Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/2012/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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" [1] 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)
Well, it half makes sense that he said "Whiskey Pete" as Whiskey is the phonetic alphabet equivalent of W, but as 'P' is Papa, it is odd that he didn't say "Whiskey Papa." He must have been confusing his jargon. Alanlemagne (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As a totally unsolicited opinion probably condemnable as the dreaded "original research" (shhhh!), may I offer the suggestion that "Whiskey Pete" is three syllables and "Whiskey Papa" is four. If Willie Pete was used long after "Whiskey" replaced "William" on the official list, why can't "Pete" remain after "Papa" is official? I don't think he "must" have been confusing his jargon; I think he was exercising the God-given right of every (true) American to toy with the English language. Having said that, I'll get my coat. Terry J. Carter (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Gaza War Coatrack
The article devotes excessive attention to the use of phosphorous during the Gaza War and incredibly, this paragraph is the longest in the article. I am sure that the indignant expostulations of HRW, The International Red Cross and Amnesty International, Peter Herby, Kenneth Roth, Paul Wood, Christopher Cobb-Smith and Donatella Rovera can be somehow abridged while retaining the essential elements.Ankh.Morpork 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Slightly odd argument to make seeing as you are the most recent editor to attempt to add extraneous information to the passage in question.[2] Dlv999 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I believe Dlv's point is that if your concern were simply that the section includes too much material you would have brought that up initially, rather than trying to add to it. Perhaps your objection isn't that it includes too much material, but that it doesn't include enough that supports your POV? That would be the reasonable inference based on your wish to include an additional paragraph that does support it. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I object to the presence of this occlusive coatrack and while I summoned for the removal-men, I thought it necessary to stop its toppling from sheer imbalance. I request that you answer directly whether the longest paragraph in this article should be relating to the Gaza War? Ankh.Morpork 20:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I believe Dlv's point is that if your concern were simply that the section includes too much material you would have brought that up initially, rather than trying to add to it. Perhaps your objection isn't that it includes too much material, but that it doesn't include enough that supports your POV? That would be the reasonable inference based on your wish to include an additional paragraph that does support it. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd not be at all opposed to the addition of some non-partisan source we can all live with that makes some or all of the points Newton's testimony seems to make; I'd welcome that, actually, as I tried to make that clear in the previous section. Should the longest paragraph in this article relate to Gaza? I think so, based on how much has been written about it, in light of WP:WEIGHT. There has been enough material published about it to break it out into a separate article, actually, as was done with what I presume must have been the lengthy Iraq section, although I'd prefer not to see that happen. ( Please don't do that unilaterally, as I'd probably feel obliged to follow after and rewrite it. ) I don't think the usual suspects on either side need another article to fight over. Do you disagree? --OhioStandard (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I do. This is an article on White phosphorus, not an intensive critique of Israel and the Gaza War. Yes, lots of sources discuss this but not in relation to the generic armament; the amount of coats do not affect its coatrack nature and are a red herring. Indeed as the policy states, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."Ankh.Morpork 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is an article about the military uses of white phosphorus which quite rightly includes discussion of the notable military conflicts in which it was used. As Gaza war is the most notable in terms of RS coverage it is not surprising it has the longest section. In fact that is how it should be and indicates that the article is complying with our WP:UNDUE. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing that this article should not discuss the notable military conflicts in which it was used. The issue is whether its usage during a single conflict should predominate a general article. Do you think that an article titled White phosphorus and a hypothetical one named "White phosphorus during the Gaza War" should discuss this issue to the same extent?Ankh.Morpork 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- As previously explained, my view is that the length and detail of coverage given to the use of WP in Gaza war compared to the other conflicts discussed (e.g. Iraq war) is consistent with our WP:UNDUE policy given the weight of coverage the topic has been given by the mainstream media, human rights organisations, international organisations such as the UN, the Israeli government etc. I don't find your hypothetical question particularly pertinent to the issue under discussion. However, I would expect any article specifically covering WP use in the Gaza war to be much more detailed than the coverage in this article. See for instance the difference between White phosphorus use in Iraq compared to the coverage in this article. For one thing this article includes very few details of how WP was actually employed in Gaza. The final Goldstone report includes detailed accounts based on extensive testimony of four separate incidents involving the use of WP, (The WP attack on Al-Wafa hospital, the WP attack on Al-Quds hospital, the WP attack on the UN compound and the WP attack on the al-Samouni home) which I think would certainly be relevant to include in a hypothetical "White phosphorus during the Gaza War" article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- So we are in agreement in that this article should be treated differently and its coverage should be limited. How are you deciding what is worthy of inclusion and what is not, as you acknowledge that this should not be as detailed?Ankh.Morpork 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM considerations dictating that the Gaza war section be trimmed considerably. The first way to do this is to remove whatever isn't sourced to a WP:RS. Claims made by human rights advocacy groups should be considered notable in the context of this article only when cited to secondary sources. That should help bring editors closer to agreement on how long the Israel–Palestine sections should be and how prominent the assertions in them should be relative to the more general topic of white phosphorus. Ultimately what editors need to keep in mind is that this is an article about White phosphorus, and it isn't necessary to report details only peripherally relevant to that substance because there's been coverage of them in the press recently.