Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Some Important Questions

On this topic it would nice to clear up the following. Question (1) Is it correct that when the warning to leave the city was given, males between the ages of 15 and 55 were not allowed to leave? If this restriction was applied the question is (a) from when to when and (b) to what geographic extent? Question 2 What percentage of the troops were told that Fellugah was "a city of insurgents"? 81.141.83.202 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming it is a veteran 3/1 Marine, but someone continuously edits this page to indicate that 3/1 was the main force for Phantom Fury, which is unequivocally untrue, except for in the eyes of 3/1 Marines. Every servicemember present and every unit/company/battalion was needed and necessary during Phantom Fury. This competition for glory needs to stop. Respect all those who fought so hard in that battle. Respect each other, kids. 3/1 wasn't the sole force or the main body or anything close to that. RCT 1 and RCT 7 worked collaboratively and together to secure Fallujah. Stop the ridiculous competition and stop editing this article to reflect the bias toward 3/1. Marine battalions 3/1, 1/8, 1/3, and 3/5 alike gave their all, as did all the Army members and foreign allied troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.124.153 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My name is Richard S. Lowry. I have spent the last three years of my life researching Operation Phantom Fury for my book "New Dawn." Let me try to answer some of your questions.

Question 1: The US Military completed the cordon of Fallujah only days before D-Day. Once the cordon was in place around the entire city, no one was allowed in or out, moving on their own. When Marines came upon civilians in the city, they were either allowed to stay or they were trucked out to refugee centers. Military aged men were taken into custody by the force that was moving south and not allowed to leave the city from the south. On D-Day, it was estimated that more than 95% of the population had left the city. The Army and Marines fought in a virtual ghosttown. In most cases, only enemy fighters remained in the city. Still the first rule of engagement was to not fire unless fired upon.

By Christmas, the Marines were allowing civilians to re-enter the city, district by district.

Question 2: I do not believe it is possible to answer this question. Fallujah was a city full of insurgents. There were at least 2000 insurgent fighters that stood and fought in Fallujah.

The Marines have a specific definition of "Main Effort." It is defined in the "The Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1 - Warfighting" which is footnoted on page 45 of "New Dawn."

"The Main effort is an important tool for providing unity...The commander must recognize the 'single most critical effort' to success at any given moment. The unit assigned responsibility for accomplishing this key mission is designated as the main effort - the focal point upon which converges the combat power of the force. The main effort receives priority for support of any kind. It becomes clear to all other units in the command that they must support that unit in the accomplishment of its mission...the main effort becomes a harmonizing force for subordinate initiative. Faced with a decision, we ask ourselves: 'How can I best support the main effort?'"

Now, RCT-1 was the 'main effort' throughout the entire attack south during Operation Phantom Fury. Of Colonel Shupp's four combat battalions, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment led the attack into the city on 8 NOV, followed by 3/1. 2-7 Cav was the main effort of the main effort until they reached the Jolan Park the next day. At which time LtCol Willy Buhl's Thundering Third (3/1) conducted a passage of lines. At that time 3/1 became the main effort and they continued to be the main effort until they reached the southern edge of the city, nearly a week later.

I totally agree that every unit made large contributions during Operation Phantom Fury, but it is not inaccurate to say that 3/1 was the main effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.128.55 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

US Casualties

The official battle ended Nov 16 with only 50 US Soldiers killed... Why does it say 95 killed and the date until Dec 23? I mean yes there was still sporadic fighting but after the siege and the USMC took the city. I am going to change it. Here is my source http://www.talkingproud.us/Military042805B.html (USMCMIDN (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

The fighting did not end until December 24th. See "New Dawn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.128.55 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No "official" end date for Fallujah was declared, but common thought is through December as heavy fighting continued through the month of December. My source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm I would also challenge your use of "soldiers" as a broad term for the American troops in Operation Phantom Fury. No Marine would appreciate being called a soldier. "Troops" is a safe word to use, but not soldiers. Soldiers implies US Army servicemembers. No, they are not one and the same. Completely different branches of the military with completely different tactical duties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.124.153 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Insurgent Casualties

I added during the OP. That what the sources say and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.248 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

US Casualties 2nd

Stop changing the casualties to 95. That is wrong. If military times said 51 then it is that number. All the other sources like ICasualties for example are giving all deaths around Fallujah during and AFTER the battle (sporadic street fighting after the battle was over does not count...So after the Battle was ended it still counted casualties. ICasualties in this case is not a reliable source!!! Stop changing it. 95 is wrong. Read! http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105_Fallujah-P2,00.html

I agree there was fighting after the operation but that number is not the total amount of dead in the OP. Maybe something should be said in a paragraph?

