Jump to content

Talk:European Union/Archive 21 and Mace (spray): Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:European Union
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Mace''' is a [[tear gas]] in the form of an [[aerosol spray]] which propels the [[lachrymator]] mixed with a volatile solvent. It is sometimes used as a [[self-defense]] device. This form of mace is legal in very few countries, thus its use is becoming uncommon.
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=01:17, 8 May 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=3506511


The original formulation consisted of 1% [[CN gas]] in a solvent of [[sec-butanol]], [[propylene glycol]], [[cyclohexene]], and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. Some formulations now also include [[capsaicin|Oleoresin Capsicum]] (active ingredient in [[pepper spray]]).
|action2=FAR
|action2date=07:33, 21 April 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union
|action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=49391717


Mace was originally manufactured under the name "Chemical Mace" by Lake Erie Chemical (a former division of [[Smith & Wesson]]) in 1962, but is now a registered [[trademark]] of Mace Security International. The Mace sold today by Mace Security International is [[pepper spray]] rather than [[tear gas]]. Many other companies now manufacture similar products.
|action3=FAC
|action3date=03:07, 16 May 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union (2)
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=53379469


== Mace vs. pepper spray ==
|action4=GAN
|action4date=09:22, 9 September 2006
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=74688346


Due to the current brand-name use of the term "Mace" to refer to pepper sprays and the fact that mace is illegal in most Western countries, it is very difficult to find information on traditional mace. "Mace" and "Pepper Spray" are frequently used interchangeably.
|action5=GAR
|action5date=4 February 2007
|action5result=delisted
|action5oldid=105614102


== Training ==
|action6=GAN
|action6date=08:04, 23 June 2007
|action6result=failed
|action6oldid=140066914


Most law enforcement agencies require that their personnel become certified on similar [[aerosol spray]] devices such as [[pepper spray]] before using them in the field. In some agencies, such as the [[FBI]], chemically inactive versions of the spray are also available for training purposes.
|action7=GAN
|action7date=16:48, 16 October 2007
|action7result=listed
|action7oldid=164982527


== Effect ==
|topic=Socsci
[[Image:188 8864.JPG|thumb|right|An Icelandic police officer recovering from being "maced" with training grade spray.]]
|maindate=May 9, 2004
|currentstatus=GA|FFA}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject European Union|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{FixHTML|beg}}
{{maintained|[[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]], [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat Lector]], [[User:JLogan|J Logan]], [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] and [[User:Ssolbergj|S. Solberg J.]]|small=yes}}
{{todo|small=yes}}
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{FAOL|Hungarian|hu:Európai Unió|lang2=Portuguese|link2=pt:União Europeia|lang3=Romanian|link3=ro:Uniunea Europeană|lang4=Serbian|link4=sr:Европска унија|lang5=Swedish|link5=sv:Europeiska unionen|small=yes}}
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{archive box collapsible|box-width=238px|
* [[/Archive 1|&nbsp;1: Archived 30 May 2004]]
* [[/Archive 2|&nbsp;2: Archived 30 May 2004]]
* [[/Archive 3|&nbsp;3: Archived 30 May 2004]]
* [[/Archive 4|&nbsp;4: Archived 15 June 2005]]
* [[/Archive 5|&nbsp;5: Archived 15 June 2005]]
* [[/Archive 6|&nbsp;6: Archived 15 January 2006]]
* [[/Archive 7|&nbsp;7: Archived 2 December 2006]]
* [[/Archive 8|&nbsp;8: Archived 16 January 2007]]
* [[/Archive 9|&nbsp;9: Archived 29 January 2007]]
* [[/Archive 10|10: Archived 19 February 2007]]
* [[/Archive 11|11: Archived 5 April 2007]]
* [[/Archive 12|12: Archived 21 June 2007]]
* [[/Archive 13|13: Archived 16 August 2007-''GA start'']]
* [[/Archive 14|14: Archived 16 September 2007]]
* [[/Archive 15|15: Archived 16 October 2007-''GA end'']]}}
{{FixHTML|end}}


