Talk:Alleged British use of chemical weapons in Mesopotamia in 1920

(First comments)

My grandparents are from a village in Iraq where poison gas was dropped by the British in the twenties. They are from a village in Iraq close to the Syrian border (they were Arabs, not Kurds). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawi (talk • contribs) 04:00, 30 December 2006

(Can you please mention their names and the name of the village? their age when killed and if you remember the date and year?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.187.154 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Title & quality

The title of article should be changed not to suggest it is about gas deposits in Mesopotamia. The article should be structured chronologically - modern opinions being put at the end. Context - the 1920s uprisings in Iraq - is completely missing.

About being the first to use gas from airplanes: in 1920 or around a group of Soviet soldiers made an expedition into Afghanistan and during a siege of a border fortress they called (by radio) a bomber which dropped also chemical bombs. I do not have reference at hand and Wikipedia does not cover this period at by more than a sentence. Pavel Vozenilek 11:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article is entirely about the British use of poisonous gas in modern day Iraq, the title seems odd. Why isn't it called something along the lines of "Use of poisonous gas in the British Mandate of Mesopotamia"?. Or even "British use of gas in Mesopotamia"? 92.11.245.110 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The title of this article is misleading and does not adequately explain what the article is about. I think that either of the two suggestions above would be adequate. Does anyone have any objections to renaming the article? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The article also needs significant work for the reasons identified by other users - if this cannot be achieved the article should probably be put up for deletion. IMO its that bad. Anotherclown (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the name of this article now as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)  Done.

Tear gas or Poison gas?

If the article is referring to tear gas, then all instances of the word "poison gas" should be replaced with "tear gas". If the article is referring to poison gas, then Winston Churchill's statement bears little relevance to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.165 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What DOES the statement bear relevance to, then? Should it be given the light of day somewhere else, in particular? Or might you prefer it relegated to the darkness from which it came? (ResearchALLwars (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Good question! What relevance does it have? The statement is clear that Churchill was talking about tear gas, which is a crowd control weapon; he specifically ruled out the use of lethal gases which would contravene the convention on the subject. Far from "relegating it to the darkness", it's worth looking at how it's being conflated with poison gas attacks like this one. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is totally incorrect. Although Churchil was referring to lachrymator gas (now known as tear gas) he did not advocate its use in the way that is being alleged. At the time, the effects of "tear gas" were unknown. He advocated its use against Kurdish villages (or as he called them "recalcitrant Arabs") as "an experiment". He did not know the effects of the gas. He said that he hoped that it caused "disablement", "discomfort or illness" and "not death", not because he was concerned with the "recalcitrant Arabs" (which he considered an inferior race) but because the British already had access to a deadly poison gas (mustard) and did not require another. Poyani (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he knew perfectly well what the effects were, hence his reference to 'lachrymatory gas', i.e. tear gas, and he specifically said that its purpose would be to disperse rebels with minimum casualties. "The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum." The alternative, rifle and machine-gun fire by ground troops, was likely to be worse. In fact the mere appearance of aircraft, supported by ground troops, tended to have the required moral effect. No gas bombs were ever shipped to Iraq. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Weasel words

No article should begin with "it is suspected by some". Could those who know about this subject please rephrase. Thehalfone (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right and thank you for calling attention to this bias. Adel (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias? The bias here lies in allowing this allegation to stand without offering any corroborating evidence. Currently it shouts "no smoke without fire", yet doesn’t even substantiate the smoke. Unless some evidence is provided that demonstrates any such use actually took place, I’m inclined to propose dismissing it as a hoax and taking it to WP:AfD. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Simons citation

Geoff Simons clearly states on page 213 of the second edition of his book that "gas was used against the Iraqi rebels in 1920." The article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.109.215 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true. There is no record of any gas bombs ever being procured or shipped to Iraq or dropped from RAF aircraft. It is a wholly false and made-up conspiracy theory. The late Geoff Simons, who mostly wrote computer manuals, was indeed a compulsive writer on other topics, including notably a paranoid far-left conspiracist view of Middle East politics, but also originally, um, something else (until he got a bit old for all that and needed other outlets), as can be seen from his publication list:-

