text:
Talk:Personal defense weapon

Government Defense Weapon
"Personal Defense Weapon" implies this is a weapon ordinary people can use to defend themselves. Unfortunately, illegitimate criminal governments "prohibit" ordinary people from owning firearms capable of firing "more than one round per trigger pull" or "armor-piercing" ammunition.

That being the case, until those who enact and enforce gun prohibitions are rightfully rounded up and systematically exterminated, the proper name for this should therefore be Government Defense Weapon, State Defense Weapon, or State Terrorism Facilitator. -- Kill the Gun Grabbers (128.2.141.33 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC))

 * Ummm... Actually the article merely defines the term, which is already is common use. The second paragraph states:

 * as defensive weapons for troops whose primary activities does not include use of small arms: vehicle and tank crew members, artillery crews etc.

 * Indicating the weapon is designed for soldiers. Megapixie 06:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I was taking issue with the term and definition itself, which is in "common use" only amongst various government thug organizations, their suppliers, and the niche media outlets which cater to them.

 * Also of note is that if an ordinary person was found to be in possession of these types of firearms, the term would immediately change to "Illegal Black Baby-killing Assault Death Weapon", or some such. -- Kill The Gun Grabbers (85.31.186.13 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC))

Copyvio
I removed some copyrighted text copied from here. Tronno 18:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Picture
The picture shown on the page doesn't actually belong to a H&K MP5K PDW but simply to a MP5A3K: the PDW variant of the MP5K has a folding stock and a longer (similar to the one of the normal models) barrell. Could someone please correct this? I would do it myself, but I'm not good at finding pictures (especially with all the rights-related issues).

Huge tag at header
Whats with the huge tag at the header, that's just ridiculous and unnecessary. If the article was that bad it should be deleted or whoever applied it spent their timing focusing on one of those areas listed that needed improvement. --Papajohnin (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced it with refimprove as its the only tag applicable to the article, the rest were borderline vandalism.--Papajohnin (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of pistol carbines as APDW
I suggest that the Luger long-barrel variant mentioned is pistol-calibre, and does not fit the concept as described in the text. The Mauser C96 article also plays up the PDW idea, but the pdw concept was developed 80 years after these weapons and if pistols firning pistol ammo fitted it the authors would not have defined a new concept. The previous use of .30 Carbine and even the older Artillery Carbines (short-barreled variants of service rifles taking the same cartridge) is worth mentioning, but the C96 and Luger variants fall way outside the concept. ChrisPer (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the mention of C96 in this article is wierdly ahistorical. The C96 preceded the Luger carbine, it was the first widely sold semiauto pistol and it it was never particularly an officer's pistol - especially in WWII. It was a hugely popular civilian arm especially in Africa and South America from its introduction to the 1930s, and many went to China by WWII.
 * I agree, and FWIW the C96 and Luger pistol-carbines were intended as exactly that; carbines for when greater range or accuracy was needed than offered by a conventional handgun, but still with all the functionality and advantages of a standard handgun. The stocks were removable for this very reason; to allow the user a greater degree of flexibility in the gun's deployment. They're not really PDWs, IMHO, and having said that I think the entire Personal Defence Weapon concept is ill-defined at best, FWIW. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Other SMG's
Are the TDI Vector, Chang Feng and Shipka PDW's (they include long barrels and dual grips) ? if so, include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.154.136 (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for references to define concept
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Marshall.pdf

The whole PDW concept is ill-defined, and good sources needed. This one by Walter Balsavage presented to NDIA nad held on a .mil site seems to describe the ambiguities in different suggested specifications.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/pdw/ referred me to the link. ChrisPer (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not entirely sure that "Personal Defence Weapon" really is a separate concept worthy of its own article, to be honest. From what I can tell, anything that might be considered a PDW is also generally considered a Sub-machine gun or a Machine-pistol. Especially when you consider that "armour-piercing" rounds exist for SMG/Pistol calibre cartridges, which seems to be the only distinction the article is trying to draw. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think the idea has been hyped by media and/or manufacturers to create a new niche to sell into. However, if US .mil specifications use the term, its probably notable enough to retain the article.ChrisPer (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but I'm still not entirely convinced. I mean, from the description, all PDWs are SMGs or Machine-Pistols anyway, and since all Machine-Pistols and SMGs can be loaded with armour-piercing rounds, that means that they could be considered PDWs anyway. It's circular reasoning, IMHO, and I think we need a couple of hard and reputable print cites from someone like Jane's or an official US Army Publication before I'm prepared to acknowledge the PDW concept as anything other than a fancy new word for "Sub-machine gun". Commander Zulu (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The big difference is that pistol-caliber SMG with AP ammunition do not have the effective range of the SCHV PDW. In addition, pistol-caliber ammunition typically has heavier recoil and weighs more than the current SCHV PDW cartridges.  For instance, a typical 9x19mm cartridge weighs nearly as much as a 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

