Talk:White phosphorus munition

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

---

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 ---

New addition to WP effects

<< Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time. >>

I'm sorry, if I am doing this wrong, I have not tried to discuss a point of contention before. I am curious of the source of the above statement. Looking through the history, I see this is a recent addition. I also see that someone removed "detonating in an enclosed space, such as a building." I find it odd, in the timing of this post, that this comment would show up. Also, I noticed a recent article on informationclearinghouse.com quoting the above line.

I went and deleted that line. If anything, it doesn't belong in the history section, but under effects. Regardless, I found no eveidence that white phosphorus would cause such effects.

According to this page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm), there have been no known fatalities due to the effects of WP smoke alone (as opposed to particles spread by explosion, which can cause fatal burns), so I'd say the above was more or less completely bogus unless someone can cite one instance of it ever happening.--BruceR 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Material vs metal

The EWS quote at the bottom references white phosphorus as "this metal". I suppose phosphorus could become metallic under several hundreds gigapascal pressure, but I somewhat doubt this is the case. How to solve this dilemma? --Shaddack 01:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly you're right, it's not a metal; But the quote is directly from an external source. It's possible the author is referring to metal fragments from the weapon's case, but it's probably just a mistake. We could write "...metal [sic]..." or put in an explanatory notation. If it wasn't so relevent to the current news I'd say take it out, but the article does bring up a valid point. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Added the [sic] thing. That should make everybody happy. I want it to be marked as an error, to not propagate it further, but don't insist on any specific form of such. --Shaddack 03:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article title?

The article title is currently "White phosphorus incendiary," and content is intended to describe military applications of WP. However, a) applications of WP go beyond just incendiary (i.e. screening, producing casualties, incendiary, signaling [2] and illumination), and b) incendiary seems to be a secondary use to the smoke-generating applications.

So it seems to me that "incendiary" does not fully describe the military apps. of WP. Should not this article be renamed to plain "White phosphorus", and swapped with the current redirection page? Cheers, TopQuark 10:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

how about "white phosphorus (weapon)" as a fit title covering the subject suitably. GraemeLeggett 10:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds better. There are non-military applications for white phosphorous, so we might want a plain "white phosphorous" article at some point. --Lee Hunter 15:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good to me. If no one has an objection to moving the page tomorrow, then I'll do it. Cheers, TopQuark 14:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Whiskey Pete and Wiley P circa 2005?

I do not believe Whiskey Pete or Wiley P are slang for white phosphorus. I have seen the recently released documentary entitled "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" in which a US Marine uses the term Whiskey Pete. In a Google search of "Whiskey Pete" or "Wiley P" along with the term "white phosphorus" and excluding "iraq" and "fallujah" yielded less than 10 results of which the only relative pages are mirrors and quotes of this very article.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wiley+P%22+%22white+phosphorus%22+-fallujah+-iraq+&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Whiskey+Pete%22+%22white+phosphorus%22+-fallujah+-iraq+

Futhermore, this can be compared to the results of the terms "Willie Pete" and "Willy Pete" with the same limits which account for almost 700 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Willy+Pete%22+%22white+phosphorus%22+-fallujah+-iraq+

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Willie+Pete%22+%22white+phosphorus%22+-fallujah+-iraq+

Moreover, the addition of "Whiskey Pete" did not appear until late November 2005.

So it is my contention that the soldier in the documentary misspoke when he said Whiskey Pete, and unless someone can provided proof of its use outside of the documentary I will continue to remove from the article.

This article is being heavily mirrored and quoted currently. I think it is unfortunate that so many people will come here looking for object information on a subject they are unfamiliar with only to have a mistake from the very source that sparked their interest echoed back to them.

I agree, while "willy(ie) pete" [3] is a proper nick, "whiskey pete" and "willy(ie) p" are too recently coined to fit in the article yet, if they are used at all. Smmurphy 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Burned body in intact clothes

It's a f**king chemical. reaction. This is so biased it's not funny!!!! The effects of phosphorous ARE CHEMICAL INDUCED. It's the most macabre thing I've ever heard to be justified with regards to war. It's pure, unadulterated bulls**t here and you guys who support it are pissing all over the people who have died in extreme cruelty, and pain. What happened to superfluous injury?-A101

I don't like this:

The claims about white phosphorous as a cause of deaths in which the bodies are burned but the clothes are not, however, is contrary to the description in a standard reference work, Emergency War Surgery:

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal [sic], which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

Now... the fact that white phosphorus is (or not) able to produce skin burning without clothes burning can be estabilished without any doubt by a scientist, it makes no sense to quote the "Emergency War Surgery" as an argument against this claim because it's not a metter of opinion, it is not the way of an enciclopeic article. --Pokipsy76 14:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The citation is a reputable reference on how burn injuries involving WP occur; That seems relevent to me. If you have a reference describing how WP burns the body but leaves the clothes intact, please include it. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In the nwsgroup sci.chem people says that the burning of body in intact clothes could happen in a cloud of Phosphorus pentoxide, aka "white phosphorus smoke" so the quote from "Emergency War Surgery" (which talk about other kind of damage by phosphorus) may be misleading.--Pokipsy76 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Whereas WP-incendiary may (or may not) burn through clothes and body... has any consideration been given to the hygroscopic properties of WP-smoke?

The article states it is "actually, deliquescent," that is, a dessicant. Can we get any information on the expected dessicant effect of WP-smoke on humans? Keep in mind that some causes other than actual burning, may result in a burnt-like appearance - these include frostbite, gangrene, mummification, etc. Is there any relation to WP? Cheers, TopQuark 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Pokipsy76, about citation

If I correctly summarize from sci.chem newsgroup:

[LordBeotian of Italy]

> How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while

> clothes remain intact as a consequence of white phosphorus?

[hanson]

Yes, very much so, if you get/smear WP only over your

exposed skin like your face and hands... unless your wear

protective goggles, face mask and gloves.

However, even then [1] applies as clothes are generally

combustible.... ahahaha... It seems to me that there are

either comprehension- or language problems here with

Lord of Salami, unless Italian fashion is made of glass-

or asbestos fiber....

Ciao, arrivederci, mio amico

hanson

Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe I have overlooked the relevent passage, but that seems not to support your position. Whoever wants to can follow the link and read the whole discussion.

In any case, Wikipedia's policy on usenet as a source says:

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

For completeness, here are links to the Safety (MSDS) data for phosphorus pentoxide and the Safety (MSDS) data for phosphorus, white.

Regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your "citation" (and your arguments) shows all your intellectual dishonesty. No need of further comments.--Pokipsy76 21:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Burning Powder?

I have no issues with the GlobalSecurity.org quote, but the poster goes on to call White Phosphorus a "burning Powder" that's "highly corrosive." I believe that's his own opinion, and and not based on fact. I also do not think it is necessary to try to tie in the bodies shown on the RAI documentary. Clearly some of the bodies shown were burnt, but I don't believe they were specifically showing damage caused by WP. Many of the bodies were showing normal signs of decay and decomposition. Some of the photos had maggots on the bodies.

1)Is I understand, when WP burns it produces smoke and a powder of phosphorus pentoxide that is indeed corrosive. I think that the corrosive effect depends on the concentration of the chemical agent and may be absent.