(USMCMIDN (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Chill out, dude. As was cited in my previous post, there is no consensus on the end date for fighting of Phantom Fury. Heavy fighting continued through the month of December. Were you there? Were you a part of the battle? Take it from someone who was there. No "official" end date for Fallujah was declared, but common thought is through December as heavy fighting continued through the month of December. My source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.124.153 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard S. Lowry again. 95 is close to correct. It all depends on what date you stop counting. As for iCasualties.org, their data is accurate but most do not consider that the fighting continued in Fallujah until December 24th. See "New Dawn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.128.55 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Battle does not end because the US command says it ends nor does it go on indefinitely just cause one person dies every 5 days by some lone sniper insurgent. As long as there are persistent street fights and counter attacks by the insurgency the battle goes on. Please adjust the casualties to meet this criteria as I am not sure for how long this went on. 109.228.159.237 (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Women and Children"

The line "...several bodies apparently killed by white phosphorus, including women and children" is sexist and unnecessary. I changed it to "...including children." The fact that women were killed is no more noteworthy than male deaths; the same is not true of children. This persistent phrase literally implies that the value of a man's life is less than a woman's; it's arguably nearly as problematic from a feminist perspective. Regardless of personal feelings on the subject, it is not encyclopedic and has no place in this, or any, article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.185.91 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can not TOTALLY agree with above statement. I am a media professional in the UK for over twenty years, I've been employed by The Independent. It is true to say human life has worth regardless of gender, however a majority of combatants are normally men, less than .1% of the world's armies are female, therefore it is notable that the mothers of the children, women, females, whatever you want to call them, were killed and injured by a weapon that is indiscriminate and apparently illegal in urban areas. Howabout "men, women and children" - Women were killed at Fallujah, why did you censor that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.2.62 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard S. Lowry again. I personally interviewed two Battalion Surgeons and they both told me that there were no civilian bodies found that had evidence of burns. Bodies shown on the internet were black and bloated from laying in the hot sun for days. White Phosphorous was used in artillery shells to lay smoke screens ahead of the troops advance. On more than one occasion, the WP smoke balls fell short on American troops. No Americans were wounded and certainly no one was burned. During my research, I found no indication that anyone was burned by WP, let alone civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.128.55 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraqi flag for Iraqi Insurgency?

Greetings all! I see that the Ba'athist Iraqi flag is used to represent the Iraqi insurgency. However, is there any rationale for this? Thank you! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mujahedeen Shura Council?

The article lists the Mujahedeen Shura Council as a participant in the battle. However, the Mujahedeen Shura Council article says that the group was formed in 2006, when the Second Battle of Fallujah takes place in 2004. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I have removed the Mujahedeen Shura Council from the list of combatants. If somebody has a credible reference that they took place in the battle, add it back in with a proper cite. Thank you all. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth Defects Section

What's with this? This section says that US weapons may have caused these defects, but doesn't specify which or what kind of weapons. More specifically, what kind of weapons can cause genetic and heart defects in babies? For that to happen, you would need to use something radioactive, chemical, or biological, and to accuse US forces of using those weapons is just plain stupid. They don't. As Wikipedia continues to lean left, less attention is being paid to baseless charges like these just being thrown into articles and accepted as fact. Reform this section with real facts or delete it. 75.128.119.48 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

High levels of depleted uranium in Fallujah have been confirmed in a study published in September 2011. High levels of birth defects in Fallujah was confirmed long ago. See: Talk:Depleted uranium‎ for references and more info. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by who? the IRCC? The UN, the World Health Organization? It took a decade for data from Chernobyl to be quantified. Smells like the infamous Lancet bullshit story to me! Iraq is an unhealthy place to live *before* you add in combat operations. Iraqis burn benzene, a serious carcinogenic, in their stoves and cars and that is just one of many chemicals Iraqis use freely. Worse, the depleted uranium story referenced is suspect and really unsubstantiated. The allegation is based upon the fact that because the M-1 *can carry DU rounds*, the U.S. military used them. Gosh, all U.S. tactical aircraft can carry nuclear weapons, ergo those weapons were were probably used in Fallujah too! In reality, the most effective tank rounds for use against anything other than tanks are high explosive rounds, not to mention that firing DU sabots can be very hazardous for infantry in front of the tank, which makes it much more likely that HE was the munition of choice for tanks. Never argue with leftists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.236.54 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Army Battalions "leading the attack, and 4 Marine Battalions following"

All 6 Battalions attacked at the same time.

Your description that the Marine Battalions followed the Army is very, very far from factually correct. I conducted the breach for 1/3. I was there and I know that all attacks occured at the exact same time, with a division online. I had it briefed to me a thousand times, we rehaersed it, and then I saw it from the TC hatch of my AMTrack.

The actual order of battle for RCT 7 went: one of the Army Stryker Battalion on the left (East--don't remember which one, they were only there a few days before we assumed their AO), us (1/3) in the center, and 1/8 on the right (West).