 * As I understand it, the NATO requirements document for a PDW (D/296) specified that such weapons be effective against targets wearing body armor (ultimately defined as 20 layers of Kevlar and a 1.6mm titanium plate) out to a minimum of 30m while hand-held and 100m while shoulder-fired. However, effective ranges of 50m and 200m (respectively) would be desirable. (By 1993, effective ranges of 50m and 150m were mandated.) A loaded PDW should weigh no more than 1.0kg for a hand-held weapon (0.7kg desired) and 3kg for a shoulder-fired weapon. The PDW should also be ambidextrous and suitable for use with winter clothing, body armor, and NBC gear.

 * US specifications for the APDW (1986), PDW (1989), and OPDW (1993) differed from the NATO specs. While they were willing to accept a shorter effective range (APDW: 90% hit probability at 25m; PDW: defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m; OPDW: defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m, effective to 100m), they wanted a much lighter weapon, weighing 1.5 pounds or less.  When the OPDW became the OPW (circa 1995), the weight limit was raised to 3 pounds, but it had to "instantly" defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m, with an effective range of 200m.  In addition, recoil was to be no heavier than the 9x19mm.  From my research, it seems that the JSSAP requirements were pushing more toward a handgun than a carbine.  Muddying the waters, the US military has for years referred to the M9 pistol as a Personal Defense Weapon.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some way of putting that in English for general readers? :P I still honestly don't think that PDW really is a "separate category"- they're SMGs with HVAP ammo in weird calibres you can't buy at the gunshop. Perhaps the article would be better off as a sub-section of Sub-machine gun? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In english - Submachineguns fire pistol ammo, and have short range and little armor piercing capability. PDWs fire different ammo, have intermediate range and acceptable short range armor piercing capability.  These are related to SMGs - one could loosen the SMG definition to cover PDWs, but they're designed for different targets and engagement envelopes.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That description eliminates the ambiguity with earlier terms, and lets us ignore the anachronistic inclusion of stocked pistols in the category. Under this definition the term only has meaning post-1986 or so. Could you provide clear references for the definitions, or have I missed it? ChrisPer (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

-Removed dead or broken link at the bottom of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.164.191 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FB Radom PM-2020 source
Can I get some source of the FB Radom PM-2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4200:EEB7:3C98:E5DA:69F6:21A (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think it is notable, write an article about it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

PDW as a weapons-role?
The FN scar pdw is technically an assault rifle carbine, if you read the article carbines you will notice that, one of the roles of a carbines is to defend behind-line and vehicle personnel

The MP5-K-PDW shots regular 9x19mm ammo and was intended for aircrews to defend themselves. (Other submachineguns such as the Auto c-96 mauser, stechkin, pm63 rak and skorpion where also meant for behind-line and vehicle personnel to defend themselves).

Could it be that some companies consider a PDW any weapon that fulfills the role of defending behind-line and vehicle personnel. 89.0.14.98 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

M1&2 Carbines
Isn't the M1&2 carbine a PDW? I know it doesn't use the same type of bottlenecked pistol cartridge as modern PDWs but it was still designed as one. Dominic 41 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Personal defense weapon


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banned From Life

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Banned From Life
Web forum with 900 registered members, and a core group of "less than 50 members." tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. tregoweth  03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but don't vote for your own AfD nomination please. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An odd comment. Virtually all admins count the nomination as a vote, if they feel they must merely count votes. Seperating the vote from the nomination is fine, since not all nominations are for delete (since some newbies misunderstand the point of AfD). -Splash talk 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (And frankly, as long as WP:AFD says "Consider creating the first entry, for example:  to begin consensus gathering," I'd say there's nothing wrong with him voting for his own AfD nominations. I know I do.) -- Captain Disdain 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's actually why started doing it. tregoweth
 * Delete non-notable. *drew 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-nontable. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete We'll probably never have a specific "forums with X members are notable" standard, but this is definitely below all reasonable criteria. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Btm 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 03:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN. - Sensor 02:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wwfu