The effect of Mace varies on humans. Most common is a burning sensation on the area affected with the spray (described by some as "having your face drenched in gasoline and lit on fire"). If in contact with eyes it causes automatic closing of the eyes due to intense pain if open. This along with a feeling of suffocating if inhaled it causes the person to be very vulnerable and dependent, resulting in easy overpowering (for example, law enforcement officials over a suspect). Effects can be minimal on those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The duration of the effects vary from 30 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on the person and treatment.
== GA review ==


== Mace in History ==
Since I did a review on [[Institutions of the European Union]] I decided that in league with that I would also review this article. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask them. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


During the [[September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] Mace was supposedly used by the hijackers of [[American Airlines Flight 11]] to prevent entry to the first-class area and keep passengers at the rear of the plane. The official 9/11 Commission Report states that "The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane."<ref>[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm 9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1: We Have Some Planes]</ref>Not recommended for recreational use, such as losing a bet in fantasy football, as can cause severe permanent damage to body.
Since there has been a previous assesment of GA status, I will confirm to the older GA status-standard. These were the reasons the previous article failed:


== See also ==
*1. Way too much of the article is unreferenced
* [[Pepper spray]]
*2. The "Enlargement" section needs work. The list of countries that may join the European Union is written in prose, and is necessary, but paragraphs should flow. It seems almost as if random facts are just thrown into paragraphs. Goals of joining and things going for the country followed by issues preventing the country from joining
*3. Religion section is specific to Europe, but its relation to the Europian Union is not clear in the article.
*4. Many parts were confusing and didn't really elaborate. History section should probably elaborate sligtly more. It goes from the 1950's to the 2000's. Something had to have happened in between.


== References ==
If it passes these criteria and the other GA criteria, I will make this article GA. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


<div class="references-small">
Image:Rometreaty.jpg requires a fair use rationale. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 11:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
* [http://rkdefense.com/macesprayinformation.php Mace Defense Spray information.]
* [http://www.9-11commission.gov 9/11 Commission Report]
</div>
{{reflist}}


I have checked every picture in the article. Some are missing a fair use rationale, one picture wil leven be deleted because there is no source of authorship present. If this doesn't improve, I WILL fail the article. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 16:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
: I found four instances of dubious sourcing [[:Image:Rometreaty.jpg]] [[:Image:Josesocrates2006.jpg]] [[:Image:20050708-173.jpg]] (I think we can do without this one if there is no alternative) and this [[:Image:European Union Population Density.png]] (we can replace this one with the aerial photo at night if it comes down to it). Can people more versed in the images rules figure this out?? Thanks [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[[Category:Lachrymatory agents]]
::I did warn on Rome Treaty ages ago but did anyone listen? It is treated on Wikipedia as if it is PD. I don't see the problem with JS though, or has that just been fixed? I also agree we should dump the G8 image, we can replace it, and the last one - yes we can change to the sat image (but the deletion info seems a tad off, or again has that just been fixed). On these issues, just give us a few hours to sort it before failing - we can usualy do this quite fast. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Self-defense]]
::: As I said, I am no expert on image copyright, and those four had a copyright justification that seemed a bit weird compared to the others. The last (the map) has an exclamation mark on the image page, so I think there is something wrong with it; at least, someone has flagged up a potential problem. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Looking at it, the PD box just didn't have the author listed there so it is automaticly listed as non-sourced even though it is specified in the above box. Why it also has the second PD box I don't know. Socrates looks safe though, what were the images you were talking about Daimanta? - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: I dropped Ssolbergj, who is the original uploader, a message on his talk page asking him to have a look at it. He is fairly much involved in this article, so I am pretty sure he will act. I think it can easily be solved this way. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: The images that were possibly dubious were listed by Arnoutf earlier on in this thread. SOme have been fixed but there are still images experiencing problems like [[:Image:20050708-173.jpg]] and
[[:Image:Rometreaty.jpg]]. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:We dropped that image from the article; as we agree the copyight was not ok. You were talking about 'some images', so I ran through all images trying to identify the others. I think JLogans question was whether we caught all those you had seen. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The image [[:Image:EUCoJ.jpg]] contains pretty much no information. This needs to be done better than it is now. [[:Image:Euro_banknotes.png]] is very tricky, be sure that all conditions are met. It needs a fair use rationale. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
: I dropped a line to the uploader of the Court of Justice uploader (Ssolbergj again), if it does not work out, we can remove that one as it is not crucial.