—Biosketch (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Length of the Gaza war section is consistent with WP:UNDUE considering the weight of coverage that it received in multiple RS. It's length compared to the other conflicts involving WP is appropriate. Human Rights organisations have been widely quoted in RS on this issue and thus obviously represent a significant view on the topic, so it is perfectly acceptable to cite their publications as long as it is properly attributed to them. Dlv999 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The wealth of sources on the recent conflicts between Israel and Palestinian militants is precisely because of their recent nature. Were this an article specifically on those conflicts, it would be acceptable to go into the kind of detail that this article does in relation to them. But again, this is an article on white phosphorus, a substance used at various times in history by various agents, most notably in the course of violent conflicts with one another. It isn't encyclopedic to convey such minute details in the manner that's being done here. What would be helpful going forward would be if editors formulated an agreed-upon standard of inclusion and applied it across the entire article uniformly. The same level of detail as has been the standard in the article before the flare-up of I/P-related edits should be what's adopted as the norm for the article as a whole.—Biosketch (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Length of the Gaza war section is consistent with WP:UNDUE considering the weight of coverage that it received in multiple RS. It's length compared to the other conflicts involving WP is appropriate. Human Rights organisations have been widely quoted in RS on this issue and thus obviously represent a significant view on the topic, so it is perfectly acceptable to cite their publications as long as it is properly attributed to them. Dlv999 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM considerations dictating that the Gaza war section be trimmed considerably. The first way to do this is to remove whatever isn't sourced to a WP:RS. Claims made by human rights advocacy groups should be considered notable in the context of this article only when cited to secondary sources. That should help bring editors closer to agreement on how long the Israel–Palestine sections should be and how prominent the assertions in them should be relative to the more general topic of white phosphorus. Ultimately what editors need to keep in mind is that this is an article about White phosphorus, and it isn't necessary to report details only peripherally relevant to that substance because there's been coverage of them in the press recently.—Biosketch (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- So we are in agreement in that this article should be treated differently and its coverage should be limited. How are you deciding what is worthy of inclusion and what is not, as you acknowledge that this should not be as detailed?Ankh.Morpork 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- As previously explained, my view is that the length and detail of coverage given to the use of WP in Gaza war compared to the other conflicts discussed (e.g. Iraq war) is consistent with our WP:UNDUE policy given the weight of coverage the topic has been given by the mainstream media, human rights organisations, international organisations such as the UN, the Israeli government etc. I don't find your hypothetical question particularly pertinent to the issue under discussion. However, I would expect any article specifically covering WP use in the Gaza war to be much more detailed than the coverage in this article. See for instance the difference between White phosphorus use in Iraq compared to the coverage in this article. For one thing this article includes very few details of how WP was actually employed in Gaza. The final Goldstone report includes detailed accounts based on extensive testimony of four separate incidents involving the use of WP, (The WP attack on Al-Wafa hospital, the WP attack on Al-Quds hospital, the WP attack on the UN compound and the WP attack on the al-Samouni home) which I think would certainly be relevant to include in a hypothetical "White phosphorus during the Gaza War" article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing that this article should not discuss the notable military conflicts in which it was used. The issue is whether its usage during a single conflict should predominate a general article. Do you think that an article titled White phosphorus and a hypothetical one named "White phosphorus during the Gaza War" should discuss this issue to the same extent?Ankh.Morpork 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is an article about the military uses of white phosphorus which quite rightly includes discussion of the notable military conflicts in which it was used. As Gaza war is the most notable in terms of RS coverage it is not surprising it has the longest section. In fact that is how it should be and indicates that the article is complying with our WP:UNDUE. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I do. This is an article on White phosphorus, not an intensive critique of Israel and the Gaza War. Yes, lots of sources discuss this but not in relation to the generic armament; the amount of coats do not affect its coatrack nature and are a red herring. Indeed as the policy states, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."Ankh.Morpork 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd not be at all opposed to the addition of some non-partisan source we can all live with that makes some or all of the points Newton's testimony seems to make; I'd welcome that, actually, as I tried to make that clear in the previous section. Should the longest paragraph in this article relate to Gaza? I think so, based on how much has been written about it, in light of WP:WEIGHT. There has been enough material published about it to break it out into a separate article, actually, as was done with what I presume must have been the lengthy Iraq section, although I'd prefer not to see that happen. ( Please don't do that unilaterally, as I'd probably feel obliged to follow after and rewrite it. ) I don't think the usual suspects on either side need another article to fight over. Do you disagree? --OhioStandard (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- The content is repetitive, the common theme being that "Israel used it", and is marginal too. Kenneth Roth and Christopher Cobb-Smith views should not be included over and above the official HRW position, notwithstanding that expertise is required to make a comment on international law at all meaningful.
- Dlv999, I asked a specific question that will help me understand why some of this material has been included and you have reverted me without providing a response. Please explain how you are deciding what is worthy of inclusion and what is not, as you acknowledge that this should not be as detailed? Ankh.Morpork 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I just removed the uncited assertion that allegations of Israeli use of WP during the Gaza war were later found to be untrue, which was added by Galgalats on 2012-06-02. I also changed an image caption from "Israeli Army drop White Phosphorus bombs on open grounds near Gaza" to "Israeli Army drop White Phosphorus bombs on Gaza residential areas", as those are the words of description used by the cited source of the image, Al Jazeera News, and by so doing I reverted another part of Galgalats' revisions from that day. (However I would not oppose changing this to just "Israeli Army drop White Phosphorus bombs in Gaza" on NPOV grounds.) Oktal (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)