Talk:Chemical weapon/Archive 1

Russia's Stockpile
Although I realize it was made in good faith, I undid this edit. Your reference is from 1996, and Russia's number of chemical weapons has surely changed since then. Please find a more recent source. Mutinus (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Washington Naval Treaty
Why is Washington Naval Treaty listed under "See Also" ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems a fair question. For now it has been removed, and that is fine. Originally it was this passage: "the United States signed the Washington Naval Treaty, also known as Five-Power Treaty on February 6, 1922 along with the British Empire, the Japanese empire, the French third republic as well as the kingdom of Italy. This treaty aimed at banning chemical weapons but could not succeed as the French rejected it." here which prompted me to link them as related. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible name change
What are your thoughts on a name change of Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions? As I'm reading your article, it sounds like it discusses the storage and treaty arrangements of that storage more than it does the weapons as munitions themselves.

I think you'll agree that the LUCA&M name is cumbersome and not likely to be a search term. What would you think about a move to something less technical that emphasized the storage aspect, and expanded its scope. Something like Storage and disposal of chemical munitions. This would expand the scope (it could include information about things like Operation CHASE) and also make the naming more practical and likely to be searched for. It would also be a nice analogue to the nuclear storage articles and parallel them nicely.

WP:TITLE typically suggests common naming schemes, and I'm not clear about what "unitary" means here. Is that unitary as opposed to binary weapons? Because most of the V agents (at least according to our articles) can be deployed as binary agents, and certainly the storage arrangements don't specify based on that criteria. But maybe I'm misunderstanding that. Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts before making any kind of change. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I must now go to work. I will provide a better answer when I return. The short answer is that I believe the title is correct as is. but feel free to contribute content to the article which it definitely needs. I will elaborate when I return. Thank you for your interest in the article.My76Strat (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem or hurry. Like I said, I think the name is too complicated, but I know you have your reasons so I would like to know them. I don't mind where you reply, if it's here or on your talk page, but if you do reply on your talk would you drop me a line here so I know about it? Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said on my talk page, I'll wait to make any changes til I hear from you and I would start editing it now, but I wanted to hear your more detailed explanation first because I don't want to take the article in a different direction without knowing what you're thinking. Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry it took so long to reply to your suggestion, I was embroiled in a npov dispute which consumed a disproportionate amount of my time. I would have already added content which I know the article lacks if it had not also been neglected while my focus was on another issue. The reason I like the title, is because it is in fact a proper title. (see the reference) As far as generating traffic there are numerous redirect pages leading to this article, click 'what links here' under the toolbox to the left of the article), additionally a Google search of such redirected terms like chemical weapons or chemical agents for example will include a listing for this article, which I believe the curious googlers will view the page if for nothing else than to satisfy their curiosity. Additionally I believe an encyclopedia is a place for learning, and I myself did not know the correct name for these things was as titled. finally, unitary is a distinction which separates them from the binary type of similar things. ie either agent or weapon. There very well may be binary agents included in the infobox as I have borrowed much of that information from other articles. If this is so they should perhaps be removed and will be if it comes to my specific attention. Please consider adding content to this page if your knowledge base is more extensive than mine, which it likely is. When you see the number of pages linked to this article I think you'll agree it needs to be correct. Please include comments to the article talk page as we try to develop this article and improve it for all it is worth.My76Strat (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than remove certain types of weapons, would you be amenable to making the title more general by removing "unitary"? Or maybe making two new articles, Unitary chemical weapons or Unitary chemical agents, and then Binary chemical weapons or Binary chemical agents? I don't think there's any reason to prefer binary or unitary as the title, although a description of both is probably useful.


 * The other thing I've discovered while looking at this issue is that the individual articles on this subject are very good, but there aren't many good umbrella articles to tie them together.


