This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Initially designated K-84 and later renamed A-230." incomplete sentence. Does this refer to a specific Novichok agent, or all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.222.19 ( talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is a bunch of bunk based on a single web page.
It is crap - I'm going to re write it later. I am a US Amy Chemical Officer with a degree in CBRNE studies. Everything EVERYTHING in this article is WRONG. For example, Novichock weapons aren't a gas at all (except for the vapors of binary VX maybe) These compounds are of high military importance, and the quality of this article needs to relfect that. How do I get started editing? The first thing I need to change is the header, and I can't do that.
O=P(OCCCl)(F)ON=C(F)Cl
ClCCN(C)P(ON=C(F)Cl)(OCC)=O
Hope it helps, these were hard to find Best regards, onagrus (onagrus =AT= yahoo.com)
Careful. Wikipedia IMHO is supposed to be open literature; so don't get too close to things you're not supposed to talk about. Lost Boy 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Granted chap, be aware though that the CWC is very specific in insisting on the co-operation of all countries and authorities to allow defence against agents. Discussion of defence not only should not be restricted but keeping such information secret could be viewed as a breach of the convention. It could even be construed that reticence by countries to reveal what they know of new agents is due to a number of factors from not knowing enough themselves, through to having no known detection or treatment.
Editing the "effects" section to include 2-pam chloride side of a NAAK. It might be a good idea to mention the CANA if we are going to expand this section into a "Treatment" type article.
"NBCD Chief - You think your people are crazy?"
23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles which are submitted need to be substantiated. A russian newspaper isn't really reliable. This should be listed as being more of a rumor than fact, the Russians are notorious for making bullshit claims about their weapons systems , even claiming to have developed a gravity beam (janes) doomsday devices and gps jammers which were taken out by GPS guided JADAMS. By the way the US army atropline injector has 2 pan chloride which actively degrades organophospates. Atrophine does block the acetylcholnie receptor so the claim that atrophine would be ineffective just russian propoganda. In all speculative articles it should be noted that the strenght and capabilities of Russian weapons systems are more important to the internal stability of Russia, because the strenght of the Russian armed forces are directly part of Russian Nationalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androm ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
The existence of Novichok agents has been openly admitted by Russian state authorities when they brought a criminal treason case against Mirzoyanov. According to expert witness testimonies of state prosecution, the agents did exist and therefore the disclosure by Mirzoyanov represents high treason. Mirzoyanov made his disclosure out of environmental concerns. He was a head of a counter-intelligence department and did measurements outside the CW facilities to make sure that foreign spies can not detect any traces of the production. To his horror, he found enormous amounts of CW that represented danger for people who lived there. The books by Birshein and Albats (reliable secondary sources) claim this to be a binary weapon. See this source: "the talk [by Mirzayanov] about binary weapons was no more than a verbal construct, an argument ex adverso, and only the MCC could corroborate or refute this natural assumption. By entangling V. S. Mirzayanov in investigation, the MCC [Russian Military Chemical Complex] confirmed the stated hypothesis, advancing it to the ranks of proven facts." [1] Biophys 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Granted, this article needs more cleanup with nearly every entry. There's quite some fiction in it. However, the issue is quite hush-hush, so I don't expect fiction to be replaced by hard facts. This is BTW the reason why I voted for deletion; if you can't produce a substantiated article, better don't produce anything rather than a collection of fictous facts. Lost Boy 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of mistakes, but it can all be clarified if you take the time to read Vil Mirzayanov's new book "State Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program" Published December 2008 by Outskirts Press. A lot of details about the Novichok program and some formulas are presented. Enjoy before they black out sections of this book! Periwinkle RTH ( talk) 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You can decide for yourself what can and cannot be substantiated. There is of course the circular argument used by Pickering - If Vil Mirzayanov lied, then why was he arrested? - Anyway, I will work on a short biography. I think this needs to be done, because people are beginning to read "State Secrets" now. Probably I am the only one who is able to do that properly at this point. (Gale Mirzayanov - wife)
Since there were no references in the section "Effects," I undertook to provide them. I discovered that this section omitted two of the most contentious alleged features of the Novichok agents said to be selected for deployment - their greater toxicity than anything developed by NATO (ten times more toxic than the US/British nerve agent VX) and the ineffectiveness of the cholinesterase "reactivator" pralidoxime presently included in US/NATO "buddy care kits" and cited as the first-line treatment (along with atropine and diazepam) for nerve agent poisoning.
