This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
JeffyPooh ( talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, I made Taser a separate article once again, given its high notabiliy and recent international media coverage. I also added a section on notable Taser deaths, since these are one of the reasons Tasers are controversial. The task of identifying them is lengthy, and the three I have listed here are just the first three that came up on a Google search. But I would appreciate if others participate in identifying the most notable ones of all, and sorting them, perhaps by date or amount of media coverage.
If the list exceeds 10-15 or so, perhaps it may be worth splitting this section into a new article. Shaliya waya ( talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was merge to Taser controversy. As I noted at the bottom, 71.250.140.234 performed the merge. Flatscan ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a merge template suggesting merging this content to Taser controversy#Deaths and injuries. Flatscan 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
71.250.140.234 performed the merge with the edit summary moved "notable deaths" to Taser controversy as per consensus on discussion board. Given the limited discussion, I had wanted to give a full week for replies opposing the merge, so I will wait before archiving this discussion. Flatscan ( talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Would a taser not affect the heart's own electrical system (Does it use too low a current to affect this?), or is there some kind of frequency / wave alteration that prevents it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.248.117 ( talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to a lack of ongoing discussion and the related discussion #Suggested merge with Taser controversy again, I have archived this discussion without a conclusion. Flatscan ( talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
With the bizarre quarantining of justified critical (aka "controversial") content into a separate article ( Taser controversy), this article is coming very close to a POV whitewash if not to actual advertising of a commercial product. It is therefore definitely not justified for the manufacturing corporation to have a second bite at the cherry in a separate article. The Taser International article needs to be reduced into a section of the Taser article. In addition, I demand reopening of the debate about the ill-conceived separate article Taser controversy. Since most issues involve debate and controversy, this approach will potentially lead to a doubling of Wikipedia articles, eg, George W Bush Controversy, Einstein Controversy, Cat Controversy, Sugar Controversy, etc, etc, etc. Please come into this, unbiassed administrators. Bjenks ( talk) 07:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find info on where a taser gets its power. Is it battery operated? If so, what sort of battery, and how long do they last? Are they rechargeable batteries? Or is the taser attached to a vehicle or plugged into a wall so that it limits the useful range of the weapon to whatever you can get to within the length of the cord? (I see a coiled cord coming from the back of the taser in the photo.) Thanks to anyone who can add that info to the article. Elf | Talk 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to a lack of ongoing discussion, I have archived this discussion with a conclusion of no consensus. Flatscan ( talk) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please review #Suggested merge with Taser controversy and #Notable Taser Deaths Section, Merge discussion above.
I disagree that WP:POVFORK applies, as both articles are reasonably NPOV (although requiring other work). On the other hand, I can see the argument that there is a content fork, rather than reasonable organization.
I oppose the specific suggestion of Taser history, as I think the History section should be cut substantially. Flatscan ( talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to merge the articles in order to avoid a POV fork. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Spinning off "criticisms" into a new article is bad practice and creates two articles with NPOV problems. If an article is long enough to justify splitting then we should find another basis on which to make a division. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
While looking up a PubMed ID for a study I needed to reference, I noticed a large number of recent (2006 and later) Taser-related studies. In general, we would need to rely on secondary sources to avoid OR, so the usable number may be less. This could be a potential article spin-off. Flatscan ( talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to an extended period (1 month) without new discussion, I suggest closing/archiving this merge discussion with a conclusion of no consensus. Flatscan ( talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What about having an RFC on it? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the History section to Development and trimming its content to focus on the development of the Taser device.