 * I'll look at the reference you're talking about a bit later. I'm not an expert on the subject either, so don't assume my knowledge is any more than what I can research or know generally. Shadowjams (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please realize as I have indicated, over 500 articles link to this page. To rename it would redlink these same wiki links which are currently blue. Additionally the newly titled article would immediately be orphaned and any attempt to redirect from this title would further cause several redirects to become multiple redirects. None of these seem in the best interest of the article. This is of course in my opinion and I claim no ownership to this article, only concern to see it become as good as it can be.My76Strat (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that a bit more general name would help for the non-expert on the subject. As for the technical part: a move would not redlink but create an automatic redirect. Should there be a double redirect, then that will be bot-changed automatically.... L.tak (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Let me specify what I had in mind in terms of name change. I think if we leave out the unitary requirement, we can pretty much describe the subject matter as chemical weapons. Only with chemical weapons there should be a paragraph about the existence of unitary and the development of binary. In this we use the common name, which is used a lot and rel. self explanatory. For content it should be closely compared what should be in chemical warfare and what should be here... Let me know what you think and how you think we should proceed (posting on the mil and chem. project pages?). (btw until sunday I might be out of the reach of internet; so it could take a few days to respond...) rgds...L.tak (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above proposal The article should be broad, covering all chemical weapons includeing non-lethal, herbicidal, and binary. That was always the original intent. The current title limits the article and therefore should be within a section.  My 76 Strat  03:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator help requested
Previous discussion indicates this title is better suited as Chemical weapons. While I did hesitate accepting the suggestion upon its first occurrence, I have come to agree with the emerging consensus that it should be more generally titled. Chemical weapons currently redirects to Chemical warfare, a tactic driven concept. Chemical weapons is better suited as a separate article specific to the weaponry. So if this can be done I don't think there would be any objections. Thanks.  My 76 Strat  05:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks a sensible change - I will make it later today. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. There are half a dozen redirects which pointed to this and now become double redirects; I believe there is a bot that should fix them, but I will check in a day or two and fix them manually if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xqbot did indeed fix all the double redirects within an hour and a quarter. How nice to have an intelligent machine do ones work for one! JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an example of efficiency. I appreciate your assistance, and that you in fact checked back as you had stated. So we not only have useful programing, we also have dependable admins. That is cool.  My 76 Strat  01:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
I reverted this edit because it failed logic. The WWI information that you suggest is not omitted by prohibition. It simply has not been improved to that fuller extent. You are welcome to add the information with good sourcing. You are not a liberty to remove well sourced information simply because the other has yet to be added. In general, leave the good stuff in, and add more good stuff. My76Strat (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm removing it because it's mentioned twice in the article, almost verbatim, once under the 'chemical warfare' heading, once under the Iraq heading. Czolgolz (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can follow that reasoning. I'm not sure how that happened, but it is better that you removed the redundancy. Thank you for your kind manners and understanding. My76Strat (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo caption
About the photograph captioned "Syrian soldier fires an AK-47", the caption is incorrect (or at least inaccurate). The rifle is not an original Russian AK-47, but a Chinese Type 56. This can be seen by looking at the front sight post, which is hooded, which is a feature in the Chinese copies of Kalashnikovs. In comparison, an original Russian AK-47 has no hooded front sight, but is instead open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.169.225 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish I had seen this comment much sooner than today. I will make a point to research the assertions made here. My76Strat (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did verify the source for this image and the summary is correct to the source. I am not in any position to research the matter further. My76Strat (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo
Does anyone know of a photo of WWI casualties?Suzukisue (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased Against Syrian Government
the section talking about syrian CW use is biased and lacks credible sources, news stories can not confirm the use of CW or deny it, it's only defaming and political propaganda and cannot be used in wikipedia to convey a meaningful accusation, also the section did not mention the UN investigation that stated that there is no evidence of use on the part of Assad's forces and the finding of two sarin gas bottles in turkey with a group of jihadists from Jabhet Al Nusra the Qaeda linked forces, and the main group of opposition combatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.228.80 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how many tonnes
Exactly how many tonnes does each country have and how much have they gotten rid of and how much is left over? Percentages won't do as 90% one one side 75% on the other doesn't say how much exactly. Also who has the the most weapons in descending order based on this data? Also the risk factor based on the kind of chemical weapons still possessed (by countries) in descending order again?117.199.2.119 (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Open

image of British gas bomb.
the image of the gas bomb used by British to me looks like its a stick grenade not a chemical bomb. please excuse me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.253.251 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of a photograph
. 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).


