text:
Talk:Falklands War

Probably unimportant, but "Guerra de *las* Malvinas"?
I am 32 years old, from Buenos Aires, and I'm yet to hear or read a native Spanish speaker include the plural feminine article in the name of this armed conflict.

Looks to me as a bona fide mistake from someone who speaks Spanish as a second language, or it may just be a calc from their mother tongue.

Either way, somehow the offending article seems to have propagated even to the Spanish wiki.

Did anybody else think the inclusion of the article sounds rather awkward in Spanish? Cheers. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * What is it called in Argentina? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone here says "Guerra de Malvinas", but I also believe that's the case for every Spanish speaker.
 * You would say "Las Malvinas" and "Las Islas Malvinas", but "Guerra de Malvinas" without the article. Articles are confusing, I know, but including it in this case is something I'd expect maybe from a Ukrainian (as they omit many that are required and insert some where they don't belong), but never from a native speaker. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's not just a matter every-day speech. Look at this, verbatim within an article of legislation, straight from the official archive:
 * https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/50000-54999/50278/norma.htm 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The Spanish Wikipedia uses Guerra de las Malvinas, the Spanish translation was provided by our Argentine colleagues rather than it being a mistake by an English speaker.  Because of silly edit wars we've had in the past I'd advise on holding off on any changes since the language guideline in MOS specifies current text, so a wider change in policy is required. ,  I've pinged other editors as I'm currently taking a wikibreak due to family problems.  You might get me via email and I will try to look in occasionally. WCM email 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the original message I mentioned the awkwardness somehow propagated to the Spanish wiki. Also, the Spanish wiki suffers from a lack of adherence to rules and conventions of orthography and punctuation, and is gravely plagued by calcs and poor translations of the better produced English articles. In fact, you just have to take a look at the Spanish talk page on the war and you would see how much was borrowed from the English one to replace entire sections that were brief, biased by the influence of irredentist activists and had an absolute lack of eloquence. I’ll make the point to have it fixed there as well.
 * I hope I explained myself better this time. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think silly edit wars shouldn’t stop us from having correct articles. I am ignorant, but I find it hard to believe someone will start a foolish edit war on account of replacing a weird calc with the proper expression that represents how all Spanish speakers (jurists included) actually talk. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All interesting. I recall the debate about an indefinite article used by JFK, wrongly or rightly. Also of interest, if you are correct, is how a simple error of fact, that at first sight looks plausible, can spread like wildfire and become ingrained into people's minds without question and is hard to change. Besides getting the opinion of native speakers I suppose we should get two or three examples from reliable secondary sources, which is the ultimate guide, not what Spanish speakers actually say. You have provided one source already, thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wasn’t my intention to have my suggestion be accepted at face value. I saw this in your article and then I was surprised and definitely confused (made me question my sanity for an instant) when I found it was the same in Spanish, with also every Romance language wikis having a literal word by word translation (although in most cases the article is included in a contraction with the preposition - delle, das, etc). I wanted to make sure I’m not the only one that finds that phrase odd. Also, first ever attempt to change the wiki; so sorry.
 * I’ll get a couple sources more and get back to you later. Thanks for your attention. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was also wondering what’s the point in providing an awkward translation to the language of the other side if it doesn’t match the actual vernacular expression? Even if it was the case that in Spain it sounded natural, it’s off and better left out. Argentines of every walk of life absolutely leave the definite article out, I just need to gather sources or get the attention of my countrymen.
 * But it is exactly like you said. How did such a simple error to catch get so far?
 * My money is on hypercorrection by contagion from Romance languages that can contract the feminine article (maybe? - Spanish only contracts the masculine art.)
 * Hopefully someone much wiser can shed some light. Thanks again. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * State-owned research institution:
 * https://santafe.conicet.gov.ar/guerra-de-malvinas-39-anos/
 * Fact-checking publication:
 * https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/a-40-anos-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas-5-desinformaciones-que-circularon-durante-la-guerra/
 * Federal government website:
 * https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/efemerides/2-abril-malvinas
 * British media group:
 * https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-60297592 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was the relevant BBC article:
 * https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-61793378
 * Institute of aviation instruction:
 * http://www.eam.iua.edu.ar/eam/guerra-de-malvinas/
 * National institute of geography:
 * https://www.ign.gob.ar/content/40-a%C3%B1os-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas
 * A might not be gone fishing after all. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Calc means calcium or calculator. What do you mean by it? B61:595B:C909|2A00:23C8:8FB1:F600:E09D:8B61:595B:C909 (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably means calque. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change. If it's wrong it can always be changed back again. Kahastok talk 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox has only the UK and Argentina as belligerents. I suggest that the Falkland Islands are added under the UK, with Rex Hunt added as a leader under the Falkland Islands flag. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Mobilization of the Federal Penitentiary Service during the war
Members of Argentina's Federal Penitentiary Service were mobilized when the war started. They were organized into an infantry company and attached to the XI Infantry Brigade, and nicknamed "black necks" due to their unique prison guard uniforms which the rest of the army didn't have. During the war they guarded strategic locations in and around Rio Gallegos against potential British commando raids. Would it be OK to mention this in the article, provided I find an acceptable source? I think its an interesting detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Federal_Penitentiary_Service Bob meade (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba for deletion
I have nominated the article Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba, which is related to this topic, for deletion. Please feel free to comment at Articles for deletion/Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Falklands War


text:
John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville

John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville, 7th Seigneur of Sark, (22 April 1690 – 2 January 1763), commonly known by his earlier title Lord Carteret, was a British statesman and Lord President of the Council from 1751 to 1763 and worked closely with the Prime Minister of the country, Spencer Compton, Earl of Wilmington, to manage the various factions of the Government. He was Seigneur of Sark from 1715 to 1720, when he sold the fief. He held (in absentia) the office of Bailiff of Jersey from 1715 to 1763.

Origins
He was the son and heir of George Carteret, 1st Baron Carteret (1667–1695) by his wife, Lady Grace Granville (c. 1677–1744), suo jure 1st Countess Granville, 3rd daughter of John Granville, 1st Earl of Bath (1628–1701) of Stowe House in the parish of Kilkhampton in Cornwall. The progeny of the marriage, Barons Carteret, Earls Granville, and Marquesses of Bath (Thynne), were co-heirs to her childless nephew William Granville, 3rd Earl of Bath (1692–1711). The family of Carteret was settled in the Channel Islands and was of Norman descent.

Early life
John Carteret was educated at Westminster School, and at Christ Church, Oxford. Jonathan Swift said that "with a singularity scarce to be justified he carried away more Greek, Latin and philosophy than properly became a person of his rank". Throughout his life, Carteret showed not only a keen love of the classics but also a taste for and knowledge of modern languages and literature. He was almost the only English nobleman of his time who spoke German, which allowed him to talk with and gain the trust of King George I, who spoke little English. Walter Harte, the author of the Life of Gustavus Adolphus, acknowledged the aid that Carteret had given him.

On 17 October 1710, Carteret married Lady Frances Worsley at Longleat House. She was the granddaughter of the first Viscount Weymouth. One of their daughters, Georgiana Caroline Carteret Spencer, became the grandmother of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire.

Upon reaching his majority of 21, Lord Carteret took his seat in the House of Lords on 25 May 1711. Although his family, on both sides, had been devoted to the Jacobite cause, Carteret was a steady adherent of the Hanoverian dynasty that supplanted it. He was a friend of the Whig leaders Stanhope and Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland, and supported the passing of the Septennial Act.

Diplomat
Carteret's interests were in foreign, not domestic, policy. His serious work in public life began with his appointment, early in 1719, as Ambassador to Sweden. During this and the following year he was employed in saving Sweden from the attacks of Peter the Great, and in arranging the pacification of the north. His efforts were finally successful.

During this period of diplomatic work he acquired an exceptional knowledge of the affairs of Europe, and in particular of Germany, and displayed great tact and temper in dealing with the Swedish Senate, Queen Ulrica, King Frederik IV of Denmark and King Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia. However, he was not qualified to hold his own in the intrigues of Court and Parliament in London. Appointed as Secretary of State for the Southern Department on his return home, he soon came into conflict with the intrigues of Townshend and Sir Robert Walpole.

Rivalry with Walpole
To Walpole, who looked upon every able colleague or subordinate as an enemy to be removed, Carteret was exceptionally odious. His capacity to speak German with the King would alone have made Sir Robert detest him. When, therefore, the violent agitation in Ireland against Wood's halfpence made it necessary to replace the Duke of Grafton as Lord Lieutenant, Carteret was sent to Dublin, where he landed on 23 October 1724. Trinity College, Dublin, awarded him an Honorary LLD in 1725.