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wwfu
Appears to be some sort of wrestling fanfic stub. tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. tregoweth  03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete nonsense --Anetode 06:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . crap Rjayres 14:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax nonsense. Marskell 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Btm 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 03:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Please. Utter nonsense. - Sensor 02:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wwfu


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (2nd nomination)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of songs about masturbation (2nd nomination)
Due to some policy constraints set for this article, some circumstances have changed. See the talk page for more details on these circumstances. See Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (1st nomination) for the previous ballot. The previous ballot was filled out back in the days that AfD (articles for deletion) Was called VfD (votes for deletion). The new policy on this song list has prompted a second nomination for deletion therefore votes on the previous ballot may not apply anymore (well maybe).

Before the policy was implemented, the list was at the point of unmaintainability as people originally thought that it also included songs that people think are about masturbation. If we look for songs that are intended to be about it, the list has become subtrivial listcruft. But if we let people add songs that have phrases that are innuendo to masturbation, then it would probably be unmaintainable.
 * Delete, either case would render the article UNSALVAGEABLE. --SuperDude 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate crap. [[Image:Smilie.gif|20px]]Molotov [[Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif|25px]]  (talk)  03:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe that lists with trivial inclusion criteria do not meet the Wikipedia article inclusion criteria, and I believe this list's criteria for inclusion are, were, and will remain trivial. The Literate Engineer 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless Liftcruft --JAranda | watz sup 04:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It passed AfD (or VfD at the time) once.  Since then every letter of the alphabet has been cleaned up (except T I think) with the lyrics as an HTML comment as a source, and I've provided a criteria for inclusion that eliminates innuendo (see talk).  I didn't think it was encyclopedic, but we've come to consensus once so I've cleaned up virtually all of them.  I'd hate to waste that effort.  Wikibofh 04:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikibofh. Kappa 05:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this goes beyond drivel. Storm Rider 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless. *drew 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent and wikibofh. Youngamerican 05:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointlessly trivial list. --Calton | Talk 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikibofh, I think the fact that you put so much (wasted) effort into trying to salvage this entry is an excellent example of why we collectively need to be more proactive about not starting such non-articles to begin with and doing a better job of deleting them the first time when they do get made. The Literate Engineer 06:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you on that. :)  I think I came across this on a Random Article click.  I was suprised it had survived an AfD.  I probably shouldn't have put in the effort, but hey, it was amusing.  :)  Wikibofh
 * Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting, verifiable, survived VfD before.  Grue  07:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep so damn bored i'm going blind...  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. This kind of stuff is so far from the spirit of what WP was ever even meant to be.  "We make the internet not suck"  This kind  of stuff is random trivial garbaaaage in my humble opinion.--Gaff talk 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. The discussion on the talk page illustrates the problem with lists like these. There are arguments over whether "milkshake" consitutes "ass-shaking", breast-shaking", or something else altogether. Deciding one way or the other requires an arbitrary call; because many implicated lyrical terms will be protologisms of uncertain usage, making that judgement call also by necessity contravenes WP:NOR. Further, it appears that the page is being populated under an entirely arbitrary criterion—a song is allowed if it seems to some editors to be "definitely about masturbation", but other songs that could also perfectly well be "about masturbation", but are not recognized by the editors as such, will not be admitted. Non-NPOV contruct. Next, we have the problem with the title. "About masturbation"? If a love song clearly mentions the word masturbation several times, I have little doubt it will be admitted. Yet, it may be highly inaccurate to list such a song under a title that claims it is about masturbation, when that word might simply be a minor feature of the lyrics. I think we should remember that lists and articles are very different contructs. By placing something in a list you are making a statement about that item, and you cannot qualify or nuance your statement the way you might in an article. Therefore lists should only be used for things where such a binary determination is clear and unambiguous. It either is, or it is not. For example: "List of member countries of the UN." "List of Japanese states." "List of Ford models manufactured and sold between 1970 and 2004." "List of astronauts who have landed on the moon." Not this please. enceph  alon  10:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the eventual consensus is to delete this, you might want to think about pruning down Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs as well. lots of lists of song by subject.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 11:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per various arguments above. CalJW 11:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Drop a MOAB on this.