So I added a short section on the standard treatment of nerve agent poisoning based on the FDA-approved package insert sheet for the "Duodose" nerve agent antidote kit to give the reader a more complete picture of what this treatment usually involves. I included a short statement paraphrased from a textbook on chemical weapons describing the greater toxicity of Novichok than the most effective Western nerve agent and the ineffectiveness of the standard cholinesterase reactivator, pralidoxime, in treating poisoning by Novichok agents.
Hopefully, this short addition to the "Effects" section removes the deficiency noted in the tag at the beginning of the article as far as that section's concerned. loupgarous ( talk) 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I recently deleted two graphic figures depicting many different chemical structures purportedly of the Novichok agents. My reasons for doing so are:
This isn't the first time I've deleted those graphics, together with CAS numbers and ordering information (names of vendors and catalog numbers) for some of them and their purported binary components. I did so after discussing the matter with one of the project's attorneys, there being no rationale for censorship of the information, but a very good case under WP:NOTJOURNAL.
In short, we're not here to distribute purported chemical formulae of purported nerve agents. By comparison, our articles on, say, EA-3148 contain information and figures placed in the public domain by the US Army's Edgewood Arsenal and other authorities on nerve agents. There's no controversy as to where those formulae came from, their authenticity or the public domain status of figures in government publications.
Another editor placed the graphics back in this article with the edit summary "restored encylopedic and properly referenced content per WP:NOTCENSORED - this kind of knowledge is more dangerous when hidden!".
I submit this isn't a question of hiding the information, but the appropriate forum for the information. Readers interested in learning about these formulae in a more appropriate context than an encyclopedia article may do so in the copyrighted articles they're reproduced from, as given in the article's reference list.
The re-deletion of those figures is part of the requested general cleanup to bring it into conformity with our policies. loupgarous ( talk) 21:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This page is all speculation or copying facts from a paranoid, unreliable source. Maybe this series of agents is fiction, maybe not, but there are NOT enough hard facts to support anything resembling an encyclopedic entry. Thoughts? Alvis 05:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the quality of entries. However, be assured, it's not so much a fiction. Lost Boy 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a complete BOOK on the research process undertaken by the Russians. The fact that the CAS numbers have also been printed, if you have nothing useful to say - go read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 ( talk) 13:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There was no Russia until 1991. This article is a gamble for the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.230.107.61 ( talk) 09:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Suitable for an Encyclopedia article? Theresa May "said" ... had been used? Even in the article[cited as 7] May herself can be heard saying "highly likely" which is not a confirmation. Is there any formal report? Or is that all "Classified/Top Secret"? For Her Majesty's eyes only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59A4:6100:156E:624D:ED4F:7AB7 ( talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
My preference has no bearing on any official investigation Mr/s. "2001:8003:6A23:2C00:970:4416:F446:D9C3", OPCW Marks Completion of Destruction of Russian Chemical Weapons Stockpile Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(wiki link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59A4:6100:D066:B74E:DF7E:1EF2 ( talk) 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's all hearsay then. Will we await the investigation now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59a4:6100:d066:b74e:df7e:1ef2 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "The OPCW’s inspection teams have verified the destruction at seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in the Russian Federation. On 27 September 2017, the last of these facilities, located in Kizner, officially concluded its operations."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59a4:6100:d066:b74e:df7e:1ef2 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
... Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.156.189 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|}
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Initially designated K-84 and later renamed A-230." incomplete sentence. Does this refer to a specific Novichok agent, or all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.222.19 ( talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is a bunch of bunk based on a single web page.
