Talk:Taser/Archive 1

Taser deaths

 * There have been deaths incidental to Taser use, but from what I've heard from a reliable police source there have been no deaths directly caused by a Taser. (Obviously, this fact needs a reference before it's incorporated into the article, but I don't have one to supply. Sorry.) Regards, --Tom S. 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a case of a TASER killing or terminally injuring a person, they are always from conditions that they had before the incident with the police.CommanderOne 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the POV of Taser International that there have been no deaths attributed to the Taser. But, that's contradicted by several official autopsy reports.  The Arizona Republic found 18 where it was a factor, four where it was the primary factor, and one where it was the sole cause of death as of 2005. 66.218.190.100 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

JeffyPooh (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it only takes one counter-example to prove the obvious falsehood (The Arizona ref http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html mentioned above provides either several or many), here's another: "Coroner Mike Morris has ruled that the Taser caused [Maurice Cunningham's] death." http://www.certops.com/certops/news/Oct060508.html (fair use quote)
 * Common sense indicates many many more.
 * Such misuse (3 minute shocks) IS a Taser Inc issue because any reasonable designer would have designd it so as to prevent the Instrument (of Torture...) being so grotesquely misused. They should obviously have included a trivial timer chip to limit the shock duration to that supported by the science (pseudo that it may be).


 * I found this news release about the IEEE study that covered the Taser. Maybe somebody could incorporate it into the article http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/primenewswire/132977.htm Rachelskit (talk) 12:10, 14 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 reference to recent Canadian deaths was erroneous, so I have rewritten it. 23skidoo (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Taser deaths, it is interesting that no public display demonstration of the Taser seems to ever include the person being shocked when the darts are shot out from the Taser into them, followed by the person falling and then thrashing about in electric shock induced grand mal seizure type movements until the shocking stops. The demonstration of the Taser shown to the public (e.g., on TV) is done in drive stun mode with the person standing, and with two people holding onto the person being tazed in drive stun mode. Furthermore, no demonstration of the Taser shown to the public includes realtime respiratory and EKG monitoring before, during, and after the shock--especially in cases of prolonged or repeated shocks. Finally, the demonstration never includes a repeat shock.

Notable Taser Deaths Section, Merge discussion
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. Flatscan 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The template's Discuss link was pointing to a non-existent section on the wrong Talk page. I fixed the link to point here, and I am restarting the discussion countdown (after which I will assume that no discussion means no objections). Flatscan (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is silly having this as a separate section, I have yet to see a special section for Notable AK-47 Deaths. It should be mearged with Taser controversy. Rachelskit (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Let us wait for what other editors think about this. The problem is that Taser is meant to serve as an alternative to deadly force, unlike AK-47 or any other handgun, therefore, the section is justified as key part of a counterclaim. --Poeticbent talk  22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are more studies that indicate that Taser use is safe than thatconnect it to deaths. I think this article needs to be cleaned up as per WP:Undue weight.Rachelskit (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. A entire section on deaths in the Taser article is WP:Undue weight. I'll copy a comment I made elsewhere: As Rachelskit mentions in Talk:Taser, the Taser article should be limited to factual descriptions of the device and its use. If an included point is disputed, it can be countered briefly. For example, Tasers are marketed as less-lethal weapons — one sentence indicating that its lethality is disputed. If a paragraph describing how the Taser disrupts neuromuscular function by design is added as part of a Principles of operation section, a sentence or two regarding how it may stimulate heart tissue can be added, with details going into Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —copied from Talk:Taser controversy Flatscan (talk) 02:02, 12 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)

Affecting the Heart
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)
 * I haven't read any product literature or documentation from Taser that mentions relevant design considerations. Since whether Tasers affect the heart and in which situations heart stimulation may occur are disputed, there is some relevant information at Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge with TASER International
Due to a lack of ongoing discussion and the related discussion, 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 see your argument that TASER International is notable solely due to its manufacturing Tasers. On the other hand, there are many stub company articles, and having a separate, short article for the company is a good place to put company-specific information (see its company infobox).
 * Regarding the separate Taser controversy article:
 * The original controversy article split was made by Lan56 on Electroshock weapon due to the stated reason of length considerations. There were no objections or other discussion.
 * The most recent merge discussion (above, Suggested merge with Taser controversy) had proper merge tags on both articles, was open for over 1 month, and had over 2 weeks between its last comment and its closing/archiving.
 * There are a number of separate controversy articles linked in Controversy, including George W. Bush military service controversy.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does the taser get its power?
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)
 * Internal batteries. The electrodes that penetrate a tased individual get their power from the thin wires that run back to the TASER unit.  There have been cases where body armor defeats a taser, though insulating the electrodes and preventing them from making direct contact with the skin of the tased individual.  Can't say how long the batteries last, though. Yaf (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two types of batteries (cells, actually). Lithium primary (non-rechargeable) cells and Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) secondary rechargeable cells.  For lithium cells, there are 2 each 3 Volt cells. (Internal circuitry steps this voltage up.) Lithium cells are typically good for 195 uses at 5 seconds per use, assuming normal storage temperatures. (Increase the temperature for very long to above 140 F, though, and the number of shots is likely considerably less.)  In addition to the fully deployed use (firing electrodes that penetrate the target), there is also a direct drive mode, where the electrodes are simply held up against the target.  There is also a "fear" mode, where the unit is simply zapped in front of the person, "encouraging" them to surrender without being Tased :-)  Battery life is internally monitored, to indicate the number of tases remaining.  NiMH batteries are rechargeable.  The voltage at the electrodes is typically about 50 kV open circuit, dropping to about 1.2 kV peak under load, while delivering about 2.1 mA of current, with a pulse rate of 19 pulses per second.  Incidentally, it only takes about 1/20 of a mA (0.05 mA) across a person's heart to kill a person.  Depending on how the current from the electrodes actually distributes through a person's body, there is a finite possibility of killing someone each time a Taser is used.  But, as long as the current across the heart doesn't go above 0.05 mA, the Taser shouldn't directly kill the target.  Yaf (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your information. Could you provide sources so that we may add it to the article? Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Taser controversy again
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)


