This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Allegations of chemical weapon use in the Sri Lankan Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
Sri Lanka, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Phosphorous is not a CHEMICAL weapon per se, as it has no Physiological effects, only Physical effects, i.e. burns. However, as the article rightly states, its use has been pro-scribed by the international community due to the horrific nature of the injuries it causes. A little more re-writing is required to avoid deletion under WP:NPOV I feel.-- Petebutt ( talk) 16:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am planning to rewrite this article to address major NPOV and source issues. Of particular concern is the claim that the use of chemical weapons "has been confirmed by the United Nations and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." The UN POE reference claims there are such allegations, not that the UN has confirmed them. I cannot find any evidence that the statement purportedly made by the OPCW actually came from them. It does not appear to be in the reference provided to their website (even in WaybackMachine snapshots) and neither does there appear to be any media coverage of such an explosive revelation by a respected organisation. In addition the poor grammar, careless conflation of thermobaric and chemical weapons etc leads me to believe this did not come from the OPCW. Unless anyone can provide a reliable source confirming that they did indeed issue such a statement I will be removing that section and all references to it. HereticsEnd ( talk) 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like a response and some mediation here.
The user Lapmaster has been making a series of edits which appear to me to be pushing a certain POV. The previous title and introduction to the article referred to allegations of chemical weapons use and was backed by several sources:
1. ICRC and Indian medical teams who reported that they found no evidence of chemical attacks as alleged while treating the wounded
2. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses report which also stated ".. no strong evidence of the use of chemical weapons during the war has been found yet."
3. The POE report which also reported allegations of chemical weapons use. It did not categorise them under its "credible allegations" but presented them as "Other allegations" "about which it was unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility"
His justification for claiming there "there are evidences" seems to be the statement by a catholic bishop who claimed that civilians had reported that chemical weapons were used. His own Fox news citation on the other hand refers to allegations: "..probe Sri Lanka's alleged use of.. " "..called for an international war crimes investigation into the country's civil war including whether government forces used cluster munitions and chemical weapons.."
I will leave it to you to weigh the two sides.
He has also been making changes to the page title to apparently include and exclude content according to his whims. The original title was "Use of chemical weapons in the Sri Lankan civil war". First the well sourced 1990 LTTE chemical attack incident was removed, and the phrase "during the final phases" was added to the title, presumably to justify this removal. He then added references to "thermobaric and cluster munition weapons" to the title to roll together allegations regarding these into the same article. Now I see additions referring to white phosphorous, so presumably that will need to be added to the title too! As I understand this is an article on the alleged use of chemical weapons (which may be a notable topic, but less so as there is no evidence so far), and not one on "different kinds of weapons". PerditionsEnd ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.
References
@ Oz346 Can you please provide the "firm evidence" because you are making a exceptional claim which needs to back by exceptional sources and the only source you are providing is a shoddy Indian documentary and all other reliable sources and investigations found no evidence to prove it. - UtoD 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Allegations of chemical weapon use in the Sri Lankan Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
Sri Lanka, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Phosphorous is not a CHEMICAL weapon per se, as it has no Physiological effects, only Physical effects, i.e. burns. However, as the article rightly states, its use has been pro-scribed by the international community due to the horrific nature of the injuries it causes. A little more re-writing is required to avoid deletion under WP:NPOV I feel.-- Petebutt ( talk) 16:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am planning to rewrite this article to address major NPOV and source issues. Of particular concern is the claim that the use of chemical weapons "has been confirmed by the United Nations and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." The UN POE reference claims there are such allegations, not that the UN has confirmed them. I cannot find any evidence that the statement purportedly made by the OPCW actually came from them. It does not appear to be in the reference provided to their website (even in WaybackMachine snapshots) and neither does there appear to be any media coverage of such an explosive revelation by a respected organisation. In addition the poor grammar, careless conflation of thermobaric and chemical weapons etc leads me to believe this did not come from the OPCW. Unless anyone can provide a reliable source confirming that they did indeed issue such a statement I will be removing that section and all references to it. HereticsEnd ( talk) 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like a response and some mediation here.
The user Lapmaster has been making a series of edits which appear to me to be pushing a certain POV. The previous title and introduction to the article referred to allegations of chemical weapons use and was backed by several sources:
1. ICRC and Indian medical teams who reported that they found no evidence of chemical attacks as alleged while treating the wounded
2. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses report which also stated ".. no strong evidence of the use of chemical weapons during the war has been found yet."
3. The POE report which also reported allegations of chemical weapons use. It did not categorise them under its "credible allegations" but presented them as "Other allegations" "about which it was unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility"
His justification for claiming there "there are evidences" seems to be the statement by a catholic bishop who claimed that civilians had reported that chemical weapons were used. His own Fox news citation on the other hand refers to allegations: "..probe Sri Lanka's alleged use of.. " "..called for an international war crimes investigation into the country's civil war including whether government forces used cluster munitions and chemical weapons.."
I will leave it to you to weigh the two sides.
He has also been making changes to the page title to apparently include and exclude content according to his whims. The original title was "Use of chemical weapons in the Sri Lankan civil war". First the well sourced 1990 LTTE chemical attack incident was removed, and the phrase "during the final phases" was added to the title, presumably to justify this removal. He then added references to "thermobaric and cluster munition weapons" to the title to roll together allegations regarding these into the same article. Now I see additions referring to white phosphorous, so presumably that will need to be added to the title too! As I understand this is an article on the alleged use of chemical weapons (which may be a notable topic, but less so as there is no evidence so far), and not one on "different kinds of weapons". PerditionsEnd ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.
References
@ Oz346 Can you please provide the "firm evidence" because you are making a exceptional claim which needs to back by exceptional sources and the only source you are providing is a shoddy Indian documentary and all other reliable sources and investigations found no evidence to prove it. - UtoD 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)