Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:05, 24 January 2020

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

White phosphorus munition was a History good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: November 20, 2007. (Reviewed version).

Archives

2005: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Recent mass reversion

A large number of edits was recently reverted with reason "We don't need all this excessive detail and random people who don't matter saying things". As the reason does not seem to relate to all the additions I have re-added the edits and have asked the reverting editor to revert each edit separately for clarity. I think each edit needs to be discussed separately. I have listed the edits below and included the reason why each one is useful in the article:

1. Change of title from "Use in Iraq" to “Use by US forces in Iraq” which is more accurate. Who else used WP in Iraq?

2. Replacement of the dead source by the live source . This was done for obvious reasons.

3. Addition of the phrase

"while never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused" 

to the sentence

“In April 2004, during the First Battle of Fallujah, Darrin Mortenson of California's North County Times reported that US forces had used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon while "never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused". 

This is an important point especially regarding the point of whether US forces made an effort to avoid civilians casualties.

4. Addition of:

"The March/April 2005 issue of an official Army publication called Field Artillery magazine reported that "White phosphorus proved to be an effective and versatile munition and a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes. ... We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using W.P.  to flush them out and H.E.  to take them out"."

This account has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources. It is a creditable first hand account of how the WP was used. I hope its value to the article will be clear to editors.

4. Addition of

“Professor Paul Rodgers from the University of Bradford department of peace studies said that white phosphorus would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people. George Monbiot stated that he believed the firing of white phosphorous by US forces directly at the combatants in Fallujah in order to flush them out so they could then be killed was in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention and, therefore, a war crime”.

These are not random opinions. Paul Rodgers is a specialist and Monbiot a well known journalist who reported on Falluja.

5. Addition of

“In November 2005, the US ambassador to the United Kingdom, Robert Tuttle, wrote to The Independent denying that the United States used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah”

This is obviously not a random opinion. Its inclusion will help readers decide on the credibility of US statements about the use of WP.

7. Addition of

“The documentary Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, produced by RAI TV, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Fallujah”.   

Its relevance to the section I hope will be obvious. It is a notable documentary with a wiki page of its own. Burrobert (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Independent Online Edition". The Independent. London. 16 November 2005. Retrieved 4 December 2005.
2. "US forces used 'chemical weapon' in Iraq". The Independent. 16 November 2005. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
3. "Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah". Democracy Now!. 17 November 2005. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
4. Buncombe, Andrew; Hughes, Solomon (15 November 2005). "The fog of war: white phosphorus, Fallujah and some burning questions". The Independent. Retrieved 23 January 2020.

Ok, let's see:

• 1. No other section refers to who is using it, they refer to the name of the conflict and nothing else. Needless emphasis.
• 2. Fixed.
• 3. "While never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused" is a very weasley way of parsing that. Of course a member of the mortar team itself didn't know that, they were using indirect fire, long-range weapons. It does not follow that the entire US force did not know.
• 4. The use of combined WP and HE fire missions is already described in the first paragraph, it doesn't need to be re-stated.
• also 4. Monbiot is not an expert on international law, nor do his qualifications make him an authoritative voice in its proper interpretation. His views are his own, and not relevant to a discussion of the prevailing consensus on whether or not WP use is legal within the framework of the CWC. No war crimes prosecution has ever proceeded for general WP usage against personnel as a CWC violation, and the prevailing consensus from relevant legal scholars is that it is not one barring very specific and unlikely circumstances.

The writer of the Independent article is misrepresenting what Rodgers actually said in that quote you use, which is the reporter, not him. Quote Rodgers:

Prof Rodgers said white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect". (Emphasis mine)

This agrees with the summary of CWC's applicability by Peter Kaiser later. In general the mechanism of WP injuries is thermal, with the chemical effects only incidental. You have to be trying to poison people with it to have it fall under the CWC. His second statement...

"It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." (Emphasis mine again)

...seems to be a follow-on from the first: contextually "this kind of purpose" relates to his previous quote of "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect." The Independent reporter misses the important distinction of "to have a chemical effect" in their summary of his statement.

• 5. Tuttle's statement is not important to describing the history of the use of white phosphorous as a weapon. It clearly was used. We are not dealing with "the credibility of US statements" here, we are describing when and how it was employed. Your description frankly seems more like an attempt at poisoning the well.
• 7. Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre is a highly criticised piece which makes a number of claims which are dubious or outright impossible (for example, it claims WP was delivered by rockets launched from helicopters, but no such system exists in the US inventory). Monbiot himself criticised its claims. It really has no place here as its fanciful allegations were not treated seriously by any international body or investigated further. The documentary is notable in its own right, but not notable at all as regards the use of WP in combat.

Also at least one of your changes is outright incorrect, the US DoD's proper-noun name is "Department of Defense," you can't change that to British English. Bones Jones (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the edits. As the are sourced and were added with appropriate edit summaries, each edit should be addressed individually or a consensus on how a set of edits should be revised should be reached. A consensus here should be reached before undoing a series of edits. The discussion should be based on WP policies and guidelines driven by sources. Thanks to all for working to improve the encyclopedia. MrBill3 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• Delisted good articles