not-necessarily, that's an accommodation which is recognizing that the official is often the default but not the only choice, because the editorial preference for more common use terminology/phrasing. Here, just which terminology tends to be more common is biased to its context: local Law Enforcement tends to use LTL (and also LL) while Governments/Military tends to use NL. As such, which context should the Wiki page use? Likewise, does contextualism need to be documented within as a distinction too? Now regarding WP:TITLE conciseness seems to favor NL, for we'd otherwise have to deal with how LEO hasn't been as internally consistent with use of LTL vs LL. This ties back to what I've been saying is that per WP:VERIFIABILITY, NL has better support than LL/LTL. Overall, I see this as a discussion on the quality of the documentation supporting the nomenclature, and my concern is that some editors happen to find the documentation's phrasing to be personally offensive to them. This does raise the point within WP:OFFICIALNAME on if it is deceptive for propaganda purposes, but that's also where the published papers clearly state otherwise (as is already documented as such in the Wiki Article): to that end, I'd be quite supportive of killing NL if there's documentation found that shows that the nomenclature was knowingly & deliberately selected as propaganda ... without that, we'd be guilty of speculation. -hh (talk)
Addition 5/20/21 (to address the 5/19 Editorial addition in the above): yes, there's authoritative sources who use the terminology of LL/LTL, but use hasn't been a point of contention for over a decade (see Archives). The crux has been in choosing between terms, and that criteria is being guided by the Verifiability of what the terms in their contexts means, which means that we're seeking to confirm that the term has a definition published by such Authoritative Sources that we can then cite. If there are definitions within these added cites, then please provide page#/etc so that your fellow Wiki editors can conduct the next step of reviewing & verifying. -hh (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What if the balance of evidence supports my view which is that the users of these weapons purposefully and systematically misuse them to kill people under the cover of "we didn't shoot or club that person, we were restrained" In this hypothetical world, which I think is the one we actually live in, isn't that knowingly and deliberately using pretty words like "nonlethal" and "less lethal" as propaganda? Is the only satisfactory name change argument etymological? I am also interested in the history of this word, I am hoping someone better at specific deep diving word genealogy than I am will appear in this thread, I typically float around in the top layer of etymology and enjoy the fruits of such people's labors uncritically. Advocatejake (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the first part, I think its problematic to intermingle definitions with misuse. For example, if most instances of deliberate misuse are found in Civilian Law Enforcement, because they use the LTL/LL nomenclature, does this somehow prove that LTL/LL is defined as those products whose users deliberately intend to misuse them, and thus, effectively contribute to the delineation of NL -vs- LL/LTL definitions? Sounds pretty dicey to me. On the second part on etymological origins, this was already discussed in part 13 years ago, now contained in Talk - Archive 1 in a comment on AOZ. And regarding that, I've found a helpful historical reference that helps to clarify some of the historical perspective for context - August 1999 DoD article on AOZ tenants. Overall, I believe that it is helpful in recognizing that DoD philosophy on product performance was evolving in the 1990s, the same time period where the NL definition was first published, and that change was focusing on communicating goals more than proactively conceding to pragmatic realities/limits. -hh (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Stun guns

[edit]

Should we move all this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_gun?--Countryboy603 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-lethal_weapon&oldid=1212525391"