It is crap - I'm going to re write it later. I am a US Amy Chemical Officer with a degree in CBRNE studies. Everything EVERYTHING in this article is WRONG. For example, Novichock weapons aren't a gas at all (except for the vapors of binary VX maybe) These compounds are of high military importance, and the quality of this article needs to relfect that. How do I get started editing? The first thing I need to change is the header, and I can't do that.
O=P(OCCCl)(F)ON=C(F)Cl
ClCCN(C)P(ON=C(F)Cl)(OCC)=O
Hope it helps, these were hard to find Best regards, onagrus (onagrus =AT= yahoo.com)
Careful. Wikipedia IMHO is supposed to be open literature; so don't get too close to things you're not supposed to talk about. Lost Boy 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Granted chap, be aware though that the CWC is very specific in insisting on the co-operation of all countries and authorities to allow defence against agents. Discussion of defence not only should not be restricted but keeping such information secret could be viewed as a breach of the convention. It could even be construed that reticence by countries to reveal what they know of new agents is due to a number of factors from not knowing enough themselves, through to having no known detection or treatment.
Editing the "effects" section to include 2-pam chloride side of a NAAK. It might be a good idea to mention the CANA if we are going to expand this section into a "Treatment" type article.
"NBCD Chief - You think your people are crazy?"
23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles which are submitted need to be substantiated. A russian newspaper isn't really reliable. This should be listed as being more of a rumor than fact, the Russians are notorious for making bullshit claims about their weapons systems , even claiming to have developed a gravity beam (janes) doomsday devices and gps jammers which were taken out by GPS guided JADAMS. By the way the US army atropline injector has 2 pan chloride which actively degrades organophospates. Atrophine does block the acetylcholnie receptor so the claim that atrophine would be ineffective just russian propoganda. In all speculative articles it should be noted that the strenght and capabilities of Russian weapons systems are more important to the internal stability of Russia, because the strenght of the Russian armed forces are directly part of Russian Nationalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androm ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
The existence of Novichok agents has been openly admitted by Russian state authorities when they brought a criminal treason case against Mirzoyanov. According to expert witness testimonies of state prosecution, the agents did exist and therefore the disclosure by Mirzoyanov represents high treason. Mirzoyanov made his disclosure out of environmental concerns. He was a head of a counter-intelligence department and did measurements outside the CW facilities to make sure that foreign spies can not detect any traces of the production. To his horror, he found enormous amounts of CW that represented danger for people who lived there. The books by Birshein and Albats (reliable secondary sources) claim this to be a binary weapon. See this source: "the talk [by Mirzayanov] about binary weapons was no more than a verbal construct, an argument ex adverso, and only the MCC could corroborate or refute this natural assumption. By entangling V. S. Mirzayanov in investigation, the MCC [Russian Military Chemical Complex] confirmed the stated hypothesis, advancing it to the ranks of proven facts." [1] Biophys 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Granted, this article needs more cleanup with nearly every entry. There's quite some fiction in it. However, the issue is quite hush-hush, so I don't expect fiction to be replaced by hard facts. This is BTW the reason why I voted for deletion; if you can't produce a substantiated article, better don't produce anything rather than a collection of fictous facts. Lost Boy 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of mistakes, but it can all be clarified if you take the time to read Vil Mirzayanov's new book "State Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program" Published December 2008 by Outskirts Press. A lot of details about the Novichok program and some formulas are presented. Enjoy before they black out sections of this book! Periwinkle RTH ( talk) 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You can decide for yourself what can and cannot be substantiated. There is of course the circular argument used by Pickering - If Vil Mirzayanov lied, then why was he arrested? - Anyway, I will work on a short biography. I think this needs to be done, because people are beginning to read "State Secrets" now. Probably I am the only one who is able to do that properly at this point. (Gale Mirzayanov - wife)
Since there were no references in the section "Effects," I undertook to provide them. I discovered that this section omitted two of the most contentious alleged features of the Novichok agents said to be selected for deployment - their greater toxicity than anything developed by NATO (ten times more toxic than the US/British nerve agent VX) and the ineffectiveness of the cholinesterase "reactivator" pralidoxime presently included in US/NATO "buddy care kits" and cited as the first-line treatment (along with atropine and diazepam) for nerve agent poisoning.