For RCT 1 on the West side of the city I don't remember exactly how they were arrayed, but the composition was similar: 1 Army Stryker Battalion, then 3/1 and 3/5. They also attacked simultaneously online, at 2000 on 8 November. Nobody followed anybody. The Stryker Battalions did leave very fast after the attack, requiring us to take over their AOs for most of the battle, so that may be the source of the confusion, but it is important to note that assuming another unit's AO is is not the same as "following them."

RCT1 absolutely was the main effort. We (RCT 7) were a supprting effort. This is not a measuring of slong thing, but a fact. Every Marine Corps operations has supporting efforts and main efforts. The main effort regiment was RCT 1, and they (of course) designated a main effort subordinate battalion. I forget which one it was (3/1 or 3/5), but it was whichever one was all the way in the West and would be going into the skyscraper area of Joulon where we expected the insurgent leadership to be if they didn't squirt out like they did.

Honestly, this article is clearly so full of emotion, you should just get rid of it. The battle is long over and nobody cares anymore anyway. If you like Army, you can go ahead and write the books as if you were the ones that did the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.9.34 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Edits

I'm not getting this and this reverts to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened.Gobbleygook (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained on your talk page, so pretending that it hasn't been explained is dishonest. You've done this twice now. As the editor adding and/or changing content, you have the burden to explain how your edits are an improvement. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with his edit. "Not an improvement" is not a reasonable explanation for a non-vandalism revert. You seem to just be following this guy around Wikpedia, reverting his edits. So what's the deal? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The problems with his edits were explained on his talk page which he deleted and I added back. He's also a suspected sock puppet of a blocked user, so that's another problem. His edits removed the reference to Jamail as an independent (unembedded) journalist which is signficant, and his other changes go against our best practices. This user has a habit of making these kinds of edits and has been blocked many times for them using many different accounts. And to summarize, it is the responsibility of every editor to be able to justify their edits when asked. This user will not and cannot do that for reasons already demonstrated. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nuh uh, you. "Independent" is a loaded term; used within the industry it means free lance or without sponsorship but outside it implies a degree of impartiality or aloofness which clearly does't exist here. As far as best practice, not really. If a source or agency has a page to link to then ideological identifiers are superfluous and distracting. For entities without a main article to link which are doing political coverage of a politicized topic then identifying their skin in the game is entirely reasonable if adequately supported by reliable sources. Lastly, don't wikilawyer me. If you're going to contest sourced material you have to explain the basis of your objection. All that aside, if he's a sock puppet then you go ahead and put your cards on the table where you need to, don't toss it around like a talisman ward off evil edits. Your needlessly curt attitude with me makes me wonder about that though. Who do you think he's a sock puppet of? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Jamail is known for his unembedded status, and that's signficant in this context. I've already filed a report, and since the editor should not be editing, it is best practice to revert all edits made by sock puppets. I'm sorry if you disagree. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jamail is also known for his radical left-wing politics. So why mention of one but not the other? You're not the sock puppet police; if he's a sock that'll get taken care of, along with any nonconstructive edits. Until then I don't see your explanation being adequate here, nor a few other places, after having gone through the logs. So, again, who's he a suspected sock of? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind on the second, I've figured that out. Waiting on your diffs and a ruling. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We're all "sock puppet police", and if we notice something strange, we follow the user and report it, which I've done. I know what I'm doing, thank you very much for your concern. Finally, my "explanation" is perfectly adequate: failing to justify your edits is a non-starter. The user could not justify his edits, nor could you. Jamail is known as an independent, unembedded journalist, which is a significant part of his role as a source, which you acknowledged. Second, it is not entirely clear what you mean when you say he is known for his "radical left-wing politics". Could you explain that statement and cite a source for it? This isn't Fox News and this isn't Conseravapedia. We don't go around labeling people based on their alleged politics unless the material in question is directly relevant, such as content about a political campaign or political action. For some reason, you actually believe we label people as "left-wing" and "right-wing" when it has nothing to do with the subject. That's wrong, I'm afraid. I'm curious, where did you get this strange idea? Perhaps you could teach me a thing or two, which by the way, I would welcome. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We're already at the "I, the venerable wiki blue blood, am tired of your nagging, peasant" point, huh? The part where you get shitty, dismissive and sarcastic. Your binary brain even managed to drag out the always tired Fox News/Conservapedia chortle in response to the words "left wing". I have news for you, I've been here, in one form or another, just as long as you have. I know this stupid song and dance. So, I've justified my point. I'm going to put the ideological identifier back in. The one already conveniently provided by the OP. BTW, you're still not the sock puppet police. You're the guy trying to find a "See something, say something" hotline number to call. You don't enforce sock puppet bans or unilaterally remove anybody's posts mearly because you think they're a sock. You grab a number, make your case and sit in your seat until called. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You've been here this long and you still don't know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Are you being honest here? You sound like a real noob. Should I leave you a welcome message? :) Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, we both know better. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted your meatpuppetry. We don't restore contested edits made by sock puppets. Now, please answer the questions above as to why you supported this material. Jamail is best described as an independent journalist and we don't preface our attribution of sources with statements describing their perceived political affiliation by op/ed's and sources that have nothing to do with the subject. Do you know how to write articles and use reliable sources? I ask because it doesn't look like you do. Neither of those sources are applicable. Do you understand why not? First of all, neither of those sources are about this subject. Second of all, we don't use op/ed's, and third of all, we don't use perceived critical pieces about a subject not connected to this one. As editors, we don't preface our sources by labeling them left-wing or right-wing or trying to color the perception of our readers. What we do is we attribute the author and the publication, and we describe the material in its appropriate context. I don't see what politics has to do with this at all, and unless a source about this subject says something about politics, we can't as editors make this choice. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, an actual explanation that has bearing in our policies. So you don't like the quality of the source provided? Very well, I'll find another and we can compare notes. As for your assertion that an assertion by a reliable source must be mentioned within the same source as the article subject, well I'd love to see that. Can you provide me a link? TomPointTwo (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not paying attention; the problems have been explained already. The use of the term in this context is pejorative and intended to color the perception of the source and is not supported by sources about the subject in the context of this topic. Finally, you should familiarize yourself with WP:SYN. Why are you calling the U.S. media watchdog group Project Censored "politically leftist" in the context of this subject? Should we also mention that Jamail is a Lebanese American and grew up in Houston? Of course not. The context of this subject is the use of white phosphorus. What does that have to do with being accused of being "politically leftist"? It is quite obvious that you are attempting to inject bias into this article. In true Fox News/Conservapedia style, by prefacing the source name with accusations of being "politically leftist" you are warning potential readers that this source should not be trusted because it is not considered conservative. Do you really think this is acceptable editing? Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Even more of your aggressive snark aside I'd say you need to reread SYN. That aspect of OR covers multiple, unrelated assertions by reliable sources be converged to create a new point that isn't supported by and RS. Using an RS that says A is B in an article about C isn't SYN at all, as only one assertion is being made based on one assertion in a single source. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding "politically leftist" or "politically right-wing" or similar partisan descriptors before an organization in this fashion inappropriately introduces political POV labels. We should instead strive to be neutral in this regard. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, longtime no see. Contextualizing unanswered commentary by political sources is neither disallowed nor unwise. Can you demostrate otherwise? TomPointTwo (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not specifically disallowed, but certainly not wise in my opinion.  :) It's a form of editor POV introduced labeling and should probably be avoided under the general auspices of WP:NPOV; of course, local article consensus will dictate outcomes. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Broadly concur. The isolated and decidedly political nature of accusations, even with the heap of discredited narratives aside, demonstrate to me that a broader context is due the general reader. I guess we'll have to wait on that consensus though. Cheers. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

