Jump to content

Talk:Defense against swimmer incursions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latinism, etc.

[edit]

Your effort to delatinize the language is commendable, however, considering the requirement for the material to be encyclopedic, to the point (non-literary and non-colloquial), my corrections were intended to achieve just that and to make it more in agreement with the USN Diving Manual. In all other respects, I would agree with you and stick to the Orwell's trusty Politics and the English Language, --Bo Basil 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I feel that this (good) article is overlinked to simple terms such as scuba diving, frogman, open circuit and rebreather. I guess the correct path lies somewhere between the two edits. WP:MOS ([1] and [2]) suggests that one appearance on a screen is sufficient. Finavon 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- made easier if there are not a host of other links! I've restored the only correction I feel strongly about - avoiding the disambiguation page for diver. Finavon 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBI and scuba diver info

[edit]
  • I inserted a link USA scuba diver information said to have been handed to the FBI, and it was deleted at 06:52, 1 February 2008 with remark "Undid link to blog site added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) - unacceptable per WP:EL)"); but WP:EL says that links to blogs are "Links normally to be avoided", and the matter described ("After 9/11 the F.B.I. asked the nation's largest scuba diver certification organizations to turn over the records of all divers certified since 1998. This is now done on an annual basis.") is an important matter concerning privacy of information and freedom to scuba dive, and if the only online ref to it is a blog, then the blog will have to be the ref. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I deleted this again but didn't notice this message prior. It is hard to understand why an exception should be made to allow an EL to a blog because it is the only available reference making a particular claim. In most cases that would be a very strong additional condition deciding not to allow it.Professor marginalia (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing, sourcing

[edit]

This is a really interesting article with pretty in-depth detail, and a good example of how wikipedia can be a great resource for information about topics of special interest that most general encyclopedia's can't or won't include. Some copy editing will be useful, however, to document claims in it to particular sources. The article has some fact tagging already, and there are other places where a cite seems needed as well, places that aren't tagged yet. Unfortunately many parts of the article appear to be WP:original research, though most of these may indeed have references, and could possibly be sorted out once the citations are identified. For example, take this passage: "In most scenarios nowadays #1 or perhaps #2 is likelier, but in war or semi-war conditions or where there is a risk of terrorism #3 may be likelier than usual. A police-type technique that is reasonably safe on land may be risky to a scuba diver. The document nlsn leans strongly towards #1, and discusses only non-lethal weapons. But in war and semi-war situations there is more risk of #3 and the choice may be for lethal weapons." So far no source has been identified for the claim to "more risk of #3"-which is a real concern since it is contrary to what's written in the source that is identified, the nlsn. That's an example where a source is needed; if there isn't one, the claim can't be made in the article. My thought is to work through section by section, adding inline citations where they're called for, and fact tagging where necessary. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the "Police-type or riotsquad-type non-lethal weapons" section:

"Judo throws and similar are unlikely to work in zero gravity, including underwater."

This suggests that "underwater" is zero gravity, which, if true, would make it hard to understand why a rock thrown into a pond will sink to the bottom. In any event, the likely disadvantage in trying to use "judo throws" underwater would be the lack of a hard surface to brace against when lifting or off-balancing the target, and of course the lack of a hard surface to land (if not slam) the target against. C d h (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Copied from edit comments
  • 05:31, 20 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,394 bytes) (→Other external links: removed links to advertisements and non-working link.)
  • 05:45, 20 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,045 bytes) (Rv deletions, or please discuss: these links have relevant info. Undid revision 213641926 by Axlq)
  • 06:23, 23 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,394 bytes) (Revert. As I stated before, one link (projo.com) DOES NOT WORK, and two others exist for advertising, regardless of content. Please justify restoration on talk page.)
  • 09:01, 23 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,078 bytes) (del 404 link but restore the rest: they may be adverts. but they are also good information: they are not mass adverts because only a few men in a nation will be in a position to buy such devices)
  • 04:48, 27 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,930 bytes) (→Other external links: Compromise: deleted Kongsberg link as it was added by a serial spammer. The target audience of the links is irrelevant, the purpose is still advertising and search referrals))
  • 05:40, 27 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,078 bytes) (Serial spammer or not, it contains relevant info, not only advertizingness. Undid revision 215207379 by Axlq)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

OK, I'll start. Referencing Wikipedia:External links:

  • The external links under contention fail to meet the relevant criteria for what should be linked, specifically item 3 (neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the article due to copyright) and item 4 (meaningful and relevant content not suitable for inclusion). The content of those pages could be integrated into this article, and the content is suitable for inclusion. Therefore, the links fail the "what should be linked" criteria.
  • The links do meet one or more of the criteria for links to be avoided:
    1. the sites do not provide a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it were featured.
    4. The links were added for the purpose of promotion. This is particularly true for the Kongsberg link, which was added by a serial spammer contributions with a conflict of interest.
  • Links added due to a conflict of interest should be deleted. The only reason I came across this article in the first place was because I was cleaning up the mess left by this spammer in several other articles. The spammer has been warned but evidently pays no attention.

Now, all that being said, I admit it's possible for a spammer to submit a link that actually enhances an article while meeting the spammer's purpose of promoting his company. I've seen it happen in other articles, where a spammer posts something, someone else comes along to clean up, and the editors restore the link because it seems useful. The information in those links seems like it could be obtained from other sources, though. The article could include the informative content of those pages and do away with those external links. =Axlq 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-frogman techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from article as inappropriate

[edit]

Contents guide to ref. 2

[edit]

The information below was removed from the article in case it may be useful reference when writing actual encyclopaedic content, which it is not.

