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
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 articles
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
(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.
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
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.
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
References
^Sublead generalization supported by all the citations in this section
Page protected
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. --
Jayron3212:51, 5 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. --
Jayron3211:09, 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
Vote to reach Final consensus discussion to and reopen page
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:
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
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