Talk:CS gas

Contact Lenses

Does anyone have a source for this statement : Furthermore, individuals who are exposed to CS Gas should not have contact lenses in their eyes, since exposure to the gas causes the lens to fuse to the cornea of the eye.

Since I researched it and find no evidence of this at all, in fact several sites mention that you should remove and wash or discard them as the gas can build up behind them and cause irritation and blindness. But nowhere does it mention that they can fuse to the cornea. As a scientist, this seems pretty damn unlikely too. More likely a myth.

Sources that refute this statement

http://www.actionmedics.org.uk/prepare.html

Contact Lens Complications: Etiology, Pathogenesis, Prevention, Therapy By Hans-Walter Roth - ISBN: 1588901327

62.31.122.158 (talk)

Having been sprayed with a 3% CS spray myself, while wearing contact lenses, I can say this is not the case. It sounds like the sort of scare stories about non-lethal options like tasers and water cannons which get spread by people with bad intentions, and believed by the ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.90 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that most of the sources end up pointing back at a reported quote from a protester (end of article) http://rawstory.com/news/2008/100_protesters_arrested_in_Denver_hit_0826.html 86.169.63.204 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

England & Wales?

The article excludes Scotland for some reason, even though police forces there issue CS Spray. Why has it been left out? Also, the article mentions the term "CS gas" is a misnomer, but it is used elsewhere in the article in reference to CS Spray - should these be changed? Any objections, answers or comments, let me know. Ben 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct Version Edited

I have edited this page to show accurately what CS Incapacitant Spray is. I am a Police Officer and what was originally wrote here is mostly a confusing combination between Tear gas and CS Spray which are two entirely different things, therefore the edited version seeks to re-dress this issue and correct the myth.

Best wishes!

That is all well and good but there was a lot of useful CS gas information that has been deleted by this user. SeanMack 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above, the information was deleted as it was inaccurate information with regard to what CS Spray was. The deleted information related to Tear Gas and not CS Spray (Gas) therefore meaning that it does not belong in this article. The remaining information is accurate and does relate to CS Spray and therefore was kept.

The article is CS Gas not CS Spray! On many ocassion canisters of CS gas where dispersed into crowds in Northern Ireland, this accurate and factual information was removed. This feels to me like POV pushing. Are you stating that the CS Gas article should not have historical and factual information about CS gas canister use in crowd control? SeanMack 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as CS Gas! CS are solid crystals and do not turn into gas (the CS cannisters contain a propellant of spray to force the crystals out onto target areas). The gas cannisters used in Northern Ireland contained Tear Gas for crowd control which again means that it has no place for this article - Tear Gas and CS Spray are two different things. Try not to get confused.(Darktrial 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

If I am confused, it appears I am not alone, please see this note from Hansard, where the venerable Dr Reid refers to your non-existing CS gas: [1], and here, the guardian, no less [2]. You do agree that "Tear Gas" exists, one form of which is CS tear gas. In many instances this has been shortened to CS gas. This article talk page is named CS gas - what does that tell you? I would ask you to go to this web page for example and do a search for "CS gas". Yes there is a semantic issue here, but that is all the more reason to fully detail the natures of tear gas (CS based) and the spray form. The Wikipedia article on Riot control agents refers to CS, CN and CR as gases. No these are not gases in the classic sense - but it is how these compounds are known in common parlance. It is dissapointing that you chose to remove relevant information rather than give it a deserved place in the article. I assume you have heard of Porton Down, perhaps this google search will help. Finally I would quote from a report from the Medical Toxicology Unit, London:

CS causes a burning sensation in the eyes and is a potent lacrimator, but generally does not cause irreversible eye effects. Duration of aerosol induced irritation is usually 5–15 minutes after removal from exposure. Respiratory effects include coughing, bronchoconstriction, and change in the frequency and depth of breathing.

Parneix-Spake et al reported cases of CS spray causing erythematous dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis with vesicles, keratitis, blisters and crusts, accompanied by pronounced oedema.7 Onset occurred 12 hours to three days after exposure. Varma and Holt report a case of severe contact dermatitis.10 Further case reports record delayed effects with various types of dermatitis and blisters.

No deaths have been attributed to CS. However, Hu et al reported that inhalation of high concentration CS could result in chemical pneumonitis and fatal pulmonary oedema. However, the LD50 of inhaled CS gas has been estimated at 25 000 to 150 000 mg/m3—that is, a dose many times greater than the exposure dose that produces intolerable symptoms in humans. No site decontamination other than ventilation is necessary after use of CS aerosol because CS dispersed in air quickly loses potency.

Kind regards. SeanMack 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken on your criticisms of the article and have completely re-written it - please have a look and add or change anything that you deem improves the article. Regards SeanMack 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were able to get a photo of the spray - that would be an excellent addition to the article. Cheers SeanMack 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question?

