Talk:Mace (spray)

Immunity

Is it really possible to develop immunity to mace, like in Family Guy or the SNL skit, The Continetal? The Republican 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ya. Use lots of methamphetamine. (You won’t have much of a mind left to use, but mace itself will not hurt “as much.”) 75.211.247.198 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

Rewrite

This page may need a complete rewrite, not a simple expansion. The concept of "mace" is very confused and unclear to say the least... Anne 30-June-2006 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Real mace

So is there any information on where "real" mace (i.e., not pepper spray) is found, or is legal, etc.? 67.175.75.186 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The number one selling product from Mace Security International, Inc. is Triple Action™. It includes CN, a tear gas, and OC, or Oleoresin Capsicum, and Ultraviolet (UV) marking dye.

It is legal in most of the states, except Michigan and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, the dye has to be removed. In Michigan, the levels of OC and Tear Gas are regulated and the 2 substances can’t be mixed in the civilian models. In Massachusetts, it requires a Firearms Identification Card.

It is possible to increase your tolerance of Mace®, but I doubt you could ever be “immune” to it. Most police officers get sprayed with pepper spray, or Mace® in training and learn how to function while being exposed to it. It is similar in some respects to tear gas training in the military. I am new to this, but I can provide additional information on Mace® if requested. --24.38.59.194 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

I think this sentence in the article is a bit suggestive: "easy overpowering e.g. by law enforcement officials over a criminal." I think it shouldn't say 'criminal' but 'suspect' or even 'person', because it is not the case that police officers only use mace on criminals. They would use it on anyone they think is a criminal. I'll change this if no objections come within a few days Squishycube 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

legality

What is the basis for the statement that it's not legal most places? Where is it legal? Why was it made illegal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.123.57 (talk) 11:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

i would also like to know the basis of this. \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's illegal in the UK and also much of Europe. In the UK it's illegal to carry knives, sprays or any kind of weapon, and rightly so.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

“Mace” has always referred to CS/CN (chemical mace), not OC (pepperspray).75.211.247.198 (talk)A REDDSON —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 29 January 2009 UTC)

Media Mentions

Are all the random mentions from television shows adding anything to the article? There's little value in saying that it was "Mentioned by the "waitress" in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" if that's the extent of the reference. Ditto the other one offs. Not necessary to replicate every time mace is used in popular media, only notable examples with more context. 63.146.91.66 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

9/11 Commission

There is no reason, whatsoever, for this article to link to the NCTAUS page. I'm removing it. Zenblend (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Pepper Spray

I'd suggest merging this stub with the Pepper spray article. The terms mace and pepper spray seem to be used interchangeably, but both are used the same and have the same legal issues.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

>> Chemical Mace is not interchangeable with Pepper Spray. They are two entirely different chemicals that only share a common purpose. If you want to merge pepper spray, chemical mace, tear gas and others into a common defensive aerosol spray article then by all means, but they are not in anyway the same products. In fact, many countries which allow pepper spray, ban Chemical Mace, because of its phenacyl chloride component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.124.10 (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mace is An Active Trademark

Why do we need to continue reverting the Mace page? It's not a generacized trademark, but an active one. This is direct from corporate itself. Even with references added it has been reverted.

I'm unsure why it continues to be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHead790 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First?

At the beginning of the article it says that "...aerosol self defense spray invented by Allan Lee Litman in 1965. The first commercial product of its type..."

But in Germany, self defense aerosol sprays have been on the market with the brand "TW1000" since 1962. (http://www.tw1000.com/production.html)

This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.91.10.135 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

MACE pepper spray are Federally Registered Trademarks

Mace Security International, Inc. has the brand name for MACE pepper spray federally registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under various registrations including Registration Numbers 0888911 and 1909927 .

Proper trademark use includes policing use by others and educating others on how to properly use a trademark so when they see a trademark brand they know they are buying an authentic product. It is important to reverse the false information on the Wikipedia page to correctly reflect that MACE brand is a registered brand name. MACE brand pepper spray indicates that the pepper spray is made by Mace Security International, Inc. Since trademarks are source identifiers, the MACE brand communicates to consumers that those MACE brand pepper sprays originate from Mace Security International, Inc. and are not a counterfeit product. Since the MACE trademark is federally registered, which is not reflected on the Wikipedia Page, I wanted to correctly reflect the MACE brand so people are not misinformed about the federal trademark status of the MACE brand and that consumers understand that a MACE brand pepper sprays are only authentic when the products use the MACE trademark.

Smith01010 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

This page already says that the term refers to a brand name, and it also is widely used to generically refer to pepper spray. I have added a source for the information, and so please stop removing it, as Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not company marketing.

