Talk:Chemical warfare: Difference between revisions

	Chemical 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 8, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted March 22, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemistry C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Toxicology C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as High-importance). Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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]

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

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]

"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]

	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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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. Takabeg (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]