Talk:Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre

Asserting that WP is a chemical weapon is not NPOV

Asserting that WP is a chemical weapon is not NPOV... the documentary asserts as such, so we should have that information in the article, but stating that WP is a chemical weapon is asserting a *specific* POV. Ronabop 04:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

> Munitions containing white phosphorous burn on contact with oxygen, water and organic material > and will incinerate a human being without damaging clothing, buildings or equipment.

This is of course utter bullshit. WP is stored under water and cannot burn without oxygen. Most organic materials do not provide oxygen (except some rare exceptions, like peroxides). WP is pretty toxic, so people might also die through that route, but the usual 'damage mechanism' is the intense heat from fire. Many of the dead bodies in that movie show signs of advanced decomposition, which is to be expected after under such climatic conditions, NOT direct effects of WP. I am very much anti-war too and think that using WP is inhumane and a war crime. But that cannot justify the semi-truths and omissions presented in that news report.

---

Judging from the above post and the text in the page, I think the "criticism" section has been weaselized.

Section criticism

Section "criticism" strongly need some sources.--Pokipsy76 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, modern chemical weapons do not kill by destroying the body but by interfering with the nervous system, so people killed by chemical weapons would show no visible damage at all." —I'm pretty confident this can be deleted. Just because some chemical weapons effect the nervous system does not mean ALL chemical weapons effect the nervous system. There is such a thing called a "chemical burn." I'm sure that qualifies. The dispute of wether WP is classified as a "chemical weapon" or not is debatable. --Osxadvocate 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemical weapons of whatever variety, whether neuro-toxin based, as in nerve agents, or much more simple, all have physical symptoms and thus cause visible damage, as physical observation of the victim will tell you. The classification of whether WP is a Chemical Weapon or not depends on its use. If used with the intention to kill someone through a chemical process, then yes it is a Chemical Weapon. International protocols guiding use of such weapons use similiar definitions, but with the focus on vicinity of personel to weapon deployment.--Shakujo 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Non neutral phrase

This phrase:

Due to the to the fact that he was the basis of the majority of information to back-up the Massacre conspiracy in this movie, critics dismiss this movie as Propaganda.

• has not a NPOV
• attempt to inpetrpet the thoungt of critics
• completely lack sources
• use the weasel word "critics"

therefore I suggest to deleted it.--Pokipsy76 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Seabhcán 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded Izzy1985 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP

http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html indicates that WP is banned for use on civilians or civilian targets unless it is used as "illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems"

Quite true and binding for any country that ratified Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Is it banned, however, for non-signatories? If so, how? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also states: " "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." So it is useable against enemy combatants. Izzy1985 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as such all the rules regarding chemical weapons are in fact, just non-legally binding guidelines.--Shakujo 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This might clear up confusion: Under the Geneva Convention, ALL weapons are banned for use against civilians. WP is not special in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.151.3 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP information box is misleading, it serves to promote WP as simply a smoke generating element, without highlighting its highly damaging effects on biological material, so NPOV?5.81.157.178 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD versus Protection

This article has notability, but because of continued vandalism is up for deletion. I think that given the controversy of the topic to merely delete could be confused with a POV act of censorship. I think some kind of protection would be more in order.--Shakujo 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iraqi-woman-incinerated-by-american-chemical-weapons-while-praying-with-beads--fallujah--us-war-crimes.jpg

Image:Iraqi-woman-incinerated-by-american-chemical-weapons-while-praying-with-beads--fallujah--us-war-crimes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice tweak

From my talk page

I like what you did to external links and further reading. As you may have gathered, I began to get the feeling, not exclusive to this article, that people were putting in unexplained internal links. Had the key content from the links been put into the main article, they might well have failed verifiability, reputable source, POV, etc. For example, I found two copies of a link to the Federation of American Scientists webpage on white phosphorus, with the second link rather contradicting the article about the chemical impact of phosphorus burns.