2) I agree about avoiding to speak about the images of the documentary because we don't have any scientific evidence of the connection to WP.

--Pokipsy76 23:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is where people are getting confused. White phosphorus burns in the presence of oxygen, producing a lot of smoke (this is why it is so useful as a battlefield obscurant). But the smoke itself isn't particularly toxic, compared to other chemical smoke munitions... you'd practically have to be taking it via a gasmask for it to hurt you. The antipersonnel effect is related to the burning little pieces of phosphorus that are thrown out by the exploder charge when the weapon goes off... the smoke is almost completely harmless by comparison. Also, "corrosive" is the wrong word to apply to white phosphorus particles in the original ref; the substance isn't reacting chemically with flesh like acid or caustic soda would... it's burning *through* it.--BruceR 06:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Motivation for this cut?

I noticed that someone did cut away this quote from Globalsecurity:

"...Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus."

I would like to know the motivation. --Pokipsy76 09:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The substance of this cite is almost entirely paraphrased higher in the article under "Effects on humans". Recommend either keeping the paraphrase or replacing with the cite... my understanding is Wikipedia generally prefers the former. You could also amend the higher section if you believe it inaccurate. Also, it is cited where it is in the context of whether WP can burn clothing... the redacted quote now refers directly to that question rather than beating around the bush and repeating material already covered higher. No other reason.--BruceR 13:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So what about the "Emergency War Surgery" cite? Isn't this citation (or the thesis that it is intended to support in the paragraph) contraddictory with the phrase "Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing"? Shouldn't this contraddiction be pointed out? This was the aim of the citation from globalsecurity so it makes no sense to completely cut the cite just because it would be a repetition because the context and the aim is different.--Pokipsy76 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the two cites are complementary to each other, and both contradict the urban myth of death without clothing damage (I agree they are, however, somewhat at odds with the paraphrase you mention). EWS is saying that most WP injuries are due to people's clothing catching fire from the particles. Globalsecurity is saying the first thing you do if you're hit by WP is get your clothing off before it burns through. Both say clothing does burn... hence both contradict the legend that WP kills you while leaving your clothing intact.

Look at it this way. A little particle (like a speck) of WP landing on your skin will give you a skin burn before it consumes itself. But if it lands on your clothing, it will likely singe it, but not do your skin any damage. Exposed skin therefore does bear a greater risk being burnt in this way: the paraphrase is correct to that extent. But as the CWS says a greater threat is your clothing actually catching fire with you in it... in that case it's not going to be just your exposed skin that gets injured, obviously.

It takes a significantly sized piece of WP shrapnel to burn right through human flesh before consuming itself... clothing only provides marginal protection in such a case... so there should be less of a difference whether the skin area hit by any bigger shrapnel was exposed or unexposed.

I'm certainly not wedded to that paraphrase... I'm just not sure yet how to explain the antipersonnel effects better. But I don't think it helps to put information about antipersonnel effects at the bottom imbedded in a different section, away from the actual section on antipersonnel effects. If you think the information at the base is more apropos of the weapon's antipersonnel effects, why not move all those cites into the antipersonnel effects section, instead of at the very end?--BruceR 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv [I finally worked up enough courage to watch it and it has lived up to my worst fears. Watching it was almost an invasive experience, because I felt like someone had crawled into my mind and brought my nightmares to life. Image after image of men, women and children so burnt and scarred that the only way you could tell the males apart from the females, and the children apart from the adults, was by the clothes they are wearing… the clothes which were eerily intact- like each corpse had been burnt to the bone, and then dressed up lovingly in their everyday attire- the polka dot nightgown with a lace collar… the baby girl in her cotton pajamas- little earrings dangling from little ears.]

Your video shows napalm, not white phosphorus, as the explosive effect deomonstrates--fire, not smoke. The narrator even refer to the weapon as napalm. As such, the video is irrelevant to the discussion. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

What do you mean? That WP would look like smoke? And that the commentary by a media man, probably not skilled in chemical warfare, knows napalm from WP? He probably meant it was analoge to napalm when used as a weapon. A human 04:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

US State Department Correction

The US State Department has printed a correction of their Nov 2004 statement that WP was used only for illumination.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.] --BohicaTwentyTwo 15:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find the US declaration on this site: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Moral Considerations regarding WP

I have attempted repeatedly to add a section to this article providing cross-references to other Wikipedia entries, specifically about the moral questions engendered by this obviously controversial weapon. In so doing I have not advocated any answers to these questions. Rather, I have attempted to provide a resource for those readers who are interested in them and who would like to pursue them further.

Among the cross-references I have attempted to add regarding the moral considerations raised by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon are: consequentialism, deontology, legalism, virtue ethics, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, Kant, John Stuart Mill, R. M. Hare, and Alasdair MacIntyre.

I also received the following comment:

I noticed your contributions at white phosphorus (weapon). You should probably read our policy wikipedia:no original research. Basically, this means that no information can be included in wikipedia unless it can be attributed to an outside source. Unfortunately, there are no sources for the info you added to the white phosphorus article. Until you can find them, please don't reinsert the material. Dsol 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that internal links to other Wikipedia articles are common and permissible. Also, I would like to point out that stating the obvious -- that using WP as an antipersonnel weapon raises moral questions -- does not count as "original research," any more than pointing out that 2+2=4 or that snow is white. If such unwarranted censorship continues I will pursue a complaint with Wikipedia, as I believe this does violate the guidelines.

While it's true that there are obvious moral questions with this weapon, the particular and very specific way which your section treated these questions was original; in particular the dichotomy between deontological and utilitarian thinking as applied to morality of weapon use. The links to other articles are allowed, of course, but none of those articles produce your argument regarding white phosphorus. Please (really!) read NOR, as it's clear you are new here. I encourage you to find an outside source of this argument and include it with a citaion. Dsol 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this reply is erroneous on several points. I included reference not only to consequentialism and deontologism, but also to virtue ethics and legalism. Nor did I claim that these are the only kinds of response to the moral questions raised by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon. (Although they are the predominant kinds of response, as even a cursory examination of the cross-references will disclose.) And, even if my addition was problematic for some reason, this does not justify repeatedly deleting THE ENTIRE SUBSECTION, heading and all, especially when this happens within seconds of its being posted, so that obviously you have neither read the text you are deleting nor examined the links. Finally, the criticism that I am a new Wikipedia participant is ad hominem and has nothing to do with the substance of my contributions, which stand or fall on the merit of their content, not on whether I have made other contributions to other Wikipedia articles, or whether you personally just don't like the fact that I am bringing this issue to the table. In conclusion, I think your actions and your comments disclose that you yourself lack the neutrality that you claim to advocate. Again, if it seems that these deletions are intended to eliminate ANY discussion of the moral issues engendered by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon, I will pursue a complaint.

Please trust me when I say I have nothing personal against you and have nothing against the inclusion of that info categorically. I only mentioned that you're new here since you seem not to understand the NOR policy, and I don't have time to explain it to you in full. Of course I read your submission before removing it. And yes, I do think the whole thing needs to be removed, becuase there's no evidence that any of of the moral analyses you mentioned (deontological, consequential, utilitarian, virtue ethics, legalism, whatever) have been proposed by any secondary source (read the policy!). To include this, you should produce not a citation that shows what these moral analyses are, but rather one that shows how they have been applied in a notable way to white phosphorus or other antipersonnel weapons. Please don't treat me as an enemy here. If I didn't remove it, someone else would, as this policy is really how things are run here. Do you understand why I saw the subsection as original research on your part? Dsol 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why this article is popular right now is because many are asking whether it is right or wrong to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon. As the BBC noted over a week ago,

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare. [4].