Ref. [2] is http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/7519/ADA406644.pdf?sequence=1, released by Waterfront Physical Security, about 3 megabytes, PDF format, 82 pages, has images. Contents:

sec page title summary & references
ii Administrative information "This document is not copyrighted", etc.
iii Executive summary
1 1 The need for a non-lethal response to diver intrusion was highlighted by the USS Cole bombing.
2 3 Detection Active sonar is needed, as passive sonar is not fully effective. And see #Detection.
3 About the US Navy's AN/WQX-2 swimmer-detection sonar, with images.
3 7 Search parameters Which devices are suitable?, since many intruders will be innocent sport divers.
4 9 Existing in-air approaches About various anti-riot and similar devices which are routinely used on land.
4.1 9 Projectiles Bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, pepper balls, & similar are not suitable.
4.2 9 Chemical agents and electrical devices Mace & pepper spray may drown surface swimmer and are useless against man with breathing set.
10 Tasers are not suitable except perhaps on surface within 5m (15 feet) of the boat, & then risky.
4.3 10 Physical force by patrol divers; and see #Sending other frogmen against them.
11 by trained dolphins or sealions; and see #Trained animals.
12 Sending an ROV down to look for the suspect divers.
4.4 14 Restraints Net barriers; and see #Anti-swimmer netting.
5 17 Light- and sound-producing devices
5.1 17 Light-producing devices intended to dazzle. May cause epilepsy. Less use under water.
5.2 18 Sound-producing devices A table
5.2.1 19 Acoustics terminology An equation and a table
5.2.2 20 Which bioeffect? Which effect on the suspect diver's body to aim for?; a table & science
5.2.3 21 Ultrasound And see #Ultrasound weapon & Sonic weaponry#Lethal sonic weapons, underwater.
5.2.4 23 Infrasound (1–20 Hz) No definite result yet; probably no use.
5.2.5 25 Audible sound And see #Audible sound: irritating, or painful, or verbal orders.
5.2.5.1 26 Diver hearing About divers' ability to hear underwater. A graph.
5.2.5.2 26 Fetal studies Effect on fetuses.
5.2.5.3 29 Hearing-related bioeffects Research on making noises irritating.
5.2.5.4 30 Acoustic deterrent devices used by fish farms to keep seals away.
5.2.5.5 31 Extra-aural bioeffects Effect of audible sound other than on the ears.
5.2.5.5.1 32 Low frequency (100–500 Hz) Long description of research results.
5.2.5.5.2 35 Extra-aural bioeffects in humans Including results of experiments on submerged divers.
5.2.5.5.3 37 Very low frequency (20–100 Hz) Description of research results.
5.2.5.6 40 Impulse noise (startle response) Research results
5.2.5.6.1 42 Plasma sound source Noise from an underwater spark gap. Not a magic frequency like Star Trek "phaser on stun", but it seems promising.
6 45 Electromagnetic devices The Active Denial System does not work underwater.
Magnetic field generator to make a suspect diver's compass misread is considered.
7 47 Towards a non-lethal swimmer deterrent device High intensity sound 20–100 Hz, & high intensity impulse noise, are promising. More testing is recommended.
8 49 Summary Recommends: Visible patrol boats & barriers to deter sport divers & similar. Audio commands to submerged divers. 20–100 Hz sound as a severe irritant.
9 51 Bibliography has 356 entries.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anti-frogman techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding this article

[edit]

This article has had much of it removed recently and much of the content could be suitable for a non-wikipedian site. Most of the removed content was speculation and uncited information. Clearly the original writer was knowledgeable and had a great interest in the article however. If a dedicated person interested in the subject wanted to take the previous version of the article and rebuild it, it could be useful.

Some of the content removed could be introduced into the article and many of the dead links could find a new citation. Perhaps a part of the article could warrant their own pages? - AH (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AttackHelicopter51:, A part of the problem is that the scope of the article is poorly defined, making it difficult to identify what content is appropriate, so it has ended up as a coatrack for a wide range of tangentially related information and trivia. Part of that problem is the title. It refers to "frogmen", which is a poorly defined term, but commonly understood to be tactical military or paramilitary scuba divers. However the article content extends to civilian and non-political criminal activity, and defense against non-diving marine related coastal incursions. The first objective should be to decide on a better title and define the scope, and to ensure that the title matches the scope. I have not been able to do this. it is quite possible that we need to split the content into more than one article, each with a well defined scope to suit its title. Do you have any constructive suggestions? I would welcome one that omits the word "frogman" and uses a more clearly defined term, whether the scope is thereby expanded or contracted is less important. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AttackHelicopter51:, repinging in case you missed the first time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reping, For some reason I didn't get the notification for the first ping. I think the article should mostly concern military activity, as frogmen is near unused in the civilian world. But I also welcome a article without frogmen, perhaps a title relating to espionage. - AH (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AttackHelicopter51:, We need to cover the general case in a rename, to include as much as possible of the salvageable content, but if there is enough suitable content a more specific article can be created by splitting it out later, and espionage is definitely within scope. Please feel welcome to add suitable content at any stage. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for new title:

Discussion of article scope:

The titles suggested above ("Defense against diver incursions" or "Defense against swimmer incursions") are fairly wide in scope. It is likely that such an article would need to be split at a later date as the content exceeds the recommended limits, and some types of content are likely to be more accessible than others in terms of reliable sources. This is probably a good thing, and in any case not yet a problem. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is any objection within the next week I will be renaming to Defense against swimmer incursions · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections have been posted, so will be making the change as uncontroversial. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_against_swimmer_incursions&oldid=1201378191"