Talk:Chemical weapons in World War I

message: Anybody feel a need to mention Blue Cross, the British codename for sneezing agent diphenylchloroarsine (sez Fuller's Military History of the Western World, p277n1)  Trekphiler 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Blue Cross (Blaukreuz) (or, the "Color Crosses" (Green, Yellow, White) generally) were german codes.--84.163.115.34 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Blue, Cross Blue! 

message: The use of 'tons' in this article needs clarification. If the figures are taken from historical documents the Germans will presumably mean tonnes, (US: metric tons) and the British will mean Imperial long tons and American readers may assume their short tons are being referred to. Blaise (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More than irritating, they are incorrect, because they imply a precision that is not there. ABehrens (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Tons

message: Technically, the chemical warfare agent called "mustard" isn't a gas, it's a liquid that was explosively disseminated as an aerosol. It's a contact hazard and if breathed in, will scorch the esophagus, but it should not be called "mustard gas."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amauroni (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be interesting to add a sentence to clarify this in the article.—RJH (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nits

message: The following table from the "1915: More deadly gases" has been tagged as unsourced since June 2008. I haven't been able to find a confirmation for these figures, so I'm moving the table here:
Estimated production of gases (by type)
Nation         	Production (metric tons)	Production (metric tons)	Production (metric tons)	Production (metric tons)
Nation         	Irritant                	Lachrymatory            	Vesicant                	Total
Austria-Hungary	5,080                   	255                     	—                 	5,335
Britain        	23,870                  	1,010                   	520                     	25,400
France         	34,540                  	810                     	2,040                   	37,390
Germany        	55,880                  	3,050                   	10,160                  	69,090
Italy          	4,070                   	205                     	—                 	4,275
Russia         	3,550                   	155                     	—                 	3,705
USA            	5,590                   	5                       	175                     	5,770
Total          	132,580                 	5,490                   	12,895                  	150,965
Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimated production of gases (by type) 

message: I am always supprised by the number of casualities listed for the Eastern front, as the Eastern front was much more spread out (less Soldiers per kilometer) than the Western front.  In addition to this there was one less year of combat.  I have read that the Central Powers tested Chemical Weapons in the Eastern front, but ruled them out as ineffective for use on this front becuase of the distances involved.  What I think would aid this article is the amnount used on this front and Emperial Russia's reaction to the use. Paragoalie (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas used on Eastern Front 

message: The text says the British gas was a disaster but the German official history says that in the 117th Division sector, troops were affected by temporary impairment to "complete eradication of cmbat effectiveness", fifteen companies were destroyed and 22 guns lost, the situation here and on the 7th Division front beoming a crisis. The remnants of the division withdrew to the second position. p288. Could it be that British sources didn't look far enough on the other side of the hill?Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheldon (GAWF 1915) wrote that it had an effect in the 14th Divison area p208-210 as well as that of the 117th Division p212-224Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loos 1915 

message: The Germans released Chlorine gas in huge volumes at this battle, again using the prevailing winds to carry the gas across the battle lines.  It proved very successful and opened a huge gap in the battle lines..... why is it not mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.123.80 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Battle of Ypres 

message: In a letter from WW2 that I am transcribing, my Father, writing to my Mother in 1941about his training in Gas Warfare, writes "One of the worst gases is called B.B.C. !!!" ( he was a writer!)
I cannot find information about this gas to insert as a link, because of the "Noise" created by "BBC"!
Can anyone let me have information about this gas?
Dan93c  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan93c (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a joke on his part - "gassing" being a roughly contemporary slang term for talking a lot 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the worst gases is called B.B.C. !!! 

message: - United States 1,400 tons (although they also used French stocks)
- Though the United States had never used chemical weapons in World War I
The first statement implies that the US did use chemical weapons. One of these inconsistent statements needs to be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.121.70 (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the US use chemical weapons? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chemical weapons in World War I. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927212208/http://www.tnty.com/press/transcripts/sftech-saffo.html to http://www.tnty.com/press/transcripts/sftech-saffo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chemical weapons in World War I. 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/20060809143200/https://www.bt.cdc.gov:80/agent/sulfurmustard/basics/facts.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurmustard/basics/facts.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724063602/http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml to http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919085218/http://cbwinfo.com/History/WWI.html to http://www.cbwinfo.com/History/WWI.html
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) 03:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a claim on the page (and several others) to the effect that the British used adamsite against Russian revolutionary troops in 1919 as part of the Russian Civil War.  I've been trying to find a good source for this, but all I've found is this (or a very similar) sentence; sometimes the gas mentioned is different; there are no specifics regarding dates or other info.  Does anyone have a source that gives any detail to back this up?  I'm a bit concerned that it may be something that got mentioned here, and then repeated elsewhere, without any real basis for it.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks very much.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Gas attacks on Russian revolutionary troops during Russian Civil War? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chemical weapons in World War I. 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/20090305060856/http://perweb.firat.edu.tr/personel/yayinlar/fua_241/241_26862.pdf to http://perweb.firat.edu.tr/personel/yayinlar/fua_241/241_26862.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814054640/http://cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Pulmonary/CG.shtml to http://cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Pulmonary/CG.shtml
*Added  tag to http://cefresearch.ca/matrix/Utilities/Legal%20Documents/Guidelines/trench.htm
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) 02:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chemical weapons in World War I. 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/20030417022453/http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/phosgene/basics/facts.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/phosgene/basics/facts.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014111921/http://co.pinal.az.us/PubHealth/BDPR/history/history_b.asp to http://co.pinal.az.us/PubHealth/BDPR/history/history_b.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120950/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/5/1985_5_40.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/5/1985_5_40.shtml
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) 11:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per this old version, the article was first written in British English. Per MOS:RETAIN, it should continue with that spelling unless there is a compelling reason to change it. --John (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: I don't edit Wikipedia, so I'm sorry for not knowing what I am doing.  However, as I am researching this topic, I am concerned by the initial claim that use of chemical weapons in WW1 was a war-crime.
"The use of poison gas by all major belligerents throughout World War I constituted war crimes as its use violated the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare."
This is because I am sitting in front of an article written by Edward Wright for "The War Illustrated", published July 1915, titled "The Horrors of the Poison War", wherein it explain that use of gas was not a war crime, despite common public sentiment, because, unlike the Germans, the British had refused to sign the 1907 Treaty banning its use, and that in any-case entrance by other non-signatories like the US (who also refused to sign in 1907) and Turkey made the treaty null by its own terms. 
If the British did not sign the Treaty, then the quoted section seems factually incorrect.  How could it be a war-crime when half the party signed it, and the clauses of the agreement excluded the circumstances of the war?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.159.164 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for the amateur post 

message: — Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

message: Added section that went into further detail about the Protocol (who signed, what the treaty entailed and required of signing nations). Started discussing chemical Weapons Convention and International ban of chemical weapons after World War 1. 
Added section discussing the disposal of chemical weapons after World War 1. Went into detail about how chemical weapons were disposed in ocean and seas. I briefly mentioned effects on the environment and health impacts. 
Added a couple sentences to unexploded weapons and effects. Discussed effects of chemicals used in shells.  Niamh Calder (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niamh Calder