To deny this is absurd. Which raises the question, why delete the ENTIRE SUBJECT "Moral Considerations" from the WP article? This is what you have done, Dsol, repeatedly. You have not added to the text to incorporate the kinds of suggestions you make; rather you have deleted THE WHOLE THING. There are numerous Wikipedia articles in which contributors point out that the material's neutrality is disputed, WITHOUT DELETING IT.

Also, beware that the NPOV article to which you refer clearly contradicts you on this issue of deletion:

Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

Dsol, if you believe that your views are shared by other Wikipedia users, then why not give THEM the opportunity to make the changes rather than tracking the article around the clock and enforcing your own personal editorial clampdown that clearly violates the NPOV policy? You yourself appear to contradict the spirit behind Wikipedia, as you seem to have set yourself up as The Enforcer on this article, violating the very editorial policy you claim to uphold. Please, if you do value Wikipedia, then practice what you preach and give others the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not a section on the moral considerations engendered by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon is appropriate. Phol 05:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, please stop attacking my motives. I'm not acting as an "enforcer" or anything like that, I only reverted the page twice. I have no problem with your noting in the article that the pentagon's admissions have "opened up debates" or something like that. Put it in! You don't need my approval to edit. And no, I was never referring to NPOV, but to NOR. I actually thought you addition was perfectly balanced and NPOV, just pooly cited. I agree that your addition was both notable and unbiased, but it must also be sourced, or it cannot go in. The BBC link above is a start, but it fails to mention anything about the various moral philosophies you proposed to include in your discussion. Dsol 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken. My apologies. Thanks for your patience. Phol 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

POV-section

The Use in Iraq section has lots of allegations ... but little to no rebuttals (some of which I personally heard on Democracy Now). Seems that there is a lot of finger pointing ... but little acknowledgement of the views of the military. Sincerely, JDR

Perhaps you are right, JDR, but the usual practice is to add the opposing views yourself, and then to add the NPOV tag if someone reverts your contributions. I guess tagging is better than nothing, but could you at least provide a link or the name/date/station of the show you saw? Dsol 11:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

These articles may help restore some balance and give a NPOV ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/pl_nm/iraq_usa_phosphorus_dc (eg., The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051115/pl_afp/usiraqbritainitaly_051115220512 (eg., White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon.)

There are probably other better sites .... mabey I'll try to put something in ... the situation is still formenting ... so mabey I'll wait a bit to more info come up ...

... and as I said ... I heard it on "Democracy Now" (which can be as accusatory ... the show being mostly "anti-war and left-wing"). Goto thier archives at thier site ... it was end of last month (November 2005). Sincerely, JDR

Agree. I think the disputed tag at this stage was unnecessary. --BruceR 17:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Reddi has a point. There are problems with the Italian film in particular. For example, I read one report of a pathologist who viewed the Italian film saying that the pictures of corpses showed normal decomposition, not white phosphorous burns. --Lee Hunter 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the Use in Iraq section is less about the actual use of White Phosphorus and more about attempting to prove that its use was in violation of the Third Geneva Protocol. --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is no longer the case: the section now is only about the documented use of WP in Iraq, without any attempt at judgement of this use. I see no reason anymore to have the POV warning here and have therefore removed it. The use of WP in Iraq is after all no longer disputed. --Martin Wisse 10:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the line quoting Arab media sources as alleging the US was using White Phosphorus in Fallujah. The claim made in the article named Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah makes no mention of White Phosphorus. Instead a doctor from Fallugah states, "The US troops have sprayed chemical and nerve gases on resistance fighters, turning them hysteric in a heartbreaking scene." http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20041108/008841.html

--BohicaTwentyTwo 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

In an edit summary, someone wrote "as of recently, blogs are valid sources." Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources suggests otherwise. Is there other guidance that I'm overlooking? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Kaiser: is it a chemical weapon?

Peter Kaiser statement has been added and deleted on and on, looking at history edits. This allows some to put the Pentagon's POV arguing that it is not a chemical weapon. US point of view should certainly be included, just as it should be said that they denied using napalm on the grounds that they were using Mark 77 bomb (which is modernized napalm, according to global security.org). Peter Kaiser's point of view should certainly be included in order to impede Wikipedians enforcing their own POV on the subject. As a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a United Nations organization, he was first interviewed in the RAI documentary and then quoted in the same terms by the BBC. Basically, he said that if used in an offensive manner, WP should be considered as a chemical weapon. It does not enter this category when used for illumination or smoke-screening applications. Pentagon and US military have said that they used WP in "shake&bake" combination: this constitute an offensive application. Make your own conclusion, but do not worry, it is highly improbable that the United States be officially accused by the United Nations of using chemical weapons !!!

I opposed the removal of the Kaiser quote the first time (see upthread). But this time the quote was just needlessly repeating an organizational position that had already been stated and footnoted to him, so it was entirely redundant. It's not a particularly well-informed statement, for that matter: WP's toxic/caustic properties are not what causes the human damage: its incendiary ones do. By the time you ellipsize out or footnote everything Kaiser says that isn't accurate WRT the specific question, the quote is pretty unwieldy.

PS, it's not just "Pentagon POV" that WP is not a chemical weapon. The annex to the Chemical Weapons Convention itself doesn't list it (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16287.htm#chemicals). Given that the weapon was in existence for decades before the CWC, this means it was not considered as one when the convention was drafted. The question is whether it should now be included or considered to be covered by the CWC provisions. --BruceR 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Kaiser's role and authority need to be understood. He is a spokesman for, and staff member of the organization that administers the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). OPCW's first Director-General was Jose Bustani and now Rogelio Pfirter.

Many people, both citizens of the US and other countries, complain when a President ignores, or states that he will not be bound by, legislation properly and legally enacted by the Congress. I suspect people would be even more upset if the White House spokesman unilaterally ruled on the legality of anything. There is a parallel here, in that the "Congress", or a majority of the 182 states that have ratified the Convention and belong to the OPCW, determine what is and is not a chemical weapon. Their decisions are recorded in Schedules I-III of the Convention. While phosphorus compounds of use in making nerve gases are scheduled, white phosphorus is not. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the UN's own ban on weapons such as napalm, MK-77, and other incendiary weapons (many of which are more dangerous than White Phosphorous) is described as "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS which May be Deemed...". Text avaiable (http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm)

Regardless of what a UN spokesperson is willing to say in a politically charged environment, the text available from treaties which are most on-target with this subject seem to state that that any use of these weapons, including to burn a target, is a usage as a conventional weapon, which would automatically exclude description as a chemical weapon. However, according to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare) Wiki's Chemical weapons page, a chemical weapon is any chemical which proves itself to be highly toxic and kill not by explosive force. Examples taken from the Chemical Weapons Treaty include, however, no weapon whose primary purpose is to cause thermal burns, only chemical ones. WP's chemical burns are fairly minor, if existant at all - you'd have to have secondary exposure to fairly high quantities of phospates. Secondary chemical effects haven't been shown to be lethal, either...