In the first months of his tenure of office, he had to deal with the furious opposition to Wood's halfpence and to counteract the effect of Swift's Drapier's Letters. Carteret had a strong personal liking for Swift, who was also a friend of his wife's family. It is highly doubtful that Carteret could have reconciled his duty to the crown with his private friendships if the government had persisted in endeavouring to force the detested coinage on the Irish people. Wood's patent was, however, withdrawn, and Ireland settled down. Carteret was a profuse and popular Lord Lieutenant, who pleased both the British interest and the native Irish. He was at all times addicted to lavish hospitality and, according to the testimony of contemporaries, was "too fond of burgundy". He remained in post until 1730.

Americas
Carteret had inherited a one-eighth share in the Province of Carolina through his great-grandfather Sir George Carteret. In 1727 and 1728 John learned that the owners of the remaining shares were planning to sell them back to the crown. Carteret declined to join them. In 1729, the others surrendered their claims, but in 1730, Carteret, to keep ownership of his stake, agreed to give up any participation in government.

Carteret's share was later defined as a 60-mile wide strip of land in North Carolina adjoining the Virginia boundary, and became known as the Granville District. The lands of the Granville District remained a possession of the Carteret family until the death of Carteret's son Robert in 1776. After the American War of Independence, Robert's heirs were compensated in part by the Crown for the loss of the lands.

Queen Caroline
When Carteret returned to London in 1730, Walpole was firmly in charge of the House of Commons and as the trusted Minister of King George II. Walpole also had the full confidence of Queen Caroline, whom he prejudiced against Carteret. Until the fall of Walpole in 1742, Carteret could take no share in public affairs except as a leader of opposition in the House of Lords. His brilliant parts were somewhat obscured by his rather erratic conduct and a certain contempt, partly aristocratic and partly intellectual, for commonplace men and ways. He endeavoured to please Queen Caroline, who loved literature, and he has the credit of having paid the expenses of the first handsome edition of Don Quixote to please her. He also involved himself in the establishment of the Foundling Hospital, a charity championed by the Queen, for which he became a founding governor. However, he reluctantly and most unwisely allowed himself to be entangled in the scandalous family quarrel between Frederick, Prince of Wales, and his parents. Queen Caroline was provoked into classing Carteret and Bolingbroke as "the two most worthless men of parts in the country".

Secretary of State
Carteret took the popular side in the outcry against Walpole for not declaring war on Spain. When the War of the Austrian Succession approached, his sympathies were entirely with Maria Theresa of Austria, mainly on the ground that the fall of the house of Austria would dangerously increase the power of France even if she gained no accession of territory. Those views made him welcome to George II, who gladly accepted him as Secretary of State in 1742. In 1743, he accompanied the King to Germany and was present at the Battle of Dettingen on 27 June 1743. Carteret held the secretary-ship until November 1744.

Carteret succeeded in promoting an agreement between Maria Theresa and Frederick II of Prussia. He understood the relations of the European states and the interests of Great Britain among them, but the defects that had rendered him unable to baffle the intrigues of Walpole made him equally unable to contend with the Pelhams (Henry Pelham and his elder brother Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle, successive Prime Ministers). Carteret's support of the King's policy was denounced as subservience to Hanover. William Pitt called him "an execrable, a sole minister, who had renounced the British nation". A few years later, Pitt adopted an identical policy and professed that whatever he knew he had learnt from Carteret.

Earl Granville
On 18 October 1744 Carteret became 2nd Earl Granville on the death of his mother. His first wife, Lady Frances Worsley, died on 20 June 1743 at Hanover, and in April 1744, he married Lady Sophia Fermor, a daughter of Thomas Fermor, 1st Earl of Pomfret and a fashionable beauty and "reigning toast" of London society who was younger than his daughters. Granville's ostentatious performance of the part of lover was ridiculed by Horace Walpole as "The nuptials of our great Quixote and the fair Sophia" and "My lord stayed with her there till four in the morning. They are all fondness—walk together, and stop every five steps to kiss".

The Countess Granville died on 7 October 1745, leaving one daughter, Sophia Carteret, who married William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, later 1st Marquess of Lansdowne. Granville's second marriage may have done something to increase his reputation for eccentricity. In February 1746, he allowed himself to be entrapped by the intrigues of the Pelhams into accepting the secretaryship but resigned within forty-eight hours. In June 1751, he became president of the council and was still liked and trusted by the King, but his share in government did not go beyond giving advice and endeavouring to forward ministerial arrangements. In 1756, he was asked by Newcastle to become Prime Minister as the alternative to Pitt, but he perfectly understood why the offer was made and so he declined and supported Pitt. When, in October 1761, Pitt, who had information of the signing of the "Family Compact", wished to declare war on Spain and declared his intention to resign unless his advice was accepted, Granville replied that "the opinion of the majority (of the Cabinet) must decide". He spoke in complimentary terms of Pitt but resisted his claim to be considered as a "sole minister" or Prime Minister.

Whether he used the words that were attributed to him in the Annual Register for 1761 is more than doubtful, but the minutes of Council show that they express his meaning.

Marriages and progeny
He married twice:
 * Firstly to Frances Worsley (died 1743), daughter of Sir Robert Worsley, 4th Baronet, by whom he had at least 6 children; 2 sons and 4 daughters:
 * George Carteret, born 14 February 1716, baptised 11 March 1716 at St Martin in the Fields, Westminster, eldest son who predeceased his father.
 * Robert Carteret, 3rd Earl Granville (1721–1776), born 21 September 1721, baptised 17 October 1721 at St Martin in the Fields, Westminster, eldest surviving son and heir.
 * Louisa Carteret (c. 1712–1736) who married Thomas Thynne, 2nd Viscount Weymouth of Longleat in Wiltshire, and was the ancestress of the Marquesses of Bath (created 1789) and Barons Carteret (of the second creation 1784).
 * Grace Carteret (born 8 July 1713, baptised 22 July 1713 at St James, Westminster), who married Lionel Tollemache, 4th Earl of Dysart, and had issue.
 * Georgiana Caroline Carteret (born 12 March 1715, baptised 5 April 1715 at St Martin-in-the-Fields, Westminster; died 1780), who married firstly John Spencer MP, and was the mother of John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer; she married secondly William Clavering-Cowper, 2nd Earl Cowper
 * Frances Carteret (born 6 April 1718, baptised 1 May 1718 at St Martin in the Fields, Westminster), who married (in 1748) John Hay, 4th Marquess of Tweeddale.
 * Secondly in 1744 he married Sophia Fermor (died 1745), daughter of Thomas Fermor, 1st Earl of Pomfret. She died the following year during the birth of their only daughter:
 * Sophia Carteret, who married William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, and had issue.

Death and burial
He remained in office as President of the Privy Council until his death on 2 January 1763. His last act was to listen on his deathbed to the reading of the preliminaries of the Treaty of Paris by the Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State, Robert Wood, author of an essay on The Original Genius and Writings of Homer, who would have postponed the business, but Granville said that it "could not prolong his life to neglect his duty" and quoted in ancient Greek the speech of Sarpedon from the Iliad xii. 322–328, repeating the last word ἴομεν ("iomen") (the first word of verse 328) meaning "let us go forward". Wood recalled the event as follows: "However, in the course of that active period, the duties of my situation engaged me in an occasional attendance upon a nobleman, who, while he presided at his Majesty's councils, reserved some moments for literary amusement. His Lordship was very partial to this subject; and I seldom had the honour of receiving his commands on business, that he did not lead the conversation to Greece and Homer. Being directed to wait upon his Lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the Treaty of Paris, I found him so languid, that I proposed postponing my business for another time: but he insisted that I should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life, to neglect his duty; and repeating the following passage, out of Sarpedon's speech, he dwelled with particular emphasis on the third line, which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part, he had taken in public affairs. His Lordship repeated the last word several times with a calm and determinate resignation: and after a serious pause of some minutes, he desired to hear the Treaty read; to which he listened with great attention: and recovered spirits enough to declare the approbation of a dying Statesman (I use his own words) on the most glorious War, and most honourable Peace, this nation ever saw." He died in his house in Arlington Street, London, on 2 January 1763. His remains were interred at Westminster Abbey.

Succession
The title of Earl Granville descended to his son Robert, who died without issue in 1776, when the earldom of this creation became extinct.

Legacy
Two North Carolina counties were named for Lord Carteret, Carteret County (established 1722) and Granville County (1746). During the 17th and 18th centuries, the area which is now South Carolina used the names Carteret and Granville for a few of its counties.

Namesakes of Granville Street in Vancouver, British Columbia; Granville, Massachusetts; Granville, New York; Granville Centre, Nova Scotia, and Granville Ferry. Translator George Sale dedicated his Alcoran of Mohammed to Granville.