After noting the cleanup-rewrite tag, I've endeavored to clean up and rewrite the section. I'm done now, and will remove the clean-up tag on my next edit. I also have a final parting suggestion for both TomPointTwo and Viriditas, regarding the sentence "U.S. media watchdog group Project Censored awarded...", the last sentence of the first paragraph. I'm still strongly opposed to adding "politically leftist" as a partisan descriptor. However, I think as a final edit to the section, it would be better just to delete that sentence in it's entirety. I respect Dahr Jamail's coverage of the battle but the fact that Project Censored gave him an award for the story isn't really relevant in the context of a synopsis of White phosphorous use in Iraq. Besides, the source cite is a dead link. Comments? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I find the removal to be both equitable and logical. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur with the deletion. I will tentatively move ahead with this. Gobbleygook (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Image and perspective imbalance

There are 14 images/videos in this article, and 13 of them are taken of and shot from the perspective of the U.S. Army. The last is an image of protesters in Britain.

4,000 insurgents, mostly Iraqis and many from Fallujah itself, fought in this battle. They may have lost it, but we should find a way to represent them in media as well - both fighting and as casualties. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Battle of Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105024105/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/article/0,,7374-1875728,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875728,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The text of my proposal for Controversies

Extended section on controversies added by GalantFan (talk). Gusfriend (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Despite the Coalition success, the battle resulted in extensive collateral damage in lives and property. Some of the United States' weapons and methods received attention and criticism. Use of white phosphorus as a weapon Main article: White phosphorus use in Iraq On November 10, 2004, Washington Post reporters who were embedded with Task Force 2-2, Regimental Combat Team 7 reported that they witnessed artillery guns firing white phosphorus projectiles which "create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns." The article also reported, "The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted." On November 9, 2005, the national public broadcasting company of Italy, Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", which reported that the United States had used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah, and which showed that insurgents and civilians had been killed or injured by chemical burns. Included were graphic video and photos of severe and deep chemical burns that penetrated the flesh and bones of men, women, and children. The filmmakers claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its chemical properties. On November 15, 2005, the US ambassador to the United Kingdom, Robert Tuttle, wrote to The Independent denying that the United States used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah. However, later the same day, US Department of Defence spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that US forces had used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon there. Venable also stated "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke – and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground – will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives." On November 16, 2005, BBC News reported that an article published in the March–April 2005 issue of Field Artillery, a U.S. Army magazine, noted that white phosphorus had been used during the battle. According to the article, "WP [White Phosphorus] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." U.S. won't let men flee Fallujah The AP news agency reported that military-age males attempting to flee the city were turned back by the U.S. military. Colonel Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous" but insisted it is is key to the mission's success. Troops have cut off all roads and bridges leading out of the city. Relatively few residents have sought to get through, but officers here say they fear a larger exodus. Once the battle ends, military officials have said all surviving military-age men can expect to be tested for explosive residue, catalogued, checked against "insurgent" databases and interrogated about ties with the guerrillas. The Guardian reported that: Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They leveled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population". Civilian casualties The Red Cross estimated directly following the battle that some 800 civilians had been killed during the offensive. The Iraq Body Count project reported between 581 and 670 civilian deaths resulting from the battle. Mike Marqusee, in a November 2005 article for The Guardian, wrote that "The US claims that 2,000 died, most of them fighters. Other sources disagree. When medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 bodies in only one third of the city. Iraqi NGOs and medical workers estimate between 4,000 and 6,000 dead, mostly civilians". "There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone," said Burhan Fasa'am, a photographer with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. "With no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target for the Americans." Depleted uranium US forces used depleted uranium shells as part of their attack on the militants in Fallujah, as they had been doing since the beginning of the war in 2003. US forces gave the GPS coordinates of DU rounds, along with a list of targets and the numbers fired, to the Dutch Ministry of Defence, which was concerned about areas in which its troops were stationed... The Dutch MoD then released the data to PAX in response to a request under freedom of information law. The release of the information was a "useful first step towards greater transparency", said PAX, but the firing coordinates for most DU rounds remain unknown. More than 300,000 DU rounds are estimated to have been fired during the 2003 Iraq war, the vast majority by US forces. A small fraction were from UK tanks, the coordinates for which were provided to the UN Environment Programme. A further 782,414 DU rounds are believed to have been fired during the earlier conflict in 1991, mostly by US forces. Depleted uranium shells use radioactive uranium waste, which is highly dense, for effective armor penetration, and ignites spontaneously in contact with air, causing incendiary damage. Years after the battle, medical research teams discovered an increase in infant mortality, cancer, and congenital anomalies or birth defects among children born in Fallujah. According to a 2011 study by Alaani et al., depleted uranium exposure from munitions used during the war was either a primary cause or related to the cause of the birth defect and cancer increases. According to a 2012 journal article by Al-Hadithi et al., existing studies and research evidence does not show a "clear increase in birth defects" or a "clear indication of a possible environmental exposure including depleted uranium". The article further states that "there is actually no substantial evidence that genetic defects can arise from parental exposure to DU in any circumstances." GalantFan (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC) References

• I have collapsed the section above as it appears to be main page text rather than part of a discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes by GalantFan

GalantFan, we can discuss your proposed changes here. Are you still proposing to add everything that's currently under the above section titled The text of my proposal for Controversies? GreenCows (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I am open to you explaining which parts should not be included or need to be modified before inclusion.GalantFan (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I will look at your proposed changes today and comment. It might also be easier if I add some of what you propose myself if I have no objections just to speed this up.GreenCows (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

youtube link removed. this is really weird, the same video is still on the same channel but suddenly with a new link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgSmsMIUZ60&t=125s GalantFan (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That link works, but I think there might still be an issue with including it per WP:VIDEOLINK. The documentary has been uploaded unofficially. The above page states "For example, a YouTube verification badge is used to identify an official channel of an established creator, business or organization,[1] but it does not fully guarantee that all its videos comply with copyright and fair use." GreenCows (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I started to look through your proposed changes and already re-added some of the material that I think are good additions, since it makes it easier to move along the discussion. I have to agree with what Bonadea said in their edit-summary that there were issues with phrasing, sourcing, and the quotes. I have fixed some of the wording and sourcing issues. However, the main issue about the proposed additions is the overly long quotes and also excessive detail per WP:UNDUE and WP:MOS. I do think the sub-headings you added could be beneficial. The Controversies section should be kept concise in the same way Drmies has done to the White phosphorus munitions page. It's much better for readers of the article, especially mobile users. Drmies also noted that the long quotes could violate WP:NONFREE. Some of the paragraphs you want to add are also already on that article or the "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre" article. We should briefly summarize each issue and not duplicate these other articles. Readers can click on the wikilinks to the other articles for more detail. I will look at the rest of your proposed changes later and comment more specifically. GreenCows (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"stated that the U.S. forces used white phosphorus as a weapon against civilians" No the video did not ever say that. That is a strawman argument. The Independent article referenced doesn't even say that. It says "A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Fallujah."