Perhaps I should note that I've seen phosphorus burns, as the result of a small laboratory explosion, and assisted the ER physician in safely handling the WP fragments he was pulling out of the wound. I also have a sufficient interest and knowledge in chemical toxicology to question some of the chemical assertions. There are other things that don't lend themselves to references, but I've looked, in detail, at some of the more graphic photographs, and had physician friends look at them as well. Our impression was there were simpler explanations than WP or some secret weapon. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice tweak indeed; but I see some selective quoting going on. Monbiot claimed the assault was a massacre regardless of the phosphorus; effectively what he was saying was that the Italians were missing the big picture by hyping the phosphorus. Sarah777 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Sarah777 it is selective quoting because this is an article about a film called "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre" not an article about the battle that the film documents. The quotes are in a section called "Criticism" and as such are there to comply with WP:NPOV. Personally I think the whole article could do with rewrite, but I will leave that to someone more interested in the topic than I. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nice when I can agree with several editors. Sarah, I agree that the emphasis on white phosphorus tends to overwhelm the context of why the battles were fought, who fought them, and whether the film-makers are trying to do balanced coverage even with a political POV. Assuming that their political POV is that the US should not be in Iraq, I would find it highly unlikely that a majority of the deaths and injuries were caused by WP.

Philip, I agree about the article, and the priority I can give it. Frankly, I'm involved in other articles where I'm trying to get an NPOV context (e.g., CIA and related articles), and I don't think I have the energy for one more. I agree with Monbiot's comments, I have personal experience with phosphorus burns, and I've probably read every current US military manual on WP, not just the Field Artillery article. Some of the external links, when not guessing about WP, go into theories about hypothetical directed energy weapons. Unfortunately, few of them seem familiar with the decomposition of bodies -- from heart attacks or anything else -- in the temperature of Iraq, and attribute various visible characteristics to things that could come from a wide range of causes of death. It's pointless to argue such matters, even by sending them to a forensic pathology archive. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Monbiot's comments do get very silly immediately afterwards when he forgets he's not an expert on international law, names the wrong convention (the Times is talking about the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, which doesn't apply to incendiaries) and uses a quote from a decade-old training manual to imply the US Military is ignoring its own policy because clearly it's impossible for it to have changed how it interprets international law or anything, even though it has said its policy is not what the training manual says. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Englehart and other sourcing

Unfortunately, I find several of the sources questionable, as, for example, in describing things white phosphorus does that conflict with my direct experience. The problem is that it's harder to find independent sources that challenge the exact claims made here, other than by citing reliable sources on WP chemistry and effects, and letting the reader decide without Original Synthesis.

I don't consider it completely irrelevant that Englehart, who seems to be one of the filmmakers' critical sources, may not be a completely reliable source, who may not have seen things he alleges. Unfortunately, the filmmakers do not say "Englehart was in Fallujah on (date) with (XXX) unit. While his specialty is not usually in combat, he was there because there was a specific need for (YYY specialty)."

Is there a neutral way to indicate that Englehart may or may not be a definitive source? I'm not saying that he should be completely discredited, but there are some reasons to question his statements. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Englehart admits that he never saw WP being used, and only heard this mentioned over the radio. We can find plenty of sources that say that.

He claims that he saw burned bodies and attributes their deaths to WP. That's where the problem is. He's making an inflammatory charge with little if any expertise.

The NY Times public editor looked at this issue and checked with one of his reporters:

Dexter Filkins of The Times, who accompanied the Marines who assaulted Fallujah, said in an e-mail that he doesn't buy the charges of large numbers of civilian deaths, from whatever cause. "The city was a ghost town by the time the Marines went in, at least in the neighborhoods that I went through, and we traveled from one end of the city to the other on foot," he said.

Note here that this was mostly a Marine operation. Englehart is ex-Army, a fact of which I'm sure the U.S. Army is not proud.