John Carteret is depicted in the 2011 film Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides by Anton Lesser.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville


text:
CS gas

The compound 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (also called o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile; chemical formula: C10H5ClN2), a cyanocarbon, is the defining component of the lachrymatory agent commonly referred to as CS gas, a tear gas which is used as a riot control agent.

Exposure causes a burning sensation and tearing of the eyes to the extent that the subject cannot keep their eyes open, and a burning irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth and throat, resulting in profuse coughing, nasal mucus discharge, disorientation, and difficulty breathing, partially incapacitating the subject. CS gas is an aerosol of a volatile solvent (a substance that dissolves other active substances and that easily evaporates) and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, which is a solid compound at room temperature. CS gas is generally accepted as being non-lethal.

History
CS gas was first synthesized by two Americans, Ben Corson and Roger Stoughton, at Middlebury College in 1928, and the chemical's name is derived from the first letters of the scientists' surnames.

CS was developed and tested secretly at Porton Down in Wiltshire, UK, in the 1950s and '60s. CS was used first on animals, and subsequently on British Army servicemen volunteers. CS has less effect on animals because they have different tear ducts and, in the case of non-human mammals, their fur inhibits the free entry of the gas.

As recently as 2002, the U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation of Colin Powell made a firm distinction between "riot-control agents" such as CS gas, and "lethal chemical weapons." The Bureau cited support for this position from the U.K. and Japan.

Production
CS is synthesized by the reaction of 2-chlorobenzaldehyde and malononitrile via the Knoevenagel condensation:
 * ClC6H4CHO + H2C(CN)2 → ClC6H4CHC(CN)2 + H2O

The reaction is catalysed with a weak base like piperidine or pyridine. The production method has not changed since the substance was discovered by Corson and Stoughton. Other bases, solvent free methods and microwave promotion have been suggested to improve the production of the substance.

The physiological properties had been discovered already by the chemists first synthesising the compound in 1928: "Physiological Properties. Certain of these dinitriles have the effect of sneeze and tear gases. They are harmless when wet but to handle the dry powder is disastrous."

Use as an aerosol
As 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile is a solid at room temperature, not a gas, a variety of techniques have been used to make this solid usable as an aerosol:

 * Melted and sprayed in the molten form.
 * Dissolved in organic solvent.
 * CS2 dry powder (CS2 is a siliconized, micro-pulverized form of CS).
 * CS from thermal grenades by generation of hot gases.

In the Waco Siege in the United States, CS was dissolved in the organic solvent dichloromethane (also known as methylene chloride). The solution was dispersed as an aerosol via explosive force and when the highly volatile dichloromethane evaporated, CS crystals precipitated and formed a fine dispersion in the air.

Effects
Many types of tear gas and other riot control agents have been produced with effects ranging from mild tearing of the eyes to immediate vomiting and prostration. CN and CS are the most widely used and known, but around 15 different types of tear gas have been developed worldwide, e.g. adamsite or bromoacetone, CNB, and CNC. CS has become the most popular due to its strong effect. The effect of CS on a person will depend on whether it is packaged as a solution or used as an aerosol. The size of solution droplets and the size of the CS particulates after evaporation are factors determining its effect on the human body.

The chemical reacts with moisture on the skin and in the eyes, causing a burning sensation and the immediate forceful and uncontrollable shutting of the eyes. Effects usually include tears streaming from the eyes, profuse coughing, exceptional nasal discharge that is full of mucus, burning in the eyes, eyelids, nose and throat areas, disorientation, dizziness and restricted breathing. It will also burn the skin where sweaty or sunburned. In highly concentrated doses, it can also induce severe coughing and vomiting. Most of the immediate effects wear off within a few hours (such as exceptional nasal discharge and profuse coughing), although respiratory, gastrointestinal, and oral symptoms may persist for months. Excessive exposure can cause chemical burns resulting in permanent scarring.

Adults exposed to tear gas during the 2020 protests in Portland, Oregon, US also reported menstrual changes (899; 54.5% of 1650 female respondents). Exposure to tear gas is associated with avoidable healthcare utilization.

Secondary effects
People or objects contaminated with CS gas can cause secondary exposure to others, including healthcare professionals and police. In addition, repeated exposure may cause sensitisation.

Toxicity
TRPA1 (Transient Receptor Potential-Ankyrin 1) ion channel expressed on nociceptors (especially trigeminal) has been implicated as the site of action for CS gas in rodent models.

Although described as a non-lethal weapon for crowd control, studies have raised doubts about this classification. CS can cause severe pulmonary damage and can also significantly damage the heart and liver.

On 28 September 2000, Prof. Dr. Uwe Heinrich released a study commissioned by John C. Danforth, of the United States Office of Special Counsel, to investigate the use of CS by the FBI at the Branch Davidians' Mount Carmel compound. He said no human deaths had been reported, but concluded that the lethality of CS used would have been determined mainly by two factors: whether gas masks were used and whether the occupants were trapped in a room. He suggests that if no gas masks were used and the occupants were trapped, then, "there is a distinct possibility that this kind of CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal effects".

CS gas can have a clastogenic effect (abnormal chromosome change) on mammalian cells, but no studies have linked it to miscarriages or stillbirths. In Egypt, CS gas was reported to be the cause of death of several protesters in Mohamed Mahmoud Street near Tahrir square during the November 2011 protests. The solvent in which CS is dissolved, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), is classified as harmful by inhalation; irritating to the eyes and respiratory system; and repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking.

title: CS gas


text:
Talk:Thymidine

Untitled
Fascinating, but a couple of questions that might be relevant:

 * Does it occur naturally? Where?
 * Is it used industrially? Where?
 * How is it produced (both naturally and industrially)?
 * Is it particularly toxic?

--Robert Merkel

 * If anyone needs it, the unique SMILES formula for this molecule is CC1=CN([C@H]2CC(O)[C@@H](CO)O2)C(=O)NC1=O

title: Talk:Thymidine


text:
Talk:Isoprene

Diagram of cis-polyisoprene
The image of the repeat unit structure of cis-polyisoprene indicates a carbon atom in the bottom right that only has 3 bonds. Is this correct? A quick image search pulls up two images which contradict this unique carbon. Examples: http://web.tock.com/kalee/chem32/pol/Image11.gif, http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/stxm/polymerspectro/figures/CisPI.gif

These indicate that the repeating unit is uniform over the three displayed in the picture. Can someone verify this?

I have removed the picture until someone can determine the right structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.49.205 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect. I will bring that to the attention of the gentleman that drew it in the first place.JSR (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just corrected some major mistakes
This is my first post on wikipedia and I welcome your criticism/comments. I found quite a bit of misinformation in this article since I study isoprene myself.

1.	the original writer was apparently confused about isoprene, which specifically refers to 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene, and “isoprenes”, which is a common name for isoprenoids (terpenoids). In my opinion the use of “isoprenes” is imprecise and should not be used in articles. Isoprene is made exclusively in the non-mevalonate pathway (MEP pathway). Its synthesis is not related to mevalonic acid pathway at all and therefore not inhibited by statin but by fosmidomycin, an MEP pathway inhibitor. The statin section should be either taken out altogether, or moved to the terpenoid article.

2.	it is okay to say isoprene is a common structure motif, but not okay to say it is a precursor for other isoprenoids. Dimethylallyl diphosphate / isopentenyl diphosphate (isoprene with 2 phosphate groups on) are the precursors for isoprenoids.

3.	“In virtually all organisms, isoprene derivatives are synthesized by the HMG-CoA reductase pathway.” This is incorrect. Most plants and bacteria uses MEP pathway + MVA pathway. The author may have referred to a paper published before 1993, the time at which a non-MVA pathway was discovered.

4.	Research on isoprene emission from plants and industrial production of isoprene and related products is very active and research articles are abundant. This article was short for such an important topic. I will try to expand it if time permits.

Isoprene emission by plants in nature and industrial isoprene production are two separate topics so I have separated them here. Also I’ve modified the article at some minor points to make it flow better. I will also add most of the citations later on. Please feel free to criticize/comment/request citation.

On a side note, the nomenclature of isoprene/terpene/isoprenoids/terpenoids here is very messed up. In reality, the terms isoprene and terpene are used interchangeably, and isoprenoids and terpenoids are used interchangeably. What makes things complex is that “isoprenes”/ “terpenes” are also used by people to refer to isoprenoids. The terpene article is apparently duplicating this article (they are essentially the same thing). This could be very confusing for people. I think an ultimate solution is to only have two articles, “isoprene” and “isoprenoids”, and then redirect terpene and terpenoids respectively into these two articles; while making clear in the article that “isoprenes” sometimes are used to refer to isoprenoids. I just don’t know how to start such a proposal here.

