Talk:Pepper spray

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

message: Pepper spray IS non-lethal. The deaths allegedly related to its use are not a result of exposure to pepper spray itself, rather they are a result of some other form of force. For example, individuals exposed to the agent have asphyxiated after being subdued due to police officers not utilizing proper arrest procedures (e.g., a police officer places his knee and body weight on a suspects neck or back for a substantial period of time, thus preventing the suspect from breathing.) The chance that an individual will actually experience an allergic reaction to the chemical spray is substantially small as well.
For future reference, the ACLU is a joke and is hardly a credible source for anything. 
====ACLU statistics====
I don't see why you would say the ACLU is a joke, however I believe this Wikipedia article misquotes them.
First, there are two different references to ACLU findings in this article: 
* "fourteen fatalities from the use of pepper spray as of 1995"
* "27 deaths in custody of people sprayed with pepper spray in California alone, since 1993"
Clearly at least one of these quotes is wrong. Reading the report cited for the second statement potentially explains the discrepancy. It actually says:
"In this report, the ACLU of Southern California identifies 26 deaths among people who were pepper-sprayed
by police officers in the period Jan. 1, 1993, through June 1, 1995."
While we don't have ready access to the source for the first statement, I suspect it is a misquote, as the ACLU of Southern California's report on pepper spray does not conclude that pepper spray caused the fatalities. Instead it suggests additional research into the effects and a moratorium on it's widespread use.
67.160.229.27 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of Non-Lethal comes from the Department of Defense. No product is completely "non-lethal," it indicates that in studies, the potential for death is statistically small. Even yelling at or striking someone has a potential of being deadly force, it depends on the person you're applying the force to and what pre-existing medical or neurological conditions they have. Yet we consider yelling at and striking people to be "non-lethal." Pyrogen 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I don't see why you would say the ACLU is a joke, however I believe this Wikipedia article misquotes them.
First, there are two different references to ACLU findings in this article: 
* "fourteen fatalities from the use of pepper spray as of 1995"
* "27 deaths in custody of people sprayed with pepper spray in California alone, since 1993"
Clearly at least one of these quotes is wrong. Reading the report cited for the second statement potentially explains the discrepancy. It actually says:
"In this report, the ACLU of Southern California identifies 26 deaths among people who were pepper-sprayed
by police officers in the period Jan. 1, 1993, through June 1, 1995."
While we don't have ready access to the source for the first statement, I suspect it is a misquote, as the ACLU of Southern California's report on pepper spray does not conclude that pepper spray caused the fatalities. Instead it suggests additional research into the effects and a moratorium on it's widespread use.
67.160.229.27 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of Non-Lethal comes from the Department of Defense. No product is completely "non-lethal," it indicates that in studies, the potential for death is statistically small. Even yelling at or striking someone has a potential of being deadly force, it depends on the person you're applying the force to and what pre-existing medical or neurological conditions they have. Yet we consider yelling at and striking people to be "non-lethal." Pyrogen 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I believe the following sentence is incorrect, "Police, most of whom do not carry firearms, are trained to use pepper spray and carry it as part of their standard compliment." They carry CS spray, not pepper spray. Ben 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police in the UK 

message: where can you purchase it? in the uk pharmacies don't seem to sell it. In Germany they do.. --129.11.76.229 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  purchasing information would be nice 

