Talk:Skunk (weapon)

Politicizing this page

Locked, so I can't edit it myself, but under Product, there's this: However, when tested in India, the product failed miserably:

We used it on a captive crowd consisting of CRPF personnel and general public. But they managed to tolerate the smell without much difficulty. [...] Those who can ignore [the] smell can drink the liquid also. [9]

But the footnote goes to an article that doesn't mention India, so it needs to be removed. Probable vandalism.

This page is about police equipment. Publishing time and again where it was used is propaganda, not information. Ever all there is controversy over using it, thus it should stay. But otherwise writing about specific incidents is already falls into propaganda and is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.248.250 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani - But you keep on using it a propaganda tool. I quoted a source that says Skunk was used on Jews and you neglected it!.ashtul (talk) 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I remove it? If so, it was accidental, and you should restore it. A method of crowd control should not be a technical manual, but note also the various uses to which it is put, whether on Jews, Palestinians or Martians.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is almost nothing technical here and you move to political issues with it. If this isn't propaganda, I don't know what is!Ashtul (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani - stop making this page into propaganda!!

You leave relevant information out of the introduction and put in info that is clearly political. Can a mediator do something about this abuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What information did I leave out? The page is under construction. You are welcome to make up any perceived deficiencies in its reportage. At the moment you are just editwarring in dislike of the well-sourced material added.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI question

ashtul. Your attempt to 'mind' this page and keep it purely 'technical', as though it were a just a product with specifications that can be marketed via the venue of Wikipedia, suggests that you might have a personal link to the manufacturer. Do you? If so, please read the relevant policy I have cited in the header. Thank You.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani don't make me laugh! I've never tried to clear it from the Palestinian connection but what you are doing is making this one big propaganda page. While there is almost no technical data (basically none), almost any mention of it on the news appear here. That include the introduction where you put critisicm by 3rd parties before relevant data. If that is not NPOV (and yours is very clear by your edits), I don't know what is. Ashtul (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Look up the meaning of propaganda - lying by omission of key facts,- and then the meaning of reportage, -comprehensive coverage of all the relevant facts - and try and grasp the difference between the two. Editors correct for bias by stating what all reliable sources say of a topic, not by the systematic elision or suppression of relevant material. Anyone is at perfect liberty to add material that improves the reader's knowledge of skunk, chemically, operationally, commercially, politically and otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani The name of the article isn't 'history of misuse of Skunk on poor Palestinians' but tather 'Skunk (Weapon)'. Same way that when discussing F-15 you won't quote every single time it was mentioned on the media, same should hold here. The fact it was put under I/P conflict is either wrong or misused! 87.68.18.215 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation for the use of this page as anti-Israeli propaganda was filed. Ashtul (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani rejected the request for mediation.

NishidaniIn none of the pages you brought as an example in your rejection for mediation the lead had opinions etc.Ashtul (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The skunk was indeed used in western Jerusalem. Report&video

http://www.0404.co.il/post/18559

Please stop adding this misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Where in that report does it specify West Jerusalem? Of course, if the local can be identified (the video is insufficient), what one does not erase the B'tselem remark, as you did. After it one would write:

One report claims that police dispersed an Haredi protest meeting in Jerusalem by dousing demonstrators with the liquid. ref= Itzik Weiss, 'Discharging skunk at Haredi protesters in Jerusalem,' 9 October 2014

But you should try to identify exactly where in Jerusalem this took place.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says specifically it happened in Shivtei-Israel St. which is indeed in the West city.Ashtul (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You just broke the 1R rule again, and are obliged to revert. Here is the evidence.

1. Editor warned of ARBPiA sanctions. Ist warning
2. 2nd warning
3. 3rd a reminder of IR

In the face of these repeated warnings, you still went ahead and broke the rule.

1. 16:09, 27 December 2014‎ Ist revert

1. 08:58, 28 December 2014‎ 2nd revert

So, restore the information you deleted, by reverting your last edit. If you don't you will be reported and probably sanctioned.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you are acting but just to put the last nail in, here is a map with the street name mentioned in the article which shows it is in Western Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not permitted to break the 1R rule. Please explain why you did that. As above, I have no objection to evidence that, on one unique occasion, recently it appears to have been used or threatened to be used against Haredis, but this does not invalidate B't5selem's statement on its use from 2008s down to October 2014. The text must reflect that. Now, for the last time, revert or face a sanction.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking the rules but that does not change the facts. You want to use some rhetorics why it is 'kinda' correct, just outdated or valid only Monday-to-Tuesday go ahead. I gave you a proof and you reverted with the ridiculous statement - 'whether it is true or false is not relevant', Is that what Wikipedia is for you? Ashtul (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Three sources to be modulated and harmonized-

The two sources state that from 2008-2013/2014, skunk appears to have been used exclusively against Palestinians

• B'tselem Sarit Michaeli, 'Crowd Control: Israel’s Use of Crowd Control Weapons in the West Bank,' B'tselem May 2013 p.36

B’Tselem’s observations show that security forces often spray the Skunk at protest marches and demonstrations as a preliminary method of dispersal, even when the demonstrations are quiet and no stones have been thrown. B’Tselem does not know of any cases in which security forces used the Skunk at a demonstration with only Jewish or Israeli participants. Many Palestinian demonstrators have expressed indignation at the humiliation caused by exposure to the Skunk.p.36

• John Reed 'Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem,' Financial Times 21 November 2014

They say that skunk water, which smells unbearably bad when fresh but is physically harmless, allows them to disperse crowds effectively and identify suspects later. "The skunk water cannons are used as a non-lethal weapon when Palestinians are involved in rioting, throwing petrol bombs and stones against police officers", says Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman. However, Palestinians in eastern neighbourhoods say police spray the greyish liquid indiscriminately into shops, restaurants and hotels, in a stream powerful enough to break windows, and describe it as one of many heavy-handed tactics Israeli authorities do not deploy in the city's Jewish west, underscoring their inferior status.

