Talk:White phosphorus munition/Archives/2014/August

Inappropriate article

Tis article is really weird because if l read it l see only negative things about white phosphor there is no chemical backround from the element, please someone add the chemical backround to it and remove some of the negativity of the article.

Thompsonswiki (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'negative only'? White phosphorus is a good article in itself. For example, it served Israel to maim, burn, and kill children in the 2008-2009 attack on Gaza. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may put words into User:Thompsonswiki's mouth; I believe they are remarking on the curious (though seemingly long-standing and agreed upon, given the hatnotes on both articles) situation where the properties of a chemical substance are confined entirely to a subsection of a chemistry article, while the military uses of that same substance have an article to themselves under the common name of the substance. There is also a paucity of detail on the chemical or industrial background of the substance or even metion of any past, present or possible "dual uses" of the substance. What chemical information there is is written through the lens of warfare, for this is a military article on a chemical, and not an article on a chemical with primarily military uses.

Thompsonswiki does seem to have made an unfortunate choice in words, but is there undue weight on the controversy surrounding its use in various conflicts? Tomásdearg92 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)