Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/2012/May

Michael Newton testimony
Professor Michael A. Newton's testimony before the 9th special session of the UN Human Rights Council on 9 January 2009 regarding his view that white phosphorus isn't to be considered an "incendiary weapon" under Protocol III, Article 1 of the 10 October 1980 Geneva Convention is valuable background material for anyone interested in this topic. It's his view that "air-dropped incendiary weapons" refers to napalm. I'd very much like to see his opinions on the matter included if we can find a more satisfactory source for them. But I don't think we can use the source

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.07.07PM_Session.doc

introduced in for the purpose. I have no wp:primary objection per sé, although it's an unofficial transcript with un-numbered pages, that, "should in no way be taken to represent an official or precise record of the proceedings", according to document itself. But I do object to its use because key parts of both Newton's and Goldstone's remarks about white phosphorus are marked as being unintelligible in the transcript. You can see this with the numerous indications of "crosstalk" and "inaudible" in the following excerpt:


 * It’s not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, ah, Protocol 3 to the Convention on certain Convention weapons which bans incendiary weapons has this flat prohibition that says you can never have air-dropped incendiary weapons, meaning napalm, in an urban area. So, again, some people would simply extrapolate from that and say, “Well, you have an air-dropped incendiary weapon, because white phosphorous does cause fires. Ah, again, you can’t draw that because there’s a specific exception (crosstalk) --


 * Chairperson Richard Goldstone
 * (Inaudible) things like ______.


 * Professor Michael A. Newton
 * (Crosstalk) There’s a question --


 * Chairperson Richard Goldstone
 * I, I, I don’t want to interrupt, but I – I just must mention we, we have to vacate the room just before 5 p.m., so if you just take that into account.


 * Professor Michael A. Newton
 * (Inaudible) … six more minutes, prepared and then I’m happy to take questions. Um, because the analysis of the final three questions is – largely replicates. Large – the, the thought process, the analysis in my – my framework is largely duplicative.

Rather too much like trying to cite a book that has lots of big holes in the pages, in my opinion. I've reverted the addition, after first providing a version that I believe provides a better summary of his lengthy testimony. --OhioStandard (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as nobody is attempting to quote or interpret these inaudible mutterings, why is their presence a problem?' Ankh '. Morpork  17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not their presence that's a problem, it's the absence they document. ;-) It's like trying to draw conclusions from a document that's heavily redacted: There's no way to know the full intent of what was actually said, of what we can make out. Newton opined that "incendiary weapon" as it's intended in Protocol III means only napalm, for example, but we have no idea what was said two sentences later, or the nature of Goldstone's statement or question, following. But we can reasonably infer that it had something to do with Newton's statement, as his follow-up to Goldstone probably would have done.


 * I strongly suspect that we understand the gist of Newton's testimony, based only on what we are able to read of it, but I'm not willing to add content to an article based on that guess. Besides, as I noted in one of my edit summaries, nothing Newton says is in any way specific to Gaza: He speaks very generally, so his testimony would belong in the "Arms control status" section, if we were to use it. His testimony wouldn't have much exculpatory utility there for Israel. Besides, again, if he had opined about its use in Gaza, specifically, his statement that "white phosphorous on a playground for example, is different from white phosphorous in another area" would necessarily inform the legality of its use over the UN compound and, iirc, hospitals.


 * On an entirely separate, and original research note, I doubt anyone who views this video would be able to concur with the notion that white phosphorus should not appropriately be classed as an incendiary weapon. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The session was convened to discuss the events during the Gaza War and to say this is not relevant is absurd. In trials, the prosecution may not offer new evidence on rebuttal unless a foundation was laid for it earlier on. In such instances, previously inadmissible evidence can sometimes be cited to rebut point raised by the defense. Point being that if the article sees fit to include Kenneth Roth' layman view that "this is a chemical compound that burns structures and burns people. It should not be used in populated areas", the contrasting view of a legal expert intimately familiar with this weaponry is surely adducible.' Ankh '. Morpork  12:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankh, this is not a court of law where you are advocating for your cause. We are writing an encyclopedia, and for the reasons Ohiostandard has outlined this source does not meet the standards to be used as an RS. The source actually states that it "should in no way be taken to represent an official or precise record of the proceedings", so given that there is also parts of the testimony which are transcribed as "inaudible" and "cross-talk", I don't see that we have any option but to reject it as a source. Also I think the same material and source is used in the Gaza War, page and that should also be reviewed in light of this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More's the pity old bean. A rebuttal addresses a specific point and your surrebuttal would surely be invalid as it is not confined with the requisite specificity. My legal analogy sought to explain the relevancy of this content, you in turn have countered this with a reliability point, not only outside the constrictive surrebuttal ambit but also a non sequitor. Anyway, Aggers' and Blowers' chuntering is proving highly distractive so I shall return to this issue later.' Ankh '. Morpork  12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The real pity is that you used only "surrebuttal". If you'd been able bring in "rejoinder" that would have given you occasion to work in "adjoinder", as well. Then people would have been in no doubt about how smart you are. Perhaps next time you should give us all something in Latin. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be mistaking me with Nishidani.' Ankh '. Morpork  20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've struck my previous. It's no kind of excuse, but as I explained to him privately, I initially misunderstood Ankh's post of 12:52, 21 May 2012 UTC as a contemptuous remark directed toward Dlv999 and myself; in retrospect it's clear nothing of the sort was intended. I'm sorry, Ankh: I hope you enjoyed the game. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure did; England are the number one test side and listening to them thump the opposition, while methodically reverting vandalism, has great synergy and is a recommended pursuit. I'll even teach you the ground rules of the game if you're interested; it is of course much more sophisticated and cerebral than its dumbed-down counterpart :-p ' Ankh '. Morpork  17:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good news, then. Put out your tongue as much as you like, though: I enjoy playing most sports, but watching? I'd as soon watch other people eat a great meal. And baseball is the worst: Watching it is the most tedious occupation I know of that's passed off as entertainment. But if watching cricket normally involves consuming large volumes of alcohol, it might be appealing. One does like to have some kind of publicly sanctoned excuse for doing so, you know, now that I'm too old for morps, and devil dancing is so frowned upon. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)