Sex in the modern world, 1970. A history of sex, 1970. Sex tomorrow, 1971. Does sex make you feel guilty?, 1972. Pornography without prejudice: a reply to objectors, 1972. A place for pleasure: the history of the brothel, 1973. The witchcraft world, 1974. The Simons book of sexual records, 1975. Introducing microprocessors, 1979. Robots in industry, 1980. The uses of microprocessors, 1980. Introducing word processing, 1981. Women in computing, 1981. The illustrated book of sexual records, 1982. Second ed., 1985. Privacy in the computer age, 1982. Computers in engineering and manufacture, 1982. The book of world sexual records, 1983. Sex and superstition, 1983. Are computers alive? Evolution and new life forms, 1983. Automating your office, 1984. Computer bits and pieces: a compendium of curiosities, 1984. Expert systems and micros, 1985.Towards fifth-generation computers, 1986. Is man a robot, 1986. Introducing artificial intelligence, 1984. The biology of computer life: survival, emotion and free will, 1985. Silicon shock: the menace of the computer invasion, 1985. (with R. T. Doswell) Fraud and abuse of IT systems, 1986. Eco-computer: the impact of global intelligence, 1987. What is software engineering?, 1987. Introducing software engineering, 1987. Evolution of the intelligent machine: a popular history of AI, 1988. Is God a programmer?: religion in the computer age, 1988. Silicon psychosis: derangement in the global network, 1989. Viruses, bugs and star wars: the hazards of unsafe computing, 1989. Robots: the quest for living machines, . New ed., 1994. Robots and robotics, 1992. Libya: the struggle for survival, 1993. 2nd ed. (with foreword by Tam Dalyell), 1996. Iraq: from Sumer to Saddam, 1994.The United Nations: a chronology of conflict, 1994. Korea: the search for sovereignty, 1995, Reprinted with foreword by Tony Benn, 1999. UN malaise: power, problems, and realpolitik, 1995. Cuba: from conqistador to Castro, 1996. The scourging of Iraq : sanctions, law, and natural justice, 1996. 2nd ed., 1998. Vietnam syndrome: impact on US foreign policy, 1998. Foreword by Tony Benn. Saudi Arabia: the shape of a client feudalism, 1998. Iraq – primus inter pariahs: A crisis chronology, 1999. Imposing legal sanctions: legal remedy or genocidal tool?, 1999. Indonesia: the long oppression, 1999. UN Reform: Addressing the Reality of American Power', Global Dialogue, Vol. 2., No. 2 (Spring 2000) Targeting Iraq: sanctions and bombing in US policy, 2002. Future Iraq: US policy in reshaping the Middle East, 2003. Colombia: a brutal history, 2004. Libya and the West: from independence to Lockerbie, 2004. Foreword by Tony Benn. Iraq endgame?: surge, suffering and the politics of denial, 2008. Time to be rational: Darwin, demons and sex., 2009. Nuclear nightmares, 2009. Foreword by Tony Benn. 2nd ed., 1996. 3rd ed., 2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_SimonsKhamba Tendal (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: restored to longstanding title agreed in previous discussion. A move from this title to a new one should be discussed before implementation. DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

British atrocities in Mesopotamia → Alleged British use of gas in Mesopotamia in 1920 – It appears that an overzealous commentator has aggressively reworked and renamed this article, resulting in it being POV in title and content without the justification of additional research. I refrain from simply reverting in case I'm being hasty in my critique. Czrisher (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – I undid the most recent move, so this RM makes sense now. I take no position on the underlying issues. It might be better to move and change the RM, but it's not good for an RM to say move from here to same place. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a clear case of POV vandalism had prompted a move request. I've moved this as per WP:BOLD. The move request is therefore not required. Kernel Saunters (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following the confusion but may be able to clarify. I was not as confident as Kernel Saunters that it was "a clear case of POV vandalism", though it appeared so. I inserted the RM so that others with the time and wisdom could examine and make that decision and would fully support the removal of the RM. However, since this was renamed after being reverted, perhaps the RM remains appropriate as it's debated whether the current new name is better than the old name. The article under the old name was focused on use of gas rather than bombing, which makes the new title curious to me. But I cannot devote the time deserved to reach a conclusion.Czrisher (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me, I'll move it back to the original title in due course Kernel Saunters (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify this somewhat: this page was written in 2006 as Gas in Mesopotamia, to explain the alleged use of poison gas there by the British in 1920.