Example items for inclusion:
Concerns:
Flatscan ( talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to suggest a merge after it's been defeated twice, but I do suggest that too much of the content in the "Taser" article is about the same subjects as in the "controversy" article. If the articles can't be merged, then I think the main article should be shortened by removing removing most of the references to dangers of the device, and any other controversial points, that are outside the "Taser controversy" section.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Electroshock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Steve Carlson Talk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan ( talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that wikipedia generally frowns upon segregating criticism into a separate section of an article and that editors are instead encouraged to integrate any criticism throughout the article in order to ensure balance and NPOV. I don't think the current state of this article, where a "criticism" section is at the very end, is consistent with WP:NPOV policy. See in particular [ [1]] "Examples that may warrant attention include: "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;". I'm also concerned about the extent to which critical information has been shuffled off to Taser controversy. While it might not be practical to put all of the information contained in the Taser controversies article into this one there's no reason to include every single incident involving Taser in the main article, certainly key information such as the conclusion of scientific studies into Taser belong in the main article. I suggest finding other ways to spin off articles off of the main one. Having a Taser/Taser controversies division isn't consistent with NPOV. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Original split, August 2007: diff
Previous discussions:
Flatscan ( talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This merge has been discussed a few times (linked above), most recent and longest discussion at #Suggested merge with Taser controversy again, which I closed as no consensus after it petered off. I've made my arguments there, but I will highlight a few points:
Flatscan ( talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
← The organization of "Controversy" differs slightly from "Criticism". In the current structure, a disputed topic (e.g. safety) has both sides presented at once, rather than all the pro-Taser POV in the Taser article, and all the anti-Taser "criticism" relegated to the Taser controversy article. If the current article fails NPOV, it could be addressed by moving pro-Taser content out of Taser. Regarding recent edits, I moved Safety concerns ( diff) earlier this month, following Wikipedia:Summary style and leaving what I believe to be an NPOV summary. Please note that the content moved included pro-Taser material such as the Wake Forest/Bozeman study, the Potomac Institute study, and the Lakkireddy pacemaker study. Are there specific objections to these edits? Flatscan ( talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
← For future reference, the separate article was affirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy and renamed to Taser safety issues per Talk:Taser safety issues#Renaming this article? Flatscan ( talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Reginald Perrin recently added the section
Taser#"Excited delirium (
diff). I think that the section is undue weight – used incorrectly
Flatscan (
talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC) and would be better placed in
Excited delirium and
Taser controversy.
While the first source mentions Tasers, it links excited delirium to in-custody deaths and alleged police brutality in general:
Controversy over the increasing use of Tasers and the attention accorded in-custody deaths is, after all, why most are here, in Guelph at a conference hosted by the local police force on recognizing the signs of excited delirium. While the Taser draws most of the heat, debate over precisely why people die after a brisk battle with police to restrain them -- whether using a Taser or not -- is growing as more attention is being paid to a condition that is only now being popularized.
I agree that a link between Tasers and excited delirium should be mentioned somewhere (not necessarily in this article), but its current placement in a separate section implies that the link is stronger than it is. It's probably notable that Taser International refers to excited delirium in its advertising and product literature, and it is further notable that Taser faces criticism for doing so. However, the mention alone may not be uncommon for a company supplying control products to law enforcement. ZARC, a pepper spray manufacturer, makes this paper on excited delirium available on its website (found at Talk:Excited delirium#Plagiarism/POV). Flatscan ( talk) 01:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the core issues is what balance of content is appropriate. For example, I think that critical content constituting 2/3 of the Taser (weapon) article would be too much. Absolutely none (including zero links) would be too little. Any thoughts? Flatscan ( talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence of a strict equation for determining balance. What balance generally means is that we tell both sides (though with an eye to WP:UNDUE) but don't remove material arbitrarily in order to achieve balance. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the RfC closed without attracting outside comment. How should we move forward? Suggestions:
Flatscan ( talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there still a dispute? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A related article, Taser controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy. The article was nominated on 23 June 2008. Flatscan ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest info from Canada is that tasers are (and have been for at least a decade) legally defined as "Prohibited Firearms" in Canada. This has huge legal implications for the Canadian police that have acted as if they were unaware of this important distinction. Even pointing a firearm (including a taser) is a criminal offense in Canada if not justifiable with a 'lawful excuse' (good enough for a gun).