 * I agree with Shaliya waya and Bjenks that putting all critical content into a seperate Taser controversy article, at least at first glance, appears to violate the WP:POVFORK guideline.
 * So I think "Taser controversy" should be merged into and redirected to the main "Taser" article.
 * The only argument I've seen against merging is that the resulting article would be "too long".
 * I suggest finding some *other* way to break this article into smaller pieces.
 * For example, rename the "Taser controversy" article (or create a new article) called Taser history, containing all the historical information currently in the Taser and Taser_controversy sections.
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a Déjà vu of sorts? --Poeticbent talk  22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review and  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.
 * Shaliya waya suggested two options: merging the articles or the current separated organization. It is not clear to me whether Shaliya waya prefers one over the other.
 * JayKeaton supports merging.
 * Rachelskit opposes controversy content in the Taser article.
 * Hermineg supports separate articles.
 * I (Flatscan) support separate articles due to length and per Rachelskit.

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 apologize for the unwarranted accusation. Yes, the 2 articles "Taser controversy" and "Taser" are entirely innocently created content forks (WP:CFORK).
 * So ... why not merge them?
 * There is so much overlap between "notable taser deaths" and the "taser controversy" that I agree with Rachelskit that "Notable Taser Deaths Section ... should be merged with Taser controversy."
 * I am sure that people have entirely valid reasons for not merging -- but I hope we can come to some compromise that will fulfill those reasons as well:


 * "I have yet to see a special section for Notable AK-47 Deaths."? Is there a "AK-47 controversy" article? I find Criticism a little confusing. I hope that once we figure out how to come to consensus on *this* article, we can improve Criticism with our new understanding.
 * "WP:Undue weight" policy? I honestly don't understand this argument. If a block of text is unbalanced when merged into the middle of this article, wouldn't that block of text be even more unbalanced as a stand-alone article?
 * "too long"? Ok, let's split it up then. For example, a Taser users article that spins out the "Users" and "Drive Stun" and other relevant sections. Or why not make everyone happy by suggesting some other way of splitting it up?
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for continuing this discussion. These are my quick thoughts, so I may have a follow-up response as well . Follow-up response below.
 * Re: content fork, I can see that the argument is valid, but I do not agree with it. I think that the split makes sense organizationally.
 * Notable Taser deaths has been merged into Taser controversy. There remain sections Safety concerns, Tests, and Criticism that should also be merged, in part or in whole.
 * Re: WP:Undue weight, "A entire section on deaths in the Taser article is WP:Undue weight." (quoting myself from above) The placement and context matters; there would be no such problem if it were a subsection of a Controversy section.
 * Re: alternate split, I think that the current split makes the most sense by a wide margin, and thus do not have alternate suggestions.


 * The Taser article should focus on the device itself, its name, history, construction, function — everything that is not or cannot be disputed. Everything else — its intended and acceptable uses, its safety and whether it causes serious injury or death, its use in torture, etc. — should go into Taser controversy. Taser controversy has a dablink at the top of the Taser article, a link in the lead, and a proposed link from a Controversy section: it is hardly hidden. Flatscan (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking Criticism. I read through it, and I feel that it doesn't apply. It would be a problem if there were a POV fork. I reviewed Article size (Taser is 19KB, Taser controversy is 20KB), and my reading of that guideline is that neither merging nor splitting is strongly preferred. Flatscan (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me re-iterate that I would prefer to merge all the Taser information into one article.
 * You have convinced me that an article focusing only on the device itself -- linking to some other article about its intended use, actual use, and public perception -- would make an excellent encyclopedia article.
 * So I am willing to compromise and divide the Taser information into 2 articles -- as long as the result does not isolate all the negative information into a less-prominent article, giving the appearance of a POV fork.


 * I hope that we can find some compromise that results in articles that are *both* excellent *and* avoid even the appearance of unbalanced POV.
 * Since all the proposals I've made (except for "merge into one article") would satisfy your goal of keeping the article from becoming "too big", I suspect you have some *other* criteria for preferring one division over another -- would you please tell me what that criteria is?
 * Tell me that criteria -- or propose some other way of dividing up this information -- to make it easier for someone to find a way to make both of us happy.
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to write that it feels like we are at an impasse. I don't think that Taser controversy is a significantly less-prominent article than Taser: it's prominently linked, slightly longer, and comes up second or third in Wikipedia search results (it's pushed out of the first two Google results by Robert Dziekański Taser incident). We could add a redirect from Taser death. I think that the current split is appropriate because the controversy — public opinion, news reports, government investigations, UN statement — has become as important as the device itself. Flatscan (talk) 03:51, 31 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)
 * The current situation does suggest a violation of POVFORK, however the arguement that a merge would be too long is more valid that I believe some people appreciate. The whole article would become unwieldy unless the controversey section was shrunk somewhat SGGH speak! 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I think that nearly all of the controversy content is good; there is some overlap between the two articles and a small amount that should be removed outright. I expect further reduction to be difficult. Flatscan (talk) 01:50, 1 February 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)
 * Thank you for your comments. Ignoring the fork issue, do you think that the two articles have NPOV problems in their current states? I think that both sides are well-represented. Flatscan (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If "criticisms" are in a separate article it's inevitable that there will be POV problems. The main article for lacking criticisms and the fork for having criticisms as the focus. It's a structural problem which is why "criticism" articles are discouraged (I understand there are still plenty of examples of them in wikipedia but they are still discouraged and there are attempts to merge many of them back into their parents). Lists of Taser deaths could probably be spun off into another article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could not find a clear violation of Content forking (guideline) in the articles. Criticism (essay) discourages separate articles, but it also discourages Criticism sections. I think that a separate article or section and brief mentions of criticisms where appropriate should be preferred over full integration. Flatscan (talk) 19:31, 3 February 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 think that no consensus is an acceptable conclusion, considering the lack of ongoing discussion. I think that it is not urgent to establish consensus on merging/splitting and that the articles have plenty of other needed work. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History → Development
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:
 * Original invention by Cover
 * Switch from gunpowder to compressed nitrogen propellant (and resulting reclassification as non-firearm)
 * X26 and "shaped pulse"