--MONGO 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep though I agree it should be kept to just songs which are intended to be about masturbation. "Pink Thing" by XTC is about a father and his newborn baby. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Save people the time having pointless debates over a pointless list. Marskell 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - No idea why everyone voted keep the first time, thought it was funny? How is this any more notable or viable than, List of songs about eating, or List of songs about sleeping.  I would however, vote extreme keep on List of songs about schools, as they are inherently notable. - Hahnchen 17:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not encyclopedic to begin with, and with the subjective nature of the list (as Encephalon correctly points out), it has no chance of ever being NPOV. Tito xd (?!?) 18:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Interesting list, cruft is not a deletion criteria, and it passed a previous AfD. When that AfD passed, songs like Another Brick in the Wall were on it. Now we've cleaned it up so every song there is actually about masturbation, so its a worthwhile list. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 19:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Wikibofh, although I could go either way. It seems pretty non-notable, but a lot of people seem to feel differently.  better safe than speedy.  Instead of a third AfD, could we maybe table the discussion to the Talk page about how to improve, as it seems to be pretty ambiguous in terms of both value, and valuelessness. cruft can be a deletion criteria, specifically as being not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry, but this is almost not cruft.Jesse 20:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sort of thing that might be useful to a serious social scientist. BD2412  talk 20:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm sure this is of interest to some. - SimonP 21:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Keep As per BD2412. Some would say this list was useless because the subject matter seems silly, but a social scientist or historian would find a list like this tremendously useful.  Really: I wish I had a list of jazz songs about marijuana, for example, when I was doing my thesis a few years ago.  This list would be wonderful for a serious researcher.  It just has to be kept orderly.  --Tedzsee 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Why not? Hipocrite - « Talk » 22:41, 15 October 2005
 * Strong Delete as unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list. It's not that the "subject matter seems silly", but that its contents are inherently ambiguous and unverifiable. It cannot be "kept orderly", since the criterion for being on the list is that some person thought some lyric was an allusion to masturbation. That is not remotely encyclopedic. MCB 23:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's obviously maintainable, since people have been maintaining it. Factitious 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, thats what the list used to be like. Now Wikibofh, me, and others make a consensus on whether each song should be added, and we check lyrics. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's admirable, but it's not practical to have "policy constraints" on the content of Wikipedia articles. No one owns the article, the "keepers" may lose interest, and it's just an open invitation to edit wars.
 * So you think it would be better to not have any, and never remove a song that was placed there? I refer to how such songs as Another Brick in the Wall (Pink Floyd) and High Hopes (Frank Sinatra) and Iron Man (Black Sabbath) and Pinball Wizard (The Who) and Thunderstruck (AC/DC) and TNT (AC/DC) were on the list. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I would rather just not keep the article at all. It's inherently just a matter of opinion what should be included, the criteria are ultimately arbitrary, and why should one (or two or three) editors' opinions be considered definitive? There's no ability to verify the contents. MCB 04:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The consensus opinions of the editors contributing to an article should be considered definitive (at least until other editors choose to chime in and potentially change the consensus) because this is a wiki. It's no more arbitrary than any other article that requires the good judgement of the Wikipedia community. Factitious 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment While I respect the "utility" argument, I have concerns about the idea of letting it apply to lists. Articles, sure.  But lists?  The Literate Engineer 04:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the "utility argument." Are you saying that you think useful lists should be deleted? Factitious 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kind of. It's more a call for as strict as possible a standard of usefulness for lists.  Certainly much stricter than for real articles.  The Literate Engineer 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Vsion 08:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful and interesting. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Why Not?
 * Delete. Totally subjective topic, has no chance of ever becoming verifiable. -- Corvus 19:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and interesting. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikibofh has done what should be done with lists like this, so it can stay. In the future, lists either need to start with a verifiable basis, or they need to be deleted until get one. Xoloz 11:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Wikibofh and BD2412. I still don't understand why amusing lists like this one anger deletionists so much. Factitious 02:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Oh, what the hell. It's amusing and the songs are (mostly) notable. - Sensor 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
The Outsider (short story)

"The Outsider" is a short story by American horror writer H. P. Lovecraft. Written between March and August 1921, it was first published in Weird Tales, April 1926. In this work, a mysterious individual who has been living alone in a castle for as long as he can remember decides to break free in search of human contact and light. "The Outsider" is one of Lovecraft's most commonly reprinted works and is also one of the most popular stories ever to be published in Weird Tales.

