Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, there is very little support for deletion here and strong support and arguments made for keeping a seperate article from Taser. No prejudice to discussion on renaming or splitting as necessary which can be discussed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taser controversy

Delete - "Controversy" article acts as a POV fork of Taser and played the function of allowing information that put the stun gun in a bad light to be moved to the fork where fewer people would see it. Information here should be moved to Taser or to related articles such as TASER International, Braidwood Inquiry, Robert Dziekański taser incident, UCLA taser incident or University of Florida taser incident. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Taser is also acceptable. Comparing the traffic statistics for Taser and Taser controversy is interesting. In April 2008 Taser had 29,754 hits; compared to 4,348 hits for Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this topic is in the news constantly; I might rename it to "Safety of TASER Use" or something. JJL (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason why the newsworthy information can't be in the main Taser article? I don't see why having a "controversy" fork is desirable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Length of article if content is merged. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article is effective by itself, and any POV in the article (and I didn't see much) can be written out. Also, as for merging, I think that a section, if not a subsection, should be made on a Taser article, with a link to this one. This article is notable, and IMO, deserves it's own space. A renaming of the article might work, but it would have to stay along the lines of Taser controversy; it need to be simple, and "Safety of TASER Use" seems really indisrciminate. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well written and very well researched. I believe it can stand on its own and does not need to be merged or redirected (it certainly should not be deleted). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subject of controversy surrounding tasers in the media and in the public spectrum is notable, and as JJL said, it's in the media all the time. The problem with this article is that because it also includes substantial information regarding taser safety concerns, and other such information, it is more of a non-specific general article about controversy surrounding tasers, rather than one specific article. I agree that this is a definite content fork, but at the same time it doesn't have to be. I don't think the forking is a POV issue, because the article itself is written from a neutral perspective, and puts all of the information into context without bias, without exclusively including information that would "put the stun gun in a bad light", or including any such information without qualifying it. Still, it is a content fork nonetheless, but I think something can be done about that. The article can be broken up into two components, controversy surrounding the safety of tasers, and controversy surrounding the use of tasers. As far as the safety issues, the two articles actually link to each other, and there's quite a bit of material, so I think merging it all into the taser article might take up excessive space, so it might be best to take the material from both articles and split it into a single separate article, something along the lines of Criticism of taser safety, or even better Safety concerns surrounding tasers. As far as the rest, concerning the political controversy surrounding the use of tasers, this could potentially see a merge into the main taser article, but I think it has enough notability on its own, not as a taser-related article, but as a subtopic relating to alleged police brutality, and the very public discussions surrounding it. As such, I don't think it would be a content fork at all to keep the article with the remaining information, considering that stripped of the safety issues, it is not actually an article about tasers at all, but rather an article about criticism of how tasers are used. So I don;t see why we shouldn't keep it (athough a more specific name might be better). So Split, Merge, Keep, and possibly Rename. Calgary (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Taser. Good, bad, and ugly Taser info should all be in one article. Since there is a potential POV issue, (controversy = bad) I'd rather see a forced de-fork to make sure one doesn't develop. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long enough to merit a separate article. There's no reason not to include a smaller section in the main article too, of course. Maxa megalon 2000 05:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable subject on a real issue--possible misuse of tasers by public authorities. Artene50 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Rename to Safety of Taser Use.~~ (I changed my mind!) Also include a brief mention in the main article. Provided all contributions are cited, there's no reason to think that POV will be an issue. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is. If you look at the history of Taser and what the article looked like a few months ago when all references to "controversy" had been removed and dumped into the sub article. The problem isn't that the Taser controversy article will be POV but that the man Taser article would be POV because all or most references to deaths, legal actions, studies etc could be removed except for a short summary. In other words, the danger is that the main Taser article will once again be whitewashed. See this old version of "Taser" to see what I'm talking about. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor responsible for the most recent "whitewashing" of Taser. I moved the Safety section, leaving a summary in Taser and integrating the content into Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin disagreed with the edits, eventually copying the Studies subsection back to Taser. One should note that my summary's omission of studies removes content supporting both POVs, remaining acceptably NPOV (in my opinion). I found it difficult to write a good summary of Studies. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's part of the problem, the summary you wrote omitted vital information, in fact according to the diff you posted there was no summary, you simply omitted all information on clinical studies on Taser and that's a pretty whopping omission! Your "summary" didn't mention any studies whatsoever, most distressingly it omitted the study on Taser's affect on heart function. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The brief (3 sentence) summary covers the entire Safety section. I acknowledged the omission of the studies and gave a good-faith explanation. I would have preferred if you had discussed or corrected the deficiencies in the summary instead of effectively reverting. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I had jumped to conclusions about your motivations and should have AGF. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. The Taser article isn't exactly small and neither is Taser controversy - having them together would make for an unweildy article, I think. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response, are there no other ways to divide the article other than by dividing off the material on controversy from the non-controversy material? Removing all or most critical information from the Taser article is what causes an NPOV problem since it turns the main article (which gets almost 10 times more hits) into a puff piece with all the information on Taser's downsides shipped off into exile where few people will see it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think that not including all of the information surrounding safety concerns and criticism of taser use in the main article could be considered POV. It's not as though we're completely removing any mention of these things from the main article and hiding it away in this article, we're just including the details in a separate article, linked directly from the main article, as is customary for exceptionally long sections. I'd see it as comparable to having separate articles for World War II casualties and World War II atrocities, rather than including them both in the main World War II article. The fact that the main article includes less detail does not hide the information from the reader, it just provides different (and better) organization. And I doubt the information could be considered "hidden away" when the main article includes a summary and a direct link to the sub article. The reader is presented with access to just as much information when reading the article, it's just that for more detail the reader has to click to the separate article rather than scrolling down the page. So if this is indeed an effort to bias the main article, I'd say it's a very poorly constructed one. Calgary (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think several summaries would be better than a single summary. "Taser controversy" is a catch-all with information on everything from taser deaths, to legal issues, studies on the taser, political questions etc some of which have little to do with one another. In fact there is not a single "Taser controversy" but several controversies several of which are completely unrelated. If there is to be a secondary article than there must be not a single short summary but summaries on each main question - eg a summary of the studies on Taser, a summary on deaths and injuries, a summary on court cases, a summary on safety and a summary on the other issues (torture, political suppression, fire hazard and use in schools). Having a one paragraph summary of everything in the Taser controversy article would shoe-horn a lot in very little space and have a negative effect on the Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree, but as I said before, this can easily be done by dividing the Taser controversy article into two separate articles, one dealing with the safety of tasers, and one dealing with the use of tasers, since the article as it stands can clearly be broken up into those two components. "Safety" would include, from the article as it stands now, the sections "safety", "advantages and disadvantages", "deaths and injuries" and "fire risk". Now, keep in mind that much of this is already covered substantially (yet not redundantly) in the main taser article, and I don't see why the information can't be pooled, summarized and broken off. You say we couldn't include a summary on studies, fatalities and safety concerns in the main article, but this is already present in the main article. I think some of the information in the controversy article belongs in the main article, and vice-versa, but I don't think it's a stretch to summarize this in the main article, while including more detail in a separate article (for example, specific notable fatalities, the statistical information from each individual study, etc.). Then there's the issue of the other components, which deal with the use of tasers. I don't think this is too difficult to resolve, because political issues surrounding taser use is a separate topic unto itself, as I said before, having more to do with police brutality and human rights than tasers themselves. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't deserve a mention in the taser article, because it is related, but I'm saying that it is its own topic and deserves its own article. Calgary (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response True, it is already in the main article and I'm pretty much satisfied with the state of Taser. My concern is that the material on studies etc that is now in Taser will be dumped into Taser controversy which was the situation until several weeks ago. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, but if the concern is that some material may or may not be moved from one article to the other, is that a valid rationale for deleting the entire second article, or is it just something that needs to be worked out on the article's talk page? Because I think we've established that it's a good idea to have separate articles, as I understand it you're argument simply involves where we include what information. Calgary (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the article will return to this state where all of the information on scientific studies on Taser was missing (instead we had a section on live taser demonstrations showing the device was safee) along with all information on lawsuits (except for Taser International CEO Rick Smith has testified in Taser-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper" which wasn't about the lawsuit at all) and most of the information on Taser deaths was also missing. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, I understand, but surely that is a matter for the maintenence of the individual article, and should be discussed on the taser article's talk page. I don't see how an otherwise valid article should be deleted simply because some people may or may not try to use it as a reason to remove some information from the main article. The argument you're making is a very good argument for including an appropriate summary in the main article. The fact that some editors may try to remove this information may need to be dealt with, but it is an issue relating to the article itself, not a valid reason for deleting an entirely appropriate spinout article. Calgary (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well researched and sourced, and very notable topic. I don't think it needs to be renamed. The fact there is controversy over its use is well established fact, so it isn't an NPOV violation to give it this title. 23skidoo (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is well researched and notable - so why shouldn't this information be in the main Taser article where people will actually be able to see it? Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep amongst other things. A quick look at the Taser TOC reveals that most of this controversy is already covered in that article, however, it's notable enough on its own. In my opinion, it should be briefly mentioned in Taser with the {{main}} template conspicuously linked to the current page (Taser controversy), as is customary. However, a quick look over this article reveals that there is a possibility of POV. Both need to be improved, but this article, in my opinion, should be kept (it is a separate topic, anyhow). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems well researched and encyclopedic, and is already too long to comfortably sit within the Taser article. And it can be expanded far further - there is no mention here of the taser controversy as a worldwide political controversy. The article as it currently stands seems to deal mainly with the US and Canada, yet its also been a major controversy in many other parts of the world - here in New Zealand for instance (I've added a "globalise" template in an attempt to get some movement in this). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain keep For Mr. Perrin who contacted me about my previous vote. The issue of deaths/injuries resulting from the use (or perhaps overuse) of tasers is important enought to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. Besides, why can't there be different articles for 'taser' and 'taser controversy' anyway? They are both notable topics. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well written, well referenced article on a notable subject --T-rex 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taser, as a POV fork. Otherwise a nice article.Yobmod (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article stands on its own; not a blatant POV fork. Disclosure: I am involved in an ongoing content dispute at Talk:Taser#RFC: Criticism. As there was a recent RfC that closed without outside comment, I would like to encourage editors who have commented here to consider contributing to the discussion there. Flatscan (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Cogent, well-sourced, balanced, encyclopedic article. --Lockley (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Taser. The content of the article is great. It is unfortunate that the title "Taser controversy" gives the appearance that it is a POV fork. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adjust the title if necessary, but do not merge. There is enough information in the main article that this separate one is appropriate for the aspects discussed. DGG (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.