There is distinction between using a weapon "against civilians" and civilians dying while the weapon was used against militants, which is what actually happened.

Additionally, you continue to use secondhand claims of what the content of the video is instead of referencing the actual content of the video. Reinforcing my belief that you still haven't watched it.GalantFan (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether I watched the video or not is hardly relevant. For the record I have watched parts of it but the documentary isn't a reliable source for facts and you shouldn't cite YouTube as a source, especially when the video has been uploaded unofficially. Reliable secondary sources describing the content of the documentary are needed. The sentence "stated that the U.S. forces used white phosphorus as a weapon against civilians" was there before. I didn't add it and it can be changed per reliable sources. GreenCows (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The documentary is the MOST reliable source for descriptions of the content of the documentary. You keep posting links about the whole "allegation" that the documentary says weapons were used against civilians and the military says they weren't. That allegation you are refuting doesn't exist. There is no allegation or claim that the military attacked civilians with WP. The documentary does include testimony that civilians were deliberately targeted with guns.

THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT THE CONTROVERSY. THE USE OF WP IS THE CONTROVERSY. THE DOCUMENTARY IS ONLY ONE OF THE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.

and the WaPo paragraph which you keep deleting is a stronger and more reliable source, which is the reason why it is in more than one wiki article. GalantFan (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You keep submitting the article after you just change one or two words. Every time you do that, it adds a whole file to wiki servers. It's better to preview the changes and then click submit when you have finished editing.

I don't know why you are so afraid to mention that the contents of the video includes video footage of the dead bodies of women and children. It's a main point of the video. The video is NOT just about WP, it's about the dead people. That's why it's called the Hidden Massacre, not the Hidden White Phosphorus.GalantFan (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm really perplexed about your claim that I'm "submitting the article after you just change one or two words" and that "it adds a whole file to wiki servers." I've honestly never heard that being an issue. For the record, I'm editing by mobile, so I have to preview my changes before submitting anyway. GreenCows (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a bigger issue when memory cost over $1 per MB. I read recently how Facebook adds over a pallet of new HDDs every day, and wikipedia keeps telling me how much money they need.GalantFan (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• A couple of comments: (a) it is perfectly fine to change things a little at a time. In fact that is an excellent way of taking others along with you on the journey. If you are concerned then look at the history and step through the changes. (b) I cannot support the currently proposed changes by GalantFan as they are presented in bulk and as a large section which, in essence reverses WP:BRD as it requires other editors to select parts that they have a concern with. (c) Adding a large section all at once will also get other editors saying to get consensus on the talk page first which is what has happened. (d) to help get things started see below... Gusfriend (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, a new version does not mean that WP needs to save a whole new version of the page. See Version control and Help:Page history. Gusfriend (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Gusfriend at "The use of white phosphorus during the battle has been particularly controversial."

  It's really not a controversy at all.

  Maybe it's time to kill the "Controversy" section and put the WP section back. This section was also called "Criticism" before, maybe it should just be called that again.GalantFan (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Gusfriend@GreenCows already said he thought the sub-headings were a good idea, so that's why I put those back in. GalantFan (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

More about killing civilians on purpose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgSmsMIUZ60&t=913s Not with WP but with machine guns. GalantFan (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The documentary alleged that white phosphorus was used in "massive and indiscriminate way"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgSmsMIUZ60&t=1081s Ya, they sprayed the stuff out of helicopters and artillery shells like they were killing dandelions instead of people. re:the claims that the smoke was a "screen" and not a chemical weapon, there are other links that when it contacts skin, eyeballs, sinuses and lungs, it turns into phosphoric acid.GalantFan (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

21 December 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=9305322

Donald Rumsfeld said, "There aren't going be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces." [1]

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/9/20041109-122801-7776r/

“The north of the city is in flames. I can also see fire and smoke … Fallujah has become like hell,” Fadril al-Badrani, a resident in the center of Fallujah, said Monday night amid a heavy air and artillery barrage. He said hundreds of houses had been destroyed.

Allawi called on Fallujah’s fighters to lay down their weapons to spare the city and allow government forces to take control, “The political solution is possible even if military operations are ongoing,” his spokesman said.