::The image page says it was taken by [[User:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] who stas he releases it into the public domain. It is a picture of the Court of Justics's building in a section on the article on the EU's legal system. What more do you want? [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::: Ssolbergj fixed the copyright info on the image page last night (after the earlier talk here, but before Caveat Lectors remark). I think it is fine now. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


: About the banknotes. WP non-free images state we can use: "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.". I think this would qualify. Also the clear showing of "SPECIMEN" in the design conforms to the license requirement (by the EU central bank ie copyright holder) that states: "its use is permitted "as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes"" (the image conforms to the demands for this put by the EU central bank as explained on the page of the image itself). The function of the image is to identify the Euro currency to the reader (caption being "The Euro is accepted by 13 of 25 countries"). So I think we should be able to use this images on this page in the current context. But I agree, the interpretation is not straightfoward. PS Daimanta I added a few colons (:) inside your image wikilinks (prior to the name) so they no longer show on page, this to prevent this talk page being cluttered with image, hope you don't mind [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, that's acceptable. The thing with the images was a mistake, I accidentally added it like an image in stead of a link. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Source http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/05/bicycle_wobbles.html (43) is a blog. I suggest it ought to be removed because of non-reliability. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Source "Goldirova, Renata (11 July 2007). Brussels' first-ever move into sport area set to spark controversy. EU Observer. Retrieved on 13 July 2007." is locked. Remove and if neccesairy, find another cite on the topic. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
: Same goes for "^ a b Rettman, Andrew (9 March 2007). EU sticks out neck in global climate change battle. EU Observer. Retrieved on 9 March 2007." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] ([[User talk:Daimanta|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Daimanta|contribs]]) 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Although I agree that ideally all sources should be available to any editor/reader without any blockage, there are situations where this is not feasible. The issue of locked sources has been [[Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive18#Can_a_source_link_be_removed_if_it_requires_registration.3F| discussed in citing sources]]. The majority viewpoint was that paid access is verifiable (as anyone willing to pay can access) and is as such not different from printed sources, or scientific journals, that also require access to a library holding a subscription. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Seconded. Policy is that they sould be replaced if possible when they become unavailable. But the text is still there if you pay (and it is on a minor matter) and in these cases I don't think there is an alternative. In some cases it is possible to view them using Google's caché and in most cases I have my own archive of cited but now locked news articles to make sure stuff isn't attributed to them that isn't included. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: Agreed, but this on your account, not mine. If I can't check it, you will carry the responsibility for the link's value. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough. Many scientific journals use the same provision: The value of reference list value is the responsibility of the author not of the reviewers or editorial team. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am inclined to pass this article. It is properly sourced and it elaborates on specific subjects in detailed WP entries. I am waiting for comments for the next 5 hours. After that, I will pass this article. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Argh the suspense! :D - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the article has passed. The hard work has paid off. Congrats. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks a lot, also for the very thorough review you undertook. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your time and work Daimanta! - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as per request I will answer what chance this article has of getting to FA. FA is pretty tricky to reach since even the most minor defect can create strong opposition to promotion. Nevertheless, I think that the substance and sourcing of this article make it FA-friendly, that is, the things that prevent this article from becoming FA are probably fixable if you take some time to work on it. I hope that answers the question. Regards, [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the op. Very helpful. And thanks again for your work (not easy going though an article like this!) - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