What is the actual name for the gas known as "vomit gas"? It's simmilar to tear gas, but causes nausea instead. // Liftarn There are various "vomit" gases: Adamsite (DM), diphenylchloroarsine (DA) & Diphenylcyanoarsine (DC), to name but 3 I could find. SeanMack 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How did it get it's name?

Does anybody out there know how CS gas got the name CS? I always assumed it was short for the chemical name, but the article says the chemical name is chlorobenzylidene malonitrile... so what does "CS" actually mean?

Also, is this verified? It's actually illegal to use CS in warfare, but still legal to use in crowd control? How's that for irony--Pariah 06:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This chemical compound was first isolated in 1928 and is named for the men, Corson and Stoughton, who first developed its active ingredient. This ingredient, 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile is mixed with other chemicals to turn it into a gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.162.250 (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant section

I removed:

Chlorobenzene, was described by Dr Raymond McClean¹ as “a well known industrial poison which could cause damage to the brain, the liver and the kidneys”. Another of its components, malonic acid, has caused fatalities in industry.

as it is irrelevant. Chlorobenzene and malonic acid are different chemicals to CS gas. Carbon and nitrogen, don't forget, form a rather nasty chemical when combined - compounds are very often very different to their constituents. Dan100 (Talk) 13:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, although irrelevant is a personal judgement call. When I put the info in, I was thinking along the lines of effects on the body of related chemical combinations. I thought some people may have been interested in the fact that Chlorobenzene and malonic acid are closely related to CS and are themselves pretty toxic. For example the article in the external link I added treats the irritants Cs, Cn, Cnc, Ca, Cr, Cnb, PS together. However if the article is to focus solely on CS then the info does not need to be there. I fixed the notes though which you'd not updated. Cheers SeanMack 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC).

Thanks. Dan100 (Talk) 10:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of personal judgement - it is a question of chemistry. You will recognise that the "closely related" chemicals common salt, chlorine and sodium have rather different effetcs when ingested.81.170.62.51 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CS gas is actually named after its two American inventors, B. Carson and R. Staughton who developed it in 1928. Cheers, Robert—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.223.181 (talk • contribs) .

Good Article stamp of approval

What makes a good article?

A good article shares many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it must:

be well written

yes

be factually accurate

Don't know anything about CS gas myself so I can't really say, but the references seem to be from pretty in-the-know sources.

use a neutral point of view

yes

be stable

I see no conflicts

be referenced

Nice inline citations and plenty of references here

wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

Looks good

Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

If you ask me, the article seems to be mostly about how CS has been used over time and all the situations its caused, is there anything more you can find on how exactly it was created and how their reaserch proceeded until it was in its compleated form?

Yay! Homestarmy 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe this article is written from a neutral point of view. (See below). The tone is US/UK centric.SuperFluid 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-lethal?

I have read elsewhere in Wikipedia land that using a rhetorical device as a category title is not good style. Perhaps this should be changed to Toxicity? Mr Christopher 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed that title. Feel free to change it to something better but I think we should avoid using a rhetorical question as a title. Mr Christopher 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dosage and tolerance

When I was in training as an NBC instructor in the Swedish armed forces (during 2003) we were told that a concentration of CS agent in the air of 1,2 mg per cubic meter was the limit of "human tolerance" (implying that a person will be unable to perform or resist at this level). We were also recommended to use a concentration of 200-400 mg of the agent per cubic meter for educational and testing purposes (carried out while wearing protective equipment and to illustrate to recruits the value and reliability of the equipment supplied to them). My question is: is this true for the actual CS levels or just a standard for the agent we used?

UK / US Use

"Notably the CS spray used by UK police has 5 times as much CS as the spray used by American police forces (5% dissolved CS and 1% CS respectively). [27]"

I would dispute this. Each individual US police agency has its own purchasing mandate and officer use everything from CS in a 1% right the way through to a 10% solution, as well as OC (Pepper), PAVA, and hybrids (5%OC5%CS etc).

"The forces that do use the PIS in the UK require that police constables should themselves be sprayed with a 3% dissolved CS"

Again not true. Officers are sprayed with the same product as they carry.

It would be good to be able to add this to the article, can you provide references for this information? Ta. SeanMack 12:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Officers are not sprayed with the same dosage. In Scotland for example, officers are sprayed with a 3% concentrate rather than 5 % and it is not the same as the spray they carry as it is in an aerosol version rather that a single spray. User:Duffit 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam Section

The estimate "15 million pounds" is entirely compatible with "thousands of tons" (1 thousand tons == 2 million pounds) but the writing here makes it sound like the two measurements are at odds.

