Talk:Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre

message: 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)
thread_title: Asserting that WP is a chemical weapon is not NPOV

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Seabhcán 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded Izzy1985 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non neutral phrase 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WP 

message: 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)
thread_title: AfD versus Protection

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Whiskey Pete or Willie Pete? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified