Talk:New physical principles weapons

Article edits

Wikipager7, I see that you added back a couple of lists, which I think be helpful. And, thanks for formatting the citations that you added.

A couple of comments:

• There is a mixture of "non-lethal weapons" and "new physical principles" definitions that seems to make it seem like they are the same thing, but I'm not sure that's the case. For instance, I have yet to see something that says that "new physical principles" weapons are the same as "non-lethal weapons". In general, the UN does not use the term "new physical principles" weapons. I do see that at a minimum there's an overlap, but I don't see that they are totally equated with one another. If I am missing something, though, and there is a source that specifically correlates the two, that would help a lot.
  • Wikipager7 - As well as the definition of "new weapons of mass destruction" - that seems to be a third term being defined.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Definitions are  Done. It would be great, though, to find a source that compares the terms.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• There have been some issues with the sources not having the cited content. Like, I removed one to the US DOD page that doesn't have the info that is cited.
  • I see that there was info about where to find the info - and so I created three citations for those items. There is one additional failed verification tag for the content about weapons being in military doctrines.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• There's a mixture of info about UN and Weapons development in the next content. I'll try to sort it out.
  •  Done—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Some content has been used word-for-word from the source. The only difference in this case is the removal of the quotes, which is not the appropriate action, what should be done is 1) use quotes only where it's really necessary and 2) reword or paraphrase content (see paraphrasing regarding paraphrasing of content.
  • This should be pretty well  Done—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I'm going to make some edits to try and bring this together. In the meantime, if you have thoughts about what I'm saying, grouping of info, etc. — or that I'm missing something — that would be helpful.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I get the message. But we are moving in different directions, I think. The weapons are being developed all around the world and I would not really put any country into the centre. Also, UNODA does not define anything - there was a resolution by the UN General Assembly...We should try to keep as accurate and balanced as possible...

Hi again Wikipager7 ,

Regarding But we are moving in different directions, I think. The weapons are being developed all around the world and I would not really put any country into the centre. The problem is that different terms are being used... and I think with different meanings. For instance, non-lethal weapons are not always new technology and it includes a wide array of devices and weapons. Underlined update.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, do we know that all "new physical principles" = "new weapons of mass destruction"?—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not fixed yet. Input - or a source comparing the definitions - would be helpful.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Also, UNODA does not define anything - there was a resolution by the UN General Assembly...We should try to keep as accurate and balanced as possible... I couldn't agree more! Please see below.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think United Nations is the primary source and should be kept here. Why do you keep excluding it and insisting on an inacurate date. The definition was in 1975...

I use the date of the source. Where does it say 1975?—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Found the right page in a source for this. Also, made the update to General Assembly.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Updates made throughout this section after the cross-check of definitions and other content to the source info.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Wikipager7‎ Two things about the definition:

• I was paraphrasing the definition and
• Trying to make it clearer in layperson's language what it means

Here's what it is now: "New physical principles weapons, a term introduced in the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) since 1975 refers to advanced weapons, which can be new due to the nature of the impact, target to be attacked, method of action, or how it is used."

I bet we can come up with a definition that will work.

If you are not getting notified when I post these messages, you may have notifications turned off. Are you getting a notification when I make edits with your name? If so, you just need to click on the notification to go the to page you were pinged to.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A term cannot be introduced in the United Nations office - there was a draft resolution by the UN General Assembly and 25 years of non adopting a convention or anything conclusive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipager7 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipager7‎ Ok. This was what was in the document before I started: "New physical principles weapons, a term introduced in the United Nations (UNODA) since 1975 refers to any new types of weapons based on qualitatively new principles of action, according to the method of use, the target to be attacked, or the nature of their impact." at this edit. (underline for emphasis)

What should it say - "stated by the UN to includes weapons...." something else. And, I don't know where 1975 is coming from. The source that I see is from 1977. But, I absolutely could be missing something.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1975 comes from the draft resolution adopted in 1975 and documented under the UNODA link you keep deleting...For me it is clusial to really show that the whole situation has been there for decades and nothing has been done...In fact, there have been also publications on human experimentation using this stuff and allegations that thousands of people have been affected in the US and around the world. For example: Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives, Volume 2, Issue 2, June-August 2013, cover story; Misled and betrayed: How US cover stories are keeping a Cold War weapon and illegal human testing secret by Cheryl Welsh. I am not sure if it should be mentioned here but it is actually a part of the whole picture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipager7 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re 1975 comes from the draft resolution adopted in 1975 and documented under the UNODA link you keep deleting... - I am using the years that are in the cited sources. You may see 1975 in one source, but if you're going to use it in a sentence, the source that mentions 1975 must be the one that is used.

