Jump to content

Talk:Chemical warfare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChemical warfare is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 8, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 1, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
March 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Redirect?

[edit]

Why does Poison Gas Redirect Here, that makes no sense what so ever.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 04:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now goes to Chemical weapon (resolved some time ago). Klbrain (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Toxins

[edit]

Quote from article: "The offensive use of living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered biological warfare rather than chemical warfare; however, the use of nonliving toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g. toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, and saxitoxin) is considered chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention."

Toxins are listed on the Biological Weapons Convention as well. Military doctrine classifies toxins in their biological agent lists. Even though toxins have similarities to chemical agents, they are generally considered biological agents due to production, detection and decontamination.

kddodge

Chemical Warfare Vs. Chemical Experiments

[edit]

I would like to ask for opinions on making Chemical Weapon Developement/ Experiments a seperate subject. Paragoalie (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project SHAD

[edit]

"Ironically, at the same time the Bush Administration pressed the Senate to declare war on Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein was stockpiling those same weapons.[43]" What is the revelence for this quote in relation to Project SHAD? I am concidering deleting it. Paragoalie (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page need protection?

[edit]

Given the subject matter, and some recent, repeated vandalism attempts by unregistered users, do y'all think this page should at least be semi-protected? Chris Allen (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in classes of chemical weapons table

[edit]

Hello. Mustard agents generally do not corrode skin by producing acid. Sulfur mustards, for example, attack DNA. Unfortunately the table is not editable, but is a template "Chemical warfar/CW table" (in curly braces rather than quotes). Could someone point me to the table so that I can edit it?--Wikimedes (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From sulfur mustard: "Physiological effects: (Soldier with moderate mustard gas burns sustained during World War I showing characteristic bullae on neck, armpit and hands) Mustard gas has extremely powerful vesicant effects on its victims." Rmhermen (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but mustards do not do this by forming acids. (Chlorine, by contrast, does.) I wanted to remove acid formation from the mechanism.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section "History of Chemical Warfare" should become an independent Article

[edit]

The section "History of Chemical Warfare" should become an independent Wikipedia-Article, because it is to long. Also it needs an elaborated revision and additional subheadlines.--MBelzer (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tear gas

[edit]

Since the Argentinian use of tear gas in the Falklands is mentioned, shouldn't US use of teargas in Operation Tailwind also be mentioned for consistency? I suspect there may be other cases too, but since I'm no expert on chemical warfare I'll stay out of editing the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.142.48 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read our article on Operation Tailwind (and knowing little else about it) it seems that it should be mentioned. Perhaps there should be a separate section in the article for not-normally-lethal chemical agents such as tear gas and agent orange? (Though I see from our article on teargas that it is a prohibited from being used in warfare.)--Wikimedes (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of a photograph

[edit]
Japanese Naval Landing Force, awaiting attack orders whilst wearing gas masks in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army, maintaining the frontlines until the arrival of reinforcements (Chapei front, Shanghai.
The back cover of Pictorial World (『世界画報』,　Sekai Gaho, December 1937)

.

This edit by User:STSC is problematic.

  • the website doesn't say that this picture was taken during a Japanese gas attack.
  • Peter Harmsen writes in his Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze, Whether the Japanese actually did use gas in Shanghai area was a matter of debate, and remains in the years after the battle. (Harmsen, pp. 178-179) In short, he says that Chinese side claimed/reported Japanese chemical attacks, Japanese side claimed/reported Chinese chemical attacks.
  • This photograph depicts an unit of the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (上陸), which was a small garrison and defended the northeastern rim of the Shanghai International Settlement. There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force.
  • This photograph was taken in the Chapei front, which includes some parts of Chapei (Zhabei) and Hongkew (Hongkou), during the Battle of Shanghai. There is neither reports nor claims about gas attacks in Chapei front.
  • Moreover, this photograph was used as the back cover of a Japanese magazine Pictorial World (『世界画報』,　Sekai Gaho, Vol.13, No.12). The Japanese side which accused Chinese side of using poison gas at the time. If it depicted their own poison gas attack, they couldn't use it.
  • According to Ji Xueren (纪学仁/紀學仁, prof. of the PLA Chemical Warfare Command and Engineering Academy),Chinese side claims that the Japanese Imperial Army used chemical weapons (mainly tear gas) during the Battle of Shanghai. Dates, areas and targets that Ji Xueren claims are as follows:
  1. 4 October PM 7:00 Shih-hsiang-kung Taoist Temple (施相公廟) near Lo- tien (羅店) against 67th Division
  2. 5 October Morning same area
  3. 6 October Evening same area
  4. 9 October AM 11:00 Tung-chao-chia (東趙家), 3 km southeast of T'ang-ch'iao Station (塘橋站), against 1st Regiment of the 1st Division
  5. 15 October Noon Ch'en-chia-hsing (陳家行) against 32nd Division
  6. 28 October Ko-chia-t'ou (葛家頭)、Ch'ing-shui-hsien (清水顯) against 4th Division
  7. 28 October Ma-chia-chai (馬家宅) against 159th Division

All of places that Chinese claims on Japanese gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai are far from Chapei front.