Concerns:
 * Danger of reading like TASER PR copy: materials from TASER will probably be most cited, but there are secondary sources, including sources already used in the current History section.
 * POV shift resulting from trimming: the 2007 Canada paragraph would be moved, probably to Criticism. However, a relevant reliable source could be included, e.g., "TASER claims that 'shaped pulse' is more effective, but critics claim that it increases incidence of injury."
 * Content fork with TASER International: a fork should be easy to avoid if effort is made to focus on the main subject of each article.

Flatscan (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Taser" and "Taser controversy" yet again
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)


 * That material should be moved to the Taser controversy article so that the two articles better fit the WP:Summary style guideline.
 * Removing non-duplicated content outright should not be done. Similar content (e.g. study results) should be moved, then edited for duplication.
 * It is appropriate to have a brief summary in the Taser article. Something like "Taser International claims that Tasers are safe, but critics disagree" (well-cited) would be fine.
 * When moving content between articles, please consider leaving a clear edit trail. I prefer to move content unchanged, then edit at the destination.
 * Flatscan (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Electroshock
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 CarlsonTalk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Criticism

 * RfC filed, 2008-05-21
 * RfC expired, 2008-06-20

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 [] "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)


 * The article can be split along criteria other than controversy vs non-controversy. Splitting it along these lines is generally discouraged since it's incompatible with the principle of WP:NPOV. Can we think of other subtopics that can be spun-off instead? Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Original split, August 2007: diff

Previous discussions: Flatscan (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Merger
This merge has been discussed a few times (linked above), most recent and longest discussion at, 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)
 * I've read Criticism (essay) a few times, and I think that full integration should not be done for these articles, as I have noticed a tendency for criticism to be integrated into questionable locations. This does not intend to exclude all criticism from the article. Consider these hypothetical (I have no sources for them) examples based in Taser:
 * Inappropriate: The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing and barbed to prevent removal once in place. These projectiles can cause serious injury if they strike the face or eyes of the target. —short factual description, no need to balance pro-Taser POV; criticism refers to a rare event, may be mentioned in controversy article/section
 * Appropriate: Taser International claims that "Shaped Pulse" dramatically increases the Taser's effectiveness, but critics say that the technology is linked to an increased rate of injury and death. —pro-Taser PR, reasonable to balance; criticism should be expanded elsewhere
 * WP:POVFORK has been invoked repeatedly. I responded with some combination of Content forking, Summary style, and Article size, and asked for specific NPOV violations besides the existence of two separate articles.


 * While the merge has been discussed before I don't believe it's every been proposed through the proper channels ie one that would allow for a community-wide discussion. The discussions have involved a handful of people and, reading over them, it is not clear that when it involved more than two editors that the consensus was not to merge. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the first merge discussion the person who closed the discussion and concluded there was "no consensus" was User:Flatscan. As he was most certainly not an uninvolved editor but very much an advocate of one side his involvement in closing the discussion and rendering a verdict was inappropriate. Flatscan also closed the second discussion and the third as well! Moreover, there was no attempt to bring in the community in any of the three discussions. As far as I can tell the merger proposals were not mentioned on the RFC page or at Proposed mergers. Moreover, while the first two "discussions" involved two or three people at the most, the last involved a slightly larger number of contributors, four, however as far as I can see 3 were in favour of merger and 1 was opposed so, if anything, there was a consensus to merge. Nevertheless, Flatscan closed the discussion concluded "no consensus" when he should have asked an uninvolved admin to close. My point is that if Flatscan is suggesting that this has already been discussed and settled - he's wrong. There has never been a proper RFC or proper proposal to merge and those that have existed were improperly closed by an involved editor. Moreover, if one looks at either the third discussion alone or all the discussions combined there actually is a consensus to merge. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the first merge discussion was started after an editor dropped tags onto the articles without creating a Talk section. I created the section, linked it appropriately, and participated in the discussion. I admit that I improperly closed it with a conclusion and as an involved party, but (please AGF) I was ignorant of and could not find the relevant policy/guideline. Two new merge discussions were started within a month of closing, so the impact of the improper close was limited.
 * Regarding the long discussion, I closed it as no consensus after waiting one month with no new comments (Feb 2008), suggesting closing as no consensus, responding to your suggestion of an RFC two weeks later, and finally closing two weeks after that. If you had suggested an RfC more strongly or insisted after my reply, I would have asked you to file it (citing my unfamiliarity with the process) and participated. My understanding, then and now, is that a discussion may be closed as no consensus if there are no objections, even by an involved party. No consensus means exactly that – consensus was not determined and the discussion can be reopened at any time. Regarding 3 versus 1, consensus is not a vote. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a relatively new user so my intention isn't to accuse you of wrongdoing - my point is just that the prior discussions weren't properly conducted or concluded (and in the third case especially your "no consensus" finding is dubious) so they shouldn't be used to argue that this matter has already been settled. I'm just saying that completely removing "controversial" material from this article and dumping it in that article isn't appropriate. At a minimum, the major controversies should be added to the main Taser article, with the fork article spelling out the situation in more detail. eg the studies section should be restored to this article and elaborated in the other article. Excited delirium should be introduced here and discussed in more detail elsewhere etc. The habit of excising negative information from this article wholesale and dumping it elsewhere so that this article has an overall positive POV on Taser is not an acceptable practice. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. Flatscan (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the view of Reggie Perrin and others that the taser articles need to be merged and that it was inappropriate for a judgment on the issue to be made by a partisan editor, Flatscan. In line with my earlier comment, I recommend that this overloaded heap of authoritarian propaganda be taken in hand by an unbiassed administrator or experienced editor and reduced to a single comprehensive article of greatly reduced bulk. Bjenks (talk) 05:10, 22 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 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)