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

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

message: What is this "food product" fuss all about? It looks like a patent nonsense to me. In which of these definitions (copied from food) does Pepper spray fit?:
* any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans whether of nutritional value or not;
* water and other drinks;
* chewing gum;
* articles and substances used as an ingredient or component in the preparation of food.
Duja 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The active ingredient, capsaicin, is indeed a component of many foods, including peppers. Also, spraying something into the eyes is a form of ingestion, so pepper spray is "intended to be ingested". —Keenan Pepper 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is cyanide a component of many foods (almonds e.g.) and also "intended to be ingested", especially in Agatha Christie's novels. That still doesn't make it a "food product". I'm removing it. Duja 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Bitter almonds contain a compound, amygdalin, that sometimes breaks down into cyanide, but you don't eat bitter almonds, you eat sweet almonds, which contain no cyanide or amygdalin. —Keenan Pepper 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition you cite is, as the food article says, a defition under Western food law. More informal definitions and/or different technical definitions of a food product may very well encompass pepper spray for the reasons Keenan Pepper has given. I put the "food product" part back into the introduction because it seemed reasonable and I assumed it was placed there in good faith by whoever did so originally. It sounds like this question might need an expert? –Sommers (Talk) 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know it's the definition under "Western food law". How about a definition under common sense? I didn't question Keenan's good faith either, <kidding>just his sanity</kidding>. But I still wait for his explanation of that edit; the fact that pepper spray is made of something which is a food does not make it a food for itself. Many non-edible things are made of corn, for example. And the explanation that "it is intended for ingestion" is also skewed – of course it not intended for voluntary ingestion. Duja 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I didn't add it in the first place, I was just defending it against the accusation of "patent nonsense". —Keenan Pepper 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I work with a guy who makes some pretty dang good beef jerky with the stuff. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly safe for consumption... Uncomfortable? Yes, for most, but still entirely edible. Scowly (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edible does not mean intended for consumption. For example, semen is edible and frequently eaten, but it still is not intended for consumption. MykellM (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Keep - I don't know about you, but I don't often go sticking chilies in my eyes. Eating it is not the same thing ;) The statement also fits the patterin shown in other wikipedia articles on chemical weapons. -- Ch'marr 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete or Move - "Long-term effects" should go to capsaicin article (if not already there) but they don't make sense in pepper spray. IOW, it is quite plausible that a person often eats capsaicine or it gets into the eyes, but as you said... Duja 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep - The amount of capsaicin that one on the receiving end of pepper spray absorbs is many orders of magnitude higher than the amount in even a strong meal. That combined with the fact that it's affecting tissues that don't normally contact capsaicin makes it a horse of an entirely different color. – ClockworkSoul 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Find actual research. I think the statement is simply false. Lots of people have done research on the long-term effects of pepper spray, and we should find reports and summarize them in the article. —Keenan Pepper 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. Maybe it should just shoule be rephrased for the start; I got lulled in by BerserkerBen's interpretation. If it's parsed as "later consequences of getting in contact with Pepper spray", it starts to make sense. Duja 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food product? 

message: Long-term effects of pepper spray have not been effectively researched.
Lets see millions of people everyday eat capsaicins for years on end, the statement might as well say: "Long-term effects of ketchup have not been effectively researched." and if were talking about exposure to the skin and eyes instead of the GI track, no one is exposed to pepper spray for a long time in that manner (maybe the poor schmucks in guantanamo bay, but thats sadly unconfirmed). If no one has a valid disagreement I'm removing the statement.--BerserkerBen 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep - I don't know about you, but I don't often go sticking chilies in my eyes. Eating it is not the same thing ;) The statement also fits the patterin shown in other wikipedia articles on chemical weapons. -- Ch'marr 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete or Move - "Long-term effects" should go to capsaicin article (if not already there) but they don't make sense in pepper spray. IOW, it is quite plausible that a person often eats capsaicine or it gets into the eyes, but as you said... Duja 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep - The amount of capsaicin that one on the receiving end of pepper spray absorbs is many orders of magnitude higher than the amount in even a strong meal. That combined with the fact that it's affecting tissues that don't normally contact capsaicin makes it a horse of an entirely different color. – ClockworkSoul 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Find actual research. I think the statement is simply false. Lots of people have done research on the long-term effects of pepper spray, and we should find reports and summarize them in the article. —Keenan Pepper 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. Maybe it should just shoule be rephrased for the start; I got lulled in by BerserkerBen's interpretation. If it's parsed as "later consequences of getting in contact with Pepper spray", it starts to make sense. Duja 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  frivolous statement 

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

message: Hi,
I think the "buy it online" link should be removed. It looks like a Wikipedia endorsement of a specific company selling the stuff, which I consider inappropriate. 
Cheers,
Jo
:Done. Next time be bold and do it yourself! —Keenan Pepper 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the "Buy pepperspray" link 

message: I have added a POV tag, for the obviously advocative language in the "Effects" section.  Upon closer examination I now see the reason for the inclusion in the "Chemical Warfare" category, but the non-NPOV character of the base article is, I think, distractive.  HiramShadraski 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 4 months. I'm removing the tag. --gwc 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  The language has not changed. HiramShadraski 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Over a week w/ no response from gwc.  Restoring it. HiramShadraski 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing tag.  Effects section is well-referenced and neutral.  Kaomso 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Effects section is well-referenced, but is certainly not neutral. Tag restored. HiramShadraski 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless those who put the NPOV tag are going to edit the section to improve it, the back and forth adding and taking the tag away with lags of months is not appropriate.  I will change the title to this section so that editors can find it.  I will check back to see if anyone has taken the trouble to edit the section and remove the NPOV tag.  The only comment that actually says why the tag was problematic is the first from April 2007.  The concerns may actually be about WP:tone and WP:soap I think. Please those with the concern, fix the article. Fremte (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag to "effects" section

