Talk:White phosphorus munition/Archives/2009/March

Obscurant or incendiary?

The Wikilink to "incendiary weapon" says: "a device or weapon designed to create a fire."

A white phosphorus bomb does not normally start a fire. It certainly is not designed to. WP is a battlefield obscurant with secondary antipersonnel and incendiary effects. Calling it an incendiary without some qualification entirely misunderstands the weapon and its capabilities. This article should be significantly amended.--BruceR 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: Just because the State Department confuses phosphorus with magnesium and calls WP a battlefield illuminant doesn't mean it actually is one. (In the same vein, just because a peace advocate calls it a "caustic" doesn't mean it actually is, either: that word also had a precise scientific meaning, once.) The whole last section of this entry is, for the moment, a non-NPOV disaster, I'm afraid. --BruceR 06:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for the recent partial removal of the Peter Kaiser paraphrase and replacement with chapter and verse from the CWC, effected 20-21 Nov 05. First off, if you're going to quote the Convention, then the attribution to Kaiser that is still there is inaccurate Secondly, the CWC does a much worse job of explaining its position on this issue than Peter Kaiser does, IMHO. That whole section has taken a big turn for the worse.--BruceR 18:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

It is a matter of dispute if the white phosphorus used in a destructive way is to be considerated banned by the O.N.U. treaty on chemical weapons and by the Geneva treaty of 1980. So i question the phrase "is not subject to any treaty". In iraq it seems it was used on civilian populations, so i think that should be mentioned in the article too.

The UK Guardian headline is "US used Chemical Weapon in Iraq "http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece

I think that it's too soon to know what happened for sure. Consider this debunking. --JSleeper 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

With 'seems' being the correct term. It is not specifically banned, so in a war situation it can be used.

---

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html

"Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy."

white phosphorus is a form of phosphorus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus

" The most common are red and white phosphorus, both of which consist of networks of tetrahedrally arranged groups of four phosphorus atoms."

It is not specifically listed on the CWC treaty negotiated 1980-1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

The treaty of 1980 appears to be The 1980 United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) http://www.ccwtreaty.com/ The CCW treaty, Protocol III seems to be the source of dispute http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html

BBC withdrew initial story about white phosphorus, " US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq" and replaced it with headline " US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq" Story now focuses on the use of White phosphorus as an incendiary weapon in a CCW unlawful fashion, not as chemical weapon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

---

Rai News in Italy have an artile and a video of the use of white phosphorus bombs in Iraq: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784 So, US did not "seem" to have used it in Iraq. They did. If it is banned by a treaty is the dispute

---

I've updated that section to indicate that white phosphorous is not banned but its use is restricted as per this link [1]. I understand that the US hasn't signed this protocol --Lee Hunter 14:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

WP banned or not?

"I understand that the US hasn't signed this protocol" i know it sounds stupid, but does that mean u.s.a. are not obliged to follow any restriction on the use of WP?

The u.n. convention on chemical weapons (signed by u.s.a.) states as following:

"Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately: (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

"Toxic Chemical" means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

I may be wrong, but doesn't that include WP if used as a weapon?

ps. I just read a Guardian article that confirms my interpretation of chemical weapons: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html

I think that should be cited in the "Arms control status section"

Well thats not entirly true. WP kills by burning whatever it touches. it does not react chemically inside the person, it simply burns.

Yes it burns, but not only with heat. Also with Phosphoric and other phosphate-based acids. These are chemical burns. Dsol 15:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You can get burned by acid moron.It's a chemical-A101

---

White phospherous is not a chemical weapon because it does not use a cehmical interaction with the target's system to kill. It itself is a chemical reacting with the air to produce heat, which kills. It also does not technically produce a chemical burn. It's not like dropping acid on a person. Acid "burns" because it begins reacting to break down the skin into something other than skin. WP burns because it is physically hot. Your reading of the Chemical Weapons COnvention would outlow most modern weapons. Gun powder and HE are also "chemical weapons" by your understanding, as they react chemically to produce kinetic and thermal energy which kills the target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basejumper2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the following two paragraphs be removed as they do not thouch on the specific use of white phosphorous at all?

"At the checkpoint leaving Falluja towards Baghdad, women and children have been trying to leave, but in cars driven by men (women don't drive here) so they weren't allowed out. They are not letting men aged 14 to 45 - of "fighting age" - leave the city. [13]"

"The horrific conditions for those who remained in the city have begun to emerge in the last 24 hours as it became clear that US military claims of 'precision' targeting of insurgent positions were false. According to one Iraqi journalist who left Falluja on Friday, some of the civilian injuries were caused by the massive firepower directed on to city neighbourhoods during the battle. 'If the fighters fire a mortar, US forces respond with huge force,' said the journalist, who asked not to be named. [19]"