It was moved following a discussion here in 2009 to Alleged British use of gas in Mesopotamia in 1920 which reflected the topic and content.

It was moved again, without discussion, on 1 March 2012 to British atrocities in Mesopotamia. This was reverted as POV the same day, put back (as subject to an RM) and moved the following day moved to another (non-POV) title (British bombing in Mesopotamia) where it currently sits.

I suggest that the current RM seeking to move the page back to its previously stable and previously agreed title should be un-necessary, as it should never have been moved to the POV title in the first place. As it cannot be put back without admin assistance, does anyone know a way to achieve this? Or does it have to go through the full RM process? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly admin would be able to do this, fully support the move. I was going to do this after the current move request was closed Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV edits

The long-standing introduction to this article has been removed and replaced with the following:-
"Many atrocities were committed against the Mesopotamians during the British rule in the 1920s,(ref Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, (London: Heinemann, 1976), companion volume 4, part 1), (ref Geoff Simons, Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam (London: St. Martins Press, 1994), pp. 179-181)"
As this is at variance with the statements and quotes from other historians below, can any one corroborate that Gilbert and Simons actually say this? What is the exact quote? Does it specify that gas was used? Or what kind of gas ( lethal or non-lethal) they were talking about? And even if they do, that doesn’t provide the mandate to re-write the article with a negative stance; it means the claims and the quotes should be placed as a counter-point to the statements and quotes already here, per policy on Neutrality. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages 179 to 181 of Simons' book do not cover the period in question. Page 189 covers Sir Edward Grey's false promise to the Arabs of independence if they helped against the Ottomans. Page 190 covers the British invasion of Ottoman Mesopotamia in November 1914. Page 191 covers the British surrender in 1916. Page 192 covers the enforced slavery endured by the British prisoners of war under the Ottomans to the taking of Baghdad in March 1917. Pages beyond that cover actions in the Hejaz, until coverage of the Sykes-Picot agreement on pages 195 to 198. Pages 199 to 200 cover the rigged plebsicite that ensured a vote in favor of British rule. Page 201 to 202 covers international moves to install a puppet king. Page 203 is on Churchill's Cairo conference. Page 204 says Churchill suggested reducing the costs of securing the area by restricting military action to air attacks (conventional bombing and strafing), however Simons does not say whether this suggestion was acted on. Pages 205 and 206 cover the installation of Feisal, and then move onto to discuss Kuwait. I think at this point it is unnecessary for me to read any further. The sentence does not appear to be supported by the reference. DrKiernan (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this seriously considered high importance in the uk and Iraq?

Really the ranking of the importance of this article needs to be looked at. If chemical weapons were used and 100% proof can be presented then never mind high importance on Wikipedia this should be discussed publicly as it would be a horrible war crime. If however there is very little proof and just the writings of some historians long after the alleged incidents as well as others refuting the claims then the importance should be scaled back. I believe I am right in saying that the importance is judged basically on how likely it is a random member of the public is to want to read this article. Well considering I've never heard of these allegations until randomly coming across then on here by random article clicking from the page on Porton down I would say they aren't I high importance to project UK or even project Iraq. As supporting evidence for this claim I present the article "Nuclear weapons and the united kingdom" one would imagine this would be of interest to many English speakers around the world and therefore it's importance rating will probably have been subject of much debate and one would also say it is of far higher importance than this article yet it ranked as Mid-importance. Which incidently is the same importance project Egypt ascribes to the article "the second battle of El Alamein" again I'd say probably more likely to be read by anyone with a general interest in world war 2 or anyone with family who served there yet is lower importance than this? Really?

I have no idea on the procedures involved in getting this re-rated hence posting rather than doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.55.69 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was made by User:Mais oui! here. I've asked for an explanation on the project page. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing the title

It appears a better title would be "false allegations of British use of..." or some such. The text in the article and the sources seems to paint a fairly clear picture that any claims of chemical weapons use were the result of misunderstandings or in some cases poor scholarship based on assumptions. Leaving it as "alleged" seems to favour the idea that there is the possibility of the allegations having merit, which doesn't appear to be the case. XeCyranium (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"False" seems too argumentative for a title, but I agree the current one isn't ideal given that the controversy seems (as far as I can discern) to have been put to rest by more recent scholarship. Perhaps a better title can be found? Jr8825 • Talk 02:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)