"The Outsider" combines horror, fantasy, and gothic fiction to create a nightmarish story, containing themes of loneliness, the abhuman, and the afterlife. Its epigraph is from John Keats' 1819 poem "The Eve of St. Agnes".

Inspiration
In a letter, Lovecraft himself said that, of all his tales, this story most closely resembles the style of his idol Edgar Allan Poe, writing that it "represents my literal though unconscious imitation of Poe at its very height." The opening paragraphs echo those of Poe's "Berenice", while the horror at the party recalls the unmasking scene in "The Masque of the Red Death".

The story may also have been inspired in part by Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Fragments from the Journal of a Solitary Man", in which a man dreams that he is walking down Broadway in a burial shroud, only understanding the shocked reaction of passersby when he sees his reflection in a shop window.

Another suggested literary model is Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1818), in which the creature causes a shock when he enters a cottage: "I had hardly placed my foot within the door before the children shrieked, and one of the women fainted." The monster later looks in a pool of water and sees his reflection for the first time.

Colin Wilson, in The Strength to Dream (1961), points to Oscar Wilde's short story "The Birthday of the Infanta", in which a misshapen dwarf is horrified to see his reflection for the first time.

Some critics have suggested that "The Outsider" is autobiographical, and that Lovecraft was talking about his own life when he wrote, "I know always that I am an outsider; a stranger in this century and among those who are still men." An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia finds this analysis to be exaggerated, but suggests that the story "may possibly be indicative of HPL's own self-image, particularly the image of one who always thought himself ugly and whose mother told at least one individual about her son's 'hideous' face."

Synopsis
"The Outsider" is written in a first-person narrative style, and details the miserable and apparently lonely life of an individual, who appears to have never made contact with another person. The narrator admits that he cannot seem to recall any details of his personal history. He tells of his environment: a dark, decaying castle amid an "endless forest" of high trees that block out the light from the sun. He has never seen natural light, nor another human being, and he has never ventured from the prison-like home he now inhabits. The only knowledge the narrator has of the outside world is from his reading of the "antique books" that line the walls of his castle.

The narrator tells of his eventual determination to free himself, from what he views as an existence within a prison. He decides to climb the ruined staircase of the high castle tower which seems to be his only hope to reach the light. At the place where the stairs terminate into crumbled ruins, the narrator begins a long, slow climb up the tower wall, until he eventually finds a trapdoor in the ceiling, which he pushes up and climbs through. Amazingly, he finds himself not at the great height he anticipated, but at ground level in another world. With the sight of the full moon before him, he proclaims, "There came to me the purest ecstasy I have ever known." Overcome with the emotion he feels in beholding what—until now—he had only read about, the narrator takes in his new surroundings. He wanders out into the countryside before eventually coming upon another castle.

Upon visiting the castle, the narrator sees a gathering of people at a party within. Longing for some type of human contact, he climbs through a window into the room. But as he enters, the people become terrified. They scream and collectively flee from the room, many stumbling blindly with their hands held over their eyes toward the walls in search of an exit. As the narrator stands alone in the room, with the screams of the party vanishing into far away echoes, he walks around the room searching for what might be hidden in the shadows but finds nothing. As he walks to one of the corners of the room, he detects a presence there.

In his shock and surprise, he loses his balance and touches the creature. Horrified, he runs from the building back to his castle, where he tries unsuccessfully to crawl back through the grate into his old world. Cast out of his old existence, the narrator now rides with the "mocking and friendly ghouls on the night wind". Since he touched the monster's feet in the corner, he has felt nothing but the "cold and unyielding surface of the polished glass" of a mirror.

Analysis
Horror historian Les Daniels described "The Outsider" as "arguably the author's finest work". Joanna Russ praised "The Outsider" as one of Lovecraft's best stories, describing it as "poetically melancholy". Though some may contend that Lovecraft's "The Outsider" is purely a horror story, there are predominantly Gothic themes that play significant roles in this short story including loneliness, the abhuman, and the afterlife that take it to a more psychological level.