I changed this ("15 million pounds" to "seven and a half thousand tons") to make it more readable/understandable, but my edit was reverted because it supposedly added incorrect information. I guess I should have gone through the proper channels before submitting an edit...

Should it change pounds to tons (second number), or tons to pounds (first number)? Balrogthane (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your IP address page. Nice to see you've registered. Welcome! TINYMARK 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Marked claim of US use in Vietnam as citation needed, despite extensive research i have been unable to find a credible first hand source confirming this claim. As such i believe section should be at lest rewritten to reflect the dubious nature of this claim if not deleted entirely. sept 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.196.50 (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Iraq?

The line "Saddam used CS against the Kurds"...

We know he gassed them...but it wasnt with CS. I believe that is wrong and should be removed. FireBadger 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi FireBadger, I've looked into a bit - at least at what's easily available online, you have a point in that it could be worded better. Iraq used CS against the Iranians as opposed to the Kurds [3]. However it is reported that: "a biological agent, aflatoxin, was used in CS gas"[4] in Halabja. SeanMack 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this part should be changed. The line that says "Saddam used CS...in his own country" has a blatant US politically centric tone. Governments all around the world use CS gas "in their own countries" all the time. It is commonly used by police worldwide. The entire section should be removed, unless every instance of CS use around the globe is going to be listed.SuperFluid 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps review

Re-reviewing this article in accordance with WikiProject Good Articles' sweeps review process. The article continues to meet the GA criteria, and will be kept. I made a few minor changes to the reference and formatting structure, adding some details. Editors might want to review WP:CITE for tips on keeping references formatted and looking clean. The external links section is also getting a little long, so you might want to consider pruning it a bit in accordance with WP:EL. The lead section could also use a little expansion, though it's sufficient, it could use more details on some of the uses and other aspects. See WP:LEAD.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

criteria

Why do some countries have their own subjects and others not? In the US CS gas is used, but the country is very large and the usage is not so common comparatively. In Palestine CS gas is used at least every week, more likely a few times a week, in many places. Usage in israel is given a sentence while the US is given a subject. I'm not trying to say that this should be reversed, just what is the criteria why some countries have large sections and others almost none? 213.6.5.208 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't actually a US conspiracy. The English Wikipedia attracts vastly more American editors than any other nationality, so it's hardly surprising that US angles are covered more comprehensively than others. Add well-sourced Palestinian info and it will likely remain in the article. Chris Cunningham 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The name of CS Gas

I am slightly concerned at it being called CS Gas as it isn't technically a gas. Police forces in the uk call it CS spray. Was wondering if this could be looked at?

Removed reference to NYPD

Having worked as a street medic and Emergency Medical Technician for some years in NYC, I can confirm that the NYPD does not use CS gas. This isn't to say there isn't some stockpiled somewhere, but police officers will often say, "We don't use teargas," when asked about it. Since the NYPD is notable for its not using CS gas in situations comparable to where other police forces have, I thought it was inappropriate to use them as the example.

Typically, the NYPD doesn't use CS gas because they have a much larger police force than most cities (allowing them to make arrests or use OC spray rather than CS), and because NYC's population density ensures that there would be many third parties affected by CS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.152.153.66 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Immunity

The article makes no mention of immunity to this substance. Some people are immune to the effects of CS, or suffer greatly reduced symptoms. In my own military training, I was able to breathe CS normally and function with open eyes in a gas hut full of the stuff, while other trainees were unable to breathe at all. The only noticeable effect was a slight warming of the skin as though in sunlight. An instructing NCO informed me that in any given group of 50 or 60 trainees, there was usually one or two who displayed immunity. Obviously my personal experience and hearsay of that NCO is no reference, but I assume such could be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw basically the same thing. One guy was immune and showed no reaction. We had to test the leak rate of or equipment and after that the brave ones (stupid!) took of they gas masks and all but one had to leave due to severe reactions. The guy was running in the CS for 5 minutes and came out with the rest of us. --Stone (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal, but I confirm that the same happened to me. It actually saved our belongings (and maybe life) as (civilian variety) CS gas was used on me during robbery. Zezen (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Some answers about the origin of the designations for chemical agents

It seems there are uncited claims on Wikipedia about the origin of the military designations CS, HS, SK, etc. I've found this source which attributes SK to "South Kensington" and HS to "Hun Stuff" - does anyone have more sources that clarify these designations? ----IsaacAA (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this included?

Under the "Use" section, this sentece appears: Domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries, however, as the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits only military use.

And under the section dealing with the US, this sentence appears: CS gas has been banned by international treaty in warfare since the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, and the United States is a signatory to this treaty. However CS can and is used against its own citizens by local police forces without restriction.