Part of the problem here is that we want an unbiased article about an extremely-biased propaganda film.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind a late, but it is worth noting that US Army units actually spearheaded the assault on Fallujah, and even found themselves having to stop advancing due to having outrun the walking Marines with their IFVs and tanks. However, in this case it is also vital to make note of the fact that Englehart was part of a unit that essentially just drove some brass around outside of Fallujah, and thus never entered the city or took part in any fighting there. Pavuvu (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

i deleted this sentance:

"The footage purporting to show white phosphorus weapons being dispensed from helicopters is also troubling, since this is not a known delivery method for the munition. Because of its volatility when exposed to air, white phosphorus is delivered via artillery or mortar shells or by aerial bombs delivered by fixed wing aircraft. The footage shown in the film more likely shows illumination flares or protective measures used to divert heat seeking surface to air missiles."

you can look up a pictures of a OV-10 Bronco ON wikipedia and see pictures of an aircraft launching a white phosporus rocket. obviously it can be launched from aircraft so the above statement is false.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.214.185 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The re4moved statement clearly76 states that WP can be delivered by fixed-wing aircraft, like the OV-10. The photos claim to show helicopters launching WP, but there are no helicopter-deliverable WP munitions in the US inventory. I'm putting it backSolicitr (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, you can't assert there's no dispute when someone, in fact, is disputing. This piece is POV, it's slanted outrageously in favor of the filmmaker's biases and needs cleaning up to Wiki standards.+ So don't keep untagging it as if to deny the existence of a dispute. The dispute exists. The place to address it is here, not in a revert war.

Dear unsigned person, this is an article about the documentary is it not? What you can't do is simply tag an article you don't like without any supporting evidence. Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's evidence.

Right in the caption to the photo it says, "Ex US soldier Jeff Englehart talking about the use of white phosphorus against Iraqi civilians in Fallujah." That should be "alleged" evidence at the very least, and that's just the start.

This article leads naive readers to assume that Englehart (a false authority) was there, and that he knows what he's talking about. He's a kook who heard stuff on the radio. It's one thing for a propaganda filmmaker to do play this game. We expect them to embellish this stuff. It's quite another for WP to just lie down and fall for this stuff.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Randy. The problem here is writing an NPOV article about a film which is itself a totally biased propaganda piece. The best way to approach that, I think, is to write about "this film which reflects the filmmakers opinions", rather than "this film which reflects reality." Terms like "allege" and "claim" are part of the standard stylebook at every newspaper, and should be on Wiki. (Especially when so many of the claims and allegations concerned are utter bullshit- our model here should be the article on Holocaust denial)Solicitr (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We could turn everything into something like that. "This was voted game of the year by Yahoo, clearly an opinionated poll." "The War on Terror was started as a result of opinionated evidence." I think that your sentence, "this film which reflects the filmmakers opinions" isn't the right way to approach it. Perhaps "this film which alleges to have found evidence for the disputed use of White Phosphorus..." is better. I would suggest that we not follow the path of Criticism of Islam-a culturally biased article that would take months to fix (a sad case, in your own words, of utter bullshit). Leonnatus (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more than just white phosphorus, if you've ever been so unfortunate as to watch the thing. Its premise was that there was a systematic, premeditated massacre of civilians. Solicitr (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whiskey Pete or Willie Pete?

Englehart says in the video that he heard "Whiskey Pete" on the radio, while supposedly the military calls it Willie Pete (for WP). From what I could dig up in 'net sources (mostly anti-WP sites), it was called Willie Pete in Vietnam because that was the phonetic abbreviation at the time. It makes sense that they would now call it Whiskey Pete, but the only source I can find for that is Englehart in this video. Does anyone know what it is really called these days? Maghnus (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes Englehart's claim even more suspicious. Under modern NATO phonetics, WP would be 'Whiskey Papa,' not Peter or Pete. In the old US system it was 'William Peter," shortened to 'Willie Pete.' This usage long predates Vietnam, going back to WWII; by Vietnam the US was using the NATO system. But the US military still used and uses "Willie Pete" for white phosphorus, despite the phonetization being technically 'obsolete.' Englehart's version absurdly mixes up the old and new systems, which further undermines his claim.Solicitr (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Englehart is a complete joke. He had to do all kinds of ass-covering when it came out that he was nowhere near Fallujah during the times he supposedly witnessed the use of "chemical weapons". That he is being taken seriously shows how inherently biased this pathetic entry is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115045939/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442252 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone actually fully reviewed the video, perhaps with the use of an English transcript? I suspect it like many of the videos about depleted uranium is mainly propaganda and not factual reporting.2600:1700:9750:AC50:4435:C10:1D96:7FD6 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)