 * This article receives ten times the traffic (literally) that Taser controversy receives. It's not insignificant that sections like "Taser deaths" and "studies" that contain information that is not favourable to Taser have been removed to the other article. The effect is essentially to bury this information. I don't see how that is at all justifiable particularly when there are a number of articles on wikipedia that are longer than Taser and Taser controversy combined. If "Taser controversy" is an NPOV article than merging that NPOV material into this article cannot make this article POV yet it is a false claim of POV that has been used to move the material from this article to that one. Generally, we don't make an article NPOV by removing content but by adding content. However, if the article is too long perhaps it would be preferable to move the more trivial material to a subarticle and retain the more important facts in the main article? If you look up Taser in factiva and Lexis-Nexis you'll see that it is the material on studies and deaths that is most prominent so it belongs in the main article. Also, which "Taser controversy" is that article talking about? It looks like a catch-all for various different issues that are "controversial". Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Responses to some of your points:
 * Traffic statistics: 10 times the traffic is surprising to me, but it is plausible and bolsters your argument. What is your source, and does it cover internal wikilinks from Taser to Taser controversy?
 * Article length: According to Article size, their combined length falls into a gray area. My point is that overall length should be given some consideration.
 * Moving material: I think that moving content between the two articles correctly can maintain NPOV balance. Can you be more specific about which edits (diffs, please) have been justified by "a false claim of POV"? Do you mean my recent edits that I mentioned above?
 * Taser controversy is named per Naming conventions.
 * Your recent edits (diffs:, ) concern me somewhat. You are permitted to be WP:BOLD, and the edits are simple copy/pastes. However, they seem to be covered by this ongoing discussion and open RfC. Flatscan (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My point about Taser controversy is that it's a catch-all. Reading it there are actually a number of different matters brought up that are not necessarily related. Splitting an article on the basis of criticism/non-criticism or controversy/non-controversy is not ideal, particularly when there is not a singular controversy. I've seen biographical articles where a particular controversy is spun off into a subarticle but I don't think this is the same thing.
 * Traffic statistics for April 2008 are as follows. Taser 29,754 hits; Taser controversy 4,348 so not quite 10 times but still quite a huge difference.
 * I see I may have overstated my argument about the way to close merger discussions. I thought an uninvolved admin had to close them but I see now that policy is unclear in this area so I apologize. Nevertheless, it's definitely better if an uninvolved person does it.
 * I don't think it's necessary to merge all the "controversy" article into this one but I think key issues such as deaths, legal issues and scientific studies need to be mentioned in the main article - particularly as much of the media interest in Taser, judging by Factiva and Lexis-Nexis, has been around those issues. Moving them to another article makes it look like we're trying to bury negative information and the fact that a pro-Taser study was included in the move doesn't change that. Not mentioning "excited delirium" in the main Taser article would also be a glaring omission. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the traffic statistics (that's a substantial difference) and the apology. They are much appreciated. Regarding the controversies, there's the big one Safety, which can be considered to contain both deaths and studies, and lesser ones like Torture. Many criticisms of alleged inappropriate Taser use stem from safety concerns, and the legal issues are mainly wrongful death suits and Taser International suing to "suppress" reports that directly blame Tasers for deaths. Flatscan (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me re-iterate that I would prefer to merge all the Taser information into one article.
 * Flatscan has convinced me that many people prefer shorter articles, and that it may be possible to make more than one excellent NPOV encyclopedia article out of Taser-related information.
 * So I am willing to compromise and divide the Taser information into 2 articles -- as long as the result does not isolate all the negative information into a less-prominent article, giving the appearance of a POV fork.
 * I think Article size supports my desire to discourage giving articles names that include "controversy", such as Taser controversy, and instead "Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article".
 * Let me ask again: other than your goal of keeping the article from becoming "too big", what other criteria do you have for preferring one division over another?
 * How about:
 * an article about just the device itself -- perhaps Taser hardware, analogous to central processing unit
 * an article about just the company -- TASER International
 * an article about everything else -- its intended use, actual use, history, notable users, notable people it has been used on, promoters, critics, public perception, etc. -- perhaps Taser history, analogous to History of general purpose CPUs.
 * the "Taser" article becomes a disambiguation page listing the above 3 articles.
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining this discussion. I assume that you're the same editor who participated in above. Could you clarify to which comments you refer with "your goal of keeping the article from becoming 'too big'"? Having a disambiguation page feels odd, and removing it from your suggested organization reintroduces the problem of which article should be most prominent. I'll have to think about your suggestion more. Flatscan (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anon that if one consolidated "Taser" article is too long it is preferable to break out historical or trivial information into separate articles rather than material related to "controversy". Information and events that may be viewed in a critical light should be included in the main article rather than in subsidiary articles. However, that doesn't mean that we have to list every single Taser-related death, for instance, in the main article. Taser should cover the more notable incidents but if there's a long list of incidents the full list can be in a sub-article called Taser-related deaths or perhaps Post-tasering deaths if that's more NPOV. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm the same. My goal here is to remove the *appearance* of a POV fork. I hope there is a way to do that that makes all reasonable editors happy. I was referring to the I think merging the articles is not appropriate, due to their lengths. and I think the History section should be cut substantially. comments. Other than making the article "too big", is there some other reason not to merge?
 * In response to "I think that the current split makes the most sense by a wide margin" and "Having a disambiguation page feels odd": Could you be a little more specific as to *why* you think that particular split makes the most sense, and what in particular feels odd about a disambiguation page? If you don't want me to merge the articles together, and you aren't going to propose some other way of splitting up the content into articles (hint: one without "controversy" or "criticism" in the title of the article), and you continue to shoot down my proposals that I honestly thought would meet your criteria, could you at least give me some sort of hint or clue as to what you are looking for? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the concern with "*appearance* of a POV fork". If a POV fork exists, it should be fixed through NPOV editing, possibly including merging. Content forking doesn't mention anything like "These may be mistaken for forks and should thus be edited to eliminate any possible confusion." While it may appear that I oppose your suggestions arbitrarily, I have reasoning, examples provided below. If you have specific organization schemes that you would like me to explain, feel free to mention them.
 * Taser controversy easily stands as an article on its own. It is clearly notable and has plenty of content. All alternatives that I remember have problems with both. The existing Taser section could not stand as an article, even if combined with Taser International. The current version has details that should be moved (AFID feature) or removed outright ("1994 AIR TASER Model 34000"). Aside from advertising puffery, I can't think of any content to add there. If you believe that a detailed history or a list of all historical models should be added, either state so or edit the article directly. The same objection applies to trivial content: if it were successfully split, the new article would go to AfD rapidly.
 * The separate organizational page is not a disambiguation page: WP:DAB, WP:DAB. My first thought was that it adds an extra step with very little organizational value. If you can find linking a few closely related articles mentioned in a guideline or as an example page, please share it.
 * If the problem is simply the words "controversy" or "criticism", how about splitting Taser safety? I make this suggestion assuming that Reggie Perrin will oppose, given his comments and article edits, but I would like to know what you think. Flatscan (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear neighbors, I feel that all Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and I am happy that you agree with me. I also feel that all Wikipedia articles should *appear* as if they were written from a neutral point of view, and I hope you do also. Is that enough explanation as to why I do not want Wikipedia articles having "the appearance of a POV fork"?