message: I can't say im any sort of expert on laws, but I happen to be a New York resident who bought some pepperspray recently from a uniform supply store (in New York), and they just made me fill out a form saying who I was and that I haven'tbeen convicted of any felonies. This is contrary to what is said in the article, that in New York, "Pepper spray may only be sold by licensed firearms dealers or pharmacists," as the store I bought it from was neither. I would also doubt that this store was breaking laws, as it seemed (from my brief visit) that police officers were a major customer base. Therefore, i took out that line untill someone can say for sure what NY laws are regarding pepperspray DenimForce2.0 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine - I edited your change slightly for flow and grammar. If you could provide a citation for it, though, that would be great. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: In Western Australia you can legally purchase Pepper Spray over the counter.
--Dan541 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In ACT, NT and SA you can legally purchase it anywhere too, not sure about Queensland.  What I'm curious about is, what's the status of bear or dog spray in NSW?  I can't find any caselaw on it, and the Weapons Prohibition Act (1998) NSW Schedule 1 (22) outlines 'defence or anti-personel spray', but doesn't touch on animal control sprays.  122.107.56.47 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality in Australia 

message: The video used to show the effects of pepper spray in action was a link to a protest at George W. Bush's inauguration. The pepper spraying in this video didn't actually occur until over 5 minutes after the start, plus the video was a presentation of a protest advocating a particular POV regarding a political matter. If this video was shorter and started at the point of the spraying, it might be OK, but I'd prefer to see something a little less inflammatory (no pun intended) and more focused on the effects of pepper spray.
I did find a great YouTube video that could be used, but I'm pretty sure it's footage of a copyrighted show from a guy named Ryan Stock. If someone could find similar footage, or if someone could confirm this footage is not copyrighted, either would be perfect.
I was torn about just removing the section and not putting something up, and I would have left the previous video up if the relevant content was closer to the beginning of the clip. I did search for a replacement video, but most of what I could find was just law enforcement or military training videos and none of them really seemed to document or show the effects of pepper spray in any useful way to the average person.
Davebenham 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video removed 

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

message: Wikipedia's article on Non-lethal_force clearly states they "are weapons intended to be unlikely to kill or to cause great bodily injury to a living target." Although the Non-lethal_force article does redirect to Less-lethal_weapons, is that what everyone is upset about? Non-lethal instead of Less-lethal? Brother.
Personally, I'd like to see the terms Non-lethal_force and Less-lethal_weapons and pages that reference them reworked. Where did these terms come into use? Are they industry defined terms, political terms, or government classifications? Reworking these the discussion of these terms and how they are integrated into other wikipedia articles might be the only way to get rid of the neutrality tag on this page.
Davebenham 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a comment about spraying causing perminant blindness or death due to "hydrolic needle" effect.  That looks very suspcious and should possibly be deleted. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a quick search and found a source describing the "hydraulic needle effect" as resulting in minor injuries. I agree with the removal/rewording. Flatscan (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-lethal arguments? 

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

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

message: It seems to me like there should be a section on weather people (esp. females) who carry pepper spray for self-defense are actually able to effectively use it when defending themselves to attack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.121.24 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and a section which has a report (if such does exist) of how secure the people feel they are in the countries where pepper spray is legal, in comparison to countries where pepper spray is illegal. Do the people feel more secure, knowing that anyone can be walking around with pepper sprays or do they feel more insecure? And is the pepperspray actually making that country secure? Or does the pepper spray get abused by civilians (and what about minors?) or is it mostly correctly used? And so forth... Mr Mo (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness of civilian use 

