Talk:International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons

92 NGOs
The article states that 92 NGOs are members of this 'International Coalition', but not a single NGO is mentioned by name. One would think this information would be very pertinent to the article.

ICBUW member NGOs hth ICBUW (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see the list, but what exactly is an NGO; many of these are little groups with no international signficance. The ICBUW is founded on lies. Even its name is a lie. There is no such thing as a Uranium Weapon. There are depleted uranium kinetic energy penetrators and there is a massive campaign of lies that has been directed against these anti-tank bullets since it was begun by Saddam Hussein in about 1992. Early disciples were Drs Thomas Fasy and Siegwart Horst-Gunther, both of whom saw what Saddam wanted them to see and nothing else. The photos published by Horst-Gunther abound on anti-DU web sites even though none of them has anything to do with depleted uranium. Sadly, the medical community has not made identifying the conditions noted in these grotesque photos and then discussing the probable causes. The result is that the lying campaign continues to this day with false claims about depleted uranium in Fallujah, which the ICBUW trumpets, even though it knows full well that there were no grounds for US forces to have used depleted uranium in Fallujah. There were no tank battles there in 2003 and no enemy tanks to battle in 2004. Richard Lowry, author of "New Dawn" who interviewed hundreds of participants in the battles of Fallujah, has confirmed that no DU was used in Fallujah, but Christopher Busby has made it his mission to link DU to birth defects and cancers whether DU was used in a location or not. DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Del Ponte's legal opinion
Re: Del Ponte's legal opinion, I think her view was fair at the time, and in some respects remains so, but I would question her judgement in other matters. As you will see from: final opinion they concluded that NATO hadn't committed any war crimes through the use of cluster munitions in FY. However, I would suggest that the following report from Norwegian People's Aid challenges that view, if a war crime can be defined as an attack on a civilian area with an indiscriminate weapon system, anyway, have a look and see what you think: NPA: 'Yellow Killers' ICBUW (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are in a legal minority on this issue see also pages 4 and 5 of an open letter (2006-02-09) by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, who investigated allegations of war crimes during 2003 invasion of Iraq. --PBS (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a functioning link for that document? Be good to read it. WRT to being in the minority, I would direct you to this article from UNIDIR's Disarmament Forum: [http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2757.pdf Depleted uranium weapons: the next target for disarmament? by Avril McDonald writing for UNIDIR] The digested read states that the use of DU, while not currently proscribed by treaty law, may in certain cases breach IHL, specifically the principles of precaution and rules against indiscriminate attacks. Given that this is a matter of legal interpretation, it would be good to have both sides of the argument and it would be even better to update that Del ponte statement as our understanding of uranium weapons has developed considerably since that opinion was formed ICBUW (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove tags?
I think the article is a factual statement of ICBUW policy and I see no significant conflict of interest. Are there any objections if I remove the tags? Biscuittin (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I would also argue that the tag regarding notability be removed as well, given that no such tags exist for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_Munition_Coalition and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBL both of whom are similar civil society disarmament coalitions. ICBUW (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have removed the tags. Biscuittin (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the references not accessible for editing? There are bad links in them and thus the statements made by the titles may not in fact be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates
Been meaning to tackle this for ages so my apologies. Have made significant changes to the structure and content. Still a work in progress but have added material on our purpose, on the ongoing discussions over DU's legal status, more on that here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/63.html but have added for balance an more recent article from UNIDIR on the prospects for a precautionary approach. I have sourced the mines and cluster examples and linked EUROMIL's position. Dalai Llama statement has been removed. Followed by new section on international developments that features some of the EP and UN resolutions and national legislation. Can expand on this in more detail when I have time. Have removed the pointless link to CADU at the end and linked to a major report that we put out on DU in the Balkans last year. ICBUW (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
I've tagged this article as Original Research. References 9 - 17 all are from the ICBUW website and constitute OR in my opinion. I believe the article has met Notability standards, however much of it is self-sourced and clearly agenda driven. Discussion? PRONIZ (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Reference 9 is a reference to statement of ICBUW policy, would be hard to find elsewhere. 10 is a reference to the EUROMIL site. 11 is a compendium of resolutions from the EP, these could be referenced directly to the EP site if required but it would look rather more messy. Ditto 12 but referenced to the UN. 13 could go to one of the new articles of the day covering the ban decision but they would not be as detailed. Ditto 14 but it would most likely be in Spanish. 15 could go directly to the Irish senate records if required to do so. 16 refers to a report that we have published, the section on which was merely a statement that we have published a report about such and such. And I would have linked directly to Youtube in reference 17 had Wikipedia allowed me to do so.

My point is that this is a page entry about an organisation and its work, as such it follows that the majority of links will be to it. I tried to write it in a neutral statement of fact way. ICBUW (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The material I removed had no credible secondary sources, as required by policy, to be included in Wikipedia. That, by definition, is original research.  If credible secondary sources are found to source the information then I would have no objection to include it.  See WP:OR. PRONIZ (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * jolly good, will update accordingly. ICBUW (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to the OR tag. Have added secondary sources for the EP and UN resolutions and the domestic ban efforts. These are sourced back to the EP and UN and the organisations involved in promoting the legislation. If they are seen as problematic, it would be possible to link to the legislation itself but that would require the passage to be rewritten into just a list of domestic legislation. The last two refs - to our report and the animation are still linked back to our site. There are quite a few sites mentioning the publication of the report but as it is just mentioning that the report was published it seems silly to go via somewhere else to get to it. Similarly for the animation it is just stating that it exists - rather than making any judgement on it. See what you think. ICBUW (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is basically an ICBUW public relations piece. It shows no original research into any of ICBUW's claims.  The ICBUW is even a phony name since there is no such thing as a "uranium weapon" - ICBUW has taken in a lot of money from many source, even the government of Norway, for dubious research.  99% of what is said about depleted uranium stems from the lies originally put out by Saddam Hussein's 1991 propaganda campaign, and those same lies are regurgitated on a near daily basis somewhere on the internet.  208.106.32.144 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell the authors of this book there's no such thing: Depleted Uranium Weapons and International Law: A Precautionary Approach Avril McDonald, Jann K. Kleffner, Brigit C. A. ToebesT.M.C. Asser Press, 26 Jun 2008 - Doug Weller  talk 10:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack
It appears that the bulk of this article is problematic for the reasons outlined in WP:COATRACK - namely that it is not about the nominal subject but about DU weapons in general. That makes it a point-of-view fork from Depleted uranium. I am going to stubbify and see where it appears best to go from there. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr I'd disagree. The article is about the organisation rather than DU, just as this is about ICBL and not anti-personnel landmines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Ban_Landmines and this about the CMC and not cluster munitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_Munition_Coalition ICBUW (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)