Kadsura (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams
Maybe a link explaining what those diagrams mean (I think I remember from high school chemistry, but not everyone did high school chemistry) would be good. --Robert Merkel
 * If you are asking if we need a large article on chemical nomenclature, we probably do. However that kind of article could reach the size of a small book in no time flat. Most people learn nomenclature as they go because there is too much of it to swallow at once. Someone wanting to track down what those "diagrams mean" might fruitfully be pointed to a pre-college introduction to the subject of organic chemistry. Isaac Asimov, if I recall correctly, has a book covering that kind of thing. Again, that's a huge topic and outside the scope of my interests. In short, however, the diagram uses a kind of organic chemistry shorthand. The lines represent carbon-carbon bonds, double lines represent double bonds, and the vertices are tetravalent carbon atoms binding covalently. If, by counting, there are fewer than 4 bonds to carbon, you have to assume that there is a carbon-hydrogen linkage (i.e. a C-H bond ).  Dwmyers 18:55, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Atmospheric role of isoprene
As isoprene is the most emitted non-methane volatile hydrocarbon in the atmosphere, and as it plays a crucial role in atmospheric chemistry, a separate section on its atmospheric role might be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlc1980 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing
'' 'About 95% of isoprene production is used to produce cis-1,4-polyisoprene - a synthetic version of natural rubber.

Natural rubber is a polymer of isoprene - most often cis-1,4-polyisoprene...'''

Unclear. Isn't second 'cis-1,4-polyisoprene' misplaced?

NantucketNoon 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the density of natural rubber. I believe natural rubber density is of the order of 1gm/cc (Powel, P. C., Engineering with Polymers, Chapman & Hall, London, (1983) pg 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.36.248 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I stomped on "Environmental impact" because it implied that isoprene was a "pollutant" without citation. 216.14.79.3 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Isoprene is a major source of volatile organics in the atmosphere, which will photo-oxidise to form aerosol particles, but to call it pollution would be quite misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.15.105 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This treatment ignores some of the most important aspects of isoprene. It is produced mostly by plants and in absolutely huge amounts. I don't know what happened to earlier information about isoprene but I will try to find time to add the relevant information. I have personally measured that humans make about 4 mg per day but the source is not known. The vast majority of isoprene is made by plants by the NON-mevalonate pathway, the methyl erythritol pathway. The EPA is going to start regulating isoprene as a possible carcinogen. I routinely measure 100 ppb in my breath and almost everyone I have tested has at least 10 ppb in their breath. You can "stomp" environmental impact, but it doesn't change the fact that incredible amounts of isoprene is made, primarily by oak and aspen trees. This isoprene will react with NOx and sunlight to make isoprene. The solution is not to cut down all the oak trees, but rather we learn that there is even more reason to reduce NOx. 76.242.145.188 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Tom Sharkey, Professor and Chair of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University

Very poorly written
"Isoprene derives from rubber and is mostly a natural substance which dates back to 1500 b.c.e."

What does this even mean? SOME isoprene may derive from rubber, but as mentioned above "It is produced mostly by plants and in absolutely huge amounts". This has been the case since long before 1500 BCE ...

And what is the function of 'and' in the quoted sentence "Isoprene derives from rubber and ..."? It is logically confused.

The whole article is full of such poor writing. Perhaps Prof. Sharkey could tidy it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.237.93 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Isoprenyl?
Isoprenyl redirects here, but the term is nowhere mentioned in the article.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Meso and Microfluidics in Chemical Analysis
— Assignment last updated by Ruticzon (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Types of trees do not line up
"Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). Yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million metric tons, half from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder primarily from shrubs."

This is very confusing. The trees listed are mostly non-tropical and are trees, not shrubs. Then half comes from tropical trees and the remainder shrubs. This means that Oaks, Populars do not contribute to this at all since they are not tropical or shrubs.

This paragraph needs rewording and clarification. Bzdarko (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isoprene


text:
Talk:Pepper spray

Challenging photo
The second photo, titled "pepper spray demonstration" appears to be edited. Upon close examination of the area around the spray, there is an discoloration the shape of an area marked with a highlighter from the spray bottle to the handle of the door behind the man on the left. The house appears blue in this area, and the man (being sprayed) appears more yellow. Upon examining the original source, no explanation is given for this discrepancy. I recommend its removal or replacement, with the consideration that it is not necessary to the article. 2600:100F:B12A:D4EF:0:55:18B4:A401 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Style
Pepper spray IS non-lethal. The deaths allegedly related to its use are not a result of exposure to pepper spray itself, rather they are a result of some other form of force. For example, individuals exposed to the agent have asphyxiated after being subdued due to police officers not utilizing proper arrest procedures (e.g., a police officer places his knee and body weight on a suspects neck or back for a substantial period of time, thus preventing the suspect from breathing.) The chance that an individual will actually experience an allergic reaction to the chemical spray is substantially small as well.

For future reference, the ACLU is a joke and is hardly a credible source for anything.

ACLU statistics
I don't see why you would say the ACLU is a joke, however I believe this Wikipedia article misquotes them.

First, there are two different references to ACLU findings in this article: Clearly at least one of these quotes is wrong. Reading the report cited for the second statement potentially explains the discrepancy. It actually says:
 * "fourteen fatalities from the use of pepper spray as of 1995"
 * "27 deaths in custody of people sprayed with pepper spray in California alone, since 1993"

"In this report, the ACLU of Southern California identifies 26 deaths among people who were pepper-sprayed by police officers in the period Jan. 1, 1993, through June 1, 1995."

While we don't have ready access to the source for the first statement, I suspect it is a misquote, as the ACLU of Southern California's report on pepper spray does not conclude that pepper spray caused the fatalities. Instead it suggests additional research into the effects and a moratorium on it's widespread use. 67.160.229.27 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Googling for "5,300,000 SHU" reveals that the spray in question is really a 2% solution of 5,3M SHU OC.. No wonder that "spraying" almost pure capsaicin oil felt like a bit weird idea to me. This error is also on the Scoville scale page.

Please review www.zarc.com the founder of pepper spray for a more accurate information on pepper spray.

I think people have actually died from exposure to pepper spray. What is this "non-lethal" bullshit all about? Pepper spray can definitely have lasting effects as well --72.56.124.151 07:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The definition of Non-Lethal comes from the Department of Defense. No product is completely "non-lethal," it indicates that in studies, the potential for death is statistically small. Even yelling at or striking someone has a potential of being deadly force, it depends on the person you're applying the force to and what pre-existing medical or neurological conditions they have. Yet we consider yelling at and striking people to be "non-lethal." Pyrogen 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1994, the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles claimed to have documented fourteen fatalities involving people who had been sprayed. Alan Parachini, director of public affairs, stated that even if the spray itself was not the cause death, autopsy results showed that it was a factor. He urged the Los Angeles Police Department to curtail its use of pepper spray until more research was done.

Can anybody please confirm or deny the claim about pelargonic acid morpholide used in Russia? --Shaddack 10:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Used widely, wider than "natural" OC. Seems to be less effective but is preferred by manufacturers. --Varnav 11:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Police in the UK
I believe the following sentence is incorrect, "Police, most of whom do not carry firearms, are trained to use pepper spray and carry it as part of their standard compliment." They carry CS spray, not pepper spray. Ben 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) In response to the above comment, some Police Forces such as Northamptonshire, officers carry PAVA which is synthetic pepper spray. GP 19/01/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.241.95 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) In fact, now the majority of Police Forces in the UK use PAVA. Millis 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

purchasing information would be nice
where can you purchase it? in the uk pharmacies don't seem to sell it. In Germany they do.. --129.11.76.229 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Try Google - you'll find tons of retailers there. Wikipideia has a policy of not hosting specifically commercial links, so that'll be your best bet. – ClockworkSoul 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The UK pharmacies don't seem to sell it because it is illegal 94.168.41.206 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-lethal nature?
The following statement seems to take a opposing position to ACLU's which isn't NPOV: "It is of a non-lethal nature, however, the American Civil Liberties Union claims to have documented fourteen fatalities from the use of pepper spray." "It is of a non-lethal nature" should be change to something such "it is generally though to be of a non-lethal nature, however..." in order to be more NPOV. --Cab88 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the nature is actually non-letal. It is not intended to kill. --Varnav 12:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's definition of "non-lethal" and "less-lethal" are we using? The DOD/NATICK definition? If so, then its non-lethal. Pyrogen 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An additional point needs to be raised regarding the safety of pepper spray when used against people with severe allergic reactions to chilli / etc.

A re-wording to NPOV could run:

Pepper spray is popularly held to be non-lethal, and the use of it in law enforcement contexts is predominantly as an alternative to intentionally lethal force.