Loneliness
The narrator in "The Outsider" exists in a perpetual state of loneliness. At the onset of the story, it is revealed that he has lived for years in the castle but cannot recall any person ever being there except for himself. Neither can he recall the presence of anything alive but the "noiseless rats and bats and spiders" that surround him. He has never heard the voice of another human being, nor has he ever spoken aloud. His only encounters with the outside world are those he attains from reading the old books that have been left within the castle.

Upon encountering humanity later in the story, the narrator is left even more lonely than before. He has come to witness human life and has been immediately shunned from it due to his appearance. Being outcast from the society he longed to know forced the narrator to continue living life as a recluse. However, this time it has been made worse because what he has lost was no longer a vague idea from a book but a tangible thing held out of his grasp. He is the monster.

The ab-human
In Gothic fiction, ab-human refers to a "Gothic body" or something that is only vestigially human and possibly in the process of becoming something monstrous, such as a vampire, werewolf, or in this case a walking corpse. Kelly Hurley writes that the "abhuman subject is a not-quite-human subject, characterized by its morphic variability, continually in danger of becoming not-itself, becoming other."

The idea of "becoming other" parallels what is happening in this story. The intensity of the process is heightened because the reader is learning of this transition from human to the ab-human right along with the narrator who is learning it himself.

Connections to other Lovecraft stories
Ghouls make frequent appearances in Lovecraft's work, such as in The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath (1926), although they are generally very different from the undead creatures described here. This story also mentions Nitocris and Nephren-Ka briefly. Nitocris, a legendary queen of Egypt, also makes an appearance in the 1924 Lovecraft and Harry Houdini collaboration "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs". Nephren-Ka is mentioned in "The Haunter of the Dark" as the Pharaoh who built "a temple with a windowless crypt" to the Shining Trapezohedron, and "did that which caused his name to be stricken from all monuments and records".

Adaptations

 * In 1964, Erik Bauersfeld narrated an audio adaptation on the old-time radio program The Black Mass. This adaptation was later used as part of a limited edition LP release along with his audio adaptation of the Lovecraft story "The Rats in the Walls".
 * Roddy McDowall was the narrator of the story on a 1966 LP release (Lively Arts 30003) that also included the Lovecraft story "The Hound".
 * The 1995 Stuart Gordon film Castle Freak is based upon this story and "The Rats in the Walls". A reboot/remake of the 1995 film was released in 2020.
 * Gou Tanabe adapted the story into a manga in 2007.
 * In 2019, a modern-day adaptation of the short story, directed by Ludvig Gür, premiered at the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival. It played at multiple festivals and was picked up by horror-brand ALTER (a division of Gunpowder & Sky) for online distribution and was featured in the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival Best of 2019 DVD Collection.
 * Season 4 of the Netflix series Chilling Adventures of Sabrina features various Lovecraft entities as antagonists. In episode 2, "The Uninvited", the Outsider is portrayed as a hideously filthy vagrant who asks for shelter, but murders anyone who does not invite him in.

title: The Outsider (short story)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minten

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 23:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Minten
Entirety of the article at the time of nomination: ''A large family hailing from Ontario, Canada. Many highly successful people have come out of the family over the years. The family is largely into farming, and they have a rich farming background. They create thousands of jobs each year for people who are less fortunate then themselves, and are very community orientated people.'' Googling for "minten ontario" returns 368 hits, the first three being "Untitled Document", "Ontario Farm Animal Council - Meet the OFAC Team" and "CM Magazine: The Little Math Puzzle Contest". I'm sure they're nice people, but this has "vanity" written all over it; even if highly successful and famous people have come out of the family over the years, that doesn't mean the family itself merits an article of its own... -- Captain Disdain 03:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 03:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete vanity, no notability. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Btm 22:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. *drew 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified, vanity, NN. The Rockefellers they aren't. - Sensor 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minten


text: User talk:69.247.102.179

title: User talk:69.247.102.179


text:
Non-economic damages caps

Non-economic damages caps are tort reforms to limit (i.e., "cap") damages in lawsuits for subjective, non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. This is opposed to economic damages, which encompasses pecuniary harms such as medical bills, lost wages, lost future income, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, and loss of employment or business opportunities. Non-economic damages should not be confused with punitive or exemplary damages, which are awarded purely to penalise defendants and do not aim to compensate either pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.