I'd say that unless someone can show the chemical effects of White Phosphorus to be significantly more toxic than other incendiaries which have been called "conventional weapons", then there's not much of a case here.

Politics aside, white phosphorous is most definitely not a chemical weapon: its destructive effects are primarily due to fire, and not direct chemical action. – ClockworkSoul 04:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Chemical effects need not to be lethal in order to call a weapon "chemical".

2) WP smoke doesn't produce only thermal damage.

3) The correct question is not "is WP a chemical weapon?" it is "can WP be used in a chemical-weapon-way?", and the answer is: yes it can if you are able to produce high concentration, read http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm if you don't beleve it.--Pokipsy76 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, Pokipsy76. I've heard this argument before, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. Really, anything, in significant concentration, can have chemically deleterious effects on the poor soul exposed to it. Even water, in great concentration, can be a chemical weapon (ignoring the "drowing" aspect for a minute) in that too much of it can seriously disrupt one's osmotic balance and cause your cell membranes to rupture. The fact is, really, that the primary harmful effect of phosphorous is thermal, and any chemical reations it may have with a body are a distant second. I cannot claim to be an expert, but I did alot of research in getting chemical warfare up to featured status, and I'm familiar with the mechanisms of over 70 different genuine chemical agents: phosphorous is unrelated to any of them. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Pokisky, also of note is that so far, no one's given any information showing WP smoke to even be have serious negative effects, just when compared to normal smoke. In fact, the current article states that WP smoke is actually no more dangerous than fuel oil smoke. Even the article you linked to at globalsecurity.org states that WP smoke exposure requires no treatment even in the worst-case scenario of mucus membrane irritation. Phosphorus itself requires massive ingestion to reach system toxicity levels, as well. The only damage your own source can list is of a thermal nature. - Gattsuru

• Peter Kaiser's quote should be listed, as it is the official point view of the spokesman of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon. The debate about whether it is heat or chemical properties that burn is highly technical: Peter Kaiser's statement is relevant on this matter. If you don't like this quote, instead of deleting it, why not add a quote justifing the allegations according to which WP is an "incendiary weapon". If you want to enter this debate, may i point out that even the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons has been (and is) disputed? (as somebody pointed out, Mark-77 can be more dangerous than WP. Machetes in the Rwandan genocide were lot more dangerous than any chemical weapon.)

No (see above), Peter Kaiser does not have authority to issue official pronouncements for the Organisation. He is a spokesman, not the Director-General, and, as I read the Convention, the decision to call something a chemical weapon or precursor, and list it in the Schedules to the CWC, is a decision of the majority of member states. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemical weapon? Give me a f--king break. From the WIKIPEDIA article on chemical warfare: it "is warfare that uses the toxic properties of a chemical to kill, injure, or incapacitate an enemy..." Yes, a chemical reaction is used in WP to achieve its effects. The same can be said with respect to a bullet. The propellant that launches a bullet, giving it the kinetic energy by which it kills, uses a chemical reaction. If I shoot someone with a lead bullet my intention is not that they die at a later date of saturnism! WP's military use is as an incendiary, not a toxin. As such, it burns, and like it or not, that is a legitimate military use. THis is nothing more than a case of kind-hearted people, unable to cope with the grim realities of warfare, attempting to change it by moving the goalposts with regards to international convention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.185.96 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Military Regulations

I changed around the Military Regulations section. First, I added FM 27-10 Rule of Land Warfare, which is the definitive US military regulation on the legality of weapons used in combat. Second, I left the CGSC Battle Book quote in, but I noted that it was from a student textbook and not an official Field Manual. Third, I removed the FM 3-06.11 quote about needing Division Level authorization. That was not current doctrine, but an example of Rules of Engagement from Operation Just Cause(Panama). In its place, I directed the FM3-06.11 link to go to Appendix F, which states, "Artillery-delivered white phosphorus can also be effective on enemy forces by causing casualties and fires." Finally, I noted that the source of the USMC doctrine change came from a blog. --BohicaTwentyTwo 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Illumination

Why his illumination standard legitimate use of WP not spoken of? Before admitting of screening-use of WP, Pentagon declared that WP was only used for illumination purpose. (see US State Department correction subsection on this Talk page)

• It's not mentioned in the article? It probably should be. White phosphorus is sometimes used for wide-area illumination in the form of flares, or used in tracer rounds for small arms. This article seems to focus on the most insidious use of white phosphorus ... although the (weapon) tag in its name does make it kind of clear what it's aiming for. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP isn't used in flares, that's magnesium. The State Department confused the two. There's no reason Wikipedia should do the same. It is used in tracer rounds, and that could be mentioned, but that's not illumination, that's target indication. --BruceR 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No doubt, the State Department "confused" the two. Sorta tried to create smokescreens, huh?! WP isn't used in tracer rounds either. That's bullshit. WP has exactly two uses: as an incendiary and as a smokescreen/obscurant. The funny thing is, even though certain Wikipedia editors might insist on WP being only used as an obscurant, there is no real difference between a WP smoke and WP incendiary round. WP 'smoke' hand grenades used in Vietnam had the pretty annoying tendency to expel burning chunks of WP up to 25 meters which endangered the person throwing it. Strangely enough (who would have guessed...) the very same 'smoke' hand grenade was also used as an incendiary and anti personnel device. And can someone please explain to me why an attacking army would shoot rounds with IR 'obscurant smoke' into a city that is under attack, even at night? So that the attacking party with its night vision devices and tanks and artillery cannot identify targets anymore? I guess that pretty much proves the purpose of why WP was used. To all the 'experts' here claiming although WP might be toxic but that wouldn't matter since WP acts only thermally, I again have to say bovine excrement. Once the WP has burned and produced phosphoric acid it indeed is not toxic anymore (but it is still corrosive since H3PO4 happens to be a fairly strong acid... BASIC HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY!!!). Unfortunately WP has the tendency to EVAPORATE, and those fumes are highly TOXIC. May I suggest you look up "PHOSSY YAW". EIther on google or wikipedia. I can't believe how the Iraq war apologists sucessfully manage to pull the wool over most people's eyes all the time. --- a real chemist who has handled WP, napalm and similar shit repeatedly and is sick of people defending the liars and criminals who use such terrible weapons --- (01.01. 2006)

Phossy Jaw is not caused by inhaled white phosporus "fumes", but by handling white phosphorus in its solid form. Phossy jaw is an illness suffered by ninteenth century matchstick makers, not something caused by the WP rounds used in Fallujah.--BohicaTwentyTwo 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chemical burns

The "chemical burns" quote has been add and deleted on and on. I just add it again, because GlobalSecurity.org (quoted by The Guardian as a major source) says so. Clockwork Source has deleted it, opposing me [5]. However, this source seems less reliable than GlobalSecurity (i have two reasons for arguing this: as already said, GlobalSecurity.org is a major source of mainstream newspaper; second: see Clockwork Source's source disclaimer. Instead of deleting this reference to an obvious "chemical burn", find a quote from the DoD stating that WP is not a chemical weapon (since they have admitted, as November 10, 2005 of various uses of WP, they are now trying to justify themselves saying it is not a chemical weapon. This is fair game. However, Peter Kaiser, another reliable source, is not of the same thinking). --- Don't bother, i found that quote on [6]. I will therefore make the edit change, the justification here is more than enough.