== Post GA ==

Whey, we have GA finally! Okay, good work everyone, doesn't look like outstanding issues have been brought up. Now do we break to do some more work on it, get a peer review or skip straight to FA and deal with the issues as they bring them up there. I favour the latter personally as we need more feedback but to wait for a peer review on something this long.. ugh. Any objections, thoughts, anything we need to do before hand? - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
: I asked Daimanta (whom I think did a very thorough job on the GA review) to give a very brief impression about our chances for the next steps, so we have some kind of outsider input in this. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
::Great! —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, we have out opinion. Thoughts now? How should we continue? - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Simply nominate it and react to criticism as it comes along? I don't think there's very much wrong with the article any more... —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: I'm not so sure, there still unresolved issued relating to the article structure and inclusion of certain topics (sport and religion for example). What's the hurry? We can at least try for peer review. [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sport and religion kind of died down, I don't think it is much to throw around right now really. I for one am prepared to live with it unless people really want to do something about it. I say we just react to criticism as it comes, if they see it as a problem, them we deal with it? - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
::: I can live with the current sports and religion versions. I could support either approach, go for FA and see what happens (this is the quick and painless way and might result in relatively quick FA status, on the downside if it is turned down we have to reconsider); or do it the cautious way go through Peer Review and only later FA (this will take longer, but might later on increase chances for an easy pass as some more issues have been perfected-also perhaps mentioning peer review will count as positive for some admins in the FA process). I am not sure which strategy is wisest. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: BTW, just a remark. I just skimmed through the last version we put up FA (May 2006), see article history. I think the current version is much better; but then again, requirement for FA has gone up tremendously since 2006. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thing is with Peer Review is we are still only getting one perspective on ti after all that time, I'm nto sure how much it would help us, we already have loads of opinions here. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

==Call for help==

I've noticed we haven't got any information at all on Wikipedia on '''former''' groups in the European Parliament. Could someone help me with that? —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:Oh I totally understand we do need it, even the current groups are lacking data. There is the French website that gives an outline but even with that the whole topic gives me a headake. But I'll help, I might be able to get my head round it in doing so, but so long as we don't end up creating fifty billion stubs for each tiny change the groups went through. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
::Maybe simple an article listing all the former groups in one article? —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Considering the amount of data we have available to us right now it would be the best start. Most are former versions of current groups anyway. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just included all the info available at [[European_Parliament_political_group#Historical_groups]], but I used the French names as I didn't have the English ones. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== What the hell is it? ==

Is the EU a coalition, a political union, a confederation? Calling it a "unique political and economic community with supranational and intergovernmental dimensions" is not a very succinct description. In fact, that description only makes people more confused about what the organization is.[[User:70.172.198.145|70.172.198.145]] 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Mike Reason

:Well, it is more than a customs union and less than a currency union. It is supranational. It has some characteristics of an intergovernmental organization but many characteristics of a federal state, though it has not achieved political union (like England and Scotland). Because it cannot legitimately be classed (solely) as any one of these, it is often referred to as ''sui generis'' (in a class of its own), but some editors object to this term, which is why it is now called "unique". In the sense that it is a powerful grouping of nations with key aspects of sovereignty exercised by a central authority, I suppose it also has some attributes of an empire. If the definition leaves you confused as to what exactly it is, it is probably a good definition. To paraphrase Niels Bohr (I think): If you think you understand what it, you don't.--[[User:Boson|Boson]] 06:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::Ditto, there is nothing we can call it, hence you just have to read and decide for yourself. Every time I try and decide a label for it, such as federation, I just get confused about exactly what federation means - there are no clear boxes for these types of things. It is compounded also by a huge amoung of disagreement, for example I disagree on Bosons point about it not being a political union, it is it is just a slighly squiffy kind and without a real common civil platform behind it. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:[[Oxford English Dictionary|OED]] calls it an (economic and political) association between certain European states. That seems fair to me. It remains a treaty between states, just like treaties establishing the ICJ or NATO, and is about as unique as they are. So my intro would read more like: "The European Union is a political and economic association that seeks to organize relations between its member states and citizens. Based on the [[European Community]] established in 1957 by six European countries, the European Union has grown in size by accession of new member states and increased its mandate by the addition of new policy areas to its remit. The European Union is currently composed of twenty-seven member states."
:And then maybe a paragraph about the EU's legal framework (Rome, Maastricht), and what changes can be expected in the future (Reform Treaty). [[User:Intangible2.0|Intangible2.0]] 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not long since we last had a tussle over the introduction, perhaps we can keep it for a while? I for one would be against association as it implies something considerably weaker that what is currently there. Further more we shouldn't use other peoples' definitions, they are all over the place. Compare that to CIA for example.- ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 14:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Religion ==

Are you sure Portugal is one of the countries where most people believe in a God??? According to the map. I don't really think so, 80% of the population? Or more?? I am Portuguese, born and raised, lived here all my life, and I can tell you that maybe around 80% of young people are not religious, that 50% of grown ups aren't religious, and that 20% of old people are not religious. This also changes when we talk about North and South of the Country (being the North much more religious by tradition); and it changes again from Coast to Country (Coastal cities and towns are much less religious than in the interior of Portugal.
So, probably no more than 50% (or 60%) of the population believe in a God.