 * Since Flatscan asked for specific organizational schemes (feel free to explain them):
 * The simplest such scheme is to merge Taser controversy into Taser.
 * Another scheme: a Taser use article that spins out the "Users" and "Drive Stun" and other relevant sections, and also (as examples of Taser use) includes all of the current Taser controversy article. The result has more content, and I think "Taser use" more neutral and (using Googlefight) only slightly less notable than "Taser controversy".
 * Another scheme: instead of splitting out the existing Taser section alone as an article, which I agree doesn't have enough content to stand alone as an article, I propose putting all encyclopedic Taser-related events that happened in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc. into a Taser history article. I think that includes all of the current Taser controversy article, as well as the current Taser section. The result has more content, and (using Googlefight) I think "Taser history" is more notable than "Taser controversy".
 * Another scheme: spin out a Taser hardware article that discusses just the device itself, not any particular events.
 * Another scheme: spin out 2 or more articles, leaving the "Taser" article to become a disambiguation page listing those articles.
 * Allow me to share examples of disambiguation pages currently "linking a few closely related articles": A Kiss Before Dying (disambiguation), AMD Next Generation Microarchitecture, AMMO, AP Latin, AP Spanish, AP Economics, ATAFC, ATP Bologna, AWUNZ, At the Earth's Core, Auricular appendage, Australian touch football, Automated Fingerprint Identification System, Averbode. I suspect there may also be some that don't start with the letter A.


 * Yes, I think the current content of the Taser controversy article is good -- my main problem is titling an article with the words "controversy" or "criticism". I would support your suggestion of re-naming that article to Taser safety, although I would prefer naming it "Taser history". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

← For future reference, the separate article was affirmed at Articles for deletion/Taser controversy and renamed to Taser safety issues per Talk:Taser safety issues Flatscan (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excited delirium
User:Reginald Perrin recently added the section Taser (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). Flatscan (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Flatscan's comment that excited deirium should be mentioned "somewhere (not necessarily in this article)" illustrates the problem which is that over the past few months aspects of the article that may reflect negatively on Taser have been moved to other articles. In regards to excited delirium it's not just a question of Taser including the concept in its literature, its that there is widespread and credible criticism that the company uses the concept to explain away Taser-related deaths and put the blame for those fatalities on something other than the Taser and that this deflection of blame is pseudo-scientific at best. Both of the citations I use in the excited delirium section are not tangential to Taser, they are from articles that are primarily about Taser and its use or misuse of the concept. The allegation that Taser is promoting a scientifically dubious concept to exonerate itself of responsiblity is not a fringe theory as suggested by Flatscan's invocation of WP:Undue weight on my talk page. It's been made by mainstream and credible scientific sources - quoted in the article is a police psychologist testifying before a judicial inquire - and is a prominent issue regarding Taser so Undue Weight does not apply. What I haven't included in the article yet is the fact that Taser has used the concept of "excited delirium" to defend itself in wrongful death lawsuits and in a lawsuit against a coroner who listed Taser as the cause of death in one person's case. A combined factiva search of "taser and excited delirium" returns 785 hits (!) A combined google search shows 21,600 hits that have both terms. Clearly the concept of "excited delirium" specifically in regards to Taser is notable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we may have had a misunderstanding based on what looks like my misuse of "undue weight" to mean "emphasis that appears to advance a POV". You've thoroughly connected Taser International (company) to excited delirium, but I did not dispute that. I feel that the section implies a strong link between Tasers (weapon) and excited delirium that has not been demonstrated. Your source that I quoted above mentions 35 police-related deaths in Ontario found to have had excited delirium as a factor, with only one involving a Taser, although more recent deaths may have been excluded. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find other sources if you like. According to Factiva there are 785 news articles that are potential reliable sources. Taser International discusses excited delirium in relation to the Taser (weapon) so yes, it's relevant to this article, very much so. In any case, if you're actual concern is with POV then I want to point out that excluding all references in the article to "excited delirium" despite the fact that the concept is prominently linked with Taser is a POV by omission. Excluding information that may be seen as negative is POV. One doesn't make the excited delirium reference NPOV by removing it, one does it by ensuring that both sides are put forward. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Balance, relative length
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)