This article needs NPOV work

I have been finding quotations in the article added by the anonymous editors that were outright modified to push a POV that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. This included the use of square bracket editorializing. I urge all of the other editors of this article to please look very carefully at the statements that appear not to be NPOV because we have some unscrupulous people modifying this article to serve their own personal agendas. Also, the citation numbers in the article and in the Notes section at the bottom no longer match up. Somebody was adding references improperly. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: I am seeing repeated citations from various people in the U.S. Army saying they were firing white phosphorus artillery rounds at "insurgent targets" in the city of Fallujah. I think it's important to note that there are still thousands of civilians living in Fallujah. It's quite possible, especially given the nature of white phosphorus and artillery, that the U.S. Forces saying they were hitting "insurgent targets" were also in reality hitting civilian targets. What's the NPOV way to add this to the article? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• It may be best to simply state that they were firing into the city; it's not necessary to mention here exactly who the targets were. After all, we obviously can't say the targets were civilian, and for the reasons above we can't say that they were purely insurgent. To try and be specific would be awkward in the extreme. I think that it would be best to leave this particular hair unsplit. – ClockworkSoul 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it is absolutely necessary to mention the fact that there were many thousand people inside that city, and maybe we should also add that the WP was fired into big areas, not well aimed at individual targets. Whole city quarters were attacked with ... uhm, I guess you people would call it 'screening smoke' fired from helicopters, exploding in the air and raining down on the still populated areas. I guess the attackers didn't really want to see all that horror through their gunsights, that's why they fired with battlefield obscurant rounds. Makes sense. Generation Nintendo goes to war and doesn't like to see all the death and destruction they cause up close. Too much realism?
    • One of the sections that I removed was because it was pushing a POV insisting the United States Department of Defense admitted this was a Chemical Weapon. When in fact that is far from the truth. The line "WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED" completely gives it away. There is no admission from the United States Government in this report whatsoever. It is simply based off the telephone call between two brothers' opinions in northern Iraq. HUMINT reports are unreliable until furthur evaluated by the United States DoD. There is a reason for this because you have to evaluate whether the intelligence is correct or not because you could be acting on faulty or implanted information by the enemy.

Moved Use in Iraq section to own article

It was a large section, and ought to be in own article. Now it can also get proper categories attached that shouldn't be attached to this article. If I have messed up some of the references I apologise, I did not delete any in this article but copied some to the new. A human 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that creating the Use in Iraq article was the proper thing to do. In this article I believe there should be a sentence or two in the History section about the use in Iraq, and the Use in Iraq section should be deleted. Also, there should be a link to the Use in Iraq article in the See Also section. I will wait at least a day to see if there is any disagreement before I make changes. Hildenja 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mortar bombs

Do any of the major powers still use WP in mortar bombs? I'd thought most had moved on to red phosphorous for safety reasons. The media tends to report the use of RP as WP.

Yes. Potential RP replacements are still largely experimental and WP devices are still in production. See, for example, http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/elliot.pdf (PDF) where a M929 (WP mortar round) capability is being added as a system upgrade, just a couple of months ago. -- Securiger 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge phosphorus bomb into this article?

I found and started mildly editing that article, but soon discovered this article looking like the proper one for this subject. Since this article is quite rich in content, I doubt there's much of value in the other article? -- Northgrove 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Organisation a bit messy

I think this should be entitled "Military use' as the use of WP as a smoke screen is not a weapon. This military use page can be broken down further into the different uses - smoke, incendiary, and so on. The reason is that it is confusing to describe WP use in conflicts without distingushing between these two different uses, and where only incendiary usage is against international law.

The bomb article then becomes a merged part of this article.

Herne nz 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, except: only incendiary usage is against international law. Um, no it isn't. There is a huge amount of propaganda-generated confusion about this. Here is the text of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Firstly, under Article 1 Definition 1(b), WP is basically excluded from being classed as an incendiary weapon within the meaning of the convention. Secondly, use of incendiary weapons is illegal only in the specific circumstances covered by Article 2. Thirdly -- and this surprises most people who have not read it carefully -- if you look at the definitions in Article 1 before applying them to Article 2, even deliberate targeting of (what would normally be called) civilians can be legal under certain circumstances; specifically, if they constitute a "military objective" (say, an arms factory, or the Ministry of Defence), are not attacked from the air, and "all feasible" efforts are taking to limit the incendiary effects to that target.

But I digress. All of this should go in the incendiary weapon article since the only part which is specific to WP is that -- because it is primarily a smoke system -- it is exempted anyway. -- -- Securiger 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge White phosphorus use in Iraq here

It's a POV fork, with not enough content to justify a separate article (content's principally made out of external links). Santa Sangre 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge I disagree, on general principle -- politicising technical articles always ruins them. In addition, it is a pretty minor affair in the long history of military use of WP; other than the fact it is currently a matter of interest to various activisits, why on earth would we have a section specifically about Iraq, but not one for WWI, WW2, Korea, the Malayan Emergency, Vietnam, etc. etc.? It would be far better to merge it into an Iraq war article, and let this one stay as technical as possible. -- Securiger 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge There is already a mention of use of WP in Iraq in 2003 invasion of Iraq (second paragraph) maybe mergeWhite phosphorus use in Iraq into that article, better yet write/expand it until it's an actual article and link to it from all the relevant articles Pedant 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge The use of WP in Iraq caused controversy, and deserves own article and should be filed under diff. categories than WP. SlowSam 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No Merge I agree with Securiger. Why should the use of WP in Iraq merit its own section? There was probably ten times as much WP used in Vietnam compared to Iraq. Forget it. Hildenja 14:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No Merge and delete WP in Iraq article. There is ample information in this article and the 2003 invasion article. WP use was far more prolific during WWI and WWII so much more that a use in Iraq article is unjustified. Why not a use of WP in France, use of WP in Italy, use of WP in Germany, use of WP in Poland, use of WP in Russia, use of WP in Manchuria, use of WP on the Korean peninsula. I'm sure all of those locations had more WP use in them than Iraq. --Dual Freq 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No Merge (I see a pattern here) the merge request argument, POV fork, looks outdated and ridiculously political by now. It is only actually bound to iraq but a merge would be unencyclopedic. Also read and agree with all the above. --Ollj 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No Merge I agree with the above that the use of wp in Iraq deserves only the briefest of mentions here. However, I see no objection to retaining a separate article for the use of phosphorous in Iraq - and, for that matter, creating an article on WP in WWII if you want - subject only to the confines of NPOV and NOR. AndrewRT - Talk 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above comments there seems to be little support for the merge so I will delete the tag. AndrewRT - Talk 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fenian fire

I was digging around for early uses of WP and couldn't find a lot on it so could someone provide a source from its use in the 19thC in Ireland? I did find a passing mention here with some interesting suggestions it was commonly used in the Australian Outback by at least the 1880s. (Emperor 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I know where to find a good ref, but it's a book in a library some distance from where I am now, so it might take a while to dig it up. (The book is about the history of Albright and Wilson, in case someone else is able to find it first). -- Securiger 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some genius added "Al Gore invented White Phosphorous" to the top of the page. I'm removing it. I'd suggest an admin find out who wrote that and ip ban his ass.