The question of casualties is a major factor in the offensive. Reports of hundreds of people killed during the Marine offensive in April outraged Iraqis and forced the Marines to pull back - allowing guerrillas to only strengthen their hold on the city.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said he hoped the violence “ends fast,” adding that he was in touch with Iraqi officials. “No one can ever accept the way civilians are struck in Fallujah,” he told reporters.

10 November 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=27907181

7 January 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=34178484

11 April 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=122087666

[2] GalantFan (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of these comments are uncivil. Posting very old versions of this page is pointless and bringing up old comments by Green547 and adding a ROFL in the middle is just inappropriate and you've been warned about this type of behaviour before. There's no benefit in alluding to past disputes or bringing up this long dormant editor, so please just drop it. These tangents aren't constructive and it derails the discussion. The reason I added that the "documentary alleged that white phosphorus was used in a "massive and indiscriminate way" is because that's what the RS says. A YouTube video is generally not considered an acceptable citation and we shouldn't be giving undue weight to the contents of the documentary anyway. Regarding the WaPo paragraph you claim I keep deleting, we're supposed to discuss that here but you re-added before I even had the chance to discuss it. There's no need to rush through the issues. We can discuss proposed changes in the RFC format started by Gusfriend below to keep the discussion clear and easy to follow. GreenCows (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No it is not inappropriate at all to discuss Green547's changes in content. He was openly politically biased and vandalized articles wherever he edited. Everything he did should have been reverted immediately. GalantFan (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

And calling press statements from the Bush administration "more reliable" than the news agencies is most definitely a joke. GalantFan (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Posting very old versions of this page is pointless" that is another statement of opinion. Those revisions are highly relevant because they were created while the content of this page was a current event. GalantFan (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, when discussing what the contents are of the video itself, referring DIRECTLY to the video is THE MOST reliable citation, rather than some third hand report of what it contains.

Green547 is the one who created the accusations that the video claimed the military was attacking civilians deliberately. He created a strawman and then spammed the article with links refuting the strawman he created. GalantFan (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear yet, despite Green547's absolutely and totally false claim that there was no evidence of civilian casualties, there were hundreds of dead bodies with phosphoric acid burns. The US govt claimed they were all combatants, but as has been made clear here, all male CIVILIANS between the ages of 15 and 50 were being threatened as enemy combatants. The men were forced to remain in the area, told to "stay away from the window" and then their whole neighborhood was blasted with toxic chemicals. Hiding under the bed won't save you while your lungs are filling with acid. And the military had the audacity to describe these effects as "psychological".

Another thing that was deleted from the article is how this was a HUGE DEAL in the UK, because the UK made it illegal for their troops to be anywhere near WP. GalantFan (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You deleted the WaPo report without discussing it. So let me make clear, you do not have consensus to delete the WaPo report from this article. It is a reliable source from first hand witnesses to the events, and it has been backed up with video evidence and piles of dead bodies. GalantFan (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been told by multiple editors that it's inappropriate to bring up Green547, including by admins. Girth Summit, advised "you to lose interest" in Green547's editing. Saying that "Everything he did should have been reverted immediately" is a clearly an inappropriate thing to say and irrelevant to the current discussion. Please listen to the advice of admins and just drop your vendetta against this dormant editor and be civil. You added the WaPo article at the start of the debate and it has been challenged and its on you to do justify it's inclusion here per WP:ONUS. GreenCows (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you challenging the reliability of the WaPo report or its relevance???? Why get rid of the WaPo report, describe the documentary as unreliable and keep that????

And no I did not add the WaPo report to the article. It was in here decades ago. Green547 deleted it from the article without getting any consensus from anyone. GalantFan (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo report was part of this article for over a decade. It is reliable, it is undisputed, it is supported by material evidence, and it was removed from the article by a historical revisionist who had absolutely no justification or consensus whatsoever for removing it. GalantFan (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not challenging it's reliability nor is it relevant that the WaPo article was in this article 7 years ago. Like I said, please read:WP:ONUS. You keep missing the point and not understanding me. For the record, I'm not opposed to keeping that paragraph how it is currently but you're behaviour has become increasingly disruptive and it's turned this discussion unpleasant. Also please see WP:BLUDGEON. GreenCows (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on the historical revisionist who stripped reliable sources from the article. There was no consensus to remove that content from the article. GalantFan (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The reasons why the WaPo report is so important is because it is a reliable primary source, it was written the day of the events, by a dependable news agency which was actually there on the scene, and has maintained their old articles so the link isn't dead.

The reason the contemporary versions of the wiki article are worth review is because they were written when sources were fresh and links were live and there was no conspiracy to revise history and pretend civilians didn't die in the battle. I understand they can't be used as sources, but they are true and tell you what happened.

