Talk:Plastic bullet

millitary

Don't the millitrary also use these things in training excersises and for use when they dont want to kill terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This seems to have become a bit of an anti-British article. How does the number of plastic bullets fired in Northern Ireland inform the reader about plastic bullets, and are the citations even remotely reliable? 86.182.226.248 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I came to this article looking for some information on plastic bullets and found what you have stated. I think this article if anything needs to be split better as you are confronted by a very strong POV, i'm not against that, the information needs to be stated in relation to the use of these munitions, but it shouldn't be the first thing you are confronted with. --ComradeAlex (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Image

The title of the section is "Use in Northern Ireland" and one of the most high profile deaths was that of Carol Ann Kelly. I'll will of course expand the section to include details on Carol, however the image alone is illustrative of their lethal effect. Views welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Showing the effect of these so called non-lethal weapons is very important. Bjmullan (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great image and would hope that something clearer might be available. Perhaps a survivor with a haematoma, and perhaps a funeral march of one of those killed and within the scope of the protest movements - the point is "protest over dead children", not gore when it's not necessary and the same sentiment can be conveyed by other means. In the absence of other images though (and in ref to a recent removal and revert), I would support the inclusion of the Carol Ann Kelly image. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture is emotive and gratuitous and should not be included. It has clearly been added to support a POV (i.e. plastic bullets were unacceptable and were used to "repress" Irish Catholics). The other POV would be to show an attack on policemen by rioters being dispersed or controlled by plastic bullets. Weapons such as this have caused worse damage to individuals, but their articles do not include similarly emotive images. In any case, a consensus does not appear to have been achieved to merit the inclusion of the image, which should be removed pending such consensus. It's funny how some editors will insist on consensus before anything is added to an article, except when it is they who are doing the adding. Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin I'm not aware that the AK-47 was ever sold or acquired to be used as a non-lethal weapon. The plastic bullet was but it never really lived up to it. As for consensus you are the first person to suggest it's removal here. Bjmullan (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bjmullan. The AK-47 is meant to be lethal and is. The rubber bullet was meant to be non-lethal, but caused unanticipated injuries. The plastic bullet was supposed to avoid this problem, but turned out to have lethality problems of its own. The controversies are an inherent and important part of good coverage in this article. Although I don't like this particular image, I don't see reason to remove it because its subject is inappropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to suggest the removal of the image. Another editor removed it from the article. Looks to me like 2 editors in favour, 2 against, and Andy Dingley in favour only in the absence of an alternative. At most 3-2 in favour, which is hardly consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin you should know by now that consensus is not a vote. Your argument for the image removal is flawed as has been pointing out above. Bjmullan (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said consensus was a vote. I said consensus hasn't been demonstrated here - three editors in favour of the image (one of whom would actually prefer a different image), and two against isn't consensus. Consequently, the image should be removed until consensus has been achieved. And my arguments that the image is emotive and gratuitous aren't flawed. Mooretwin (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could find a better image or two, there would be more support in favour of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument is a very simple accusation of bad faith, and can be only be seen as a personal attack. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions, are not a rational! Backed up by personal attacks, are disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be intrested to see any image which could illustrate the potentially leathal nature of these projectiles. To date the current image addresses this. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to see such an image. Plenty of gore at dead body for those who want it. We can't "prove" in an encyclopedic manner that plastic bullets kill, so that can be taken care of by WP:RS. What's more interesting here is the existence of and support for a campaign against it. Now surely there's a phot of a funeral parade with a UCAPB banner? As above though, I would like to see a wound image added of a haematoma. Everyone knows one when they see it, but few readers will know the word immediately. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to remove the image immediately. Domer48 is in blatant breach of policy by inserting an image for which there is no consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no clear consensus either way, but trolling from the minority position doesn't help your case. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's no consensus either way, then, by definition, there's no consensus, and according to the rules, the image should be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The image has relevance to the article and is illustrative of the subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion about the image, you need to establish a consensus for its inclusion. Remove it now. Mooretwin (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Mooretwin you need to establish a consensus for it's removal. Bjmullan (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. The onus is on the person seeking to change the article (in this case by adding an image) to establish consensus. Would you mind removing the image? Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The rational for it's inclusion is sound. Your sole argument is "The picture is emotive and gratuitous and should not be included." This circular line of argument is pointless. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Mooretwin, all that you have put forward as an argument is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, assumption of bad faith and a personal attack on another editor, none of which you have addressed here. Bjmullan (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Moooretwin - it's a bad idea to reduce "consensus" to a crude vote, as you appear to be advocating. Especially when it would appear to be three !votes to one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not reducing consensus to a crude vote - far from it. I'm pointing out that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the image and it should therefore be removed. I'd be interested to know why you are disregarding policy and failing to agree to its removal. Mooretwin (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus. On both counts, you have failed. There is no point continuing to entertain this pointless discussion unless a valid rational is provided. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A valid rational what? LOL. There's no consensus for the image to be added to the article, therefore it should be removed. It's quite straightforward. Mooretwin (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen, its been a while. Irrespective of whether this image is appropriate for this article, I don't believe it fulfils all criteria for fair use here. Specifically - this article is not about the individual, or book, the image represents. My understanding is that the application of fair use on Wikipedia is permitted on specific cases only (i.e. the use of book covers are permitted for articles about the book, but not about the subject of the book). For example, File:Cujo.jpg is permitted on Cujo but not St. Bernard (dog). I would recommend removing it from this article for those reasons. If, as one might predict, that is to be challanged, then Wikipedia:Non-free content review seems the obvious place to go for resolution. Rockpocket 11:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, this image fails "fair use", as do many "fair use" images on WP, because there's no such thing locally. It's a construct of US copyright law and it's always problematic for UK editors. Should a US concept of fair use ever be extended outside the US, and what do we mean by "US" anyway? Obviously today's policy bases that on server hosting location, but there's too much on WP of wanting to both have our cake and eat it, where some images are judged by either US or UK law, depending on editor's whims.