message: This sentence is problematic: "This was introduced following the shooting (and often killing) of a number of mentally ill citizens who had behaved violently or in a threatening manner, leaving the police force in want of a defensive, non-lethal weapon."  The sentence contains a dramatic assertion without reference.  It falls under this guideline: Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence and does not belong in the article written like this.  Unless clear documentation of this can be cited, it cannot be supported to have it restored to the article.  I had reverted an edit about it but this was disputed, hence moved here for further discussion. --Fremte (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is untrue what you write. You reverted my edit. It is plain that the "disputed sentence" was evident before my edit. So you should take up you grievances with whoever introduced it. However, this has been covered in abundance in the Danish press. Feel free to add a "source needed" tag. Otherwise, your arguments are wholly without merit. --Law Lord (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence has the wrong tone and is in generalities.  "often killing" is problematic,  If it is in the Danish press then you need to provide a reference.  Simple reversion is not appropriate, so you suggested in my talk page.  --Fremte (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that "often killing" is not a phrase I wrote. Rather that phrase was already in the article. However, since the phrase simply states the facts concerning the Danish police, I ask that you please explain why it is problematic to explain the truth. Obviously, you know very little of the Danish police. Otherwise, you might suggest re-phrasing to "extremely often without consequence or regret". Anyway, I have added two refs. There are many more. This discussion is an example of why I find Wikipedia so revolting. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have avoided this whole issue if you had simply added the references in the first place.  I have corrected again the grammar error you reverted and added an inline tag.  As for finding WP revolting, no one is forcing you to contribute.  This is a wording issue now that you have added the citations.  We are almost there (that is unless you really find it revolting and have quit).  I would suggest that we might be working correctly now per normal collaboration in WP, ignoring some of the manner in which the exchange has gone.  It would be best to have "offten killing" replaced by the actual info of how many.  --Fremte (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, and certainly I tend to contribute not so much for the aforementioned reason. However, I sometimes do contribute when certain facts about my area of expertise are presented too far from the truth for me to bear. I hope for your understanding in this. I have now changed the wording per your suggestion, though probably it can be improved upon for a more smooth sound. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have changed the part about Denmark just now, but I am still not very satisfied with it as it is now. The two cited sources said nothing about what is written in the article, so I removed them. When you add references, please make sure they actually confirm the material. Do not just add some random Danish news article about police and peppersprays just because most people wont be able to read it and decide whether it's relevant or not. I realise this discussion is almost 3 years old, but I hope someone can find a relevant source to reference to. I faintly remember something similar to these stories being mentioned in Danish media in the past, but I haven't been able to find an online source myself as of now. Sandertams (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark sentence moved here 

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

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

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

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

message: Since bear spray, as I understand it, is a good bit more potent than pepper spray, at least the self-defense sort, why is it directed to this page? Seems a separate entry is needed, but I'm not expert.  
bleckb—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.193.18 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why redirected from bear spray? 

message: Regarding this edit: I don't think it's notable enough to include in the article. Anyone else? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's "notable" or not (I don't know if individual facts incorporated in an article all have to be notable, that would slow things down around here), it is both interesting and properly cited.  I would say it should remain.  --CliffC (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Canadian home/car-defense system story? 

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

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

message: : In Romania pepper spray is unregulated.[citation needed]
Does anyone else notice how retarded it is to ask for citation about something that is unregulated? Cite what? The nonexistent law on the subject?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.177.216 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unregulated citation needed 

message: Hi,
I was trying to chose a pepper spray and was very confused.Seems a lot of hype "marketing"
After I learned, I wrote a story on pepper spray 
I would like to get in a few points but not sure where they should go. 
1) is that some defense sprays are very weak with only .18% Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids ,with the stronger ones being 30 times hotter  We have all heard the stories about the spray doing noting. These may put a person in danger.
2) That there are three numbers people use to rate the effectiveness of pepper spray, the percent of OC, the SHU and the percent of Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids or CRC. A bear spray is required to have at least 1% and not more than 2% Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids. 
3) some personal use pepper sprays are 50% stronger than bear sprays. (one defense spray is 15% OC 3,000,000 SHU and 3% MC or CRC http://www.udap.com/Clip-On-Commander.htm) Bear spray is regulated and has to be at least 1% MC but not over 2%. There is nothing about OC or SHU. The only number they care about is MC
I think this would be a good place to educate people. ie a 18% OC Spray may mean nothing if the Capsaicin & Related Capsaicinoids are only .24
A 15,000,000 SHU many mean nothing if it's diluted to 2% OC.
This is how they fool people
Would love help or suggestions Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new section? or to existing 

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

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

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

message: It says, "The European Parliament Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) published in 1998 'An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control' " but the document linked to from 2000 has that title only as a subtitle, and does not include the exact words that are quoted.  I don't doubt that they were in that report.  The 2000 report says for instance that "OC is the most potent of all of the commonly available riot control irritants".  But maybe either change (or remove) the link or change the quote so that it corresponds to the document that is linked to.  Maybe remove the link and add an additional quote from the new document so that people are aware of that resource.
--100.4.144.148 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

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