Further, if you are editing under IP as well as named accounts, you need to stop that as that could be viewed as sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. If you have a conflict of interest or have an employment relationship with any involved entity, then you need to disclose that per WP:COI and follow the steps there. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page does state the term "MACE" refers to a brand name, but then continues to use the trademark incorrectly. I am trying to follow the Wikipedia purpose to provide the public with reliable and accurate information. The information you provided as sources do not support your claim added to the first paragraph of the MACE pepper spray Wikipedia page which creates false and misleading information. You added the following sentence, “Its popularity led to the name "mace" being used for all defense sprays regardless of the composition,[2] and for the term "maced" to be used to reference being pepper sprayed.[3]” However, the sources you cited in reference numbers 2 and 3 do not support your claims as explained below.

The first site you reference is cited as reference [2] on the Wikipedia page in support of your claim that, "Its popularity led to the name "mace" being used for all defense sprays regardless of the composition". This site references MACE spray as a federally registered trademark and does not include it as one of the listed trademark brands that are generic. The article mentions 15 words that are generic and those words are: Aspirin, Heroin, Cellophane, Escalator, Trampoline, Thermos, Dry Ice, Kerosene, Laundromat, Linoleum, App Store, Yo-Yo, ZIP code, zipper, and TV Dinner. As you can see, MACE pepper spray is not in that list and by claiming it is you make unreliable and unsupported claim that it is generic and that "Its popularity led to the name "mace" being used for all defense sprays regardless of the composition".

The second source you cite, now reference [3] on the Wikipedia page , is a link to a limited number of viewable pages in an online Google book preview which is titled "Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World". Just because one writer's opinion which discusses plagiarism in reference to linguistics and trademark use does not support your claims that MACE pepper spray is generic and that "the term "maced" to be used to reference being pepper sprayed". Furthermore, without knowing the entire section and information provided by the author, you cannot generalize one paragraph to base your claims on. This referenced source only allows people to see a few pages taken from a Google book and does not reliably support your claim or information about the trademark status of MACE pepper spray.

Considering your unsupported claims, please stop reverting my edits that are attempting to correct and clarify information about the term and the federal registration status of MACE pepper spray. Please also stop continuing to add false claims to support your own belief about the MACE pepper spray trademark status. Please allow my current corrections to remain.

In addition, I am always using my profile when editing and talking so I am not the other editor. I also have no conflict of interest.

Smith01010 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mace is clearly stated in the source as a name brand that is used generically. If you are unable to view a book source online, you are welcome to go to the library for it. You are also welcome to reword content, but sourced content should not be removed from the article without good reason. Also, you say you have no conflict of interest, but your only few edits to Wikipedia are to remove content from a page that has been the same content removed by numerous other single-purpose accounts that all align with marketing strategies by the company. Do you have any ideas why so many editors with so few edits are interested in such a narrow topic focus? – wallyfromdilbert

(Wallyfromdilbert)(talk)

The first sentence of WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you can find reliable third-party sources that state the information you want to include, then it would be appropriate to add it to the article. However, selecting sentences of books or titles of online articles to support your claim does not reliably source a topic.

In addition, the first paragraph of WP:NOR:No Original Research states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Furthermore, WP:Verifiability states, “On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.” Unless you can provide the missing pages from the Google book, you cannot expect people who come to Wikipedia because they do not have access to a library to rely on your misguided assumption that by reading one paragraph out of context of the entire Google book can support your claim.

I believe you want one of your two newly added sources to clearly state that the MACE trademark is generic, but I fail to see how either of those sources support your claim. You added two new sources, but in your response on March 8, 2020 to my post on March 7, 2020, you only reference “the source”, so please help me and others understand your changes with more clear and concise writing. Since you cannot support your claims by reliable information and sources, I believe you are the one removing content against Wikipedia’s policies. After reviewing your talk page, this is not the first time you have engaged in edit warring and supporting your individual claims with erroneous sources. If you cannot accurately and reliably source your claims per Wikipedia principles, I believe further steps need to be taken to resolve this dispute through the dispute resolution procedures set by Wikipedia.

Please also allow my corrections to remain as they are sourced accurately and reliably by the federal trademark registration numbers and ability to view those registrations online.

Smith01010 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Smith01010, what are you talking about? You are the one removing information that is currently sourced and easily verified by other sources regarding the genericization of the term "mace" [1]. The company does not determine how words are used by the general public, especially not Wikipedia's WP:WORLDVIEW by a U.S. trademark. The generic term is listed as an example in a Consumer Reports article, and it is discussed in a published book that is also cited, and other citations are easily found. Several other editors have also reverted your attempts to remove this information about the generic use of the term "mace". Your information about a U.S. patent number is not WP:DUE without some evidence of its importance in secondary sources rather than a WP:PRIMARY source government trademark, especially not in the lead. I'll ping Binksternet, since he is the only other non-IP with more than a few edits to this page, but you could also try to request a third opinion at WP:3O if he doesn't respond. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)