References available here: www.Excited-Delirium.com search for 'firearm' in upper left search box, then scroll down a few posts.
Also here: http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/2008/06/taser-use-could-put-police-under-fire.html
216.198.139.38 ( talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Safety-related sections should be moved to Taser safety issues, with a summary in Taser written per Wikipedia:Summary style. I do not advocate moving all instances of safety content indiscriminately.
Relevant sections to be considered:
Feel free to create subsections for topics that require more detailed discussion. Flatscan ( talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
IF taser Safety-related sections are moved to the section Taser safety issues people won´t see fatalities related to this device, an thus may be a bias for the people reading on this device. I strongly advice this sections is not moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.25.78 ( talk) 03:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no persuasive arguments made to oppose the general move, I will do it now. "Excited delirium" has an open discussion below. Flatscan ( talk) 20:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I previously attempted to write an NPOV summary of Studies and failed. There are several studies, a few supportive of each side, and typical conclusions are "suggestive, but needs more study". Selecting a sample to describe in the summary is vulnerable to OR and POV bias. The full content is at Taser#Studies. Flatscan ( talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
199.212.26.245 removed the {{mergeto}} tag, with the comment This is already a summary of the main "excited delirium" article. Also, this isn't a "safety issue".
I think the best place to mention excited delirium is in the safety article, although the Taser International article is a possibility:
I will restore the tag and point its discussion link here. Flatscan ( talk) 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 99.231.128.251 that the topic of excited delerium should exist in this article, because the term is used only in the context of tasers. This isn't safety issue so much as a controversy about terminology and diagnosis of an effect. Insofar as there are safety issues associated with it, the main article on taser safety issues could summarize those issues, with a pointer to the main article on excited delerium, similar to the way this article is structured. I see no point in a merge, when the merge would have the effect of removing an important topic from this article.
At first I though it might be appropriate to make "Excited delirium" a sub-heading under safety issues, but then I changed my mind. The topic isn't directly a safety issue. It's only related to safety issues. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Controversy over the increasing use of Tasers and the attention accorded in-custody deaths is, after all, why most are here, in Guelph at a conference hosted by the local police force on recognizing the signs of excited delirium. While the Taser draws most of the heat, debate over precisely why people die after a brisk battle with police to restrain them -- whether using a Taser or not -- is growing as more attention is being paid to a condition that is only now being popularized.
This section has been copied to Taser safety issues, so any deletions here are of duplicated content. I will aggressively prune the section, leaving the most prominent information. Flatscan ( talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously tasers are safer than firearms but how to they stack up against say, tackling someone or whacking them with a baton(which can probably cause injury/death as well)? If someone could find some research on this or something, it would be very nice for this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.224.19 ( talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have repeated my removal of the hatnote linking to Taser safety issues, because it is out of place as a hatnote. The purpose of hatnotes is to help people find the article they may have been trying to find under this title. Nobody looking up "Taser" is expecting the article on safety issues. They may however be looking for the part of the article that deals with safety, so they will find the Safety section in the table of contents and, lo and behold, find that there is a whole sub-article should the summary style be inadequate to them. Duplicating this link at the top of the page simply compromises the neutrality of the article and implies that the safety issues are encyclopedically more relevant or important than the history or operation of the weapon, which is wrong. I hope after this clarification the revision is no longer seen as controversial. BigBlueFish ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just watched a documentary on Dutch TV about the Taser-death of Frederick Williams in 2004 (looked American to me, or perhaps Canadian; I assume it was being broadcast because the Dutch police is apparently contemplating introducing the Taser in the Netherlands). I could find very little about it on the web and nothing on Wikipedia, so I added a reference to the Incidents section, with some links. Did I do it right? Captain Chaos ( talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Notes regarding closure |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was do not merge. Flatscan ( talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Originally, Electroshock weapon controversy (which I recently moved to Taser controversy) was split from Electroshock weapon due to its length. Taser controversy, even after removing content not relevant to Tasers, is pretty much the same length as before. There are a number of recent relevant studies and articles not yet included—as well as an expanding list of prominent/publicized incidents—that will increase the length of the article further. Merging the articles would make them easier to maintain, but separating them based on size is appropriate. Flatscan 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.
Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.
Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:
Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)—message from Shaliya waya copied from my Talk page Flatscan 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If length is a problem, then edit out unnecessary information, but the current "TASER" article is too sensational- it should present information about the Taser device (like the M9 pistol article), not about it's use and deaths caused[[ Rachelskit ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]] ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)TR
I was interested in the following statement:
"Taser use in Phoenix increased from 71 in the year 2002 to 164 in the year 2003. In addition, the number of officer-involved shootings decreased by seven during this time period."
It's frustrating, as it doesn't tell you the actual numbers of shootings in 2002 and 2003. I found a PowerPoint on the web, (from Taser) that stated that the reduction in Phoenix from 2002 to 2003 was 54%, so that tells me that the actual numbers were 13 in 2002 and 6 in 2003 respectively. The next question is, is this statistically significant? I used a Bayesian method where I assumed the shootings come from a Poisson distribution with unknown lambda parameter that will be estimated from the data. I chose a vague gamma prior Gamma(0.001, 0.001). The figure of 13 shootings is then factored in using Bayes' theorem. This leads to a posterior distribution Gamma(13.001, 1.001). This distribution has a mean of 12.988. I then integrated this from 0 to 6 to give the probability that 6 or fewer shootings would be observed by chance if this distribution holds true. The answer is 0.00875266, indicating that it is very unlikely. Hence, we conclude that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of shootings. Of course, that doesn't prove that it was the tasers that caused the reduction, but it's tempting to think so. Blaise ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the potential difference between the two electrodes of the taser in Drive Stun mode, or the current in normal mode? I'm obviously making some assumptions about the operating principle (i.e. that it uses the human body A: to carry a current between the two electrodes and B: as a charge reservoir), but they seem justified. It seems like an important fact that's missing from the article. Twin Bird ( talk) 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A related article, Quilem Registre Taser incident, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan ( talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I created Taser#Incidents from an existing list in Taser safety issues#Deaths and injuries. The standard I used was an incident having 1) Taser as a prominent feature and 2) its own Wikipedia article. Flatscan ( talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
97.114.80.8 added Otto Zehm. I had not previously read about Zehm, which suggests that Taser involvement in his death may not have been heavily reported. I think that Zehm may not meet (1) above. Flatscan ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
May be worth adding a sentence or so noting that Tasers often do not perform according to Taser International's guarantee. See for example this news article. I'm not sure how to word this without bias, so I leave the decision to include entirely up to other editors. -- 68.148.68.78 ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Kiwanda added an excerpt from a 2005 Palm Beach Post article. The inconsistency is a reasonable criticism of Taser's documentation, but mentioning the sensitive areas is undue weight and not substantially relevant to Drive Stun. I am not aware of any incidents where these sensitive areas were targeted. If I remember correctly, some police manuals suggest the shoulder and thigh as target areas. Flatscan ( talk) 05:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The undue weight policy states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The removed excerpt largely comprises two quotations from the Taser International manual regarding the use of Drive Stun. Surely the manufacturer's manual represents a "significant viewpoint" here, particularly to a section that otherwise mentions only the risks that Drive Stun does *not* have. Moreover, in removing the excerpt, Flatscan cites only his/her personal awareness regarding incidents involving the Taser. This would seem to give "undue weight" to a personal opinion. Kiwanda ( talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Bozeman is continuing his earlier study. From the abstract, it appears that the methodology is the same, but the number of samples has increased to 1200 (from 1000 in 2007).
