Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White phosphorus use in Iraq

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

White phosphorus use in Iraq

White phosphorus use in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this does not conform to Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutral point of view and is giving undue weight to questionable propaganda pieces.

• Other than one documentary (documentaries are generally not considered reliable sources) there are no sources or evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians in Iraq. There are no conventions or international laws that ban its use against enemy militants as obscurant or incendiary weapon. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's notability and NPOV guidelines, it seems to me that this article is giving undue weight to a questionable, invalid, and non-notable claim. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spread rumors in order to support personal ideologies.
• This article, to me, seems to be promoting a general pattern of bias. Pushing and making a big deal over unsubstantiated claims has no place in a serious encyclopedia. This article seems have a form of bias and subtil POV pushing.
• Strangely, use of white phosphorus is implicitly questioned but insurgent tactics (e.g., child soldiers, attacking civilians, etc.) are not (at least not sufficiently). This has a whole article devoted to it even though the same things are covered in other places, which makes this "dead undue weight."

The single biggest problem with this is that there is no evidence for these allegations and no trustworthy sources either; this POV pushing babble should have no place in an encyclopedia. The very title implies that using WP in Iraq was wrong.

I'd encourage any reviewing editor to consider carefully the above points. Green547 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - A Wikipedia article is not an essay.--Rpclod (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, per previous assessments. The Iraq War article might need a few tweaks after this. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. The title of the article is misleading but the events it describes are undeniably notable. It is really about specific instances of WP firing which some claimed violated international law. It's not an essay. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: The title is definitely misleading, and, arguably, the content is also misleading. Wikipedia policy demands that we put due weight on reliable sources, not POV hand-waving. I don't think some documentary and what a few reporters said is reliable sources. "Some claimed." Yes, anybody can claim anything, but the actual convention is quite clear; WP may be used as an obsurant or incendiary weapon, and that is precisely what happened. "Specific instances." Sorry, but I see no specific instance mentioned in the article (or, frankly, elsewhere) that would actually violate international law. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform to throw around unsubstantiated claims; that's why the notability guideline is here. Finally, if this article was really written with NPOV (not an essay), the "Use in Halabja" section would be equally puffed up with allegations and babbling, but of course it isn't because there is obvious bias here. Green547 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green547: If you're saying that the evidence that these actions actually constituted a chemical attack is questionable, then yes, I agree with you. Given that upwards of 40% of artillery shells fired are WP, and some of them will inevitably fall directly on the enemy or on civilians, it is basically impossible to support such a claim. However, the accusations themselves are notable due to the attention they received from media. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Yes, media, media. I see your point. News: media is actually very biased. It's verifiable that the media and other hand-wavers make these claims, but is it notable, considering what a whole lot of other reliable sources and knowledgeable people say (not to mention the ACTUAL conventions)? I'd still argue for deletion of this. If anything, a new article could be created under a NPOV title, which would actually give accurate information: "these are unsubstantiated allegations that lack support from the evidence and which do not have any real convention/international law basis." Moon landing conspiracy theories might get a lot of attention, but just take a look at the article describing that. Green547 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green547: The short answer is that media coverage makes it notable. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, and the solution is almost always to find reliably sourced refutations of notable dubious claims and add them to the article, not to omit the questionable claims from mention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Then also take a look at my last bullet point in the original text. Besides that, I believe that this would need such a drastic rewrite that it'd be better just to delete and start over. The article in its present form is basically just POV babble and no real refutations or points are detailed. Green547 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to White phosphorus where the incidents, accusations and media controversy described here can become one section in a series of very similar incidents of incidents, accusations and media controversy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  White phosphorus already has quite a lot of coverage on this sorry topic. Basically everything that's here is already there; more reason to delete this.Green547 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  Such a merge would be fine, and I believe this page was actually split from there. However, there probably ought to be separate articles on military use of WP and the chemical itself, so another split might be in order. I notice the current white phosphorus article is almost all about the former. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  Never mind: I see we already have allotropes of phosphorus#White phosphorus. Certainly white phosphorus should redirect there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  I BOLDly moved the page to White phosphorus munitions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  The archives on the talk page are broken and apparently I lack the technical expertise to fix them. If anyone would be so kind... You broke all the talk archive pages. Manually moving them.--Savonneux (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I tried fixing it a bit but by the time you cut out all the POV stuff and the questionable assertions that are thinly connected to the refs there isnt much left aside from what is in the White phosphorus munitions article. It looks like a WP:POVFORK that has just stealthed by for years. The references essentially cover one incident with primary accounts WP:PSTS, there is a dearth of secondary information (investigations? interviews after the fact?). On top of it all there is a lot of open ended conclusion drawing. --Savonneux (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I endorse what is said by Savonneux, specifically that it looks like a WP:POVFORK and that there is a lot of conclusion drawing, with questionable connection to sources, WP:Synth. Why anyway would this be a distinct article, rather than as part of Iraq War, White phosphorus munitions, or Halabja? Green547, is wrong in his points 2 & 3 (the other side doing bad things isn't an argument here), but he is right about this article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no that's not what I've said. In summary, point # 2 is that this article seems to be doing subtil POV pushing and is biased (it matters not which POV it is). Point # 3 is that we're paying too much attention and weight on these (obviously unsubstantiated) claims, while not making that big a deal about REAL war crimes (well documented, with reliable sources, and supported by evidence). Thus this coverage is unbalanced. Coupled with the fact that this is already written down in other articles, this makes Use of WP in Iraq "dead undue weight" and obvious POV babble. I've modified my points to avoid any misunderstandings. Green547 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as an original essay, not an encyclopedic topic. Get the information on American use into White phosphorus munitions, which this piece forks. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:POVFORK of White phosphorus munitions article as above. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.