And then add a new section: "Lethality debate"

So the controversy is encapsulated within an explicitly controversial / potentially nNPOV block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.96.170 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lethality
I really don't think the sloppy, unsupported sentence about the ACLU charges, which are summarily dismissed in the second clause, seems appropriate or well written. For quality control reasons I'm removing the clause and tidying up surrounding areas accordingly. Spad xiii 14:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. – ClockworkSoul 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union documented fourteen fatalities from the use of pepper spray as of 1995 The Los Angeles Times has reported at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented 27 deaths in custody of people sprayed with pepper spray in California alone, since 1993 69.227.71.155 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fatalities are mentioned three separate times in the article. There needs to be a clarification as to how many people have died from this stuff for it to appear credible.

The ACLU makes wild unsubstantiated claims all the time. They are not a credible scientific or criminal justice investigative organization: they are a political advocacy group. Their claims lack any legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.131.178.163 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Food product?
What is this "food product" fuss all about? It looks like a patent nonsense to me. In which of these definitions (copied from food) does Pepper spray fit?: Duja 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans whether of nutritional value or not;
 * water and other drinks;
 * chewing gum;
 * articles and substances used as an ingredient or component in the preparation of food.

 * The active ingredient, capsaicin, is indeed a component of many foods, including peppers. Also, spraying something into the eyes is a form of ingestion, so pepper spray is "intended to be ingested". —Keenan Pepper 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * So is cyanide a component of many foods (almonds e.g.) and also "intended to be ingested", especially in Agatha Christie's novels. That still doesn't make it a "food product". I'm removing it. Duja 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong. Bitter almonds contain a compound, amygdalin, that sometimes breaks down into cyanide, but you don't eat bitter almonds, you eat sweet almonds, which contain no cyanide or amygdalin. —Keenan Pepper 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The definition you cite is, as the food article says, a defition under Western food law. More informal definitions and/or different technical definitions of a food product may very well encompass pepper spray for the reasons Keenan Pepper has given. I put the "food product" part back into the introduction because it seemed reasonable and I assumed it was placed there in good faith by whoever did so originally. It sounds like this question might need an expert? –Sommers (Talk) 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I know it's the definition under "Western food law". How about a definition under common sense? I didn't question Keenan's good faith either, just his sanity . But I still wait for his explanation of that edit; the fact that pepper spray is made of something which is a food does not make it a food for itself. Many non-edible things are made of corn, for example. And the explanation that "it is intended for ingestion" is also skewed – of course it not intended for voluntary ingestion. Duja 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Note that I didn't add it in the first place, I was just defending it against the accusation of "patent nonsense". —Keenan Pepper 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I work with a guy who makes some pretty dang good beef jerky with the stuff. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly safe for consumption... Uncomfortable? Yes, for most, but still entirely edible. Scowly (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Edible does not mean intended for consumption. For example, semen is edible and frequently eaten, but it still is not intended for consumption. MykellM (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

frivolous statement
Long-term effects of pepper spray have not been effectively researched. Lets see millions of people everyday eat capsaicins for years on end, the statement might as well say: "Long-term effects of ketchup have not been effectively researched." and if were talking about exposure to the skin and eyes instead of the GI track, no one is exposed to pepper spray for a long time in that manner (maybe the poor schmucks in guantanamo bay, but thats sadly unconfirmed). If no one has a valid disagreement I'm removing the statement.--BerserkerBen 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know about you, but I don't often go sticking chilies in my eyes. Eating it is not the same thing ;) The statement also fits the patterin shown in other wikipedia articles on chemical weapons. -- Ch'marr 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move - "Long-term effects" should go to capsaicin article (if not already there) but they don't make sense in pepper spray. IOW, it is quite plausible that a person often eats capsaicine or it gets into the eyes, but as you said... Duja 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The amount of capsaicin that one on the receiving end of pepper spray absorbs is many orders of magnitude higher than the amount in even a strong meal. That combined with the fact that it's affecting tissues that don't normally contact capsaicin makes it a horse of an entirely different color. – ClockworkSoul 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Find actual research. I think the statement is simply false. Lots of people have done research on the long-term effects of pepper spray, and we should find reports and summarize them in the article. —Keenan Pepper 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe it should just shoule be rephrased for the start; I got lulled in by BerserkerBen's interpretation. If it's parsed as "later consequences of getting in contact with Pepper spray", it starts to make sense. Duja 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply: I think Keenan Pepper is on the right track and after a quick pubmed search there is long term studies of capsaicin both injested, inhaled and exposed, I will be compilling and implanted the information soon.--BerserkerBen 14:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Antidotes
AFAIK milk is and antidote, as well as sugar. Also you can wash OC off using alcohol. --Varnav 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Any oily or even mildly hydrophobic substance. As capsaicins are hydrophobic water will not remove them, but another hydrophobic solvent will, thus alcohols (amphiphilic), Milk (emulsified fats or oils) or vegetable oils should do the job, residual pain will still be cause by capsaicins lodged on the neurons.--BerserkerBen 14:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove the "Buy pepperspray" link
Hi, I think the "buy it online" link should be removed. It looks like a Wikipedia endorsement of a specific company selling the stuff, which I consider inappropriate. Cheers, Jo

 * Done. Next time be bold and do it yourself! —Keenan Pepper 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical warfare
Why is this grouped with chemical warfare? It's not used for warfare. It's used for self-defense and riot control. It's ineffective as a weapon of war. Nathan J. Yoder 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is considered a Riot Control Agent by military forces. Pyrogen 14:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It was used as chemical warfare. Ranger patrols in the Vietnam carried huge CS cans as a expeditive "disengage helper" in case of facing strong opposition. It is (or "was", not sure abour this point) also used by the SAS.

 * Try CS on you (be cautious, use only an small amount and in open space) and you will see that CS is highly effective as a weapon of war: If you can not see or breath, you are incapacitated to shoot back. Randroide 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There we are, I knew that they used it in Vietnam, but didn't want to go having to dig out a citation for it.
 * Sorry. I have not the source here (I am in a public facility, not at home), but I will provide the citation. I promise, wait a few weeks, please. My source it is a book about the Rangers in Nam, published by Osprey Publishing if I remember well. But you are right: Unsourced assertions are useless. Cheers Randroide 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Here it is... the source I promised: CS used in the Vietnam war.

 * Gas, mines, and explosives were as important to the Ranger as his rifle and rations. CS tear gas was employed to enable a team to break contact with the enemy. When pulling out of a fire fight, Rangers would attempt to head upwind, opening their gas canisters as they withdrew Source Ranger, behind enemy lines in Vietnam, page 121. Ron Field, Military Illustrated, ISBN 1903040043. Randroide 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sources for use by the SAS: "Fighting skills of the SAS" ISBN 1854876767 and "This is the SAS" ISBN 0853685223. Randroide 16:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Having tried CS, I can honestly say I didn't like it. Pyrogen 15:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure: The stuff really works. I tried CS during a training course and since them I have the utmost respect for the CS can I always carry in my belt. Cheers. Randroide 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why all the discussion about CS gas here? The article is about pepper spray. I agree with Mr. Yoder - the classification with chemical warfare is inappropriate and amounts to a back-door NPOV violation. It should be removed. HiramShadraski 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait...let's be logical. Is the item a weapon? Yes. Is it a chemical? Yes. Is its use as a weapon effective only because of thr chemical ingredient? Yes. Ergo it is a chemical weapon. 82.81.175.10 10:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "weapon". OC sprays are intended to get a person out of a potentially violent situation while doing minimal, or no, injury to the opponent; it could be argued that that's not how most people understand "weapons" to function. The word "weapon", more often, refers to tools intended to do harm, injury, or cause death, not tools painstakingly designed to minimize the risk of same. 68.74.132.81 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it is even being argued whether it is a "weapon" or not. Of course it's a weapon, in fact it's a chemical weapon. Regardless of your definition, OC spray along with every other "weapon" in all senses can be employed to seriously fuck someone up if in the wrong hands. 130.226.244.180 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite literally anything can be employed to "seriously fuck someone up in the wrong hands", so that's really quite meaningless. Common definition of words is the only way language has any value in sharing information, so the definition IS the key. That said, temporarily blinding someone or causing pain IS harm, even if minimal, so it does fit the definition of a weapon. Merennulli (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a chemical manufactured expressly to inflict harm or pain. That isn't an incidental use, but its primary purpose. Ergo, it is a chemical weapon, even if it is not intended for, or (typically) capable of, killing or inflicting permanent harm. Added it to the chemical weapons category. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Added POV tag to "effects" section
I have added a POV tag, for the obviously advocative language in the "Effects" section. Upon closer examination I now see the reason for the inclusion in the "Chemical Warfare" category, but the non-NPOV character of the base article is, I think, distractive. HiramShadraski 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been 4 months. I'm removing the tag. --gwc 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? The language has not changed. HiramShadraski 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Over a week w/ no response from gwc. Restoring it. HiramShadraski 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing tag. Effects section is well-referenced and neutral.  Kaomso 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Effects section is well-referenced, but is certainly not neutral. Tag restored. HiramShadraski 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Unless those who put the NPOV tag are going to edit the section to improve it, the back and forth adding and taking the tag away with lags of months is not appropriate. I will change the title to this section so that editors can find it.  I will check back to see if anyone has taken the trouble to edit the section and remove the NPOV tag.  The only comment that actually says why the tag was problematic is the first from April 2007.  The concerns may actually be about WP:tone and WP:soap I think. Please those with the concern, fix the article. Fremte (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Legality
I can't say im any sort of expert on laws, but I happen to be a New York resident who bought some pepperspray recently from a uniform supply store (in New York), and they just made me fill out a form saying who I was and that I haven'tbeen convicted of any felonies. This is contrary to what is said in the article, that in New York, "Pepper spray may only be sold by licensed firearms dealers or pharmacists," as the store I bought it from was neither. I would also doubt that this store was breaking laws, as it seemed (from my brief visit) that police officers were a major customer base. Therefore, i took out that line untill someone can say for sure what NY laws are regarding pepperspray DenimForce2.0 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pepper spray would not be regulated by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention as it is a chemical agent. Biological weapons use "living" microbes such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. to infect the enemy. However, pepper spray would be banned from use in combat under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention-71.128.248.241 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