Mamesan added a paragraph questioning the study, cited to the study itself. It is written in a way that suggests original research. I will tag the paragraph and remove it if it is not cited to a reliable source. Flatscan ( talk) 05:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
JeffyPooh ( talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, I made Taser a separate article once again, given its high notabiliy and recent international media coverage. I also added a section on notable Taser deaths, since these are one of the reasons Tasers are controversial. The task of identifying them is lengthy, and the three I have listed here are just the first three that came up on a Google search. But I would appreciate if others participate in identifying the most notable ones of all, and sorting them, perhaps by date or amount of media coverage.
If the list exceeds 10-15 or so, perhaps it may be worth splitting this section into a new article. Shaliya waya ( talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was merge to Taser controversy. As I noted at the bottom, 71.250.140.234 performed the merge. Flatscan ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a merge template suggesting merging this content to Taser controversy#Deaths and injuries. Flatscan 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
71.250.140.234 performed the merge with the edit summary moved "notable deaths" to Taser controversy as per consensus on discussion board. Given the limited discussion, I had wanted to give a full week for replies opposing the merge, so I will wait before archiving this discussion. Flatscan ( talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Would a taser not affect the heart's own electrical system (Does it use too low a current to affect this?), or is there some kind of frequency / wave alteration that prevents it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.248.117 ( talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to a lack of ongoing discussion and the related discussion #Suggested merge with Taser controversy again, I have archived this discussion without a conclusion. Flatscan ( talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
With the bizarre quarantining of justified critical (aka "controversial") content into a separate article ( Taser controversy), this article is coming very close to a POV whitewash if not to actual advertising of a commercial product. It is therefore definitely not justified for the manufacturing corporation to have a second bite at the cherry in a separate article. The Taser International article needs to be reduced into a section of the Taser article. In addition, I demand reopening of the debate about the ill-conceived separate article Taser controversy. Since most issues involve debate and controversy, this approach will potentially lead to a doubling of Wikipedia articles, eg, George W Bush Controversy, Einstein Controversy, Cat Controversy, Sugar Controversy, etc, etc, etc. Please come into this, unbiassed administrators. Bjenks ( talk) 07:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find info on where a taser gets its power. Is it battery operated? If so, what sort of battery, and how long do they last? Are they rechargeable batteries? Or is the taser attached to a vehicle or plugged into a wall so that it limits the useful range of the weapon to whatever you can get to within the length of the cord? (I see a coiled cord coming from the back of the taser in the photo.) Thanks to anyone who can add that info to the article. Elf | Talk 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to a lack of ongoing discussion, I have archived this discussion with a conclusion of no consensus. Flatscan ( talk) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please review #Suggested merge with Taser controversy and #Notable Taser Deaths Section, Merge discussion above.
I disagree that WP:POVFORK applies, as both articles are reasonably NPOV (although requiring other work). On the other hand, I can see the argument that there is a content fork, rather than reasonable organization.
I oppose the specific suggestion of Taser history, as I think the History section should be cut substantially. Flatscan ( talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to merge the articles in order to avoid a POV fork. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Spinning off "criticisms" into a new article is bad practice and creates two articles with NPOV problems. If an article is long enough to justify splitting then we should find another basis on which to make a division. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
While looking up a PubMed ID for a study I needed to reference, I noticed a large number of recent (2006 and later) Taser-related studies. In general, we would need to rely on secondary sources to avoid OR, so the usable number may be less. This could be a potential article spin-off. Flatscan ( talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to an extended period (1 month) without new discussion, I suggest closing/archiving this merge discussion with a conclusion of no consensus. Flatscan ( talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What about having an RFC on it? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the History section to Development and trimming its content to focus on the development of the Taser device.
