Talk:Tannerite

message: This article is descriptive in terms of firearms, and covers the firearms topic well.  However, there seems to be no information about non-firearm uses of Tannerite, for example, in mining.  No history or chemical composition is discussed.  The article portrays a feeling that Tannerite is used only in shooting.  
Emike09 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As demonstrated on MythBusters, Tannerite can be detonated using a blasting cap.  On the show, they said that this was used to produce explosions for movies and TV special effects.  Mind you, they did shoot it with a bullet to get it to explode.  Having a trunk full of mixed Tannerite hit by another car did not cause an explosion, even when hit by a rocket-powered car.  Nutster (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Firearm application 

message: This article seems to be 100% US-based, in particular when discussing legalities - for example, "they can legally be purchased" is stated without qualification, as though it applied to the entire world. Some info about tannerite's usage elsewhere would be very useful, but at least those parts based specifically on US law should be explicitly mentioned as such in the main text. (This is in no way my subject, which is why I haven't done that myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the product sold outside the U.S.? Currently, the U.S. law is specifically identified as such in the article. However, I believe there is still no mention of any use of the product outside the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Globalize/USA tag 

message: There is too much (a very subjective measurement) text copied verbatim from the Tannerite website . I'm re-wording the offending sections. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I noted that an account named User:Tannerite, which I assume was created and used by the inventor of Tannerite, had edited the article, but the text in question was not added by that account. Safer to re-write it. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much verbatim text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tannerite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091008040315/http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm to http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think we'll eventually need to summarize them further as additional incidents occur. Also, one of the reports has a minor conflict on the distance (25 vs 30 yards) from the explosive. Here is one of the cases with a slightly different distance than we have listed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/27/man-loses-leg-shooting-automatic-weapon-at-lawn-mower-packed-with-explosives/?tid=pm_national_pop_b
MartinezMD (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case reports 

message: I think it is emerging that the explosive used in the 2016 Chelsea Bombing was a homebrewed Ammonal mixture of ammonium nitrate and alumonum powder in Ammonal proportions and not commercial uppercase-T Tannerite or even lowercase-t tannerite homebrewed from NH4NO3 + Al in Tannerite proportions. These Tannerite accident reports could be useful in cautioning people not to blow up metal targets or use homebrewed explosives as "tannerite" but I question linking Tannerite to the 2016 Chelsea Bombing. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelsea bombing 

message: As MartinezMD noted in the above section, the "Notable incidents" section has accumulated some potentially inappropriate content.  I've boldly removed the material concerning events that didn't have far-reaching effects, receive widespread coverage, or have any lasting impact beyond those directly involved in the event. I've retained those incidents that affected large numbers of people, and those which held some level of importance long after they occurred. I believe that not only would including the removed content (reproduced below) run afoul of WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but that combining every sourceable incident involving tannerite together in one section constitutes WP:SYNTH and may violate WP:NPOV. I would not oppose selective restoration of any of this content if additional sources can be found demonstrating some lasting significance. 
 ʍw 00:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your choices of notable examples and the removal the ones that appear more incidental.MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

text: My opinion differs substantially. One result of the removal of these incidents from the article is that the article now does not contain any examples that illustrate the danger of using Tannerite with target objects that can accidentally cause flying debris. The manufacturer strongly cautions against doing that, of course, but I wonder whether the average user would appreciate the danger illustrated by, for example, the incident involving a severed leg at a distance of 30 feet yards, the other severe leg injury at a distance of 150 feet, and the two accidental deaths involving shrapnel. Two of the four examples that are currently discussed in the article caused no significant harm at all (and one of those was a highly improper use of a very large quantity of Tannerite to explode a truck, which is exactly the sort of dangerous behavior that could cause major shrapnel injury or property damage). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's revisit the topic. I'd like the examples to give clear demonstrations of what can occur physically (damage, injury) and socially (eg legally), i.e notable incidents for the "notable" section. I wouldn't want it just to be a list of any mention of the word Tannerite that is mentioned in internet articles, because then I feel it would just be distracting from the body of the article. I think your point is well taken. MartinezMD (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable incidents" 

message: This page is "Tannerite" but only speaks briefly about tannerite which is a business trademark. It then goes on to speak of binary exploding targets as if they are tannerite.
I feel that this is misleading as well as does nothing to help educate people on binary exploding targets or the business tannerite but instead ads to the confusion.
By combining the company tannerite and binary exploding targets as one we cannot fully educate on either as well as we rob the many other binary exploding target companies by calling these all binary exploding targets tannerite and not by their true name.
I think that the binary explosives page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_explosive needs to be edited to include most of what this tannerite page has on it but correcting the wordage to say binary exploding target instead of tannerite as well as correcting the tannerite page to be about the business itself much like the page for kleenex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KleenexJamesakameisme (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a representative of Tannerite, I doubt that the interest of "other binary exploding target companies" is your true motivation, however, as I mentioned in your talk page before, it would be appropriate to separate the article on your corporate entity from the product it produces. You could copy over the appropriate content from this article to the binary explosive article and allow other editors to help you as a suggestion. MartinezMD (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I would support moving most of the "United States law" section to binary explosive, as most of the sources for that section are about binary explosives in general. I maintain that the contents of the "Notable incidents" section are appropriate here, because all of the sources used mention Tannerite brand products specifically. I've edited the other sections to make clearer the distinction between Tannerite Sports LLC, Tannerite brand targets, and binary explosives in general. ʍw 07:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page as a whole 

message: There are not any regulations that govern the storage of unmixed Tannerite as Tannerite is not a "thing" it is a company name. There are also no shipping regulations on unmixed Tannerite brand binary rifle targets in the United States. Jamesakameisme (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States law