i belive that the legality of bear spray in canada may have changed as i went to Canadian tire to buy some having been recently robbed of my sansa e260 rockboxed and was told the police said they're no longer aloud to sell it, same with the other stores i went to ~DJ BlueFoxx(aka the crazy screaming weird kid at Surrey central Sunday night when noone else would help) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.84.12 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In Canada its a Prohibited Weapon under "Former Prohibited Weapons order No. 1". Its not a restricted weapon but a prohibited one in the same classification as automatic rifles and machine guns, as well as a variety of other "weapons". The link they are using as a source is wrong. MachinistJim (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the Japanese language version of this page Pepper spray is not regulated in Japan. "日本の法規制 特に規制されていない. " Google translates this as. "Laws and regulations of Japan Not specifically regulated." I will confirm this with the police then add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.124.169.40 (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually live in Japan, and just yesterday I waved a spray cannister in the face of a guy who was being overly aggressive. He backed off, but we went to the police, and they told me I'd have to stay until they checked if the thing was legal or not. It turns out, it's only legal for a woman to carry it, and even she'd have to provide good reasons for why she's carrying it. I will have to present myself at the police station again when they'll call me, and will end up guilty of a minor offense. They said the penalty may be anything from simply being told "don't do it again", to paying a fine (which, I was told, would be cheap for an offense like this). Seems like either way, I got off pretty easy (unless they lied to make sure I wouldn't run from Japan... but I doubt it because the tone of the entire thing was rather casual and friendly). I'm new here and I don't know if this warrants an edit of the article (I can't give references or anything), so I'll leave it up to you guys to decide that.--Maxy300 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected sweden part. Sweden law is written in a way, making a license required for each separate weapon (for example, if you own 2 handgunds of the same model, you would still need 2 licenses). NO weapon is explicity illegal in the law, Instead this is controlled in the license issuance process. Its pretty cumbersome to get license for pepperspray in sweden, but its not impossible. Its judged from a case to case basis. In fact, you as a civilian could legally own a bazooka or a "minigun" in sweden, if you manage to get a license for it. Sebastiannielsen (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * That's fine - I edited your change slightly for flow and grammar. If you could provide a citation for it, though, that would be great. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the current claim in this section that pepper spray is illegal in China according to referenced a China Daily article, a Zhihu article from last year says the opposite. Both articles claim lawyers as their sources. Pepper sprays are still available on Taobao which differs from the claims in the China Daily article. However, the word "pepper spray" and some other related keywords are blocked and can only be found with external search engines.There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Legality in Australia
In Western Australia you can legally purchase Pepper Spray over the counter.

--Dan541 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * In ACT, NT and SA you can legally purchase it anywhere too, not sure about Queensland. What I'm curious about is, what's the status of bear or dog spray in NSW?  I can't find any caselaw on it, and the Weapons Prohibition Act (1998) NSW Schedule 1 (22) outlines 'defence or anti-personel spray', but doesn't touch on animal control sprays.  122.107.56.47 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Video removed
The video used to show the effects of pepper spray in action was a link to a protest at George W. Bush's inauguration. The pepper spraying in this video didn't actually occur until over 5 minutes after the start, plus the video was a presentation of a protest advocating a particular POV regarding a political matter. If this video was shorter and started at the point of the spraying, it might be OK, but I'd prefer to see something a little less inflammatory (no pun intended) and more focused on the effects of pepper spray.

I did find a great YouTube video that could be used, but I'm pretty sure it's footage of a copyrighted show from a guy named Ryan Stock. If someone could find similar footage, or if someone could confirm this footage is not copyrighted, either would be perfect.

I was torn about just removing the section and not putting something up, and I would have left the previous video up if the relevant content was closer to the beginning of the clip. I did search for a replacement video, but most of what I could find was just law enforcement or military training videos and none of them really seemed to document or show the effects of pepper spray in any useful way to the average person.

Davebenham 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

peaceful demonstrators
There are also Pepper-spray projectile available, which can be fired from a paintball gun. Having been used for years against peaceful demonstrators [2], it is increasingly being used by police in routine interventions.[3]

... I think this article shouldn't turn into a political platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.98.224 (talk) 03:01, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Why not include a section dedicated to the debate regarding the lethality (or non-lethal nature) of pepper spray, instead of debating it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebenham (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-lethal arguments?
Wikipedia's article on Non-lethal_force clearly states they "are weapons intended to be unlikely to kill or to cause great bodily injury to a living target." Although the Non-lethal_force article does redirect to Less-lethal_weapons, is that what everyone is upset about? Non-lethal instead of Less-lethal? Brother.

Personally, I'd like to see the terms Non-lethal_force and Less-lethal_weapons and pages that reference them reworked. Where did these terms come into use? Are they industry defined terms, political terms, or government classifications? Reworking these the discussion of these terms and how they are integrated into other wikipedia articles might be the only way to get rid of the neutrality tag on this page.

Davebenham 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Someone added a comment about spraying causing perminant blindness or death due to "hydrolic needle" effect. That looks very suspcious and should possibly be deleted. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I did a quick search and found a source describing the "hydraulic needle effect" as resulting in minor injuries. I agree with the removal/rewording. Flatscan (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Legality in Germany
Even minors can purchase pepper spray in Germany as long as it's solely use is the defense against animals. Using pepper spray agaunst people is not allowed, but if it's self defense you won't get prosecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.240.101 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You must be misinformed. The use of pepper spray against both animals and humans is only allowed in self-defence (humans) or in an act of necessity (animals). So, in a state of self-defence EVERY proper self-defence against an attacking human is allowed, be it pepper spray against animals or something else. The manufacturers label on pepper sprays "for the purpose of defense against animals only" is their trick to circumvent the German weapon control law, because then it's not considered a weapon! And because it's not a weapon it can be used and carried by anybody without coming under the weapon control law. Nonetheless the legal use against what- or whosoever is still regulated in the German criminal code. So, there are two different pepper spray categories, those labeled against animals only - which can of course also be legally used in self-defence against attacking humans, since self-defence is regulated in the criminal code, not the weapon control law, and pepper sprays which are to be especially used against humans in (all only self-defence!), but can of course nonetheless also be used against animals. But the latter come under the weapon control law, since they're also considered weapons. Thus these sprays can not be obtained by minors under the age of 14.

 * Saying the solely use of animal pepper spray was against animals is totally wrong. It is first of all not a legally defined weapon and secondly, can be used in self-defence against everything or everybody, like you could also use your umbrella, your purse, a chair in self-defence. And saying using pepper spray against humans were not allowed, unless in self-defence, is like saying using a chair against humans is not allowed, unless in self-defence. It's self-explanatory. This has nothing to do with the age of somebody defending him- or herself against somebody. Nothing is allowed done to do harm unto others. Otherwise it comes under the criminal code.

 * What you claimed sounds like every deed against another huma was prohibited, unless... self-defence. That's wrong, that reminds me on the German Wiki-knowledge, which is obviously written by laymen. The German criminal code is only applied on crimes, illegal deeds. And it clearly states, that everything done in self-defence is NOT illegal, hence it doesn't come under the criminal code in the first place. There's a difference!

§ 32 Notwehr (1) Wer eine Tat begeht, die durch Notwehr geboten ist, handelt nicht rechtswidrig.

