Jump to content

User talk:Stephenrbenson

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

Sound and light bombs[edit]

I read through a hand full of the articles, and them seemed to describe parachute flares and/or concussion grenades. Concussion grenades are more powerful that most people assume - in fact used incorrectly they can kill.

One of the articles describes a tank shell firing a "sound bomb" - was probably either a training round (i.e. a very low HE content shell), or a concussion grenade fired from the integrated smoke grenade launchers (probably someone hit the wrong switch).

Please consider not re-instating those articles. Wikipedia is fact based, not a place for speculation. As for the general harrassment of civilians - consider putting it on one of the many Israeli occupation related pages.

Please let me know via my talk page (or here) if any of the sources you cited does not describe anything covered above.

P.S. Welcome to wikipedia.

Megapixie 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i've re-read the sources you've posted
Mentions general harrassment, and a percussion grenade - almost certainly a concussion grenade.
Probably a concussion grenade, possibly a training round fired from a tank. Certainly no evidence for a new type of weapon.
Are the same article. Source: irna.ir - I think it's just been badly translated. I think they mean blast bomb - i.e. an explosive device without any fragementation content.
Another translation of the balochistan article - again, I think they mean blast bomb.
Please reconsider - the only basis for a new class of weapon is a mis-translation.

Megapixie 13:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said prevviously - all I care about is (1) whether the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the reported behaviour of the light weapon in those articles -- in terms of _duration_ of light effects.

And that (2) the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the injuries reported from the sound weapon.

If not, I suggest you allow for the possibility of behaviour beyond the range of those you cover on the grenade page.

Otherwise, writing it off as translation error seems a little hasty. After all, you're ignoring the recorded experience of people in three countries.

So I'm curious as to why are the articles are not considered 'valid' evidence? It is after all the recorded testimony of human beings concerning their experiences and those of their community.

Stephenrbenson 10:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing off their experiences. However :
  1. Light bomb and sound bomb are not established terms - see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought . If you can only produce 3 unique articles, only two of which mention the term sound bomb, one of which is a single paragraph - it's clearly some stretch of the imagination that this is some new class of weapons.
  2. As for it being valid evidence, the articles are not written by recognized experts in the field of arms and armaments and so don't really carry much weight. If you can point to a BBC / CNN / Janes news snippet then they might carry more weight.
  3. The injuries are consistent with being near an explosion. i.e. hearing loss and shock from tissue damage.
  4. The light bomb is almost certainly a parachute flare, see Flare (pyrotechnic).
  5. As for mistranslation. The last article has been translated, I'm guessing from Fârsi to English to Chinese to English - and a term like Blast is going to almost certainly collapse into 疾風 which would probably translate back to gust of wind (experiment yourself at http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr).
  6. Now - put it to Occam's Razor - what's more likely? Mis-translation or an entirely new class of weapons that nobody outside of 3 articles has heard of, despite the oldest article being nearly 5 years old ?


Please respond to my points directly, and understand I have nothing but simpathy for the Palestinian people. But wikipedia is not a platform for politics or a collection of mistranslated terms .

Megapixie 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please consider the following Wikipedia:Reliable_sources,Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Megapixie 07:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note there's still no meaningful response to my simple questions about duration.

I'm not gonna repeat myself for a third time on the historical and evidentiary value of witnesses, or ontology and the nature of reality, or engage in pointless crypto-polemic with weapons enthusiasts (sorry, 'recognized experts'). Knock yourself out.

Please, I'm trying to be helpful. Where in the sources does it talk about a long duration light bomb? My theory is that any light bomb is likely to be a parachute flare (or a series of them) - I've just re-read the sources and while there are several references to flashlights there are no references to a light bomb. As for weapon enthusiasts - damn right I am one - I make no bones about it.
But understand that you've created two articles, about brand new "weapons", supported by very flimsy evidence (see above) in a domain I have some knowledge in - of course I'm going to challenge your assertions.
If you have better evidence/sources on paper or on the net - please cite them (and I will check them out). Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that this is all nonsense and put both articles up for VfD and let the body of wikipedia decide based on my arguments above.
Megapixie 13:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
update - you might care to read http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1607450,00.html?gusrc=rss

I'm still in no mood to fight this on the narrow patch of defined ground, I just offer the link to demonstrate the use of the terminology by a variety of UN and NGO groups to refer merely to the aggressive use of sonic booms. So it's no longer just the terminology of the victims (which I felt was justification enough).

I'm sure follow up articles will discuss the other techniques used, and apply the terminology I wished to define. In other words, before long you will have to add the entry.

I note also the entry for dirty bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) which I would have thought would be excluded on the same grounds i.e. it's not a formal weapons technology.

I still have great doubts about the true basis for the original removal of the posts, very reminiscent of the media's use of the word 'balance' to distort coverage of events in the middle east. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Sound Bomb reference. This time in Iraq. Testimony on Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches. http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/informational_posting/000320.php

Stephenrbenson 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what this discussion is about, and am not looking to get embroiled; However, I looked up an unfamiliar term "sound bomb" and found this page. For what it's worth, the article I was reading from the Washington Post. The URL I happened to be reading cited the Washington Post here. --Santaduck 09:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. The discussion is about political bias disguised as NPOV. Be astonished at how long they have managed to exclude the term.

I've pointed out they have 'dirty bomb' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb), a cognate situation. I just think that if the term is widely used by victims, their victimisers and media, governmental and NGO observers, it should be included. If you search on the term with Google etc, you find a wide variety of material and testimony you won't find by looking up, say, flash-bang or concussion grenade. I assume this is the point.

I also remind you of the major enthusiasm of the one who drove this exclusion (Megapixie) - Israeli military hardware. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephenrbenson&oldid=130498479"