It's very unfortunate that Italy's RAI state television network no longer hosts the video, but it is still better to view it with your own eyes than it is to read and quote opinion columns about it. GalantFan (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And the reason why reliable primary sources are so difficult to find now is BECAUSE THE U.S. MILITARY WANTED IT THAT WAY. Reporters were arrested, videos were destroyed, reporters were even killed. Just like it says in the video, that is what happened. I 100% understand the reason for not linking to youtube. But what people don't seem to understand is the military sources are not reliable, they were deliberately doing every thing they could to keep the truth from being made public. And that other editor who I quoted is exactly the end result of suppressing the information. All the information was here, in earlier versions of the article, and revisionists and whitewashers deleted it. GalantFan (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35979-2004Nov9_2.html

On Tuesday night, Fallujah's eerily empty streets were littered with shattered concrete and dead bodies, said a resident shaken by a missile strike on the second story of his family home. Insurgents cloaked in checkered head scarves carried wounded fellow fighters to mosques. Civilians caught in the crossfire were gathered in a hospital donated by the United Arab Emirates and flying a blue and white UNICEF banner. There, medical workers low on bandages and antiseptic bound wounds in ripped sheets and cleaned torn skin with hot water. The Jolan and Askali neighborhoods seemed particularly hard hit, with more than half of the houses destroyed. Dead bodies were scattered on the streets and narrow alleys of Jolan, one of Fallujah's oldest neighborhoods. Blood and flesh were splattered on the walls of some of the houses, witnesses said, and the streets were full of holes.

GalantFan (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And it's not a "youtube video" it's the RAI Italian national television video, which happens to be currently hosted on Youtube, but it is the genuine thing, and Thank God for Youtube and DailyMotion, without them history would be lost. GalantFan (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the problem. If it was not uploaded by the official owners, it's a copyright violation on YouTube, and we shouldn't be linking it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am nearly satisfied with the current state of the section

From where the article is now, I just want to put the main page link and the sub-headings back and call it good for now. GalantFan (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We have all three agreed about the main page link and GreenCows and I agree about the subheadings if @Gusfriend has no objection. GalantFan (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on adding hatnote to controversies section

Should a hatnote, either "Main article" or "See also" pointing to White phosphorus use in Iraq be added to the Controversies section? Gusfriend (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that it would probably be a good idea as it would allow for a more concise covering of the topic on this page and a number of the issues that could be raised in the section are already explored there. Gusfriend (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I put a main article link in, that is one of many edits I made that got reverted. GalantFan (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan, please stop making changes to the article as Gusfriend has opened an RFC. I did say sub-headings could be a good idea but there's no rush to make changes and another editor is now involved. Also the edit-summary for your latest edit is very misleading. There are typos to fix but you also you reverted Gusfriend and restored your preferred wording. Regarding adding the hatnote, I think it's a good idea, we can keep the paragraph on white phosphorus concise and readers can go to the main article for more details. GreenCows (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make any changes to the meaning or content of the paragraph, all I did was rearrange the grammar.GalantFan (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

also totally confused on why an RFC is needed to add a main link????????????????????? GalantFan (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"The use of white phosphorus during the battle has been particularly controversial."

That is a non-factual and non-substantive statement of opinion, and you really ought to put a citation from a reliable source on it like he said. GalantFan (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Great, so Gusfriend, GreenCows, and I all agree that adding a main page link is a good idea. That sounds like consensus to me, although I still don't understand why doing it was considered possibly controversial. GalantFan (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer your questions / comments:

1. The discussion has been going back and forth for a long time and there has been a lot of talking at cross purposes so making changes in bite sized chunks makes sense.
2. A RfC is a great way of generating / confirming consensus in a formal way and leave little leeway to interpretation.
3. Some editors could argue that including the main hatnote is giving undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) to the use of WP in the battle as it is highlighting the fact that it may be an issue especially if the text is not written in such a way as to take advantage of the fact that there is now a link to that page.
4. I hope that the RfC will draw in some other uninvolved editors. and plan to place a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history later on today (but would also be happy for someone else to do it).
5. There has not been sufficient time for consensus to develop and I would not support closing the RfC for at least 7 days.

Gusfriend (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend As far as it seems to me, the main link and the sub-headings are the last two things to do. I think the article is already as concise as it can be without omitting pertinent details. I am content to leave the rest of it the way it is right now. GalantFan (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan, I agree that would probably be good for a finalized Controversies section, with a couple tweaks to the sub-headings you added earlier. Although an RfC is probably needed to get consensus. GreenCows (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

GreenCows contributions here

GreenCows has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of long-time sockmaster Stumink. He has made too many contributions here for me to go through the archives striking them all, but editors should be aware that contributions he made can essentially be disregarded per WP:DENY. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! GalantFan (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)