 * In conclusion, this photograph doesn't depict a Japanese gas attack. Thank you. 04:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Desert War website says, "During the Second World War was the only nation that began chemical weapons, the Empire of Japan. These were used together with biological weapons in China, both against Chinese troops and the deliberate mass killing of civilians." Obviously the photo within its article is showing the gas attack by the Japanese. The poor Chinese Army could hardly afford the basic weaponry, you're just kidding yourself by spreading the ridiculous suggestion that the Chinese troops used chemical weapons on the Japanese. Just make a Google search and there are ten of thousands sources about the Japanese using chemical weapons on China during wartime. STSC (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chemical weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070703004123/http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2059.pdf to http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2059.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100616133920/http://brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/RedHandbook/007IncapacitatingAgents.html to http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/RedHandbook/007IncapacitatingAgents.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Map
The map of states party to the CWC is outdated. Burma and Angola have signed, and South Sudan is independent and has not signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.105.248 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning this. I removed the outdated file. We will have to see about finding, or making one that is up-to-date. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chemical weapon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/185199.stm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Guilty United State
I think there is good place to tell other that united state and united kingdom sold their toxic weapon to Iraq to let him(Saddam Hussein) murdering and make suffer Iranian innocent people. http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm At Last ... (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chemical weapon. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907155755/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009 to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nti.org/db/china/acwpos.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112101131/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108133544/http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlistchem-category.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlistchem-category.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Contradicts Itself and Lacks Citations
The second paragraph states that chemical weapons are permitted in war "all may be used in warfare" (no citation), but later it presents a long list of treaties and agreements that have banned it's use under international law. (It also uses the very dated military term "NBC")

The third paragraph (also no citation) notes that "tear gas and pepper spray" as examples of modern chemical weapons.

The fourth paragraph (no citation) states that "CS and pepper spray remain in common use" and in the same paragraph notes a "worldwide ban" on chemical weapons.

The article seems to use "chemical weapon" in the context of chemical warfare as addressed later in the article. The introduction seems to include other definitions not found in the article. The entire introduction is out of place and contradictory to itself and the rest of the article, and the lone citation (found in the first paragraph).

I understand that riot control agents (which has it's own wikipedia page) may still need to be addressed. I recommend the uncited paragraphs of the introduction (paragraphs two three and four) be removed and replaced with a version of the following which should follow the first paragraph and is taken directly from the source cited in the first paragraph. This presents an introduction that better follows the article and still addresses riot control agents. A link to the riot control agents wikipedia page should be included.

https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/

"The toxic chemicals that have been used as chemical weapons, or have been developed for use as chemical weapons, can be categorised as choking, blister, blood, or nerve agents. The most well known agents are as follows: choking agents—chlorine and phosgene, blister agents (or vesicants)—mustard and lewisite, blood agents—hydrogen cyanide, nerve agents—sarin, soman, VX.

One other definition of relevance is that of riot control agents (RCAs), the use of which as a method of warfare is prohibited by the CWC. A riot control agent is defined [by the CWC] as being “any chemical not listed in a schedule which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination or exposure”. Regarding herbicides, the prohibition of their use as a method of warfare is recognised in the CWC Preamble. However, herbicides are not defined specifically in the Convention and there are no specific declaration or destruction requirements related to them. This does not preclude application of the general purpose criterion to chemicals traditionally considered as herbicides. In other words, if the intended purpose of a toxic chemical is prohibited by the CWC, the chemical shall be considered a chemical weapon.

Several unresolved issues remain regarding the definition of chemical weapons."

68.63.19.44 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

also worthy of inclusion is this:

"Riot control agents (RCAs) such as CS were the topic of long and heated debates during the CWC negotiations. At issue were their inclusion in the treaty and the restrictions that would be imposed upon their use. In the end, a compromise was reached under which States Parties are to declare to the OPCW the RCAs they possess for law enforcement purposes. Though use is allowed for these purposes, it is prohibited as a method of warfare."

https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/riot-control-agents/

68.63.19.44 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chemical weapon. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906181240/http://archives.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cbwarfare/cbw_research_doc/cbw_historical/cbw-hist-geneva-res.html to http://archives.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cbwarfare/cbw_research_doc/cbw_historical/cbw-hist-geneva-res.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906184639/http://archives.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cbwarfare/cbw_research_doc/cbw_historical/cbw-hist-geneva-parties.html to http://archives.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cbwarfare/cbw_research_doc/cbw_historical/cbw-hist-geneva-parties.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111122654/http://chsdemocrats.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20100615101417-64589.pdf to http://chsdemocrats.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20100615101417-64589.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111123228/http://emc.ed.ornl.gov/publications/PDF/EvalDocFinal.pdf to http://emc.ed.ornl.gov/publications/PDF/EvalDocFinal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111123123/http://mcm.fhpr.osd.mil/cb_exposures/ww2/ww2mustard.aspx to http://mcm.fhpr.osd.mil/cb_exposures/ww2/ww2mustard.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Recognition
The "toxidrome" (characteristic symptoms) can indicate which substance was used. This is from New England Journal of Medicine, a leading medical journal: 10.1056/NEJMra1705224 JFW &#124; T@lk  09:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)