Non-economic damages caps are intended to reduce the ability of courts and, in the few jurisdictions which continue to maintain juries in civil cases, juries to award excessive or otherwise large damages for subjective harm that cannot easily be objectively assessed. The rationale underlying such caps is to curtail the impact of excessive damages on plaintiffs, particularly in the context of lawsuits against private individuals or companies for negligence causing personal injury or property damage and against medical professionals for malpractice claims brought by patients. With regard to the former, proponents of tort reform argue that large and subjective awards of damages against individuals who did not necessarily intend to cause harm is fundamentally unjust as it can severely impact the defendant's financial independence while large and unpredictable awards against businesses can increase the legal cost of doing business thus leading to unsustainably higher prices for consumers and decreasing overall economic activity to the detriment of society at large. With regard to the latter, proponents of tort reform argue that large, unpredictable damages causes an increase in the cost of medical malpractice insurance for healthcare professionals and encourages the practice of defensive medicine whereby medical practitioners agree to unnecessary treatment in order to decrease the likelihood of future malpractice claims. Opponents of tort reform regard non-economic damages caps in both instances as unfair to plaintiffs, particularly in cases involving personal injuries whose financial cost to victims may greatly exceed acceptable economic damages. Additionally, opponents argue that limits on damages in cases of medical malpractice may create moral hazard as healthcare professionals face reduced liability. Consequently, the implementation of non-economic damages caps and decisions as to the extent to which different areas of tort law are subject to caps is more contentious than caps on purely punitive damages.

Medical malpractice caps
Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation imposing caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits. In America, former President George W. Bush proposed a nationwide $250,000 cap in medical malpractice cases.

Impact on healthcare costs
In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practising defensive medicine, or "[altering] clinical behaviour because of the threat of malpractice liability." Of physicians surveyed, 43% reported using digital imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances, which includes costly MRIs and CAT scans. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Proponents of tort reform thus endorse caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice claims as a way to reduce the extent to which physicians practice defensive medicine, the provision of unnecessary medical care in order to avoid potential liability, and would increase access to health care. Nevertheless, a study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office published in 2004 found that "Malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending."

Impact on malpractice insurance premiums
Although proponents of damages caps in medical malpractice cases argue that the caps reduce malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, despite a considerable amount of research on the subject the data in support of that argument is not compelling. Within the United States, the impact of damages caps on the number of malpractice claims paid out by insurance companies varies by state and, in many states, reviews of malpractice premiums following the implementation of damages caps showed that the caps had no effect on premiums.

Personal injury caps
In a personal injury lawsuit in common law jurisdictions, the two basic forms of compensatory damages that may be awarded are economic damages, compensation for the injured person's past and future financial costs and losses, and non-economic damages, compensation for the pain and suffering which results from an injury. As many jurisdictions lack adequate approaches to assessing the worth of unpaid labour or harm to minors and retirees who do not work, non-economic damages are often used as a practical way to ensure that such individuals receive compensation comparable to that received by working adults.

Nevertheless, it is difficult for courts to assign a dollar value to these losses, which are thus arbitrary in nature. Because of the emotionally charged environment of personal injury trials, some awards will inevitably be unreasonable. For example, in Ernst v. Merck, a Texas Vioxx products liability case, the jury issued a verdict of $24 million in compensatory damages, which includes non-economic damages, for a widow of a 59-year-old triathlete who died from arrhythmia, or an irregular heartbeat, that could have been prevented had Merck provided warnings about the drug. Tort reform supporters argue that the widow had not been married a long time, and suggest that the damage award was excessive. This illustrates the extent to which the factors for which non-economic damages are awarded cannot objectively be assigned a monetary value.

Opponents of tort reform contend that courts should assess damages on a case-by-case basis, that non-economic damages caps risk creating moral hazard, and that non-economic damages caps themselves may be arbitrary or produce unjust results if applied rigidly and without exception.

Alternatives
In New Zealand, personal injury and medical malpractice have been eliminated from the tort system entirely and replaced by a system of no-fault insurance. The Accident Compensation Corporation is responsible for providing compensation for injuries in New Zealand. Due to the scheme's no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury may only sue an at-fault party for exemplary damages.