Anyway, as to applicability of that fair use constraint for this article. IMHO it would fail the test for a purely technical article on the manufacture, use and ballistics of plastic bullets. However it would pass for an article on the NI protests against their use. As this image is a signifcant one for that campaign (it's sourced from the cover of one of that campaign's own books), it's an acceptable fair-use image for an article covering the protest. This article, even under the narrow title Plastic bullet, ought to cover that protest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, there is an article specifically about NI protests against the use of plastic bullets. By that reasoning the fair use should be claimed there, not here. Rockpocket 16:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of the protests is essential to both articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested review here. Rockpocket 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointy

I fail to see how It soon became clear that they were lethal at certain ranges isn't the very definition of WP:WEASEL... reword it please. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. Please try to obtain a neutral offhand description of facts/events. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

L21 - Plastic bullet?

The L21 is a plastic bullet. I have multiple sources that prove it yet Andy Dingley keeps removing the image. Marcus Qwertyus 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have no such sources. It is a baton round, but it's no more a plastic bullet than a rubber bullet (another form of baton round) is a plastic bullet. Your quotes, as far as I've seen them, correctly describe a syllogism that you have failed to understand: the fact that plastic bullets are one form of baton round means that some baton rounds are plastic bullets, but not that all baton rounds are plastic bullets.

There is a further problem: this article, for right or wrong, is currently focussed on the deployment of the L5 plastic bullet in Northern Ireland (there being little else to say about plastic bullets, other than their use in Northern Ireland). It would be highly misleading to take this article, with that focus, and to drop the L21 round into it. That would be as bad as it was a few months back, when it was cheerfully mixing up rubber and plastic bullets.

Moving forward, the real solution is to merge the two articles and put the whole lot historically under baton round. That allows all four forms to be described, back to the days of improvised broomhandles, through rubber, plastic and newer forms, including the L21. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have shown you one of my sources. Have you already forgotten about it? Even this article mentions the L21 but you haven't removed that. I do support the creation of baton round but you will never succeed in merging rubber bullet. Marcus Qwertyus 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Made of aluminium. Not made of plastic.

This article essentially needs to cover the L5 (as that's the one fired in such huge numbers), and if the later rounds are covered, they need to be clearly identified as not being the main subject of it. Putting a photo of two rounds other than the L5 in the masthead is really not helpful. It's reasonable to cover the L21, L60 and the elf rifle in the plastic bullet article, but not if they take priority over the L5.

As to sources, then you seem to have Googled up two essays that are basically by lawyers for a lay audience, rather than taking a precise technical viewpoint. I can also offer you an endless supply of broadsheet new reports from post-2000 that still say "British police today fired rubber bullets". Writing in that space just doesn't care to distinguish the two, and really there's little reason for them to. I'm also still waiting for you to source your claim that plastic bullets are used other than by the UK and its spin-offs (I think the Hong Kong police might have had them too). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about Quebec for starters? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/nyregion/28anarchist.html Marcus Qwertyus 13:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good one. I was wary when I read the text, because newspapers aren't always accurate in what they describe, but the round in the photo is clearly an ARWEN, and that's a good example of a plastic bullet (not much used in NI though). Hardly surprising I guess, as I think the manufacturing rights to it are in Canada these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC:L21 round

Left and right: composite plastic/aluminum plastic baton round projectile from L21 round and case of L5 round.

