This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Toxicology 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 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). Military history: Logistics / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War 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 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 logistics and medicine task force World War I task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chemical warfare was copied or moved into History of chemical warfare with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I can't believe this even needs to be said but regarding this edit, no, two soldiers getting poisoned by some home baked pies IS NOT chemical warfare. The source doesn't say it is. That's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Really really bad original research. And a pretty obvious attempt to push POV. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe the inclusion is WP:DUE, but this article does briefly cover the use of poison in warfare already - though it may be appropriate to split this article, with one being History of chemical warfare, and the other being History of poison in warfare. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was done by civilians not by the military. The addition is disruptive. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was, and that is one of the reasons I don't believe it is WP:DUE to include it, but being done by civilians doesn't make it outside the scope of the article, if it was done as part of a conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it belongs on the article, as it was done during warfare. I mean, they weren't poisoning soldiers without a reason, it was part of the warfare. And it was shared as such by their own government. AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Volunteer Marek, while source doesn't indicate chemical warfare, this article does treat poison as chemical warfare, so I feel it does belong here. You can read the beginning of the article where poisoning of food is referenced multiple times. Thanks. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source that poison is a chemical weapon? Sure, is this one from OPCW good enough? Definition of chemical weapons:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

Where toxic chemical refers to:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source that describes this specific incident as chemical warfare. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided clearly states that Ukrainian government stated that Ukrainian civilians intentionally used poison to kill Russian troops, this article's scope clearly includes the use of poison in warfare. Indeed the examples cited within the first three sections of this article consist largely of instances of the use of poison in the history of warfare.XavierGreen (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pretending that this is an instance of "chemical warfare" is ridiculous and highly POV

2. The source does not say this is "chemical warfare" (because that would be ridiculous)

3. The source is explicit that this was done by civilians rather than as part of some military operation.

You *really* need to self revert here. Volunteer Marek 02:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cited source does not say it was chemical warfare. A lot of poisonings are not chemical warfare, even if these poisonings had happen during a war. My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I do think poison is a chemical weapon and it being used during war (by whomever) means it is a chemical warfare, I do agree with @BilledMammal's last summary, and agree we should leave it out for now. But seems notable enough to keep an eye on it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious case of OR as source doesn't mention chemical warfare. Also I would note that whole story is apparently based on a single facebook post of very questionable reliability. Futhermore, there is a question whether any intentional use of harmful food is automatically a chemical warfare, as some random civilians are extremely unlikely to have access to any specialized chemical weapons.--Staberinde (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the source is probably not good enough, so it does not warrant a place here unless better sources come up.

I still believe that if sources come up that confirm that soldiers were fed poison by civilians (and it doesn't need to be very strong poison, but enough to kill two soldiers and incapacitate 28) that it could be worth of appearing here.