Non-economic damages caps in American states
Overall, non-economic damages throughout the United States cover pain, suffering, and other nonpecuniary injuries, and in medical malpractice cases many states have imposed caps that range from $250,000 to $750,000 or more. Damage caps have various purposes; for instance, they can discourage malicious lawsuits and prevent the costs of transacting business from being overly inflated, but have also been criticized as unjust. Many American jurisdictions with non-economic damage caps have defined non-economic damages by statute.

While opponents of caps on damages in America argue that limiting total damages that jurors may award violate the right to a trial by jury, tort law is a question of state law and only state constitutions can mandate or define the scope of a right to trial by jury in civil matters. Outside the United States and a minority of other common law jurisdictions, civil juries do not exist in the majority  of common law jurisdictions and virtually all civil law jurisdictions, where the notion of trial by jury is generally regarded as antiquated and seen as introducing societal biases into the legal system. Consequently, the use of preserving a right to civil juries as a rationale for opposing non-economic damages caps is limited to American discourse on the matter.

Roughly half of U.S. states have imposed damages caps in medical malpractice litigation. Eleven states impose damages caps for all general tort and personal injury cases.

California
In California, non-economic damages awarded in medical malpractice actions are capped at $250,000. Non-economic damages are meant "to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage."

Illinois
The Illinois Supreme Court found in the 1997 case Best v. Taylor Machine Works found that a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages was (in addition to serving as a "legislative remittitur") special legislation that made an arbitrary distinction between those who sustained major noneconomic damages in a single tort versus multiple tortious actions and between those that suffered minor amounts of noneconomic damages versus amounts about the $500,000 cap (such as a plaintiff who becomes permanently disabled).

In the 2010 case Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Section 2-1706.5 of Public Act 94-677, which placed caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions, violated the separation of powers clause in the Illinois Constitution and was therefore facially invalid. Additionally, because Public Act 94-677 contains an inseverability provision, the entire Act was held void and invalid in its entirety.

North Carolina
North Carolina has statutorily capped damages from nuisance claims to the value of the plaintiff's property. The law, which overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass in 2017, was criticized in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence, which resulted in significant nuisance litigation against regional hog-farming conglomerate Smithfield Foods due to the failure of many hog-waste lagoons.

Maryland
In Maryland, non-economic damages are capped at $800,000. In personal injury cases, non-economic damages are defined as "pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, or other nonpecuniary injury". In wrongful death cases non-economic damages are defined as "mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, care, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education, or other noneconomic damages authorized under Title 3, Subtitle 9 of this article."

Michigan
Michigan normally has a cap of $280,000 for "noneconomic loss," which is defined as "damages or loss due to pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, or physical disfigurement, loss of society and companionship, whether claimed under section 29222 or otherwise, loss of consortium, or other noneconomic loss. However, the cap is increased to $500,000 where the plaintiff, due to physician negligence, is made "hemiplegic, paraplegic, or quadriplegic resulting in a total permanent functional loss of 1 or more limbs caused by [either] injury to the brain [or] injury to the spinal cord"; "when the plaintiff has permanently impaired cognitive capacity rendering him or her incapable of making independent, responsible life decisions and permanently incapable of independently performing the activities of normal, daily living"; or "there has been permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ resulting in the inability to procreate."

West Virginia
In West Virginia, non-economic damages are capped at $500,000. Non-economic damages are "(1) wrongful death; (2) permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb or loss of a bodily organ system; or (3) permanent physical or mental functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for himself or herself and perform life sustaining activities."

Wisconsin
In 2005, a Wisconsin court ruled that a $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases violates the state's equal protection guarantee. In Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patient's Compensation Fund, the court ruled that there was no rational relationship between the objectives identified by the legislature that were intended to prevent a medical liability crisis in Wisconsin and treating people with more severe injuries and higher non-economic damage awards different from people with lower non-economic damage awards.

In Wisconsin, non-economic damages for medical malpractice are capped at $750,000. Non-economic damages mean "moneys intended to compensate for pain and suffering; humiliation; embarrassment; worry; mental distress; noneconomic effects of disability including loss of enjoyment of the normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or physical health, well-being or bodily functions; loss of consortium, society and companionship; or loss of love and affection."

title: Non-economic damages caps