So I added a short section on the standard treatment of nerve agent poisoning based on the FDA-approved package insert sheet for the "Duodose" nerve agent antidote kit to give the reader a more complete picture of what this treatment usually involves. I included a short statement paraphrased from a textbook on chemical weapons describing the greater toxicity of Novichok than the most effective Western nerve agent and the ineffectiveness of the standard cholinesterase reactivator, pralidoxime, in treating poisoning by Novichok agents.
Hopefully, this short addition to the "Effects" section removes the deficiency noted in the tag at the beginning of the article as far as that section's concerned. loupgarous ( talk) 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I recently deleted two graphic figures depicting many different chemical structures purportedly of the Novichok agents. My reasons for doing so are:
This isn't the first time I've deleted those graphics, together with CAS numbers and ordering information (names of vendors and catalog numbers) for some of them and their purported binary components. I did so after discussing the matter with one of the project's attorneys, there being no rationale for censorship of the information, but a very good case under WP:NOTJOURNAL.
In short, we're not here to distribute purported chemical formulae of purported nerve agents. By comparison, our articles on, say, EA-3148 contain information and figures placed in the public domain by the US Army's Edgewood Arsenal and other authorities on nerve agents. There's no controversy as to where those formulae came from, their authenticity or the public domain status of figures in government publications.
Another editor placed the graphics back in this article with the edit summary "restored encylopedic and properly referenced content per WP:NOTCENSORED - this kind of knowledge is more dangerous when hidden!".
I submit this isn't a question of hiding the information, but the appropriate forum for the information. Readers interested in learning about these formulae in a more appropriate context than an encyclopedia article may do so in the copyrighted articles they're reproduced from, as given in the article's reference list.
The re-deletion of those figures is part of the requested general cleanup to bring it into conformity with our policies. loupgarous ( talk) 21:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This page is all speculation or copying facts from a paranoid, unreliable source. Maybe this series of agents is fiction, maybe not, but there are NOT enough hard facts to support anything resembling an encyclopedic entry. Thoughts? Alvis 05:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the quality of entries. However, be assured, it's not so much a fiction. Lost Boy 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a complete BOOK on the research process undertaken by the Russians. The fact that the CAS numbers have also been printed, if you have nothing useful to say - go read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 ( talk) 13:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There was no Russia until 1991. This article is a gamble for the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.230.107.61 ( talk) 09:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Suitable for an Encyclopedia article? Theresa May "said" ... had been used? Even in the article[cited as 7] May herself can be heard saying "highly likely" which is not a confirmation. Is there any formal report? Or is that all "Classified/Top Secret"? For Her Majesty's eyes only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59A4:6100:156E:624D:ED4F:7AB7 ( talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
My preference has no bearing on any official investigation Mr/s. "2001:8003:6A23:2C00:970:4416:F446:D9C3", OPCW Marks Completion of Destruction of Russian Chemical Weapons Stockpile Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(wiki link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59A4:6100:D066:B74E:DF7E:1EF2 ( talk) 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's all hearsay then. Will we await the investigation now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59a4:6100:d066:b74e:df7e:1ef2 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "The OPCW’s inspection teams have verified the destruction at seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in the Russian Federation. On 27 September 2017, the last of these facilities, located in Kizner, officially concluded its operations."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59a4:6100:d066:b74e:df7e:1ef2 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
... Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.156.189 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|}