  • In spite of Japanese official reports on Chinese poison gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai, whether the Chinese side did use poison gas in Shanghai area was also disputable. But at least it's the fact that the Japanese side, especially frontline troops were afraid of possible Chinese poison gas attacks, because Japanese news papers actually reported the Chinese poison gas attacks this.
  • The caption of this photograph in Sino-Japanese war: Records by News Photographers of Japan, U.S., and China is Japanese Naval Landing Force, awaiting attack orders whilst wearing gas masks in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army, maintaining the frontlines until the arrival of reinforcements (Chapei, Shanghai. (Sino-Japanese war, p. 38).


My reply is on here. STSC (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Chemical warfare. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper citation in History section for earliest chemical warfare

[edit]

In History section, the following statement doesn't seem to have any citation basis: Arsenical smokes were known to the Chinese as far back as c. 1000 BC[5]

The cited publication Richardt, Andre (2013), CBRN Protection: Managing the Threat of Chemical, Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear Weapons, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co., p. 4, ISBN 978-3-527-32413-2 can be found here - http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527324135_c01.pdf

The author, Richard, makes a single line reference to this claim: We can date the employment of chemicals as chemical warfare agents (CWAs) from at least 1000 BC when the Chinese used arsenical smokes [1].

For this claim Richard references another book: Mayor, A. (2003) Greek Fire, Poison, Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World

The second book can be found here: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/GreekFire.pdf

However, in Mayor's book he only has this to say about ancient chemical warfare: Chapter 5 introduces the world’s first military commander who was also adept in pharmacology. The general was a witch named Chrysame, who used drugs to cause temporary insanity in the enemy, during the Greek colonization of Ionia in about 1000 BC. Mithridates stands out as a rare example of a general who was also an expert toxicologist; another is Kautilya, a military strategist who was also a scientist, in India at the time of Alexander the Great.

There's no other reference in the rest of Mayor's book to the Chinese using Arsenical smokes in 1000BC, as Richard claims. Therefore the current statement ( .. 1000 BC when the Chinese used arsenical smokes .. ) seems to have been an invention of Richard which was copied over into Wikipedia. Unless it can be correctly cited it should be removed.

Arul20 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Chemical warfare. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of "History" Section a verbatim copy of external webpage

[edit]

The majority of the "History" section, subsections "Ancient Times" to "Industrial Era" appears to contain large portions of text directly copied from this page on chemical warfare. I would like to reach a consensus on whether to keep this text or delete the offending sections. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be them copying us without attribution, not the other way around. Rmhermen (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all mean to contradict you, but out of pure curiosity, what would your rationale be for determining which source is copied from which? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can go back in the article history and see how the text was added and changed. In this case, several of the lines reused by armageddononline.org were added to our article separately (and re-edited) in November 2004. Rmhermen (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Klbrain (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chemical warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British use of chemical weapons in Russia

[edit]
Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure why this was removed so I reverted. (81.159.6.246 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I assume you are the same person who made this comment? No, painting Churchill as a war criminal is not the purpose of WP. This is WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Churchill was a war criminal, the destruction of Dresden showed that. However his use of chemical weapons in Russia absolutely should be mentioned as it shows how extreme the Allied actions were during the civil war. (DonGibson (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
You'll need to document these allegations, backed up by scholarly sources; then we can discuss whether or not the article should discuss it, pursuant to WP:WEIGHT. As it stands, there's a single author who claims to have stumbled upon this information upon accessing a classified document. You would at the very least need to find sources in which respected, credentialed individuals affirm the likelihood that the claim has merit. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

[edit]

In the Technology timeline table, there is a mention of the protective device, "Gas mask w/ Whetlerite". Based on a quick search, I can't determine if 'Whetlerite' is a brand name (e.g. Vise-Grips) and should remain capitalized, or a generic name (e.g. locking pliers) which should be in lower-case.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like lowercase is correct: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2920050 and https://history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-2/CMH_Pub_10-2.pdfRmhermen (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Syrian usage of chemical weapons are either blank or behind subscription paywall

[edit]

Also, considering how controversial this subject is, i would recommend removing it completely and refering to a whole page with this problem (Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83AA:4576:30C6:4DE1:E1FE:1C54 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemical_warfare&oldid=1216288192"