 * I agree with Perrin. We tell all sides to the story -- all the information that is relevant to the topic, verifiable, and encyclopedic enough to be included in the article. I don't expect exactly the same ratio of "criticism" vs. "praise" in the Vlad III the Impaler article as in the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article. Let the facts speak for themselves. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC ended, what now?
Unfortunately, the RfC closed without attracting outside comment. How should we move forward? Suggestions: Flatscan (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Restate the dispute, taking extra care to make it accessible to uninvolved editors, then refile the RfC. We may want to consider more formal Statement by sections.
 * Continue up DR ladder to Dispute resolution.

Is there still a dispute? Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not satisfied with the current state of the articles, especially the duplication of the Studies subsection. In consideration of the ongoing discussion, I have avoided making bold edits to the covered sections. I would like to establish an explicit consensus with outside input to avoid simply replaying this dispute in the future. Flatscan (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've removed the duplication from Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responsiveness. Unfortunately, the sentence "The US National Institute of Justice has begun a two-year study into taser-related deaths in custody." is now duplicated in Taser. As I am trying to avoid editing the disputed Safety section, I will not make a correction myself, and you may decide which placement is better.


 * The duplication was among the most prominent of my concerns because it was a content fork (exact duplication) during discussion of an alleged POV fork. Here are the options I considered:
 * Remove from Taser controversy, an explicit endorsement of its location in Taser.
 * Remove from Taser, a revert of your edits, incompatible with WP:0RR.
 * Point out, let you take action. This does not necessarily end the dispute. As I wrote, "I would like to establish an explicit consensus with outside input".


 * Regarding Articles for deletion/Taser controversy, it is not an action I would have taken, but it is mentioned in Content forking. The examples of AfD'd POV forks I was able to find were particularly blatant, such as POV forks made by User:Ed Poor. AfD is not part of Dispute resolution, and discussing mergers there has been discouraged. On the other hand, the nomination has been successful at soliciting outside comments. Flatscan (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I don't follow you. What's the problem with mentioning the NIJ's study into taser-related deaths in custody? That information is properly sourced and is relevant, isn't it? The sentence isn't duplicated, it only appears in one article, not both. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The NIJ study is mentioned twice in Taser. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed that. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Taser controversy
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 Articles for deletion/Taser controversy. The article was nominated on 23 June 2008. Flatscan (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like we're ending up with the status quo. No consensus to delete the Taser controversy article but also, general support for the state of the current Taser article. We can have more extensive detail in the controversy article or articles but the main Taser article cannot return to its previous state where important information was omitted, for example the complete excision of all reference to clinical studies of the Taser. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the editor responsible for the most recent "whitewashing" of Taser. I moved the Safety section, leaving a summary in Taser and integrating the content into Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin disagreed with the edits, eventually copying the Studies subsection back to Taser. One should note that my summary's omission of studies removes content supporting both POVs, remaining acceptably NPOV (in my opinion). I found it difficult to write a good summary of Studies. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —copied from Articles for deletion/Taser controversy, further discussion there. Flatscan (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Under Legal / Canada - tasers are 'Prohibited Firearms'
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)

Moving content to Taser safety issues
Safety-related sections should be moved to Taser safety issues, with a summary in Taser written per Summary style. I do not advocate moving all instances of safety content indiscriminately.

Relevant sections to be considered:
 * Safety concerns
 * Fatalities discussion
 * Notable Taser deaths merged into Fatalities (diff)
 * Studies summarized (diff), discussion
 * Tests summarized (diff)
 * "Excited delirium"

Feel free to create subsections for topics that require more detailed discussion. Flatscan (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections or discussion, I plan to move all the sections this weekend. Flatscan (talk) 00:53, 23 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)


 * Are you objecting to moving Fatalities and/or Notable Taser deaths in particular? The count of Taser-related deaths according to Amnesty International will stay as part of the summary. Consensus has been established for keeping a separate article and refocusing that article to cover safety. Please present a persuasive argument for why safety content should not be placed in the safety article. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 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 copied the content and summarized Studies and Tests, diffs linked above. Fatalities is more work than I expected – I'll work on it over the next week. Flatscan (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I created a subsection for Fatalities below. Flatscan (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Studies summary
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. Flatscan (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed most of the studies and have given the summary some further thought. Mentioning that the studies exist and briefly describing the types (e.g. experimental studies on pigs) is acceptable and should be easy to keep NPOV. Flatscan (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Excited delirium as safety issue
199.212.26.245 removed the 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:
 * excited delirium → deaths in police custody → deaths following Taser use → Taser safety issues
 * excited delirium → Taser International defense strategy (alternate theory) → Taser wrongful death suits → Taser safety issues
 * excited delirium → Taser International defense strategy (alternate theory) → Taser International uses disputed science → Taser International