Example items for inclusion:
Concerns:
Flatscan ( talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to suggest a merge after it's been defeated twice, but I do suggest that too much of the content in the "Taser" article is about the same subjects as in the "controversy" article. If the articles can't be merged, then I think the main article should be shortened by removing removing most of the references to dangers of the device, and any other controversial points, that are outside the "Taser controversy" section.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Electroshock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Steve Carlson Talk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan ( talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that wikipedia generally frowns upon segregating criticism into a separate section of an article and that editors are instead encouraged to integrate any criticism throughout the article in order to ensure balance and NPOV. I don't think the current state of this article, where a "criticism" section is at the very end, is consistent with WP:NPOV policy. See in particular [ [1]] "Examples that may warrant attention include: "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;". I'm also concerned about the extent to which critical information has been shuffled off to Taser controversy. While it might not be practical to put all of the information contained in the Taser controversies article into this one there's no reason to include every single incident involving Taser in the main article, certainly key information such as the conclusion of scientific studies into Taser belong in the main article. I suggest finding other ways to spin off articles off of the main one. Having a Taser/Taser controversies division isn't consistent with NPOV. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Original split, August 2007: diff
Previous discussions:
Flatscan ( talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This merge has been discussed a few times (linked above), most recent and longest discussion at #Suggested merge with Taser controversy again, which I closed as no consensus after it petered off. I've made my arguments there, but I will highlight a few points:
Flatscan ( talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
← The organization of "Controversy" differs slightly from "Criticism". In the current structure, a disputed topic (e.g. safety) has both sides presented at once, rather than all the pro-Taser POV in the Taser article, and all the anti-Taser "criticism" relegated to the Taser controversy article. If the current article fails NPOV, it could be addressed by moving pro-Taser content out of Taser. Regarding recent edits, I moved Safety concerns ( diff) earlier this month, following Wikipedia:Summary style and leaving what I believe to be an NPOV summary. Please note that the content moved included pro-Taser material such as the Wake Forest/Bozeman study, the Potomac Institute study, and the Lakkireddy pacemaker study. Are there specific objections to these edits? Flatscan ( talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
← For future reference, the separate article was affirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy and renamed to Taser safety issues per Talk:Taser safety issues#Renaming this article? Flatscan ( talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Reginald Perrin recently added the section
Taser#"Excited delirium (
diff). I think that the section is undue weight – used incorrectly
Flatscan (
talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC) and would be better placed in
Excited delirium and
Taser controversy.
While the first source mentions Tasers, it links excited delirium to in-custody deaths and alleged police brutality in general:
Controversy over the increasing use of Tasers and the attention accorded in-custody deaths is, after all, why most are here, in Guelph at a conference hosted by the local police force on recognizing the signs of excited delirium. While the Taser draws most of the heat, debate over precisely why people die after a brisk battle with police to restrain them -- whether using a Taser or not -- is growing as more attention is being paid to a condition that is only now being popularized.
I agree that a link between Tasers and excited delirium should be mentioned somewhere (not necessarily in this article), but its current placement in a separate section implies that the link is stronger than it is. It's probably notable that Taser International refers to excited delirium in its advertising and product literature, and it is further notable that Taser faces criticism for doing so. However, the mention alone may not be uncommon for a company supplying control products to law enforcement. ZARC, a pepper spray manufacturer, makes this paper on excited delirium available on its website (found at Talk:Excited delirium#Plagiarism/POV). Flatscan ( talk) 01:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the core issues is what balance of content is appropriate. For example, I think that critical content constituting 2/3 of the Taser (weapon) article would be too much. Absolutely none (including zero links) would be too little. Any thoughts? Flatscan ( talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence of a strict equation for determining balance. What balance generally means is that we tell both sides (though with an eye to WP:UNDUE) but don't remove material arbitrarily in order to achieve balance. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the RfC closed without attracting outside comment. How should we move forward? Suggestions:
Flatscan ( talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there still a dispute? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A related article, Taser controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy. The article was nominated on 23 June 2008. Flatscan ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest info from Canada is that tasers are (and have been for at least a decade) legally defined as "Prohibited Firearms" in Canada. This has huge legal implications for the Canadian police that have acted as if they were unaware of this important distinction. Even pointing a firearm (including a taser) is a criminal offense in Canada if not justifiable with a 'lawful excuse' (good enough for a gun).