Ashtul found a source which suggests (the video does not) that skunk was once used against a Haredi group in early October 2014.

• Yitzak Weiss, 'Discharging skunk at Haredi protesters in Jerusalem,' News 0404 (Hebrew) 9 October 2014

Rather than, as I suggested, add this information (it may not be RS by the way, but I suggest it may be used) to the page, you removed what both B'tselem and Reed stated. Whatever the truth of this obscure report, it remains a fact that (a) B'tselem had never heard of skunk being used against Israelis from 2008-2013 (May) (b) that the police spokesman cited by Reed in November 2014 said that it is used when Palestinians are involved (d) Palestinians are not aware of it being used in the Western half of Jerusalem. Therefore, both the Israeli report of one apparent instance of it being used in West Jerusalem, and the other reports, suitably modulated, must be used.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested solution along the lines.'B'tselem found no evidence skunk had been used against Jewish or Israeli protestors (2008-2013). John Reed cites a police spokesman as saying it is used in riots where Palestinians are involved' and stated that Palestinians believe it is not used in Western Jerusalem. Yitzhak Weiss has reported that skunk was used against Haredi protests on the 4th of October 2014.' etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

[User:Nishidani|Nishidani], the statement as it is now "it is not used in the Jewish western half of Jerusalem" is false. I have said numerous times - If you want to juggle some words and put some dates in - go ahead.

Maybe we should add that to Apollo mission - "Thou people didn't landed on the moon between 0 and 1969 BC, they apparently did so in 1969".

Joking aside - you have done an excellent job making this page into propaganda. If you can't bring yourself to add info it was indeed used inside Israel on Jewish crowd, you definitely cannot say it wasn't. It is 100% justified to take out information that isn't relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

24 hours passed and you haven't rephrased it. In it's current wording it is outdated. 84.229.191.5 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

More abusive editing by Nishidani

(1) Sources that fail WP:RS and may fall under WP:Fringe

Michael T. McRay,Letters from "Apartheid Street": A Christian Peacemaker in Occupied Palestine, Wipf and Stock Publishers 2013 pp.56

The publisher is perfectly respectable, and the writer is a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams. The details describe what the Christian pacifist observed on that day.

• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine

No proof this is not RS. The video material underlines the factuality

• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss 16 November 2014.

No proof this is not RS. The photographic material underlines the factuality.

(2)remove information not in source

This is deceit operated at the pseudo-cleverest level. In his first revert Plot Spoiler removed the source by Michael T. McRay. In his second revert, he then removes information saying that it is not in the source. Of course not. The source which contained it was removed in his prior edit.

The incident is Sunday February 26 ‘The protesters began arriving close to 11:30 and by 12:15, ..calling for an end to apartheid and the reopening of Shuhada street p.57 ‘Two hours after the chaos began, Chris, Carrie, and I decided to leave. . .A horrid stench greeted us as we walked back into the Old City. The military had showered the houses with Skunk, and spray that smells like it sounds. I heard that the smell lingers on for years and does not easily wash off skin. The city smelled of chemical waste. As I said before, the occupation reeks.pp.58-9

Unless there are serious objections here, this material preemptively removed without discussion should be reintroduced. Drive-by reverts and erasures with purely assumptional declarations that this or that is not RS are an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

More yawn-inducing hysteria from Nishidani that relies on clear violations of WP:AGF and WP:no personal attacks ("deceit operated at the pseudo-cleverest level" LOL!).

• Michael T. McRay,Letters from "Apartheid Street": A Christian Peacemaker in Occupied Palestine, Wipf and Stock Publishers 2013 pp.56 - who is Michael McRay? Is Wipf a serious publisher? Most of all though, we shouldn't be using activist sources for factual assertions given their clear lack of objectivity/
• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine - another clear activist source that should not be used for factual assertions. It's a BLOG. Fails WP:RS. That simple.
• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss 16 November 2014. Another HARDCORE activist source and blog that fails WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you doubt Michael T. McRay at Wipf and Stock publishers is not RS, take it to the RSN board. There is no intrinsic reason why that should be suspect.

