Misplaced Pages

Talk:White phosphorus munition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:15, 24 January 2020 editBones Jones (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,193 edits →Recent mass reversion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:41, 14 November 2024 edit undoOne cookie (talk | contribs)329 edits →Better copy of photo available: new sectionTag: New topic 
(96 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |archive = Talk:White phosphorus munition/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}} }}
{{talk header}} {{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
⚫ {{ARBPIA}}
{{WikiProject Military history
{{WPMILHIST
|class=start |class=C
|importance=
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no |B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
Line 29: Line 25:
|Weaponry-task-force=Yes |Weaponry-task-force=Yes
}} }}
⚫ }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
⚫ {{ARBPIA}}
{{DelistedGA|20 November 2007|topic=History|oldid=97801535}} {{DelistedGA|20 November 2007|topic=History|oldid=97801535}}
{{archive box|search=yes| {{archive box|search=yes|
Line 44: Line 41:
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} {{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} {{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}}
⚫ }}
{{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}}
⚫ __TOC__
{{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}}

{{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}}
== Recent mass reversion ==
{{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}}

{{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}}
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:
{{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}}

{{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}}
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?
⚫ }}__TOC__

2. Replacement of the dead source <ref>{{cite news | title=Independent Online Edition | url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece | accessdate=4 December 2005 | work=The Independent | location=London | date=16 November 2005}}</ref> by the live source <ref>{{cite news |title=US forces used 'chemical weapon' in Iraq |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forces-used-chemical-weapon-in-iraq-515551.html |accessdate=23 January 2020 |publisher=The Independent |date=16 November 2005}}</ref>.
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 ], Darrin Mortenson of California's '']'' reported that US forces had used white phosphorus as an ] 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".<ref name="dn171105">{{cite news |title=Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/17/pentagon_reverses_position_and_admits_u |accessdate=23 January 2020 |publisher=Democracy Now! |date=17 November 2005}}</ref><ref name="ind151105">{{cite news |last1=Buncombe |first1=Andrew |last2=Hughes |first2=Solomon |title=The fog of war: white phosphorus, Fallujah and some burning questions |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-fog-of-war-white-phosphorus-fallujah-and-some-burning-questions-5348984.html |accessdate=23 January 2020 |publisher=The Independent |date=15 November 2005}}</ref>"

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.


== White phosphorus munition or munitions? ==
4. Addition of
“Professor ] from the ] department of ] said that white phosphorus would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people. ] 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 ] and, therefore, a war crime”.


I see that this page was moved from the plural to the singular in August 2024, with no explanation given, and there seems to be nothing in the talk page about it.
These are not random opinions. Paul Rodgers is a specialist and Monbiot a well known journalist who reported on Falluja.


I think the plural title is better English, and it's the form used in the text of the article.
5. Addition of
“In November 2005, the US ambassador to the United Kingdom, ], wrote to '']'' denying that the United States used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah”


As this article seems to be very controversial and highly protected, I hesitate to boldly move it. Could someone explain to me why the singular is the better title? Pinging {{ping|Hyphenation Expert}} who moved it. ]] 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
This is obviously not a random opinion. Its inclusion will help readers decide on the credibility of US statements about the use of WP.


:Not seeing any outstanding exception to ] for weapons, e.g., in ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 23:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Addition of
“The documentary '']'', produced by ], claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Fallujah”.


== Better copy of photo available ==
Its relevance to the section I hope will be obvious. It is a notable documentary with a wiki page of its own.
] (]) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


Would someone with edit privileges be able to swap the first photo under ''World War I, the inter-war period and World War II'' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Phosphorus_explosion.gif) with the higher-res version available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Night_attack_with_phosphorus_bombs_in_maneuvers._First_Corps_School._Gondrecourt,_France._-_NARA_-_530741.tif? ]<span style="display:inline-block;rotate:305deg;">🍪</span>] 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
: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 ].
:*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. ] (]) 07:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:41, 14 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White phosphorus munition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
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).
Archiving icon
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 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: 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.

White phosphorus munition or munitions?

I see that this page was moved from the plural to the singular in August 2024, with no explanation given, and there seems to be nothing in the talk page about it.

I think the plural title is better English, and it's the form used in the text of the article.

As this article seems to be very controversial and highly protected, I hesitate to boldly move it. Could someone explain to me why the singular is the better title? Pinging @Hyphenation Expert: who moved it. PamD 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing any outstanding exception to WP:SINGULAR for weapons, e.g., in Category:Incendiary weapons, Precision-guided munition, Loitering munition, Cluster munition, Atomic demolition munition, etc. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Better copy of photo available

Would someone with edit privileges be able to swap the first photo under World War I, the inter-war period and World War II (https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Phosphorus_explosion.gif) with the higher-res version available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Night_attack_with_phosphorus_bombs_in_maneuvers._First_Corps_School._Gondrecourt,_France._-_NARA_-_530741.tif? one🍪cookie 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:White phosphorus munition: Difference between revisions Add topic