- Caco ---

Phosphorus burn picture

It is importnat to show what PO can do to human bodies, so I have added the picture back. This is NPOV, for anyone who has an axe to grind about the Gaza topic. Peterlewis (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of this picture violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy because the picture serves a political agenda. There are pictures from past conflicts showing "what PO can do to human bodies" so there is no reason to use a picture from the recent conflict besides a political agenda. Furthermore, your reason for the inclusion of the picture is that it educates about the injuries that the white phosphorous causes, while the picture is not even on the appropriate section ("Effects on humans"). So you choose to attach this picture as part of your political agenda. If you wish to include a picture of the effect of white phosphorus you can choose a less graphical image and attach it to the "Effects on humans" section with the description - "The effect of phosphorus on human body". In addition, the use of weapons based on white phosphorus during the conflict is disputes - Israel admitted use of white phosphorus as a Smoke-screen and not as a weapon. Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmish11 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Please don't call me vandal as I explained all my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmish11 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with politics but is simply a graphic illustartion of what phosphorus does to the body. I am therefore reverting your POV edit. Peterlewis (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if it has nothing to do with politics you should attach the image to the "The effect of phosphorus on human body". Furthermore, the picture was attached by the same editor ("Falastine fee Qalby") in the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" were it was agreed on it's removal. So it has a political context, and there is no reason not to use a picture from a past conflict. Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmish11 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If this picture is about graphic illustration I think it better suits the "Effect on humans - By burning" section. Mr. Zarniwoop2 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Mr. Zarniwoop2

Pmish11, it was never agreed to be removed from the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". It was removed by one user, and now it is under discussion as to whether it should be returned or not. Another thing, I am not going to say that your account is a Single purpose account, but you created your account the day I first added this photo and it seems all you do is remove this image from the article. Is this your only active account? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll first answer your question- this account is my only account. For long time I read Wikipedia articles and discussion, however, I preferred not to interfere as I was a novice. Two weeks ago I entered the "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" article as part of my interest of the middle east. Two days ago I entered the White phosphorus article, and I found a very disturbing violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy so I changed the article. Now to your comment repleted to the "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" article, yes there is still no consensus upon the inclusion of the picture, however, it was agreed that "emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above", so as it is an emotional picture - you could ask other editors before adding the picture. Furthermore, even if it is agreed upon the inclusion of the picture in the "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" article, there is no reason to add it to this article as the conflict is not the best example of wide use of the white phosphorus, as it was used highly wider in Vietnam. Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the picture to the more relevant section below, as an example of the effect of P on the human body.Peterlewis (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pmish, you should be more positive and find an image of P burns from the Vietnam war, then add it to this article and the Vietnam article. Using such pics on W is NPOV, and any attempt to delete or remove is censorship. No doubt some US contributors would like to delete refs to torture and waterboarding, but editors should resist all such POV urges. Peterlewis (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Peterlewis, thank you for your advice, I am not trying to remove any evidence that supports the use of white phosphorus in Gaza. However, there is a difference between evidence for something and POV. There is a difference between adding evidence for torture, and adding pictures of USA soldiers torturing people as a leading example in the article "Torture".

p.s. I have no complaints to you as your editing improved both the structure and the NPOV of the article. Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

After checking all the 38 articles related to "Incendiary_weapons"[2] I have found that there is not even one article containing a picture of the injuries that the weapon causes. However, by a coincidence the article "White phosphorus" which has a conection to the recent Israel–Gaza conflict, has such picture. Isn't a POV? Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By itself, not necessarily, but this article is biased, and the pictures are just more flames on that fire.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say I don't give a shit about the middle east, but I was reading this article while eating dinner and I didn't need to see that burn picture. It's objectively startling and the appropriate descriptions could be conveyed in words. At least hyperlink the pic so people can click it IF they want to see it. 71.42.17.238 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't eat dinner while accessing Wikipedia: you might damage your computer. Are you trying to censor the article? Peterlewis (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You should state why you think the article is biased rather than simply saying so. As to other pictures of the effects of weapons, then we should all be attempting to find such pictures and upload them: Napalm must surely be one such candidate. But it is important for medical staff to be able to recognise such burns and then apply the most effective treatment. So I see it as of positive benefit to browsers. In the meantime, I will search my own files to see if there are any pics of other types of burns. Caustic burns for example, are not uncommon and if anyone has such a picture please upload as a public duty. Peterlewis (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is an image from the Hiroshima article of the effect of radiation burns on one victim:

The energy released by the bomb was powerful enough to burn through clothing. The dark portions of the garments this victim wore at the time of the blast were emblazoned on to the flesh as scars, while skin underneath the lighter parts (which absorb less energy) was not damaged as badly.

Peterlewis (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You forget three "small" diffrences betwen the two articles:

First of all, the picture is in the "Hiroshima" article and not the "Nuclear weapons article" as it relates to what happened in Hiroshima and not to criticizing the USA for the use of nuclear weapon.

Furthermore, the picture is part of the WWII war and is not related to an ongoing conflict, And as such it minimize the chance that it has a political agenda.

And last, but not the least important - pictures of injuries from radiation are very rare and as such, the have an exceptional educational value. While pictures of white phosphorus burns are quite common as it was used in many conflicts. Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So if you can find another phosphorus burn picture in the public domain, please upload it to the article. No doubt the Japanese would dispute your claim that there is nothing political to be said about Hiroshima and radiation burns. It is quite irrelevant however. The article should inform and help people understand the effects of Phosphorus on human beings. Peterlewis (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll start from an explanation - I have never said that there is nothing political about Hiroshima. I have said that because time has past there is already some type of a consensus about the incident (It doesn't mean that their is nothing political, or nothing controversial - it means that there more solid facts, and less people that can gain from one or another coverage of the situation). I still haven't found an alternative for the picture. So as long as the picture and it's description stays the same and there is no alternative for the picture, or the section. I have no requests for the removal of the picture. Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)