The other two articles have videos attached, which makes the difference. Matar publishes in the Hebrew press, and has worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv. '972 magazine translates that otherwise inaccessible material. Since Robbins is derivative, it can, consensually, go. But the fact that a journalist has an 'activist' stance (Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, etc. is not ipso facto grounds for removing material. Most articles I read by journalists in Ynet, The Times of Israel and even Haaretz, are written by journalists with a very marked and often predictable POV, as are those in the New York Times. Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"This is deceit operated at the pseudo-cleverest level." is a cute way of calling the editor a liar. You should apologize since it is dangerously close to getting out of hand. And next time just be a big boy and call him a liar if you feel that way.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And ah crap... I moved some paragraphs around so sources might be not in their intended place. Mentioning because of the edit summary "remove information not in source". Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing a reliable source, which documents an observed fact, with a time stamp on it, by an eyewitness, and then, after a while, coming back to an article and saying:' Hey, there is no source for this statement' (which was in the reliable source) 'so I'll remove it', is devious, disingenuous and dishonest. It's brash gamesmanship of the worst kind. He wasn't lying. He was tampering with the facts to censure stuff he dislikes. It's typical of his behavior here.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

MSDS information is misleading - should be deleted

MSDS use is very specific and the fact the info is on there doesn't proof is it dangerous! Did you ever read the warning on an average medicine you take? Placing it here is biased and misleading.

It isn't as misleading as the 'do not swallow' part deleted, as it does actually deal with toxicity but still, it is more propaganda then a helpful fact. Ashtul (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your purpose here? Blank the page by successive removal of anything other than two sentences about the product, its manufacture, and deterrence of 'terrorism'?Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't touch the history items you put in. I can't refute that even if you are way doing it. But some info you put in is pure propaganda. The don't swallow is a great example. It isn't informative but rather misleading. Ashtul (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fatal in Wikipedia to 'judge' as you do what can go in or must go out. If a RS makes a claim, it goes in. This has nothing to do with propaganda. Sources can get things wrong, and when other equally reliable sources point that out, we adjust. It is sources and sources, not Nishidani or Ashtul deciding what they like or dislike. That is the procedure: learn it.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A source that tells you the fact the label say "don't swallow" is relevant is NOT reliable and is obviously BSed and biased. So I guess the whole section should go out. The MSDS story is similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(a) The source qualifies for WP:RS. No editor has challenged it.

(b)It reads

• According to David Ben Harosh, Head of the Technological Development Department of the Israel Police, which spearheaded the Skunk project, the liquid is even safe for drinking; yet, the safety data sheet clearly states: “Do not swallow.” 'Crowd Control Weapons in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,' April 2014 p.25

This is footnoted to Odortec Ltd, “Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS),” Skunk-skunk.com, 9 September 2008.

You are therefore utterly confused. It does not speak of a 'label'. It speaks of the manufacturer's own data sheet, and cites it.

I wrote:

Contrary to the reported remarks of David Ben Harosh, the product's safety sheet contains a warning not to swallow the liquid

You edited out part of this:

Contrary to the reported remarks of David Ben Harosh

My edit correctly paraphrased what the source said

According to David Ben Harosh,' Head of the Technological Development Department of the Israel Police, which spearheaded the Skunk project, the liquid is even safe for drinking; yet, the safety data sheet clearly states: “Do not swallow.” 'Crowd Control Weapons in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,' April 2014 p.25

Your edit cancels out what the RS states as a contradiction between the spokesman's reported remarks, and what the firm's saqfety sheet advises, and therefore is POV pushing, on behalf of the company. Stop fucking around and wasting our time. Familiarize yourself with the rules.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

After familiarizing myself I think we might need an editor for this but this is obviously a case when RS makes statements that are true but are biased and totally taken out of context. WP:BIASED

I think it should either be out or we add a statement "and so do many toothpastes and chewing gums."

Same is true about MSDS where presenting them as information that can be used by an average users is simply wrong. They have a very specific use and the information is irrelevant for recreational users. You can find a gazillion examples online like this or google it. I used to work for environmental consulting company. Ashtul (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cptono. The text had Horesh's claim you could drink it. Reading the lit, I noticed the WPO cited the claim and also the company MSDS to the effect that it not be swallowed. I don't know why Ashtul is creating a huge amount of noise on this. It's a simple edit. If Horesh made a claim, and it was reported with that rider, one doesn't clip and cut, one mentions both facts. This is one edit here that has arguably has absolutely nothing to do with PO=V, pushing or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think every editor involved in the discussion needs to go to the front desk or the facilities department at work and ask to look at the MSDS. You will find your favorite soap with a scary amount of warnings in there. I'm not saying the product is harmful or not. I'm just saying that MSDS is designed to be worrisome like your building evacuation plans and monthly walkthroughs on your fire extinguishers. Don't even get me started on the integrity of ceiling panels in your office since the burn rate does impact the building's overall fire resistance standard. I think I am basically trying to say is that MSDS is important from an OSHA standpoint but means nothing when determining if a chemical compound is truly harmful. Source: I'm a Facilities Manager and look how fun this is: [1] if you really ant to get look at the sheet: [2] Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ( MSDS ) Skunk Repulsive odor liquid Odortec Ltd Producer :002 ……………….. Emergency call No. : . Address : Aviezer 121/1 99860 Israel Tel: 02-9922364 Fax: 02-9912190 U.N. No. : None NFPA Hazard Rating : 0.0.0 Emergency action code : 1R IMO Hazard group : Not advised Stationary Phase : Liquid Solubility in water : Soluble

Section II : contain Water, Yeasts, Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda). Section III: Major hazards At the pH level of sodium bicarbonate the yeasts synthesise some amino acids causing heavy odor. Skin: Might cause irritation. Eyes: redness, pain. Ingestion: abdominal pain. Inhalation: No vapors at normal use.