Anyone can find out who did it by looking at the page history. The first step then is to go to his talk page and add {{subst:test1}} -- followed by {{subst:test2}} for a second offence, etc. Only repeat offenders get banned by the admins. -- Securiger 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"target marketing purposes" - a typo?

i might be missing something, but don't you mean: target-marking, instead of "target-marketing purposes" (first paragraph). --Amitushtush 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Use in AFGHANISTAN

The UK military are using the WP .. or White Phosphorous rockets in Afghanistan and even in 2006 , there is proof from UK military high ranking officials and more proof about it in this article..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5372768.stm

half way through the article a UK army is describing how the RAF are so incompitent that they almost hit their own UK army with 2 white phosphourous rockets.. disgraceful!

Surely this should be against human rights laws.. think of the dying children daily.. could this be how they killed 500 Afghanistanis in 1 hit in mid september 2006?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.188.145 (talk • contribs)

I'm moving this commentary from article to talk page on behalf of the anonymous poster. The article linked is likely describing illumination or marking rockets. ... "Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorus rockets" ... sounds like the pilot was trying to illuminate the area to better identify a target to me. Dual Freq 16:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We should structure this a bit better. USA, UK and Israel are not the only ones using this. Wandalstouring 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to act as if the UK is the only one using it, and then claiming that it is 'disgraceful' that we *nearly* hit our own guys. You have any idea how many British soldiers were killed by the USAF? Stop acting as if we are the only ones who do bad things in war time! 213.78.183.91 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ga nom on hold

Great article. A few minor points:

• Now, it acknowledges that its forces used white phosphorus during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.In the History section. Provides a link to a source but inline citations need to be used.

• In the Smoke-screening agent section, the short list should be made into a paragraph simply because prose is better than lists ,according to the manuel of style. Minor point.

• Its used in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflictis mentioned twice.

• The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Wouldn't 1mg be less than 15 mg?

This article needs only a few minor corrections to become a GA. --Banana04131 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link in the Israel Lebanon section completely because it only duplicated what was in another link. The short list is fixed. I've removed one of the mentions of the Israel-Lebanon conflict and moved the other (along with Iraq) to the history section (both bits were in "Arms Control Status" which didn't make much sense). Regarding the lethal dose, I think what it's saying is that even though the lethal dose is 1 mg per kg of body weight, there has been a report of somebody ingesting 15 mg. It's a little ambiguous because we don't supply the weight of the person who ingested the 15 mg but if it was an adult the lethal dose would have been much less than 1 mg/kg. There's probably a better way of expressing this in the article. --Lee Hunter 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I am going to change it to 1 mg per kg of body weight. I think that is clear enough. Another point I thought of is that White phosphorus is a redirect to this article, White phosphorus (weapon). A move should be considered but I am not going to make it part of the GA nom. Cheers! --Banana04131 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Passed! --Banana04131 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dec 2006 War in Somalia

There are reports that Ethiopian troops used white phosphorus weapons against Somali forces in the battle of Baidao. Many Somali combatants contracted signs of WP effects during and after the fighting. their accounts of the fighting include that they have seen clouds of white smog after the shelling in to their trenches, burning of skin, nose bleeding after the shelling.

Many reliable sources are suggesting that American special forces in Djibouti and in Ethiopia's region 5, are supporting Ethiopian military in the fight against Somali UIC forces.

Somali Islamic forces withdrew from the front lines immediately after UIC fighters took the Manas Militry camp, Maya-foolka (a check point at the entrance of Baidao, from the Ethiopian and Somali federal government troops. Baidao, the federal government's strong hold and its interim seat has been encircled by the powerful UIC Jihadist fighters, upon withdrawal, the fighters said it's military retreat from all front lines was a military tactic..this is not the case of a military retreat it looks like a kind of military polite defeatism. When Ethiopian defence has been overrun by human wave attacks of UIC to capture the interim Capital, the last resort for Ethiopian military inevitably becames the friendly super power in the background behind Ethiopia's ill-trained soldiers. Baidao is at the edge of falling in to the hands of Islamic courts Union they are massing thousands of high morale fighters on to all corners to Baidao it is about to fall today or tomorrow to UIC but a bolt out of the blue, all of a sudden, The UIC advance to Baidao was thwarted to retreat in convoys to Mugadisho later to Kistmayo. UIC officials talked about this shocking retreat saying "All Ethiopian offensive and defense is neutralized. They can not defend the city let alone attacks they are hopeless but the turn is America's at the front lines. American soldiers are using all they can do even illegal weapons are being used in and around civilian locations, Fixed wing war planes (AC 130) figher jets (F-18) night vision goggles to locate concentration of UIC troops to afflict maximum damage. in the first days of the fighting, All military material belonged to US military in the region and later American soldiers are doing the dirt job. this is true in Somalia. Now we have to vacate population residial areas to save our people from Enemy onslaught".UIC commander.

Residents' comments say "bodies on the ground change immediately after death to black and it seems the enemy is using extra-ordinary incendiary weapons and chemical weapons as well against the conventional somali fighters who are armed with only artillery, anti aircraft missiles and small arms".

This is a global obligation to be looked in to, while the world's most super power uses chemical weapons against civilian and semi-civilian people and against the conventional fighters who can't use the same defense against the enemy. America is committing war crimes and atrocities against humanity and Somali people as a whole. if the world do not stop in time American offense on Muslim countries, the world must wait their turn to come sooner or later under the occupation.

Later reports are indicating US war planes are spraying unknown agents of chemical weapons on Somlia's Raskanboni villages--someimes liquid, sometimes live bombs. Animals are dying on the ground, people die in their homes there must be dirt work there this is another Anfal or Falujah. World should react in honest and action.

Ahmed H. Student in South Africa.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.250 (talk • contribs) 11:09, January 13, 2007 (UTC)

moved unsourced comment to talk page. --Dual Freq 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Move

I propose we move this article to White phosphorus.Comments?--Banana 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Isn't "white" phosphorous actually yellow?

I think large chunks are yellowish/off-white, but the smoke that it produces is white. Zaku^Talk 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Refocusing more sharply on controversial aspects of WP

Just reorganized the lead and reorganized several sections, including many copyedits, references, etc. :

• The page is titled White Phosphorus (weapon), but the lead sentence describes a chemical element; this emphasis was changed in the lead
• The lead needs to focus more sharply on why WP is controversial - its use as a flare is perfectly reasonable; rewrote lead to reflect the controversy about it's potential use against humans. Also added a subsection under "Effect on Humans" on WP as a chemical weapon.
• Among other nations, US and Israel have used WP on positions known to be occupied by the enemy. This is documented with adequate references
• Part of the genesis of the controversy was the persistent denial and the subsequent admission by the US forces of WP use. This has been documented with references.
• The external links were duplicating some referred articles; "Notes" were renamed "References" and moved above Ext Links.

Much remains:

• The article is too focused on US use of WP. More details are needed in the section on Israeli and other nations.
• The citation from Field Artillery Magazine, widely cited in the media, should have the full author names.
• The citation for Saddam using WP in the Iran-Iraq war could do with more

substantiation than the Rai documentary.

mukerjee (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that the US has used WP on positions occupied by the enemy. No weapon of war is kind. You point out, correctly, that its use is controversial. There is a difference, however, between controversial and illegal. If there is illegality, it has to be based on language in a relevant international agreement, or laws of the country using it.