The image of the L21 round/L5 case has been repeatedly removed. Is the L21 round relevant to the article? Marcus Qwertyus 03:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nominator's remarks. Despite the fact that the L21 is in fact a plastic-aluminum matrix, many sources consider the L21 a plastic bullet. The L21 also very similar in metrics and usage to the L5. Bullet-proof glass is usually constructed by layering thermoplastics and layers of glass. I'd venture to say that some bullet-proof glass is made entirely out of thermoplastics without any glass but that doesn't stop the mislabeling nor should it. Marcus Qwertyus 03:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The history of the plastic bullet is the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland. They're rarer than you might think - riot control in other countries is handled by variants of the rubber bullet. Rubber bullets were demonstrated (again in NI) to have problems and the plastic bullet was the peculiarly British response to this; other countries took other paths: inelastic soft bags, or weighted low-elasticity rubber. So the history of the plastic bullet is misleading if it doesn't cover Northern Ireland accurately - which means covering the L5 bullet that was used in the tens of thousands.

This is not an L5. It's not even close to it. It looks different, it's made differently, its ballistics are different, it's fired from a different weapon. It is misleading to use it in this article. Despite recent deletions of anything that looked vaguely political (not that articles on The Troubles have ever turned up bias on WP, oh dear me no), the history of the plastic bullet has to focus on the one conflict in which it was used in large numbers: Northern Ireland and the L5.

The nominator has a strange view of sourcing and "authority by Google". They've recently demonstrated (through a range of dubious proposals, see comments on talk:) that they're lacking in understanding of any of these issues (just what is a "plastic-aluminum matrix", because this isn't one), but by &deity; can they Google for text string matches. And anything that Google throws back is then assumed to be sacrosanct. Even if it's the term "plastic bullet" in a newspaper (until recently, even WP was getting this distinction confused, newspapers just don't care), so this is a problematic search to be looking for at the best of times. It also tends to return glossy websites like the International Committee of the Fourth International, a source of quite peerless technical accuracy, I don't think.

If we don't have a photo of an L5, we shouldn't use a photo of something else instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this overlap of service histories of the rounds and the interlinked use and development of the rounds should all be brought together in a single article (whose name probably includes the words "British" and "baton round". At the same time, some specifications and images of all the rounds would be useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. The L21 was described at this website in the same way as the L5: a plastic baton round or PBR. The L21 was said to be used in 5× greater numbers than the L5 in 2004–2005. Even though a picture of the L5 should be at the top of the article, this image is relevant, and should appear under the classic L5 (when such an image is uploaded.) I agree that the L5 photo should be foremost but its absence does not eliminate this image from relevance as a plastic bullet. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is RS sourced as being a plastic bullet then it would belong here. Images are then always nice (particularly if not omnipresent) to beautify the page per WP:WikiFairy(Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

.357/.38/9 mm?

Speer plastic bullets, the only widely available brand, are hollow based plastic cylinders, and are available in .357/.38/9 mm

Err. What size is that again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piarco girl (talk • contribs) 10:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pressure

I think the pressure those bullets are fired off with is both a very interesting and important fact. Because if the pressure is too high (accidentally or DELIBERATELY misadjusted weapon?!), the number of fatal injuries may increase rapidly. Do these weapons use the same pressure like those working with live ammunition? (Just FYI, magazines of standard weapons cannot have their live ammunition "replaced" by plastic bullets. (Heh, probably it's better that way.)) -andy 77.190.55.228 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Top image needs dimensions

To editors Marcus Qwertyus, Andy Dingley, GraemeLeggett, Lihaas and Binksternet: Would someone please add the dimensions of the items in this image to the image's description & the caption in the article? Even better would be an image with a visible reference. See WP:MEASUREMENT and WP:MOSCONVERSIONS.

I know "Nmm caliber" implies a size, but many people could not extrapolate the height & diameter of these objects just from that. My mind turned them into hairspray bottle-size!

Also, I forgot to check that all images had alt text for accessibility for the vision-impaired. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.

The same issues apply to the top image in Rubber bullet.

Sorry all I can do is point this out to some of the people who worked on this before, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing this myself right now and I might not make it back here. Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)