Section IV - FIRST AID PROCEDURES : Never give fluids or induce vomiting if patients unconscious or having convulsions. Ingestion: If swallowed give fluids, don’t induce vomiting, consult a physician who will decide on need and method for emptying the stomach or any other medical care. Eye: Rinse with water for at least 15 min. If the pain continues, get medical consultation. Skin: 2 Wash off with running water or shower. Wash contaminated clothing before reuse. Inhalation: If will effects occur, remove to fresh air. If not breathing give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen, call a physician or any available medical help. Section V - Fire and Explosion Hazard Data Flash point (°C) 20 : non applicable. Self ignition point: non applicable LEL (%) Irrelevant UEL (%) Irrelevant

Fire extinguishing The product itself is a good fire extinguisher! Hazardous decomposition products: When exposed to open fire may emit Carbon diOxide and some Carbon monOxide (at air deficiency). Section VI - Spill & Leak Procedures Small spillage should be let to evaporate. Large spillage should be collected into an adsorbent for disposal at an authorized approved landfill. Section VII - Storage Store containers well closed in a well-ventilated area. Do not store in area exposed to sunlight. Keep separate from acids.

Section VIII - Personal Protection Information Ventilation : Good general ventilation should be sufficient for most conditions. Respiratory Protection : When airborne exposure guidelines and/or comfort levels may be exceeded, use an approved air-purifying respirator (if needed). Eye Contact : 3 For high potential exposure chemical goggles or full face screen are recommended because eye contact with this material may cause some pains or eyes irritate. For low and moderate potential exposure use safety glasses. Protective Clothing : For brief contact, no precautions other than clean body covering clothing should be needed. Use cotton gloves when prolonged or frequently repeated contact could occur. Section IX - Chemical & physical properties Formula (Baking Soda): NaHCO3. Mol. Weight : 84.01 Color : Green. Odor : Strong smell. Boiling point (oC) : 101.01 Freezing point (oC) : -7 Vapor pressure: Negligible Phase: Solution and aquanauts Flash point: Not flammable. Section X - Reactivity & Stability Stable and does not decomposes up to 250ºC. Materials to avoid: Light metals and strong oxidizing agents. Section XI - Toxicological Data The product has not been reported as toxic material. No carcinogenic activity. Does not affect sensitive aquatic population. Section XII - Ecologic environmental data. Sodium bicarbonate and yeast are friendly products in environment. Both do not impose to heavy burden to it’s survivals.

Section XIII: Disposal considerations Both ingredients of the product are not poisonous materials. In case of spillage one may dispose them to the municipal disposal unless authorities require a different waste treatment. 4 Section XIV: Transport regulations DOT No special requirements IMO Not found IYATA Not regulated Labeling:

According to self-classifications.
Symbol: -
Indication of danger (irritating material)
Special risks: Mild irritant
Safety advice: Do not swallow
Avoid contact with eyes.

Product shipping regulation Sipping name : Risk group : Non hazardous Failure limits :

Section: XV other regulations \s and directives

Safety codes: R36 – Irritating to eyes.

Spillage [0], Chemical and Physical activity [0], Flammability [0].

5

Section XVI other general information

W A R R A N T Y The information herein is based on the literature and experience concerning with this subject, is given in good faith and to the best of our knowledge but no warrant , express or implied , is made.

This material safety data sheet was issued on the 12 th September, 2004. REVISION #1 'on the 9th September, 2008.

Nishidani, before we get too deep into how and what, do you agree it is misleading information? Now all that left is to go to ACRI talk page and raise a great point of their biased and misleading data. Ashtul (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is it misleading? Spell it out.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

About the swallowing thing, As I said, my Colgate toothpaste has the same warning. Does it means it is risky? no! It means I should not use it as Mayonnaise. Agree? So why put it in? B/C ACRI said so.

Then, Cptnono gave you a lengthy explanation why presenting MSDS as a proof of health issue is not true. They have a very specific use in a work environment where someone is exposed to them for a lengthy periods of time. From a lack of any other words I would say - Palestinians are 'recreational' users thus it does not apply to them. Here is MSDS for Colgate toothpaste, looks familiar?

This whole conversation is silly as, from conversing with you, I know you are smarter then that, but with the flag of WP:RS you will put in every piece of propaganda such source manufactures. Both swallowing and MSDS facts may be true but they do a logic leap which is untrue regardless of who the source is.

Ashtul (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave some damn good reasoning for MSDS meaning nothing. However, we go by RS. The weight given to certain sources is questionable . This product could easily be good or bad. What matters is that is that we can write an article with no worries about that. If you focus on the actual product then the history of use will (and should) take a lesser role as the reader sees it. There will definitely be a history section. "Propaganda" (take offence if you want, Nish, but several editors have said it) can take a back seat. How about you lay out some generally sourced info instead of playing defense, Ashtul? Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono I'm looked for more info in Hebrew but I couldn't find it. The Hebrew version of the page is leaner then the english one. There isn't much to say about it. You add it to water then spray it on rioters and it was probably wasn't mainly against Palestinians as Nishindi points out.Ashtul (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cptono. I'm quite prepared to look at any specific charges that anything I edit in is 'propaganda'. I've never had a problem handling complaints of that sort. I dislike (though don't 'take offense at') generic accusations: they allow no response functional to page building, and this was a stub, which we are supposed to build up into something that looks comprehensive. That Ashtul can't find much on it in Hebrew is odd, but perhaps indicative. I commend in any case your request that editors actually work to improve (by expansion) the article (that than sit round to keep it to a minimalist version, which means, effectively, maintaining it as a stub). Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, you asked me to address why is it misleading and I have done so several times now. Can you confirming understanding my position? If not, can you please explain why not?