Legality is blurred here because at least two treaties potentially are relevant, treaties that have very similar abbreviations (CWC, Chemical Weapons Convention versus the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCCW). Most specific is Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. A country that ratified that treaty clearly agrees that use of WP against personnel is illegal.

Significantly confusing the issue is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which quite specifically lists Schedules of chemical weapons. White phosphorus is not in any schedule. Several compounds of phosphorus are scheduled, but that is because they are precursors in the synthesis of nerve gases. In comparison with the Schedule I chemical weapons, WP, while certainly poisonous, is not nearly as toxic and its military use as a poison would not make much sense when more lethal or casualty-producing agents exist. A good deal of the confusion, I believe, comes from the statements of Peter Kaiser, a staff member of the organization supporting the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC is quite explicit about what constitutes a chemical weapon or precursor, and WP is not in that list. Kaiser cannot be considered definitive as an individual spokesman for a body that makes decisions involving multiple nations, any more than George W. Bush can be considered definitive about whether he unilaterally, without veto, will not follow a law properly enacted by the US Congress, and even signed by Bush.

I agree that the Field Artillery article, which I have read, needs a better citation. I honestly don't remember if it had individual authors, but I did have correspondence with some of the editors, and I'll try to find it.

Is hearsay evidence encyclopedic? See Hearsay in United States law and Hearsay in English Law. Is a citation of a (named) reporter, who said that his (unnamed) photographer saw WP injuries, encyclopedic, either in the traceability of the original report, or in the ability of the photographer to diagnose the cause of a burn? I have personally seen WP injuries as a result of a laboratory accident, and, while intact particles of WP were in the wound, they gave off characteristic smoke and glowed in the dark. Once they were removed, the burned tissue looked like any other burned tissue. The explosion of a WP munition is very distinctive, and I would accept a basic description of that explosion by a layman, as long as it met basic criteria for WP. Statements about the burns, however, are more a matter for forensic pathologists. Once the WP fragments are removed, it would be quite difficult to identify the cause of a burn, other than great heat. Someone might indeed have been in a building set afire by WP, but their burns, without other information, could have come from burning structural materials.

Thank you for the editing; it does help. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issue in references to Peter Kaiser

Typically, in international treaty organizations, even the UN itself, statements of the Secretary-General, or head of the secretariat, is not authoritative. It certainly can be advisory, but the organizations need to vote, in resolutions or, as with the OPCW, in putting chemicals under schedules.

Mr. Hicks The III deleted my comment that Kaiser, identified as a spokesman only, is not authoritative under the Convention. I consider it a reasonable sourcing to identify, in my revised edit, what the language of a treaty does not say, hence is not approved by the membership. Kaiser is not listed in any official position at the OPCW site, which, in any event, does not delegate even to the Director-General the right to schedule substances. WP appears in no schedule, although phosphorus-containing compounds that are precursors to nerve agents (nerve gas, cholinesterase inhibitor) do. The Convention has not chosen to schedule WP as a chemical weapon.

I don't disagree that there may be good reason to give a senior official, such as a Director-General, temporary authority to put a newly discovered chemical threat under schedules. For example, in the US, the director of the Drug Enforcement Administration, with Food and Drug Administration agreement, can put abusable "designer drugs" into the research-only Schedule I. Just as there are POVs that say WP should be scheduled in the CWC, there are POVs that say cannabinoids and marijuana should not be US Schedule I. I happen to agree with the latter POV, but I also recognize that no spokesman can change the schedules.

Removing my material pointing out Kaiser's apparent lack of authority, is, I believe, POV. If an editor objecting to putting qualifiers on Kaiser's authority wants to be encyclopedic, please cite a source that specifically and positively says that the spokesman has authority to have an unscheduled chemical scheduled. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard, I don't disagree with you, and in fact, I share your opinion (stated below) that this page suffers from a POV that White Phosphororus is a CW, but not included in the CWC for some reason. However, I don't read the contested passage as saying that Kaiser has put White Phosphororus in any schedule - he's just voicing his opinion. To add a comment which says what he is or is not authorized to do, if it is not from a 3rd party source, is just a wikipedia editor voicing an opinion. I'm not going to fight this, though. Mr. Hicks The III 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; it's much better to start from a shared opinion. If anyone has a better wording, I'm open to it. My point was that Kaiser's opinion is no more authoritative than that of any chemist, weapons specialist, or emergency physician. I was less trying to say that he could put WP on a schedule -- if he could, that's where I would want to a cite -- than that he has no authority to do so. Perhaps someone can provide a definitive ruling, but it would not appear to me to be WP:OR to state that a treaty does not contain particular language. That's especially true of cases when the language is not there at all, rather than an editor trying to interpret language that is there.

The reason that I wanted to make his authority clear is that POV news media are using both his opinion, and the raw intelligence report, as justification to make CW a chemical weapon. Here, you describe his opinion very properly. It's more that I see others citing it as authoritative. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

First, I believe war is a terrible thing, and terrible suffering can be caused by virtually any weapon. Nevertheless, there seems to be a POV, of a number of editors, that WP is a chemical weapon, but it is not considered one by the definitive Chemical Weapons Convention. Use of incendiaries like WP is indeed forbidden under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional (i.e., not chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological) Weapons. The US has not ratified the section pertaining to use of incendiaries against human beings.

Citations in the section about use in Iraq need mechanical cleanup, which I have tried to do but they still need work. One article in Field Artillery magazine is cited different times with different dates, and there is a comment it is not available (2004) online. I was able to find it online, with a 2005 date, at http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2005/MAR_APR_2005/PAGE24-30.pdf.

I do not argue that US official spokesmen have been confusing and quite probably deceptive about the use of incendiary weapons in Iraq, both WP and the functional equivalent to napalm. Still, news reports describing what unquestionably were incendiaries make specific statements about the nature of weapons, but the sources do not appear to have any expertise in forensics or in identifying weapons. Horrible things happened, but can we try to be as objective as possible in this article? I recognize that a number of people believe that WP should be considered a chemical weapon, but the Chemical Weapons Convention does not so identify it. If the US had ratified sections of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, then the US indeed would have committed war crimes with the "shake and bake" or other uses of WP against people. The US, however, has not ratified that treaty language, and, much as the use of WP is terrible, I would hope we can be neutral POV enough not to try to insist that WP use is either a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or a violation of other treaties. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote from State Dep't in the Use in Iraq (2004) section.

This is in response to the following "edit summary" comment to the "undo" by Hcberkowitz of a change I made,

"(Not sure how the vague "a military publication" is preferable to citing the actual journal. Commented out hearsay from a photographer with no qualifications to distinguish WP burns)"

• I used the phrase "a military publication" to replace the word "article". I also put in a link to that specific publication, which you deleted. But best to just use the wording from the actual quote, I agree.
• You misquoted the source by adding "...in the official U.S. Army..." without square brackets to indicate an editorial paraphrase.
• You mis-attributed the quote (ie., incorrectly to the "article" in question above). The quote had been accurately attributed to an official State Dep't statement, along with a valid reference to the posting of that statement on the web.