I will restore the tag and point its discussion link here. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excited delirium is a pretty key component of the taser story so there needs to be a mention in the main article an the existing mention is already a summary of the article Excited delirium. 99.231.128.251 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you expand on how excited delirium is directly related to Tasers, perhaps a list of linked topics as I've provided above? Flatscan (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is no further discussion, I will proceed with the move. Flatscan (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see consensus for that. 99.231.128.251 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I provided my reasoning, and seeing your objection, invited you to discuss further. Simply asserting that excited delirium is key to the Taser article is not persuasive. Flatscan (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do a Lexis-Nexis search you'll see that virtually every mention of "excited delirium" is in reference to the Taser. Also, as has been pointed out, the section on ED is ALREADY a summary of another article so there's no reason to summarize it later. Those are my reasons; so there's no consensus for the merge. 99.231.128.251 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 99.231.128.251 removed the tag, which I restored citing ongoing discussion. Since the tag directs readers/editors to this discussion, please do not remove it before the discussion concludes.
 * I think that the search results make a case for including Taser-related content in the Excited delirium article, but not necessarily the reverse. In the section above, I quoted from one of the sources originally included with the section (no longer available), and made the point that excited delirium is strongly linked to in-custody deaths and Taser International. I picked ten articles from Taser safety issues regarding specific incidents resulting in deaths, and only one mentioned excited delirium, in a statement from Taser International. I don't see a direct link excited delirium → Taser that justifies a separate section here. It's relevant to the deaths as covered in Taser safety issues, as I detailed above.
 * Are you interested in soliciting outside input? Flatscan (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I listed this dispute at WP:3O. Flatscan (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
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)


 * Thanks for providing a third opinion. I have a few clarifications that may be helpful:
 * I do not advocate removing all mentions of excited delirium. I think that appropriate weight would be 1-2 sentences in Taser (e.g. "Taser International claims that the deaths are caused by excited delirium, but critics point out that it is not a valid diagnosis"), with expansion (e.g. Taser International's "brainwashing") in Taser safety issues.
 * I disagree that ED is only associated with or mentioned in reference to Tasers:
 * Excited delirium includes a few cases with no Taser involvement.
 * The use of the term in reference to in-custody deaths predates widespread Taser use. "A.C.L.U. Report Calls Pepper Spray Potentially Deadly", New York Times, 1995-06-19.
 * "'Excited Delirium' Blamed For Deaths - 'Not About Tasers'", National Post, 2008-05-17. article no longer available, first quoted in this edit

"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 ED is not directly a safety issue, as no source asserts that Tasers cause ED. However, the link to the Taser device is another step, either through the deaths or through Taser International's promotion of the term.
 * Flatscan (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than your valid point about tasers not being the only connection with excited delerium, I don't see that the opinion I posted should be modified. It would be a violation of WP:SYN for this article to associate excited delerium with Taser safety issues, unless reliable sources make that link. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for continuing this discussion.
 * Excited delirium is usually discussed in the context of in-custody deaths, with or without Taser involvement.
 * Taser safety issues covers deaths occurring after Taser use as one of its main topics.
 * Therefore, it is appropriate to cover excited delirium in the Taser safety issues section/article. If a stronger link to the Taser device is presented, the section here could be justified.
 * Taser safety issues is a Wikipedia article title dictated by the article's scope and NPOV. Frankly, I would be surprised to find the exact phrase "Taser safety issues" in a reliable source, as most current coverage focuses on deaths. Flatscan (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fatalities summary
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)


 * Pruning done. I left the NIJ/Bozeman study to offset the counts of post-Taser deaths, but it could be cut a little, as long as the 99.7% is kept. Flatscan (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

compare to baton/tackle?
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)


 * Comparing the Taser to other methods of force feels like a familiar topic, but I didn't find any previous discussions. It's mentioned briefly at Taser safety issues. Some police use of force continua place Tasers around the level of pepper spray. I'm not aware of any direct safety comparisons rising to the rigor of research. Flatscan (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes
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 agree with the removal, per WP:RELATED. I originally added the hatnote as a good-faith effort to link the Taser controversy article. Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Health Implications

 * With the prongs of the gun model designed to pierce the flesh, with no sterlisation of the prongs between victims, a discussion of the potential infectious health implications would be beneficial (things like HIV, Hepatitis etc (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081004215741AAsrnVQ#EZJNPmb2MEpA5I_NjgSy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.168.76 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As described in Taser, the cartridges and their contents are single-use only. If a reliable source is found describing these specific risks, feel free to discuss at Talk:Taser safety issues. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Williams
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)


 * Per above, I included only incidents notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles in Taser. Other lists include Taser safety issues and List of people who died after being tasered in Canada. Was the documentary primarily about Frederick Williams? If so, that may indicate greater notability. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Two of the sources provided fail Reliable sources; the NPR source only mentions Williams. I searched for alternate sources, finding a 2008 article on his widow dropping her lawsuit against the county. I found older Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles, but they had been removed from the official site and had questionable hosting. From what I found, Williams does not have sufficient notability for a separate article and thus for inclusion in this section. I have removed his entry. Editors may consider starting a new article or adding Williams to a list in Taser safety issues. Flatscan (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Taser controversy
It has been pointed out that my closing of this discussion as an involved party was improper. I acknowledge my error. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgment struck 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC), not a clear violation of norms. At the time of the discussion closure, Help:Merging and moving pages had no suggestion to solicit an uninvolved admin. I added that suggestion October 2008. The underlying content dispute was eventually resolved by Articles for deletion/Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) Merge "Taser controversy" into "Taser" and clean up
 * 2) Make the "Taser" article's focus about what the Taser is, with a "main article" or "see also" tag directing readers to the "Taser controversy" article for information about the controversy
 * 3) If the list of notable Taser deaths grows to be quite long, make that into a separate article.