Where can I see the stathistics this document is based on?
Everyone knows (at least here) that Spaniards are much more religious than we are in Portugal.{{unsigned|85.242.251.230}}

: Data is based on the 2005 Eurobarometer. (Eurobarometer 225: Social values, Science & Technology (PDF). Eurostat (2005). Retrieved on 2007-07-21.) [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf| the document PDF is here]. In the article text the reference (136) gives the link to the document; so you might have checked the reference before putting up this question.
: Note the difference between Religion (ie being member/active in a church like community) versus believing in some kind of God (ie there is more than just physics).
: BTW Arguments like everybody knows are not accepted in Wiki. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism of the EU ==

Unless it's so brief that I missed it, this article appears to contain no criticism of the EU whatsoever. Is criticism not allowed? A very large number of people in the UK are strongly opposed to Europe, yet anyone reading this article would be left with the impression that the peoples of Europe are all perfectly happy to see their countries and cultures absorbed into some massive, faceless bureaucracy. Let's have a bit of balance and honesty, shall we? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:This has come up a lot, please look through the previous archives if you're interested. There is reference to criticism both as a topic and in specific cases but having a section on criticisms, as has been proposed before, attracts an awful lot of vandalism. Further more references given, if anything, tend to be very unacademic and flawed. The article as it stands deals mainly with facts so there isn't much POV slant in the pro side that tips the article. I think criticisms are deal with in a few other articles as a subject. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, [[User:TharkunColl]], your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=165745040&oldid=165735383 edits] to the article show exactly why there isn't that much criticism. If all you can do is make nonsensical nazi accusations, you'll just get reverted. If on the other hand you can improve the article by adding rational, relevant and verifiable criticism please do! [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well... I think it reads far too pro-EU institutions and possibly even has a tone like its been written by a federalist... --[[User:212.84.125.251|212.84.125.251]] 13:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Could you find another country's article where this is ''not'' true, so we can compare the two to figure out what you find troubling? I've seen this same claim made on the [[United States]] talk page and was equally baffled by it there. [[User:Benhocking|Ben Hocking]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Benhocking|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Benhocking|contribs]])</small></sup> 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
::The EU isn't a country, it's an international or supranational treaty organisation, although you presumably think it should be from that statement. I imagine this sort of thing is precisely what he's talking about - most of the people who do the editting on the EU articles (at least editting that remains up for an appreciable amount of time) have a clear pro-EU bias and many even advertise this fact with pro-EU wikiboxes on their talk pages (as [[user:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] and [[User:JLogan|J Logan]] do). If we look at examples of other intergovernmental organisations, we find that they ''do'' include criticism, for instance [[United_Nations#Inaction_on_genocide_and_human_rights|this]] on the [[UN]] page or [[NAFTA#Criticism_and_controversies|this]] on the [[NAFTA]] page. The existance of the EU, unlike the existance of America (to take your, now qutie clearly, silly example), is controversial, and it is right that there is either a criticism section, or a highlighted link to a seperate article for criticism.