There isn't much information about it since it is basically additive that make water really stinks. I don't even think the truck were developed for it but rather regular water cannons are used. No person who sees this article can miss the fact it may have been misused on Palestinians. Adding out of context data (swallow & MSDS) to try make it sound even worse, is undoubtedly 'propaganda' and biased. If you agree, I guess the whole part of David Ben Harosh should be out b/c the info appears before and it appears in the source leading to the MSDS. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I still haven't got a clue as to what your objection is, other than to make a distasteful wisecrack to the fact that when "shit" is hosed on them by Israeli forces, Palestinians can be described as 'recreational users' of skunk. We report what the company says, that it is not toxic. We report also that a company spokesman says you can drink it, while the MSDS advises against swallowing it. What's wrong with that. Shit's not toxic - a friend of mine once admitted tasting his own with no ill effects- but it's wise to remind folks that it's best not to swallow it- any reading of news reports has to swallow far too much metaphorical bullshit for her own good, but the basic facts should be reported. Do try to get off this absurd pursuit of a trivial difference, and find material that enlightens readers and builds the page. We're evidently talking past one another.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I didn't neglect the fact Palestinians suffer from it, so don't turn this on me. MSDS doesn't have anything to do with home user as you could read in Cptnono comment earlier. So why play it dumb.

The way it is written in the original document and in your rephrasing was not about a person 'drinking' it (where exactly would one get it? ask a policeman to fill up a bottle for him?) but clearly PROPAGANDA. "Contrary to that" meant to say Ben Harosh is a liar where it is clear that his original message meant "it is safe" and not "you should drink it twice a day".

I am not sure if you are playing a fool for fun or what. Your wiki awards list is impressive so I doubt it. Ashtul (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"ask a policeman to fill up a bottle for him" is actually a decent argument. Companies do not produce material safety data sheets for the effects of a bomb filled with a nasty chemical. They produce it for the working environment that might see an accident. It is there for the material handlers who might drop barrels of the stuff off a loading dock during receiving-not the protesters.

Should any weight be given to the source? Is there precedent in articles about tear gas for such inclusion? It is accurate but it comes across sensational the more I think about it. I do like the idea of MSDS being readily available through Wikipedia, though.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The way it was written in the original report, comparing it to Ben Harosh words, is not about information but rather defaming him and the product. It was most certainly not written in an informative way! As for MSDSs on wikipedia, I am not sure it is a great idea. MSDSs have specific use and warning for recreational users are on the package itself. Putting such information as if intended for everyone is false warning. If done, should be done right. Ashtul

You are criticizing the source content, which is not within our remit to do. There is no defamation involved, and to assert so constitutes 'rhetorical hyperbole'. Harosh made a statement, and the report of his statement noted the MSDS specification, juxtaposing them. It is absolutely in line with standard wiki procedures to include both the assertion and a comment on it, when they are in the source contiguously. One can simply avoid 'yet' 'contrary to what' if one likes. Harosh said you can drink it. The company's MSDS advises against ingesting/swallowing it.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And Ben-Harosh advise pro-swallowing? He merely says the rioters are at no risk. Or if you insist, same risk they are in by brushing their teeth. I am done with this thread. We can just go back and forth to reverting the article. Cheers! Ashtul (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can't follow a logical argument, stop kibitzing with inanely distractive nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't criticize it but we have the ability to omit content. NPOV is a pretty big deal here. Gauging the appropriate weight to give something and sifting through the noise is what we do here. I'm not shocked that an editor would start screaming about propaganda when the article might read like an attempt to demonize certain policies rather than give the reader an understanding about the product.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul.

• Do not edit in garbled absolutely unreadable psedudo-English texts.i.e.

The label of Skunk says "Do not swallow" and MSDS first aid warns for ingestion: "If swallowed give fluids, don’t induce vomiting, consult a physician who will decide on need and method for emptying the stomach or any other medical care", for eyes "Rinse with water for at least 15 min. If the pain continues, get medical consultation", for skin "Wash off with running water or shower. Wash contaminated clothing" and for inhalation: "If will effects occur, remove to fresh air. If not breathing give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen, call a physician or any available medical help. before reuse".

There are two reasons. It is citing a primary source, whereas we have a secondary source, and the latter are to be preferred over the former. And it looks like a machine translation. (c) This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising site for the firm.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The statement about 5 years was about another prototype of skunk 'bomb' developed by Refael not the liquid version made by Odortec

This erasure of the text is WP:OR since no source is adduced to back the judgement in your edit summary, a judgement therefore based on personal information which, as before, suggests you are connected with the product manufacturers in some may, or have some WP:COI issue with this subject. I may be wrong in this surmise, but your behavior in editing on behalf of the product is self-evidently not disinterested.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wanted MSDS info. I quoted it! Where is the problem?