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)


 * Thanks for your comments.
 * As I write above, I think merging the articles is not appropriate, due to their lengths.
 * I support this. I think is the appropriate template. Electroshock weapon is an example, although I think Controversy (singular) is a better section title.
 * I hope that the list would not grow that long, but splitting it into a separate article at that point would be appropriate.
 * Flatscan 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would usually say that something as big as the Taser controversies is an important enough topic to have it's own article, but the Taser article itself isn't big at all and there is plenty of room for the controversy in it, so a merge makes complete sense. It would actually help the Taser article too. JayKeaton (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference, this old revision of Electroshock weapon is before the split and is roughly the length of the proposed merge. I think it's on the long side already. Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 7 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 causedRachelskit (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]] (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)TR


 * From the number of edits adding controversy-related content, it appears that consensus is to include that content. I'm fine with the inclusion of the content, as long as it's confined to a Controversy article or section, with appropriate links from related articles. I agree that Taser article has too much controversy content that should be moved. Flatscan (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Taser and Controversy pages should remain separated. Taser sounds too much like a page from the manufacturer and aspired political correctness will lead to innnumerable modifs. The separate Controversy page will much easier allow to freely expound the criticism, even though it may not appear balanced in all aspects. Academic discussions with references and cross-references, as well as technical descriptions of purposes and technology used, tend to obfuscate the core issue of human rights which includes Article 5. "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The number of cases that the Taser has been used unjustifiedly and/or has led to the death of the victim, as well as the extreme pain that it causes, are suffient grounds to maintain the Controversy page separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermineg (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of Officer-Related Shootings in Phoenix PD
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)


 * The sentence in the article, by itself, doesn't directly draw a cause-and-effect conclusion. It makes sense, though, if a police officer has a choice of using a Taser or a firearm, then using a Taser would decrease the number of times necessary to use the firearm over the course of encounters during a year that make such use necessary.
 * Even so, the article shouldn't have such an ambiguous sentence. The numbers and percentages should be stated. I'm not inclined to trust the Taser source for such information, and deriving it would be a form of synthesis, which we couldn't put in this article.
 * I'd rather see that sentence changed to something like this:
 * "Taser use in Phoenix increased from 71 in 2002 to 164 in 2003, a 231% increase. The number of officer-involved shootings decreased by seven (a decrease of 54% according to Taser) during this same period." ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The existing ref doesn't seem to support the text as written. I see a relevant sentence "In 2003, the first year the Phoenix force was fully equipped, shootings were cut in half.", but none of the specific numbers. My guess is that there used to be another ref. I'll investigate the article history. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the ref in the history of Electroshock weapon, removed 4 October 2007. It was originally cited to a page at Taser, now 404 Not Found. Since this source is no longer valid, I tagged these sentences with . Flatscan (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential difference?
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)

AfD nomination of Quilem Registre Taser incident
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 Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidents
I created Taser from an existing list in Taser safety issues. 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)

Otto Zehm
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)

Tasers not working to specs
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)

Drive Stun and sensitive areas
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)
 * Thanks for replying here.
 * I checked the quoted wording against one of the current Taser manuals (X26C, downloadable here), and it matches exactly with minor punctuation differences. However, it is one paragraph (albeit highlighted in red) in a 28-page manual. Further, the Taser is not unique in this capability – many objects, including an empty hand, are able to crush the trachea or testicles. Your point that the Drive Stun section excludes risks is an interesting one, but easily explained: it is inherently less effective and no more dangerous than the projectile mode described immediately prior.
 * If you have sources to correct my personal knowledge, please provide them. I would be receptive to one sentence on a specific incident resulting in the specific injury. If I had argued to include "The described injuries have never been caused by Tasers", you would be correct that that sentence would be unacceptable original research. Discussion based on my knowledge is fine.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched for Taser testicles, finding a few possible incidents, but none describing crushing injuries. The two incidents that stood out were 1) a piercing injury from an errant shot and 2) a multiple stun case, but no mention of serious injuries. I think crushing injuries are too rare to cover in this article, but possibly in passing in Taser safety issues. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking that quote. Unfortunately, you haven't addressed in what sense the manufacturer's manual fails to constitute a "significant view", and so your claim of "undue weight" remains unsupported. If the description of the quote as "one paragraph...in a 28 page manual" is intended to support that view, then such an argument suggests that no quotation may be used, unless it constitutes the majority of the quoted document.


 * Again, the quoted Las Vegas police document in the section serves mainly to emphasize that drive stun does not incapacitate the central nervous system, and thus is "no more dangerous" than standard deployment. Such emphasis belies significant safety considerations noted by the Taser company.Kiwanda (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not reinsert the disputed text while we are discussing it. I removed it, but I left the new Amnesty International text, which may fit better in the Torture section. If you are not satisfied with discussion here, please consider pursuing Dispute resolution. The typical step here would be requesting a neutral Third opinion.
 * I agree that Taser International represents a significant view here. However, this sentence is near the middle of the section: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. That Taser mentions possible injuries does not make those injuries significant – we should consider their severity and frequency, as well as coverage in other sources. If Taser had devoted a larger portion of its manual (my 1 paragraph/28 pages point) to the injuries, that would exceed a mere mention and dictate greater coverage, without the need for additional significance contributed by other sources. Flatscan (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bozeman 2009
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)
 * I removed the text. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)