Talk:Saudi Arabia and weapons of mass destruction

Iran-based sources
Press.TV, fars*.*, and other *.ir, obviously Iranian propaganda against Saudi, as usual, in many wikipedia pages here.  ibensis    (What’s the Story?)   03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, since multiple sources describe Iran and Saudi Arabia to be in a proxy conflict, using Iran-based sources for this article is not neutral and sources should be replaced with neutral sources. A NPOV expert should check and fix the NPOV issues of this article. I will add some content here which demonstrates non neutral POV.

Of course, it has been mentioned by some reports that Saudi Arabia directly/indirectly has been used chemical and biological weapons in the wars and also Saudi Arabian chemical materials has been discovered in the city of Aleppo, an official news agency of Syria said. Additionally, Yemeni Major General Khalid al-Barayemi pointed out that there have been found chemical weapons in several trucks bounds of Saudi Arabia for the areas that are under the control of ISIS and likewise Al-Qaeda. As well as charging of using chemical and biological weapons, there are other charges for Riyadh, too.

Iran based sources were used at least 16 times in this article. An expert should check this article and make sure it adheres to WP:NPOV, preferably removing any Iran-based sources from the article. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since January 2019 only one source from Iranian fars is still in use. I'm taking out the source and the tag. Since there is no more Pro Iranian media sources at the article content. Also editors should try to keep a eye if a new created Sockpuppet account keeps pushing toward his POV.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

White Phosphorus
White Phosphorus is not considered as a chemical weapon. Generally, it is considered as an incendiary weapon. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a incendiary weapon and his use is banned in the US agains civilians targets, since is not a Chemical Weapon and is not viewed as such by media, experts and other sources; is Ok to take it out from the content article. Other Wp articles of WMD does not consider them.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the page Mr.User200 was trying to link to before is White phosphorus munitions. Does anyone have more solid sources than the ones we already have? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me. When I edit a page I watch it and its talk page.
 * A careful read of Weapon of mass destruction will show that incendiaries and smoke screens do not qualify, and thus should not be mentioned in our Saudi Arabia and weapons of mass destruction or any related WMD page. Keep in mind that many things that are not WMDs are are generally prohibited for use in war. Examples include Expanding bullets; perfectly legal for dear hunting, illegal in most armies. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They qualify if used for their toxic chemical properties rather than as a smokescreen or marking agent. If used not for their toxic chemical properties or as a smokescreen or marking agent but as an incendiary weapon a whole different group of rules would apply. Different use cases falling under different regulations is as you yourself said commonplace. I also hope you aren’t hunting your dear with an expanding bullet, that would be dark. Stick to the deer. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very clear that White Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. This is a fact. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) does not consider the White Phosphorus as Chemical warfare agent. Thus, there is no need for more discussions about this issue. also, none of the two sources I removed suggested that KSA is using Chemical and/or Biological warfare in Yemen. here is Wikipedia article about Chemical weapons, try to find if White Phosphorus is listed there. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm the sources we currently have disagree with that assessment, do you have any sources which support your argument that OPCW doesn’t consider it possible to use WP as a chemical weapon? I agree that we probably don’t have enough to say that in wikivoice, but the argument against has to focus on the sources rather some spurious argument that there are no uses of WP which fall under chemical weapons prohibitions. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)