As for the 5 years old stink, It defiantly refers to another product bu another company with even a different name 'skunk bomb' vs. 'skunk'. Similar name, totally different product. Even the extensive WhoProfit report doesn't mention Refael. Any reason you say it is the same product.

We can maybe write in history that a previous product, made by refael had 5 years affect but nobody claims it about OdorTec product. Ashtul (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reread my edit, and reply to it. Stop chatting.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

moved info of Refael product to proper place. Not sure if warning info belongs in lead but whatever. Ashtul (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Getty images

MENAHEM KAHANA, 'ISRAEL-POLITICS-MILITARY-JUDAISM-ARREST-DEMO,' referred to Getty Images has a comment by the photographer Menahem Kahana below it, in a caption, and this is used to source the idea that it has been used multiple times (so far, with this, twice) against Haredi crowds. This is not an RS news source as far as I can see. The information is worth including. My problem is, editors are complaining of my use of video and photographic evidence re its use against Palestinians, from Mondoweiss and +972 magazine, while not raising objections to the additions from Menahem Kahana or News 0404, which deal with its use against Haredi. Cptono, I would appreciate it if could you look at this discrepancy. I dislike incongruency (personally I accept the Kahana and Yitzhak Weiss material, but it has arguably no better or less RS status than the sources I added, and which a majority want removed as non-RS). Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, Betselem claim is that is was 'never used...' and it was outdated. No one argue it now when that was clarified. If you accept those source as RS, why did you add tags and a note? Ashtul (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

B'tselem's claim was made for the period 2008-2013. It is valid for that period. There are two sources, I don't think technically reliable in the sense that other sources I brought in here were dismissed as unreliable, and were written by better journalists of known standing. I can see no strong evidence as yet that skunk as used in the territories is identical to that said to have been used twice in Mea Shearim, for the simple reason that the lingering and choking pungency of that substance in that suburb would almost assuredly have generated more comment in the Israeli mainstream press than it appears to have gotten. You don't fill the centre of Jerusalem with pungent shit and expect silence.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fix

'It was told to not wash off easily and linger on clothes for up to five years'.

This is hilarious in English, meaning that skunk was informed not to wash itself, but rather to linger on (in lingerie?) for years. I can't fix it today because of 1R, but it evidently should read.

'It is said not to be easy to wash off, and to linger in clothes for upwards of five years'.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is going to AE with that and there wouldn't be any action if it did. Do it yourself. Super dooper if the point was to raise awareness of a ongoing issue. I am going to AGF that you weren't intentionally mocking another editor's grammar when some good advice might have been better.Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the edit sequence I had to revert myself because I'd altered a full stop to a comma in order to add an addition, in order to avoid 1R accusations. perhaps I'm paranoid, but I've been hauled to court for similar trivia. Also today. Same problem, but I've gone ahead hoping you can see the reason behind the slightest infraction (it looks vandalistic to me to remove text that had a citation backing it, and also, as Ashtul did, to remove my requests for citations because he thought a bot added them, when I did (see my page). Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is 1R applied where other edits were made unrelated to the initial revert? Ashtul (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization, review.

To avoid edit warring let's try to note down and sort out some of the outstanding issues. I'd appreciate input, a list of suggestions of things that might be done to improve the page. By the way there is a New Zealand product called skunk apparently that the LA Times mentions as on sale to police forces.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The following is about half the article (seriously I put it in the sandbox ad checked the word count). It is redundant and would read perfectly fine as a single paragraph.:

East Jerusalem Palestinians claim that Israeli police douse shops, restaurants and hotels in their area indiscriminately with skunk, using a stream strong enough to smash windows, the effect of which is to deter shopping. According to B'Tselem the repetitive use of the substance raises suspicions that it is being deployed as a punitive measure against entire villages where demonstrations are commonplace.[12] According to Ynet and video evidence, it has been used against Palestinian residential areas and businesses unconnected to demonstrations.[13]

Nabi Saleh has been cited by Amnesty International as one village where the behavior of the IDF in suppressing peaceful demonstrations appears to be oppressive, 'may constitute collective punishment, outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention' and the use of skunk there seems to be 'punitive'.[14] In Hebron it was used on the 26 February 2012 to disperse a crowd of an estimated 1,000 people which clashed with Israeli soldiers during a protest described as commemorating the anniversary of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre or as pressing for the reopening of the zone of Shuhada Street, described as apartheid.[15] On the day a funeral cortege also took place. The mourners, who had waited for the riot to end, and who had informed Israeli soldiers of the nature of their procession to the Muslim cemetery, were also reportedly dowsed with the liquid, as was the corpse awaiting burial.[16]

It was sprayed in late June 2014 throughout Bethlehem's Aida refugee camp in what residents describe as an 'unprovoked and unexpected' attack.[12] Among Palestinians, the liquid is known simply as "shit".[12]

Criticism[edit]

According to testimonies collected by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, a pro-Palestinian NGO, the liquid is sprayed indiscriminately in crowded public areas, and at times with no apparent connection to public disturbances.[17] It is suspected by B'tselem of being used as a collective punishment measure against Palestinians,[18] and has been used regularly against the villagers of Bil'in, Ni'lin, Kafr Qaddum and Nabi Saleh, where weekly protests against the occupation are practiced.[1] In response to the B'tselem report, the Israel Defense Force has stated that 'Skunk' is used only when demonstrators become violent or engage in vandalism and detailed the rules of engagement in which it is used.[19]

Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and my apologies for the delay. I'm still busy IRL, but will try to provide a précis along those lines. Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

EL

Worth keeping probably but removing from EL

• Israel cops try common scents crowd control - Daily News (New York) article by BY Matthew Kalman, September 7, 2008
• New Israeli weapon kicks up stink - BBC article by Wyre Davies, 2 October 2008.
• Israel Unleashes First 'Skunk Bomb' - Wired article by David Hambling, September 21, 2008

Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes definitely. I'm overloaded with work, but, unless someone else steps in, will return to work on this and smooth things out. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss as RS?

(copied from Talk:Gaza Strip#RS: double standards?)

"... The most "comic" is Nishidani's reply - glibly (as usual) blaming those whom he doesn't like, in parallel, he added to the Skunk his favorite, but so controversial, Mondoweiss.

However, his response from a man who allows himself such next false accusations and boorish remarks to his opponent as :

• "See Mondoweiss and politely piss off. Do not revert me again or I'll start reporting this tracking"

isn't relevant at all, and should be of interest to administrators, if they ever will be found. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As I see, this discussion may be interested to Sean.hoyland who just now has reverted the Talk:Skunk (weapon) article to Nishidani's version :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not constructively contributing to the building of articles, Igorp. Your talk page expositions are garbled, ill-focused, and difficult to reply to, and you frequently revert me, as do several pseudo-editors recycled from the past, without any talk page rationale or comprehensible edit-summary. This may not be purposive, but when repeated as a pattern, it figures as a controlled provocation, trying to elicit some impatience, which, in the case you cite, it did. That edit was totally unmotivated. If you want to edit wiki, learn collegiality.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but no, it doesn't interest me I'm afraid. I don't make content edits, write articles or participate in article talk page discussions anymore. People who have no personal connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict are best placed to determine the RS status of the source in this context in my view. I'm just reverting an obvious sock. I believe youngsters might refer to it as "fucking someone's shit up". It's a far more productive way to contribute to ARBPIA given the state of affairs as far as I'm concerned. It's also my way of supporting Israel by nullifying the presence of people who make Israel supporters look bad so that editors don't have the same experience as me. For example, when I started editing Wikipedia I was opposed to BDS, but years of exposure to many of the people who come here to advocate for the State of Israel helped to make me a firm supporter of BDS. This is probably not a good thing. Anyway, I shall go back to my Paul Auster novel, the 7th Auster novel I've read in the last few weeks, thanks in part to all that extra time not spent dealing with ethno-nationalist activists on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: I's really sad for me to hear that some/ones/thing made you "a firm supporter of BDS" with such its deals as "Spain condemns cancellation of Jewish musician Matisyahu at reggae festival", etc. Not so sad is your awareness that "This is probably not a good thing" :) Regarding to your 'ethno-nationalist activists on Wikipedia' definition: I see it (my own activity as min) in another way: to reflect what is / was happened as closely as possible to reality - without clichés and false versions.

Returning to a "Mondoweiss' case", let's continue in Talk:Skunk (weapon). --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that I like it, but I'd hope that replacement of Mondoweiss to Maan - another, but less controversial Nishidani's favorite, will be enough. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Look. I'm stricter than most on sourcing with regards to what I use, yet I allow others more leeway (Algemeiner, Yeshiva World News, Jewish Press com etc.etc.etc.)than I allow myself. Mondoweiss has been up twice at RSN recently, after it was blitzed by several indifferent editors and removed on sight. The results were relatively inconclusive, but the few external editors saw no reason for it been held to hostage. The general verdict was, look to the context. The article in question is detailed and a reasonable example of good quality journalism, irrespective of POV. As 90% of sourcing for Palestinian realities comes from four Israeli papers, Haaretz, Ynet, Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel. Ma'an is the only regular Palestine-centered paper that we have. At times one uses +972 magazine, which is run by journalists who have worked on all of the Israeli mainstream newspapers, if the details are important , relevant, and not covered elsewhere. Mondoweiss is an important American-Jewish liberal news outlet which tries to get more coverage for the Palestinians than is given by the big mainstream press, and when its articles are focused, detailed, and concrete, there is no reason in the world, other than antipathy, for rejecting it, as external observers have tended more recently to confirm. Those who consistently removed these two sources are or were before being banned, automatic revert on sight serial abusers. Don't join them.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(regardless of your threats :)

"Ma'an only?" - Oi Va Voi ! :) What about a lot of (pro)Palestinian NGOs & authors receiving a "green light" here in Wikipeda in all article?

"The results were relatively inconclusive, but the few external editors saw no reason for it been held to hostage" -

I do not see a confirmation of your statements in last Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_192#Mondoweiss. Pls specify.

BTW, the same "... saw no reason for it been held to hostage" words may be told about Arutz 7, JPCA, NGO Monitor, etc. + those from "RS: double standards?", etc., denied by you and othetrs. So what?