 * What you (and the stupid German Wiki) say is applied on e.g. possession of Marijuana: it is generally prohibited. But when possessed only for the purpose (and amount) of personal use, then it shall not be prosecuted. But it still can be prosecuted nonetheless, it depends on the prosecutor himself, because it's generally illegal. While self-defence is never illegal, and thus CAN NOT be prosecuted, and not like you implied, could be but will not!

 * Hope, that helps.

Stream/Foam
I was seeking information about the difference between OC 'stream' and 'foam' dispensers. Anyone? 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * OC is delivered in four different methods: Cone, stream, foam, and one that could fill a room with a cloud of the stuff.

Spray delivered by the cone method acts much like an aerosol can. It starts out small, but by the time it reaches the target at the optimal spray distance (about 4-6ft), it's covering about a 2x2ft area. The chances of you spraying a bystander or fellow officer are increased. I'm pretty sure there are also more issues with blowback from the wind too, but having never used this type, I can't really comment.

Stream and foam are pretty much designed to do the same thing by delivering a concentrated localized blast that's less likely to hit anyone other than your intended target (streams can splash a bit though). A stream can be rendered ineffective if the person delivering it provides a constant blast rather than the recommended one second bursts as the constant supply of oils could wash away the pepper extract before allowing it time to react. Foam sticks though.

The venting type is mainly used for riots. The police wear masks and fire cannisters into crowds.

Hope that helps a little. 68.83.18.144 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I am far from being a politically correct person, but the picture of a white police officer spraying a hispanic man does have a ring of racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness of civilian use
It seems to me like there should be a section on weather people (esp. females) who carry pepper spray for self-defense are actually able to effectively use it when defending themselves to attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.121.24 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed, and a section which has a report (if such does exist) of how secure the people feel they are in the countries where pepper spray is legal, in comparison to countries where pepper spray is illegal. Do the people feel more secure, knowing that anyone can be walking around with pepper sprays or do they feel more insecure? And is the pepperspray actually making that country secure? Or does the pepper spray get abused by civilians (and what about minors?) or is it mostly correctly used? And so forth... Mr Mo (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Denmark sentence moved here
This sentence is problematic: "This was introduced following the shooting (and often killing) of a number of mentally ill citizens who had behaved violently or in a threatening manner, leaving the police force in want of a defensive, non-lethal weapon." The sentence contains a dramatic assertion without reference. It falls under this guideline: Verifiability and does not belong in the article written like this. Unless clear documentation of this can be cited, it cannot be supported to have it restored to the article. I had reverted an edit about it but this was disputed, hence moved here for further discussion. --Fremte (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It is untrue what you write. You reverted my edit. It is plain that the "disputed sentence" was evident before my edit. So you should take up you grievances with whoever introduced it. However, this has been covered in abundance in the Danish press. Feel free to add a "source needed" tag. Otherwise, your arguments are wholly without merit. --Law Lord (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence has the wrong tone and is in generalities. "often killing" is problematic,  If it is in the Danish press then you need to provide a reference.  Simple reversion is not appropriate, so you suggested in my talk page.  --Fremte (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please note that "often killing" is not a phrase I wrote. Rather that phrase was already in the article. However, since the phrase simply states the facts concerning the Danish police, I ask that you please explain why it is problematic to explain the truth. Obviously, you know very little of the Danish police. Otherwise, you might suggest re-phrasing to "extremely often without consequence or regret". Anyway, I have added two refs. There are many more. This discussion is an example of why I find Wikipedia so revolting. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You would have avoided this whole issue if you had simply added the references in the first place. I have corrected again the grammar error you reverted and added an inline tag.  As for finding WP revolting, no one is forcing you to contribute.  This is a wording issue now that you have added the citations.  We are almost there (that is unless you really find it revolting and have quit).  I would suggest that we might be working correctly now per normal collaboration in WP, ignoring some of the manner in which the exchange has gone.  It would be best to have "offten killing" replaced by the actual info of how many.  --Fremte (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, and certainly I tend to contribute not so much for the aforementioned reason. However, I sometimes do contribute when certain facts about my area of expertise are presented too far from the truth for me to bear. I hope for your understanding in this. I have now changed the wording per your suggestion, though probably it can be improved upon for a more smooth sound. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the part about Denmark just now, but I am still not very satisfied with it as it is now. The two cited sources said nothing about what is written in the article, so I removed them. When you add references, please make sure they actually confirm the material. Do not just add some random Danish news article about police and peppersprays just because most people wont be able to read it and decide whether it's relevant or not. I realise this discussion is almost 3 years old, but I hope someone can find a relevant source to reference to. I faintly remember something similar to these stories being mentioned in Danish media in the past, but I haven't been able to find an online source myself as of now. Sandertams (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Split needed
Apologies. I moved this article from Pepper Spray to Oleoresin capsicum, when in actual fact, what is needed are two separate articles. Pepper Spray is one use of OC, and is usually a more potent concentration of the chemical compared with other uses. --Rebroad (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see that either a move or split is necessary. These are the closely-related articles:
 * Capsicum: plant genus
 * Capsaicin: chemical; see Capsaicin
 * Oleoresin capsicum/Pepper spray (this article): specific application (weapon)
 * I don't see any content in this article that should be moved to Capsaicin. I support moving this article back to Pepper spray, the most common name. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current content is all about pepper spray which can be made from a variety of different compounds. I have moved the article back to pepper spray. Maybe we can create an oleoresin capsicum page as this has many uses outside the weapon area, e.g. as a food ingredient. Cacycle (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a distinction between capsaicin and oleoresin capsicum? As far as I can tell from the articles, OC is concentrated capsaicin extracted and refined by a specific process. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

INIWIC document
97.165.42.39 inserted a large amount of text here, apparently from INIWIC document ALMAR 305-98. It may be usable as a primary source. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotional Links
The series of edits represented by this diff smells like link spam to me. However, it seems to me to be relevant enough to leave it alone. I invite other editors' opinions. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my experience, online refs for these products tend to be manufacturers' (maybe okay) or resellers' (probably not) websites. I cautiously accept this instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of missing cites
Quite a lot of this article is tagged as needing citation. Sometime within the next week I intend to go through and delete any sections/paragraphs which carry a fact tag older than a year - in case any editors want to get a jump on providing these. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful to simply add the sources yourself. We should remove false and misleading content; or rewrite it to adhere to our policies. The rest should be sourced but not under threat of removal. -- Banj e  b oi   13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The tags I saw are mostly or all in the Pepper spray section, on the individual jurisdictions. I think the information is not valuable enough to leave uncited indefinitely. Flatscan (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen this happen soooo many times. An entire section is littered with fact tags. To me this is disingenuous as the information isn't untrue as much as presently unsourced inline. I've worked through a few very large lists and almost everything was (surprisingly) accurate just missing inline cites. I'll pitch in to add sources if others will also help. -- Banj e  b oi   05:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Marines
Are you sure that the photo with the marines demonstrating the effects of pepper spray were are not in fact demonstrating the effects of CS gas? That should be determined definitively. Contributions/65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

While no one could be certain, without having been there when the picture was taken; It was in the 80', 90's and first decade of the 00's extremely uncommon for Marines to do the pad training after CS exposure and VERY common to do pad training as an additional module of Pepper Spray training. Most often only Military Police and certain Security force Marines were involved in exposure to Pepper Spray - due to it's illegality for use in war and to it's availability for use in policing type actions. The pad training was to encourage the MP's and Security Force trainees to understand their level of incapacitation and how quickly they or their target could recover from the use of the agent, as well as giving them the tools to work through the distraction of an accidental exposure in the presence of a hostile person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunny2862 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

why redirected from bear spray?
Since bear spray, as I understand it, is a good bit more potent than pepper spray, at least the self-defense sort, why is it directed to this page? Seems a separate entry is needed, but I'm not expert.

bleckb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.193.18 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Hi, I don't know if you are still here and I wrote a long story on pepper spray, but some defense use pepper sprays are 50% stronger than bear sprays. The UDAP defense spray is 15% OC 3,000,000 SHU and 3% MC or CRC. Bear spray is regulated and has to be at least 1% MC but not over 2%. There is nothing about OC or SHU. The only number they care about is MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Canadian home/car-defense system story?
Regarding this edit: I don't think it's notable enough to include in the article. Anyone else? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Whether it's "notable" or not (I don't know if individual facts incorporated in an article all have to be notable, that would slow things down around here), it is both interesting and properly cited. I would say it should remain.  --CliffC (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge Mace into this article
I suggest merging Mace (spray) into this article, since the terms seem to be used interchangeably. The Mace page says "Most Mace sold today by Mace Security International is pepper spray", so it seems sensible to merge these two, as Mace is simply a brand of pepper spray. Gymnophoria (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chemical Mace is not interchangeable with Pepper Spray. They are two entirely different chemicals that only share a common purpose. If you want to merge pepper spray, chemical mace, tear gas and others into a common defensive aerosol spray article then by all means, but they are not in anyway the same products. In fact, many countries which allow pepper spray, ban Chemical Mace, because of its phenacyl chloride component.