Again,  Done—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I can absolutely see that For me it is clusial to really show that the whole situation has been there for decades and nothing has been done...In fact, there have been also publications on human experimentation using this stuff and allegations that thousands of people have been affected in the US and around the world. For example: Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives, Volume 2, Issue 2, June-August 2013, cover story; Misled and betrayed: How US cover stories are keeping a Cold War weapon and illegal human testing secret by Cheryl Welsh. I am not sure if it should be mentioned here but it is actually a part of the whole picture.. but I absolutely think that before more content is added, we need to square away the three definitions first.

Also, it would be good to search on some of this info to ensure we're not duplicating information, like "Cheryl Walsh" or "illegal human testing", etc.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, these points make sense. I don't know what "clusial" means - is it a typo, meant to be crucial? I keep thinking that there has to be another main article about this topic, so you've given some good words to use for queries.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a little confused, but I'm pretty sure that I at least have the right terminology in each of the right sections right now, but I'd like to clarify that - and the information is in synch with the cited source. I am going to change "under construction" to "in use" for a bit just to square this away. Like you, I want to ensure that the information is accurate... but the potential difference is that guidelines require the information to be accurate to the cited source.

• I saw a recent source that mentioned 1975 - so that will help.
• The 1975 draft was formalized, likely with some changes, in the 1977 convention, right? (i.e., it would not be accurate to say that it was never enacted.)—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Still  Not fixed, re In the never adopted draft treaty of 1975 and Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques of 1977. I would have automatically made the update, but you seem to be quite clear that there is a difference between the 1975 draft and the 1977 convention. What is the difference?—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

- Three updates made throughout this section.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit questions

I am going to put "in use" on the article, as I mentioned, to square away the definitions. Two things first,

• In this edit you changed the year to 1975 from 1976 without adding a source. Where in the two sources does it say 1975? We can resolve this, though, by adding the citation for the draft if it contains the same info.
• Why are you adding the citation for the Russian Military Doctrine to the definition for US lethal weapons?—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I may have been confused about the second bullet.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

As an FYI, citations are not needed in the lede, unless the content is not covered and cited in the body of the article -- or if it is making a claim of some sort (biggest, #1, etc.)—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Different definitions

When looking for sources:

• "New physical principles" - There are a total of 197 news articles, a subset of which are about weapons. Articles about weapons primarily refer to Russian weapons. However, I added info from one article, and this one relates NPP to Regan's Star Wars and gets into a fair amount of detail about NPP. This one, from a brief scan, discusses US and Russian NPP, and here's another potential use. There are also a number of books

• There are some books that mention both new physical principles and mass destruction here

In progress—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell "New physical principles" weapons are often non-lethal, but they could be lethal, right, like aircraft jamming, biological weapons, etc. But, there are a lot of non-lethal weapons that are not NPP.

And, some NPP are WMD, but not all of them - for example blinding weapons. And, there are weapons of mass destruction that are not NPP. But, New weapons or weapons systems of mass destruction seems the closest to NPP. Does that make sense? We need sources for any such conclusions, but I am just trying to conceptualize this.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Conversation from user page

Hi, thanks, there are a number of minor and major issues, I guess.

The major issue is that the article is by far not completed in terms of information but I do not have the time right now to add, plus I am awating some materials.

There are a number of misprints and in terms of information it is a little bit not right.

Some wordings - New physical principles weapons are non-nuclear weapons, devices, or systems. "Non-nuclear" is totally misrepresenting the concept. Why do you say these are devices or systems? Yes, we should paraphrase but actually not invent anything. Some authors claim that there are simply sets of techniques with some basic technical things which can be included here...

wave, beam, geophysical, psychophysical, and genetic weapons and actually all the introduction. Leaving out the source (just reference is enough) takes out the validity of the statements and turns them into just a speculation.

"is currently used primarily in Russia and a number of Eastern European states." There is no such information under the link - the link says that the first electromagnetic weapons were used by the USA and the USA and Russia are the most advanced.

New types of "weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons" were defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 1975. - This is a misinterpretation - the United Nations General Assembly did not do that. The term is used in UNODA Yearbooks up till now, then a draft resolution was passed only, but... Wikipager7 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Maybe I am not right here - there were a number of resolutions, p. 3 in the recent UNODA yearbook - this also shows which countries ....https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/yearbook/en/EN-YB-VOL-39-2014-part1.pdfWikipager7 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In 1976, the US State Department stated that these weapons are based on "qualitatively new principles of action", which can be new due to the nature of the impact, target to be attacked, method of action, or how they are used The US Department of State did not do it. This definition comes from the UNODA yearbook. What we have under reference is a Cable from the US Diplomatic Mission to UN which simply retold this plus has given some behind the scenes info, which is of course, useful and relevant.