Let me ask this: is it more useful to quote the State Department, the actual Field Artillery article, or both? Could you clarify what you mean by editorial paraphrase, and who is doing the paraphrasing? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Both. The quote itself is from the State Dep't. The State Dep't quote quotes the Field Artillery article (along with a hypertext link to the article itself). So it seems to me that to quote the State Dep't you also need to include their reference to their quote of Field Artillery.

In this case, you were editorially adding the useful information: "...in the official U.S. Army...". The usual way to indicate an editorial comment (which is not being quoted, but summarizing, clarifying, simplifying, or otherwise paraphrasing the actual quote itself) is by putting square brackets (ie., '[' and ']') around it.

--Wikiscient (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With the same edit, you also commented out what seemed to me to be some valid and relevant text re. the "photographer" (though I did not contribute at all to that text myself). The photographer claimed that "he had seen people who are hurt by phosphorus shells." We are not told why he believes that they had been hurt by phosphorus shells. He could, for example, have seen them being struck by phosphorus shells -- something about which, as a photographer, whether he does or does not have sufficient medical training to identify WP burns, he would be qualifed to make the statement attributed to him. So I have uncommented that text.

--Wikiscient (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. We are not told why he believes people were struck by phosphorus shells, or, more correctly, the products of their bursting. We are not told his name. We are not told his training. In other words, we have a quote from someone who either did not know, or did not relay, why he believed the photographer. You are speculating about what he "could have" seen. If we do not even have the reporter's reasons for recounting what the photographer told him he saw, I do not consider that a reputable source.

Okay, well that's different than the reason you gave for commenting it out. --Wikiscient (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you, perhaps, rephrase that information such that no one is speculating on what the photographer saw? Ideally, is there information that gives a WP:RS account of a direct injury confirmed to be by WP? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, is there? (This isn't really my field anyway: so, no clue ;). --Wikiscient (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any such information, from this reporter/photographer. There is no question that WP was used, and I have no doubt that it injured or killed people. Nevertheless, I am seeing what appears to be a good deal of POV journalism. Had any of these journalists gotten an opinion from someone with demonstrable knowledge of trauma medicine or forensic pathology, I would treat it as much more reputable sourcing.

Unfortunately given the constraints of OR, I have seen WP injuries at close hand, as well as a wider range of severe burns. I also have some knowledge of the process and appearance of decomposition of human bodies, and did provide a citation, inside a comment, in one of the WP related articles. An Iraqi physician claimed the corpses were greenish-black, but that is not an uncommon color to any body decomposing in hot weather. If you like, I can provide citations to general pathology texts that describe this.

I would request that the reporter/photographer comments be deleted as not meeting the criteria of WP:RS. It would be one thing for a reporter to see that he had personally seen fire or bodies, but there seems only speculation to justify the unnamed photographer's opinion. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

It sounds like the most useful search to do would have to be done by someone with access to MEDLINE®, etc...

(and, btw, I meant '[' and ']' used as text, not as "wiki markup" -- I don't know if that might have been confusing)

--Wikiscient (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to be coming to some sort of plan for consensus. MEDLINE is primarily a journal reference, rather than to textbooks. I think I can find some online references, but there is one issue. If you will take personal experience as a placeholder, there's going to be a bit of the classic difficulty of proving a negative. As a result of a freak laboratory accident -- a glass container containing WP exploding when a colleague hadn't fully pulled down the front of a fume hood, I saw WP, stuck in his arm and burning, at very close range. This was in the late seventies, so HAZMAT gear wasn't as at-hand as now, in the lab, ambulance, or ER. I got the area covered with wet cloth, which both cooled and cut off oxygen, stopping the burning, and then rode the ambulance to the ER, with containers for safely holding WP. As the physician pulled out a piece, it would burst into flame as it met the air, and go out when we got it into the can of water. Afterwards, the burns looked like any other partial and small full thickness burn -- there wasn't anything unique about them once the source of heat was removed.

A emergency physician friend, who had been in Iraq in 1991, and I watched the documentary. The corpses looked like dead bodies that had spent some time in desert heat, which accounted for the "melting" of the skin. The color was normal for a corpse under such conditions.

The only actual description I've seen in this article is a "green-black" color described by an Iraqi physician. Some of the links go to articles mixing references to WP and directed energy weapons. All I can say is that when WP landed on my colleague's skin and clothing, both burned -- there's been a lot of handwaving about WP burning skin but not clothing. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Interesting.

I don't have any problem commenting-out the "photographer" text for the reasons now stated above.

I still think that it would be useful for someone with access to MEDLINE®, PubMED, etc., to do a full search of the most up-to-date and widely published peer-reviewed professional literature. If there's nothing about it there, that would then be a very good reason to doubt some of the more extreme and controversial (counter-)claims being made about this issue.

--Wikiscient (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Still looking and haven't found images. Here is a case report: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200201/ai_n9022610/pg_1 of a patient that had a WP burn, from an industrial accident, over 36% of body surface area. The immediate treatment was critical: covering with water and then debriding. An earlier treatment, flooding the area with cupric sulfate solution, did stop the reaction but created a more poisonous result. In this case, there's nothing unusual about the burn or sequelae after the WP was removed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MEDLINE

I'm trying to think of the best way to convey content, since abstracts aren't the best thing in the world at detail. Here is one recent review paper, however, that seems relevant, and is online: http://www.medbc.com/annals/review/vol_20/num_4/text/vol20n4p203.asp. The authors include the (Lebanese) Secretary General, Mediterranean Council for Burns and Fire Disasters (MBC), WHO Collaborating Centre, Division Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Centre and an American burn specialist.

Title=MILITARY AND CIVILIAN BURN INJURIES DURING ARMED CONFLICTS Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters - vol. XX - n. 4 - December 2007 my emphasis

Phosphorus munitions will continue to burn until deprived of oxygen or totally consumed. As for any other chemical burn, the depth and severity of phosphorus burns are related to both the concentration of the agent and the duration of contact with the tissues. Dermal penetration with deep burns and tissue necrosis result from continued contact of the skin with phosphorus. Also, fragments of this metal may be driven into the soft tissues. However, most of the cutaneous injuries resulting from phosphorus burns are due to the ignition of clothing and are treated as conventional thermal injuries

The immediate treatment of an active WP burn involves depriving it of oxygen, typically by covering it with water; WP is normally stored under water in laboratory environments. The note about cutaneous injuries hardly seems as if WP has some strange ability to burn clothes without burning skin. Yet in White phosphorus use in Iraq#Second major assault on Fallujah, Washington Post reporters are saying WP can't be put out with water. Now, I would agree completely that burning magnesium and thermite can't be put out with water. In another WP-related article, Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre#Criticism "A subsequent documentary, Star Wars in Iraq by Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta, accounts for human heads being burned, without their bodies, clothes and nearby equipment suffering damage by alleging the use of US experimental weapons."

If you go to the Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre webpage, it talks of showers of multicolored material -- yet WP is characteristically white.

Being burned by anything is ugly. I'd much rather be shot to death than burned to death, but there is no special evidence that WP burns are worse than a burn caused by any equivalent source of heat. The chemical weapon mustard (dichloroethyl sulfide) does cause internal and external chemical burns. While it's not a weapon, hydrofluoric acid burns are especially nasty, since there's no immediate sense of being burned -- there's little awareness until the damage is done.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)