I recommend that the entire overarching subject of lachrymatory agents (tear gas, OC, mace, etc.) be reorganised using Wikipedia's disambiguation facilities. They are all clearly a distinct category of "non-lethal" (albeit damaging) weapons, perhaps even suggesting a higher-order heirarchy of non-lethal weapons within Wikipedia's structure. I believe such an approach would be the most neutral regarding brand names and the varied legal status of these weapons worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.121.246.85 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mace is most certainly not synonymous with pepper spray. Mace, a registered trade mark, contains three components: capsicum (the component in pepper that gives its heat), tear gas and a UV dye for identification. There are other such formulations that are sold under different trade names, as well as just pepper spray. Hence, the two terms should not be merged since they are not the same formulas, although they do have a common function. SRQMark (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to concur that mace not be merged into the pepper spray article. As mace was one of the first commercially available lachrymatory agent it has taken on a generic meaning in common conversation much like kleenix for tissues, etc. However, mace is a specific commercial product and proper noun quite distinct from generic pepper sprays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfKrueger (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove "Death" section and cite #47
Cite #47 mentioned in the "Death" section, the man that dies was Tasered, Pepper Sprayed and Arrested, any of those three or a million other things could have caused his death, so as there is no evidence of anyone dieing from it so far the section should be removed pending such evidence. It would appear from my research that most deaths around pepper spray land up being caused my positional asphyxiation and not merely the spray itself. Again, IF and WHEN such evidence appears and can be properly cited then it can and should be re-added, for example any final report on thie persons death indicating Pepper Spray as the direct cause of death. 75.10.32.167 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unregulated citation needed

 * In Romania pepper spray is unregulated.[citation needed]

Does anyone else notice how retarded it is to ask for citation about something that is unregulated? Cite what? The nonexistent law on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.177.216 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Use on peaceful protestors
The events at Occupy UC Davis mean that there has been a lot of editing of this article recently, though thankfully without descending into edit warring. Do we want to mention in the lead section that pepper spray has been used on peaceful protestors or not? I don't think the UC Davis incident is significant enough to mention specifically in the lead, but as I attempted to show in the references for this edit (I'm linking to the revert here since it includes all the relevant content), this was not the first time that pepper spray has been used on peaceful protestors. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that probably falls under crowd control which is already mentioned in the lead in. Any tool can be used inappropriately. 206.174.57.21 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think it needs to be listed under "Incidents", either. Now the use of pepper spray in a California Walmart in order to get merchandise during Black Friday may be a more interesting incident. See, for example, http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/26/us/california-pepper-spray-suspect/index.html at CNN.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think the UC Davis incident is undue weight; however, if included, it should be compared with uses of firearms, water cannons, bean-bag-guns, and/or tear gas against (allegedly) peaceful protesters. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole "incidents" section should probably be removed and simply link to related articles on incidents worth mentioning. The outcry over the UC Davis incident is enough to warrant its own article, so linking makes sense, but the one line mention isn't. The inaccurate black friday shopping incident definitely is not relevant and should be removed, so I have done so. If there is question about its inaccuracy, it referred to the early story that the woman as using the pepper spray to beat out other shoppers as if thatt were fact. Surveillance videos have since shown it may have been a valid self defense use. http://www.dailynews.com/ci_19426397 Merennulli (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the UC Davis incident is enough to warrant its own article, but a "See also" link would be acceptable. if it were an article. And I think the initial, although possibly incorrect. interpretation of the "Black Friday" incident is as likely as the interpretation of the UC Davis incident treated here as "fact".  WP:NOTNEWS; we can wait for the facts to come in, if there are notable incidents of use of pepper spray.
 * I've added an "Off-topic" tag to go with the "undue weight" tag; perhaps that will discourage "expansion" before further discussion can take place. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per NotFromUtrecht, established incidents of use on peaceful protesters might be listed, but we shouldn't use current events unless absolutely necessary and unequivocal. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the entire section should be removed. If the individual incident is notable, it may warrant its own article. But, it doesn't fit in this article. We don't list cases of (in)famous shootings in the gun section, or famous stabbings in the page on swords.JoelWhy (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No responses to this, so I'm going to go ahead and remove.JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Add new section? or to existing
Hi, I was trying to chose a pepper spray and was very confused.Seems a lot of hype "marketing" After I learned, I wrote a story on pepper spray

I would like to get in a few points but not sure where they should go.

1) is that some defense sprays are very weak with only .18% Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids ,with the stronger ones being 30 times hotter We have all heard the stories about the spray doing noting. These may put a person in danger.

2) That there are three numbers people use to rate the effectiveness of pepper spray, the percent of OC, the SHU and the percent of Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids or CRC. A bear spray is required to have at least 1% and not more than 2% Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids.

3) some personal use pepper sprays are 50% stronger than bear sprays. (one defense spray is 15% OC 3,000,000 SHU and 3% MC or CRC http://www.udap.com/Clip-On-Commander.htm) Bear spray is regulated and has to be at least 1% MC but not over 2%. There is nothing about OC or SHU. The only number they care about is MC

I think this would be a good place to educate people. ie a 18% OC Spray may mean nothing if the Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids are only .24

A 15,000,000 SHU many mean nothing if it's diluted to 2% OC. This is how they fool people Would love help or suggestions Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

a notice
also pepper sprays are suitable for self defence of disabled persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:7C02:3700:D472:F69D:25BD:5 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Legaility in Europe Plagiarism Problems
I was just working on trying to find sources for a few of the uncited parts of the legality section of this article, and I stumbled upon this, which it appears to me most of the legality in Europe section is directly copied from. This constitutes plagiarism, so everything copied from there needs to be rewritten and cited. It looks like this section was badly in need of additional references anyway. I'll start working on trying to clean this section up as I have time, mostly just wanted to let others know. Buffalo82 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously that site is an uncredited copy of the WP original.
 * Archive.org's first capture of it is September 2016 . Note the "Pepper spray is illegal[41] " (orphaned citation link) under United Kingdom and the "[citation needed]" for Malta. This, even the changed citation numbering between then and now, matches the WP article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll leave it alone then. Buffalo82 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable use by law enforcement
[All the torture in jails and prisons and documented deaths of restrained peppered and even pepper masked individuals.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.167.82 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Source?
It says, "The European Parliament Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) published in 1998 'An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control' " but the document linked to from 2000 has that title only as a subtitle, and does not include the exact words that are quoted. I don't doubt that they were in that report. The 2000 report says for instance that "OC is the most potent of all of the commonly available riot control irritants". But maybe either change (or remove) the link or change the quote so that it corresponds to the document that is linked to. Maybe remove the link and add an additional quote from the new document so that people are aware of that resource.

--100.4.144.148 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Chicken or egg dilemma
The article on pepper spray claims it was originally invented to fend off bears - as bear spray - while the article on bear spray claims the idea for bear spray came from commercial pepper sprays. 62.35.36.138 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pepper spray


text:
Xenusion

Xenusion auerswaldae is an early lobopodian known from two specimens found in glacial erratics on the Baltic coast of Germany. They probably originated in the Kalmarsund Sandstone of Southern Sweden, which was deposited in the Lower Cambrian (Upper Tommotian–Lower Atdabanian; Stages 2→3). It is the oldest currently known lobopodian with soft body fossils.

The specimens are not especially well preserved. The older specimen is 10 cm or so in length with a narrow, weakly segmented body. Assuming it was the posterior section, the specimen was estimated to be part of an animal about 20 cm in length. A depression runs up the bottom on all but the rearmost segments. There is a slightly bulbous termination, and each segment before that seems to have a single pair of tapering annulated legs similar to the modern onychophoran, but without specialized feet and claws. More than 10 body segments were present. There is presumably a spine on each body bump and faint transverse parallel striations on the annulations on the legs. The legs of what is possibly the foremost segments are either absent or not preserved. The head is believed to be missing or poorly preserved. Based on a new specimen that shows the anterior section, it possibly had a long narrow proboscis, but this also suggested to be a preservational artefact.

Xenusion has been reinterpreted as an Ediacaran frond animal by Tarlo, and a drawing of that interpretation has been presented by McMenamin. In a photograph presented in The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Volume O, the organism's appearance seems to support the original interpretation more. Further studies of Xenusiid close the possibility of a Rangeomorphy affinity.

title: Xenusion