In the never adopted draft treaty of 1975 - we never stated what draft treaty...

I do not know where the Conventions in the United Nations come from and why these conventions or why these only and why there is no mention that in fact most of the things are not banned and even not informed about...

A study was made of the 20th century shows that the "largest-scale vertical and horizontal integration of the efforts of many thousands of people across numerous scientific, engineering and industrial disciplines and areas" of the Russian, American, and German ballistic-missile programs.[13][14] The incredibly complex systems, using "new physical principles", require seamless "integrated de­sign, engineering, production, and testing".[14]

I am sorry, but why do you cite this obscure nonsense from an obscure person who just writes about something...alongside the United Nations Conventions and military doctrines. This is definitely misplaced and a misrepresentation which misleadingly conveys an idea of complexity where it is not obvious...

A Russian military doctrine - it is not "a" doctrine, it is the doctrine in effect which guides half a billion dollars daily of budget...

I would be thankful if you reconsider all this....

Wikipager7 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I totally got that it is just a start and you have more that you want to add.

I am really getting confused, especially about the UNODA and General Assembly - you had said that it wasn't the UNODA, but the General Assembly in the Talk:New physical principles weapons#Article edits section. I read the material and is came out of General Assembly sessions. Same thing with the draft from 1975. That wasn't my addition. Please word it the way that you think it should be worded, according to the source(s).

Non-nuclear and devises came from the sources. Some things seem to be devises - like the blinding equipment. It's no big deal, though, I removed it. Putin for one has made the statement that the NPPs are advantageous because they are not nuclear weapons. I think that is a good point. What is wrong with that one? The wording? I removed it for the moment.

Regarding doctrine, I was stuck... I couldn't find the year for that specific doctrine version anywhere in the source. I get your point and removed "A".

As far as finding other sources, I was responding to your point about not having a Russian-centric view. It's very hard to find material that is not focused on Russia. I am not sure that I would agree that he is a non-consequential person, but please go ahead and find good sources. It is better if we can find some that are secondary sources, though. Relying on primary sources will likely get the article tagged for cleanup. I added some links to news and book sources on the bottom of the talk page if you want to look at them. There's no hurry take your time.

I don't understand at all what you mean by wave, beam, geophysical, psychophysical, and genetic weapons and actually all the introduction. Leaving out the source (just reference is enough) takes out the validity of the statements and turns them into just a speculation.. Sources are not needed in the intro if it's discussed and cited in the body of the article. I already posted something about that on the article talk page. If you're saying the intro should be a summary rather than restatement, that's fine. I did a bit of rewording to the statement in the intro.

I'm not sure why you are questioning wording that you added - like the Eastern European states. I didn't add that. If I remember correctly, I tried to figure out the translation and coudn't, so I assumed good faith that it was covered in the source. I removed "Eastern European states". Is there more than one person using the Wikipager7 user ID by chance?

There's a lot here. Hopefully this is a start and I'll regroup later about the other points.—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

About the ID - I have no idea but some of the materials on the page were not mine.

Regarding LaRouche - he just mentions the term but he does not give any references to whatever he writes - the whole idea conveyed that this stuff is incredibly complex - I will give you an example why it is not obvious and simply not true. Check this device, for example https://www.amazon.com/Sonic-Nausea-Electronic-Audible-Device/dp/B004MTL3O2. For 17 USD and a couple of AA batteries the effects are stunning. Please consider removing this LaRouche nonsense. I have a lot of materials in Russian - do you read Russian by the way. I will give you the references to the doctrines and co later, I am just a bit too busy now. Thank you for the time and effort!Wikipager7]] (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the La Rouche info after reading his article and the one for EIR. I had included the info because it looked as if he had been an adviser to one of the presidents, I think Reagan. But, based upon what was said in the EIR article, particularly by the Washington Post, the content should be deleted.

I'm not sure what the point is about the gag/toy item at Amazon (that commenters said did not work)

I am actually fine with the article being centered on Russia, because that's where the sources lead. There are plenty of English-language articles to build the article upon, as stated above. That is not a requirement, but helps with WP:Verifiabilty. Focusing on Russia seems to be a different opinion than The weapons are being developed all around the world and I would not really put any country into the centre. that you stated earlier, but again, I don't have a problem within it based upon the source info that I was finding. I'll leave it alone at this point and check back when you've added content.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)