There should be the same fair approach to all sources, from both sides. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked variously and on several occasions for independent review of Mondoweiss and +972 magazine (Larry Derfner). On each occasion, the request for external input was met by a flurry of socks (Averysoda, Brad Dyer, or banned editors et al.) and only 3 outside editors gave input, User:Rhoark, User:Andrew Lancaster; User:Erictheenquirer. Since, apart from I/P editors, whose views are known and useless, there is no decisive no veto, it follows that the issue is undetermined, and therefore no one is entitled to assume that Mondoweiss or the other is not usable. Also note that the editor who removed it this time round was the usual sock, LoveFerguson Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Use in Ashkelon

I have made two changes. First, dropped the Mondoweiss source because there are two sources already. Secondly, removed "according to Ma'an" as unneeded. Ma'an is simply reporting testimony from witnesses. The JPost source also refers obliquely to "riot-dispersal means". There is little doubt that Skunk was used, see for instance the photos here, among other places. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Request to correct the URL to the first citation, "http://whoprofits.org/sites/default/files/weapons_report-8.pdf", which currently returns an incorrect web page, with the following correct URL: "https://whoprofits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/old/weapons_report-8.pdf". Thanks Ikerus (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Link to Central Reserve Police Force

Would it be possible to make the statement "We used it on a captive crowd consisting of CRPF personnel and general public." link to Central Reserve Police Force? Algotr (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

India

Wow, good thing this brilliant article is protected. When something is so perfect, any edit would be a disimprovement. What if some stupid editor decided that mentioning the story about India once is enough? Wouldn't that suck?

Bias and misleading statements.

It says it is used against Palestinians when in fact it’s used against any violent demonstrations wether Palestinian or not. Change this immediately, remove “Palestinian”. I’m not trying to get political but I am trying to point out bias, propaganda and misleading statements. Jake pres (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It says what the sources support. nableezy - 20:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased source.

It says it’s used for collective punishment, the source for this is a biased source that opposes Israel. Either bring a more trustable source or remove. Jake pres (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International and B'tselem, by way of BBC and a book published by Palgrave Macmillan, are perfectly suitable sources. nableezy - 20:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Somebody interested in adding the Hebrew name - Bo'esh (בואש), too? 138.246.3.234 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

Can you add the Skunk attack by former IDF soldiers on Columbia University Students who were peacefully protesting the Genocide of Palestinians? It happened Jan 19th, 2024 2600:1017:B825:38D2:3580:32EB:2B99:7B3B (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are five reliable sources on the alleged use of Skunk at Columbia:

• "NYPD Investigating Alleged Columbia Chemical Attack As a Hate Crime"
• "NYPD investigating claims that pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia were hit by ‘foul-smelling’ spray"
• "'Negligence': Columbia University students furious at administration after skunk water doused on protesters"
• "Pro-Palestinian protesters say they were attacked with stink bomb at Columbia University"
• "NYPD probing reported chemical attack against students during pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia"

--Mox La Push (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

These sources report protesters as speculating that Skunk was used. There was no lab analysis or expert opinion. This topic is highly politicized and depending on unverified accusations is inappropriate for a Wiki entry. This should be removed. Petahertz (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Section about Skunk Being Deadly

In December 2017, Haaretz reported: Skunk is liable to cause physical harm, such as intense nausea, vomiting and skin rashes, in addition to any injury resulting from the powerful force of the spray. Examinations by police and army medical teams in the past also indicated that the excessive coughing caused by exposure can result in suffocation.

This section is sourced by a random Haaretz article that provides no actual evidence other than "examinations by police and army medical teams" which is meaningless without providing proof of this. I could find zero data to back up that sunk is deadly. Aj67876 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

#Removal : edit request

The verifiability/clarity of parts of this section is currently[3] somewhat problematic.

• Suggest (ping @Harry :-) [including some content imported/adapted from Skunk#Spray - for attributions, see History of that page] :

The company sells a special soap – available to authorities but not the general public – that neutralises the smell of skunk water if officers are accidentally sprayed. It has been suggested that rubbing a surface contaminated with skunk with ketchup, similar to getting rid of a real skunk spray with tomato juice, and then washing it off, may diminish perception of the odor (due to the effects of olfactory fatigue). In 1993, American chemist Paul Krebaum developed a compound that chemically neutralizes natural skunk spray by changing the odor-causing thiols into odorless acids. This compound can be prepared as a mixture of: 1 quart of 3% hydrogen peroxide, ¼ cup of baking soda, and 1-2 teaspoons of liquid dish soap.

86.180.70.36 (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you're pinging me but the request seems straightforward enough so  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

...Sorry, I missed correcting "...getting rid of...", which is an inappropriate claim (per the remainder of the reliably-sourced sentence). Suggest "...treating...". (Ping @User:HJ Mitchell, because he helpfully accepted related changes[4] made to Skunk; I hope that's appropriate - thanks anyway :). 86.180.70.36 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Redundant possibly politically motivated material

In the opening paragraph we have "The liquid's strong odor is marketed as an improvement over other crowd control weapons (CCWs) such as rubber bullets and tear gas used by the IDF against Palestinian protestors. The IDF is criticized for its tactics during deployment, including common use against people, businesses, and neighborhoods not involved in protests as a form of collective punishment."

I can't see the need for anything after"(CCWs)". Can en editor step in? 92.62.1.33 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)