::I note that while you attack the academic integrity of those who would criticise the EU, this very article has had listed an official EU flag, anthem and motto, none of which exist in law (they were in the defeated [[EU Constitution|Constitution]], but excluded from the [[Reform Treaty]], neither of which is presently in force anyway), all completely without reference. I think this a fairly clear expression of systemic bias backed with poor research and lack of rigour. [[User:82.3.241.67|82.3.241.67]] 09:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh good lord not the flag issue again. I'm not going to repeat it again, just look in the last archive, and the ones before that and before that and before that when people have brought this issue up without bothering to look into the subject.
:::Secondly, you mention we advertise pro-EU in the boxes on our userpages, I don't actually have an EU box. I have a box stating EU citizenship and that I see the EU as a defacto federal structure - not that it should be or it is good. (plus, using peoples user pages to dismiss arguments constitutes a personal attack)
:::Third, the level the EU operates on it closer to a state than the UN so has greater comparison to the former.
:::Fourth, UN criticism is specific and non-controversial. Ditto for NAFTA. Criticism of the EU is generic and subject to a high level of debate and also inaccuracy.
:::Fifth, I am not criticising the academic integrity of the people criticising, just their sources. Sources given are very biased politically and often have very little basis in reality. There is some criticism from academic sources but never cited and often on a different topic. Plus it mostly comes from UK sources again giving a strong bias.
:::Sixth, pro-EU? Maybe in the fact it accepts it exists but the article deals with factual statements. How are, for example, lines such as "The third pillar originally consisted of Justice and Home Affairs, however owing to changes introduced by the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, it currently only consists of Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters." biased? There are criticisms in areas such as aid, politics, agriculture, infrastructure while there isn't exactly anything saying the EU is even doing a good job at anything.
:::And last, if your idea of criticism is to compare the EU to Nazi Germany I think you're shooting yourself in the foot as, as stated above, that is the reason there is no criticism section - because it is abused by people who do not actually intend to offer serious criticism, as ''compelling'' as you arguments for it on [[User talk:Lear 21|Lear's talk page]] may be. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

== Sports ==

I really don't like this section of the page, in fact I agree with the above as well, you'd be forgiven for thinking at points in this page that there aren't 27 sovereign countries in an international organisation, and instead one big giant happy EU family. Anyway, to my point, under the Reform Treaty sports has been given special status. See http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/oct19r.html. Anybody know anymore on this? --[[User:Simonclamb|Simon]] 13:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Neither do I but we're in a ''practical'' minority. On the special status though, I had read they had wanted to do that but hadn't looked into since they released the agreement. I think we can bring this in. - ''[[User:JLogan|J Logan]] <sup>[[User talk:JLogan|t]]</sup>'': 10:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 21 October 2007

Mace is a tear gas in the form of an aerosol spray which propels the lachrymator mixed with a volatile solvent. It is sometimes used as a self-defense device. This form of mace is legal in very few countries, thus its use is becoming uncommon.

The original formulation consisted of 1% CN gas in a solvent of sec-butanol, propylene glycol, cyclohexene, and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. Some formulations now also include Oleoresin Capsicum (active ingredient in pepper spray).

Mace was originally manufactured under the name "Chemical Mace" by Lake Erie Chemical (a former division of Smith & Wesson) in 1962, but is now a registered trademark of Mace Security International. The Mace sold today by Mace Security International is pepper spray rather than tear gas. Many other companies now manufacture similar products.

Mace vs. pepper spray

Due to the current brand-name use of the term "Mace" to refer to pepper sprays and the fact that mace is illegal in most Western countries, it is very difficult to find information on traditional mace. "Mace" and "Pepper Spray" are frequently used interchangeably.

Training

Most law enforcement agencies require that their personnel become certified on similar aerosol spray devices such as pepper spray before using them in the field. In some agencies, such as the FBI, chemically inactive versions of the spray are also available for training purposes.

Effect

File:188 8864.JPG
An Icelandic police officer recovering from being "maced" with training grade spray.

The effect of Mace varies on humans. Most common is a burning sensation on the area affected with the spray (described by some as "having your face drenched in gasoline and lit on fire"). If in contact with eyes it causes automatic closing of the eyes due to intense pain if open. This along with a feeling of suffocating if inhaled it causes the person to be very vulnerable and dependent, resulting in easy overpowering (for example, law enforcement officials over a suspect). Effects can be minimal on those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The duration of the effects vary from 30 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on the person and treatment.

Mace in History

During the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks Mace was supposedly used by the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11 to prevent entry to the first-class area and keep passengers at the rear of the plane. The official 9/11 Commission Report states that "The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane."[1]Not recommended for recreational use, such as losing a bet in fantasy football, as can cause severe permanent damage to body.

See also

References

  1. ^ 9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1: We Have Some Planes
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_21&oldid=166136669"