References available here: www.Excited-Delirium.com search for 'firearm' in upper left search box, then scroll down a few posts.
Also here: http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/2008/06/taser-use-could-put-police-under-fire.html
216.198.139.38 ( talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Safety-related sections should be moved to Taser safety issues, with a summary in Taser written per Wikipedia:Summary style. I do not advocate moving all instances of safety content indiscriminately.
Relevant sections to be considered:
Feel free to create subsections for topics that require more detailed discussion. Flatscan ( talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
IF taser Safety-related sections are moved to the section Taser safety issues people won´t see fatalities related to this device, an thus may be a bias for the people reading on this device. I strongly advice this sections is not moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.25.78 ( talk) 03:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no persuasive arguments made to oppose the general move, I will do it now. "Excited delirium" has an open discussion below. Flatscan ( talk) 20:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I previously attempted to write an NPOV summary of Studies and failed. There are several studies, a few supportive of each side, and typical conclusions are "suggestive, but needs more study". Selecting a sample to describe in the summary is vulnerable to OR and POV bias. The full content is at Taser#Studies. Flatscan ( talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
199.212.26.245 removed the {{mergeto}} tag, with the comment This is already a summary of the main "excited delirium" article. Also, this isn't a "safety issue".
I think the best place to mention excited delirium is in the safety article, although the Taser International article is a possibility:
I will restore the tag and point its discussion link here. Flatscan ( talk) 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 99.231.128.251 that the topic of excited delerium should exist in this article, because the term is used only in the context of tasers. This isn't safety issue so much as a controversy about terminology and diagnosis of an effect. Insofar as there are safety issues associated with it, the main article on taser safety issues could summarize those issues, with a pointer to the main article on excited delerium, similar to the way this article is structured. I see no point in a merge, when the merge would have the effect of removing an important topic from this article.
At first I though it might be appropriate to make "Excited delirium" a sub-heading under safety issues, but then I changed my mind. The topic isn't directly a safety issue. It's only related to safety issues. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Controversy over the increasing use of Tasers and the attention accorded in-custody deaths is, after all, why most are here, in Guelph at a conference hosted by the local police force on recognizing the signs of excited delirium. While the Taser draws most of the heat, debate over precisely why people die after a brisk battle with police to restrain them -- whether using a Taser or not -- is growing as more attention is being paid to a condition that is only now being popularized.
This section has been copied to Taser safety issues, so any deletions here are of duplicated content. I will aggressively prune the section, leaving the most prominent information. Flatscan ( talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously tasers are safer than firearms but how to they stack up against say, tackling someone or whacking them with a baton(which can probably cause injury/death as well)? If someone could find some research on this or something, it would be very nice for this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.224.19 ( talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have repeated my removal of the hatnote linking to Taser safety issues, because it is out of place as a hatnote. The purpose of hatnotes is to help people find the article they may have been trying to find under this title. Nobody looking up "Taser" is expecting the article on safety issues. They may however be looking for the part of the article that deals with safety, so they will find the Safety section in the table of contents and, lo and behold, find that there is a whole sub-article should the summary style be inadequate to them. Duplicating this link at the top of the page simply compromises the neutrality of the article and implies that the safety issues are encyclopedically more relevant or important than the history or operation of the weapon, which is wrong. I hope after this clarification the revision is no longer seen as controversial. BigBlueFish ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just watched a documentary on Dutch TV about the Taser-death of Frederick Williams in 2004 (looked American to me, or perhaps Canadian; I assume it was being broadcast because the Dutch police is apparently contemplating introducing the Taser in the Netherlands). I could find very little about it on the web and nothing on Wikipedia, so I added a reference to the Incidents section, with some links. Did I do it right? Captain Chaos ( talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Notes regarding closure |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was do not merge. Flatscan ( talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Originally, Electroshock weapon controversy (which I recently moved to Taser controversy) was split from Electroshock weapon due to its length. Taser controversy, even after removing content not relevant to Tasers, is pretty much the same length as before. There are a number of recent relevant studies and articles not yet included—as well as an expanding list of prominent/publicized incidents—that will increase the length of the article further. Merging the articles would make them easier to maintain, but separating them based on size is appropriate. Flatscan 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.
Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.
Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:
Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)—message from Shaliya waya copied from my Talk page Flatscan 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If length is a problem, then edit out unnecessary information, but the current "TASER" article is too sensational- it should present information about the Taser device (like the M9 pistol article), not about it's use and deaths caused[[ Rachelskit ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]] ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)TR
I was interested in the following statement:
"Taser use in Phoenix increased from 71 in the year 2002 to 164 in the year 2003. In addition, the number of officer-involved shootings decreased by seven during this time period."
It's frustrating, as it doesn't tell you the actual numbers of shootings in 2002 and 2003. I found a PowerPoint on the web, (from Taser) that stated that the reduction in Phoenix from 2002 to 2003 was 54%, so that tells me that the actual numbers were 13 in 2002 and 6 in 2003 respectively. The next question is, is this statistically significant? I used a Bayesian method where I assumed the shootings come from a Poisson distribution with unknown lambda parameter that will be estimated from the data. I chose a vague gamma prior Gamma(0.001, 0.001). The figure of 13 shootings is then factored in using Bayes' theorem. This leads to a posterior distribution Gamma(13.001, 1.001). This distribution has a mean of 12.988. I then integrated this from 0 to 6 to give the probability that 6 or fewer shootings would be observed by chance if this distribution holds true. The answer is 0.00875266, indicating that it is very unlikely. Hence, we conclude that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of shootings. Of course, that doesn't prove that it was the tasers that caused the reduction, but it's tempting to think so. Blaise ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the potential difference between the two electrodes of the taser in Drive Stun mode, or the current in normal mode? I'm obviously making some assumptions about the operating principle (i.e. that it uses the human body A: to carry a current between the two electrodes and B: as a charge reservoir), but they seem justified. It seems like an important fact that's missing from the article. Twin Bird ( talk) 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A related article, Quilem Registre Taser incident, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan ( talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I created Taser#Incidents from an existing list in Taser safety issues#Deaths and injuries. The standard I used was an incident having 1) Taser as a prominent feature and 2) its own Wikipedia article. Flatscan ( talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
97.114.80.8 added Otto Zehm. I had not previously read about Zehm, which suggests that Taser involvement in his death may not have been heavily reported. I think that Zehm may not meet (1) above. Flatscan ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
May be worth adding a sentence or so noting that Tasers often do not perform according to Taser International's guarantee. See for example this news article. I'm not sure how to word this without bias, so I leave the decision to include entirely up to other editors. -- 68.148.68.78 ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Kiwanda added an excerpt from a 2005 Palm Beach Post article. The inconsistency is a reasonable criticism of Taser's documentation, but mentioning the sensitive areas is undue weight and not substantially relevant to Drive Stun. I am not aware of any incidents where these sensitive areas were targeted. If I remember correctly, some police manuals suggest the shoulder and thigh as target areas. Flatscan ( talk) 05:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The undue weight policy states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The removed excerpt largely comprises two quotations from the Taser International manual regarding the use of Drive Stun. Surely the manufacturer's manual represents a "significant viewpoint" here, particularly to a section that otherwise mentions only the risks that Drive Stun does *not* have. Moreover, in removing the excerpt, Flatscan cites only his/her personal awareness regarding incidents involving the Taser. This would seem to give "undue weight" to a personal opinion. Kiwanda ( talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Bozeman is continuing his earlier study. From the abstract, it appears that the methodology is the same, but the number of samples has increased to 1200 (from 1000 in 2007).
Mamesan added a paragraph questioning the study, cited to the study itself. It is written in a way that suggests original research. I will tag the paragraph and remove it if it is not cited to a reliable source. Flatscan ( talk) 05:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)