And about it being called "chemical warfare" on the sources directly, I am really not sure about how to stand there. Poisoning of food already appears on the article and is defined by sources as chemical weapon, and the definition of chemical weapon by the OPCW also covers poison. I don't know how to stand about that yet. See WP:OBV. Could also be cited with ^[1], see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poisons are readily available in almost every country. For example, rat poison is readily available and is just as dangerous to people as they are to rats. There are a myriad of other everyday chemicals that can be lethal to humans that are used for non-warfare purposes, and the chemical weapons convention explicitly covers such dual use chemicals, one most notable being chlorine.XavierGreen (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is nonsense. Someone poisoning his neighbor with rat poison during war would not be regarded as use of chemical weapons in RS, and it is not regarded as such in cited RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the difference would be that it is not their neighbour, but more than 30 enemy soldiers from the occupying force, and not only one civilian, but many doing it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to description [1], these alleged poisoners were not members of regular or irregular military forces, but civilians. Therefore, what they allegedly did does not qualify as warfare (this page is "History of chemical warfare"), but just poisoning. By the same token, executions of civilians by military also do not qualify as regular warfare. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @My very best wishes, I agree with them being civilians, but that doesn't exclude them from being here. (I am still against putting it here though, at least for the moment. I will make a separate post on the talk page explaining all points and opening a vote). Civilians took direct part in hostilities, which could even make them classified as combatants and no longer civilians. I don't even want to get too deep into that, but rule 6 of international humanitarian law covers it. After all, they didn't just randomly decide to start poisoning people in a sadistic way. They took a side and poisoned their enemy, and had a clear reason of doing it. Either way, while it may be worth a mention in the future, I still don't think it deserves to be here. I will open a vote now on another section. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not base decisions regarding the appropriateness of article content on contributors' personal interpretations of international law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been locked down until a consensus version has been worked out here on the talk page. Use dispute resolution to reach that consensus and let me know and I will remove the protection. --Jayron32 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jayron32, it seems consensus has been reached! You can go ahead and reopen the page. Have a nice day! AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from other editors as well, such as @Volunteer Marek: and @BilledMammal: and @XavierGreen:. They were also involved in the edit war, and I want to be sure they agree with the consensus, or at least agree to not edit war even if they disagree with the others. --Jayron32 11:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32, no comments from any of them since the 6th of April, so either they are waiting in the shadows to edit attack once the protection is lifted (quite doubtful but you never know), or they simply no longer care much about the subject. Being the second one much more probable, it would be a pity to leave the article on lockdown for so long. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to keep this article locked up too long and I believe consensus has already been reached on the above discussion, so let's vote add our opinion below and see if we all agree. User:XavierGreen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:BilledMammal, User:AndyTheGrump, User:My very best wishes, and anybody else, please vote or comment down below.

Sources of the event: BI The Times HuffPost Mirror.

Arguments in favor of keeping the text: This article covers poisoning food as one of the earliest forms of chemical warfare, the definition of chemical weapon by OPCW also covers it. The argument of civilians and not the military doing it does not apply, as civilians can perform an attack and become part of the conflict, and it was done during warfare and against a military group.

Arguments against: The event is quite recent (see WP:RECENTISM), and all sources end at a single statement on a Facebook post. Sources also cover the statement, but not the incident itself. No declaration has been done by Russia, and it hasn't been confirmed by any other party. Also, while poisoning of food qualifies as chemical warfare, the sources don't directly make the connection, so adding it here could mean WP:SYNTH.

I think that kind of covers all, but feel free to add any more comments. With all that in mind, I am:

• Against the addition of Ukraine's statement on this article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AndyTheGrump, I believe consensus has already been reached, but I appreciate the link and will change the wording a bit. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give that you appear to have been the only person arguing for inclusion of this material, and that you are now against its inclusion, I'd say we already have a consensus, rendering this section entirely redundant. We don't need to vote on things if everyone agrees. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AndyTheGrump, I am not, there is the initial user that made the edit. I would believe it concerns him, it is his edit after all. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd missed that. Nevertheless, I don't think we'd need a formal vote on a matter where only a single individual was arguing against a clear consensus, and where Wikipedia WP:OR and WP:RS policy is so clear over the matter. If XavierGreen wishes to argue for inclusion, any such arguments will have to be based within the constraints of Wikipedia policy, which certainly appears not to be true of what they have said so far. We can't base content on synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes in its scope the use of poison during warfare. It is undisputed by the Ukrainian government that Ukrainian civilians used poison to kill at least 2 Russian soldiers near Kharkiv. The incident should therefore be referenced on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen It is, but neither of the sources calls it chemical warfare, and that is problematic. Also, the main source of information is an Ukrainian claim not backed by any other sources, which is also a problem.

If confirmed, I think it is notable enough to warrant a mention. But probably we should wait a bit. The term "chemical warfare" carries a negative connotation, and right now many editors will probably see it as problematic to add it. If you agree not to add it back again without reaching a consensus first, we could unlock this page. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request to for someone to add a section on the use of chemical weapons during the Vietnam war Historical Integrity (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]