THe construction of the second quote seems to insinute that the US allows the use of CS gas in violation of international agreements, while the first quote shows this to be untrue. Additionally, no other section about national usage makes mention of that nation's status relative to the international agreement in question. Why is the US singled out in this regard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncited anecdotes do not constitute encyclopaedic entries

On the UK section, the last two paragraphs have been written and left uncited, apart from a footnote saying they come from the contributors personal experience. If the events in Essex are in fact reported in the "Illford Recorder", then why can they not be cited?

OK, following the above, these entries have been deleted: "In 2005, a student from Mayfield School in Essex, used CS gas inside the school. Several students were taken to A&E, but all survived. The remaining students of the school were held in classrooms and halls, until it was confirmed by the local police and firefighters that the scene was safe. The event was reported only in a local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder.

In October 2009 CS Gas was used by police outside the BBC headquarters in West London during protests against the British National Party and the appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time (TV series). Victims were blinded for 5 minutes, but burning persisted for at least an hour. Mild nausuea and facial inflammation persists for several hours."

No citation, apart from "contributor's personal experience". I frankly call into question the honesty of someone attempting to silence a democratic political party, but more than that, "original research" (if it can be called that) isn't acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.103 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Why?

Why have the section on Israel and the Category Chemical weapons been removed, without explanation? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Israel section has been reverted by another editor. I have reverted the Category:Chemical weapons tag. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC name

Is that the real IUPAC name? Because malononitrle is not used and should be propanedinitrile, and there is a double bond.--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 10:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of details?

In the section about use in israel, it's mentioned that Jawaher Abu-Rahma was repoted to be killed by the gas. Doesn't this part belongs to the "toxicity" section? also - what is the relevance of mentioning her brother which was killed by the hit of the canister (and therefore is irrelevant to the subject. Personally, I read this as a cheap emotional writing, which is not supposed to be in an encyclopedia. Wamit (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty to correct these flaws. Wamit (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical Statements on CS Gas Dispersion with Dichloromethane?

"In the Waco Siege, CS was dissolved in the organic solvent dichloromethane (also known as methylene chloride). When the volatile dichlormethane evaporated, the CS crystallized with the dichloromethane molecules as an aerosol.[1]"

The last part of the second sentence makes no sense to me. How would CS "crystallize with the dichloromethane molecules as an aerosol"? I read the source and I feel I can offer a more clear explanation (not that it should matter much but I am a chemist).

How about: "The solution was dispersed as an aerosol via explosive force and when the highly volatile dichloromethane evaporated, CS crystals precipitated and formed a fine dispersion in the air."

Or something similar? I think that describes the situation more accurately.

JohnnyTopQuark (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I've changed the text as you suggested and if someone feels it could be said better - let them go ahead and improve. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

References for British Armed Forces CS gas training

The references (currently 36 and 37) for the use of CS in British Armed Forces training do not support the statements in this article. The first deals exclusively with the use of CS in US military training in Ohio; the second reference does not specify whether recruits were required to remove their masks (or any other part of their suits) for exposure to CS gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracleworker5263 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article?

This article hasn't been reviewed since 2007 and doesn't leap out as being of GA standard. --John (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

this article could benefit from the inclusion of the use of 87 CS projectiles in Hong Kong in Sept 28, 2014, by the police against unarmed and peaceful demonstrators demanding democratic elections. the CS gas cannisters and content used were purchased from CHEMRING, a british weapons manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.242.190 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If it was a good article it would explain the mechanism action of CS gas, but it does't. 82.55.73.243 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification, please

The article says, "Members of the United States armed forces are exposed to CS during initial training, and during training refresher courses or equipment maintenance exercises..." I'm curious as to what "equipment maintenance exercises" means and how often it's done. I know that troops are supposed to check their equipment, such as protective masks, at least monthly, but does that mean that they do the chamber training every month? Also, an article in the External Links section (http://www.readperiodicals.com/201110/2485901761.html) says that "Army personnel repeat this training annually and immediately before military deployments." Should this be mentioned in the article? Finally, I apologize if I'm being morbid, but I'm curious. I know they're exposed to the CS, but do the troops have to breathe in the CS during the refresher courses, equipment maintenance exercises, annual refresher, and pre-deployment training, or is that just during the initial training? Evernut (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the phrase "equipment maintenance exercises" again, I'm guessing it refers to things such as learning to use the hydration port, using decontamination wipes on the face and mask, etc. I'm still curious about the other things, though. I'm just trying to understand what I've read. Evernut (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:CS gas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. it has been apparently might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CS gas. 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/20070926011533/http://www.waco93.com/detcs.pdf to http://www.waco93.com/detcs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309021418/http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2009/200905UNGIS01.pdf to http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2009/200905UNGIS01.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that the article CS gas (data page) be merged here because it is, uh, a stub that doesn't seem to have any chances on its own. I mean, the two articles are on the same topic and it doesn't seem like either one is too long. I will leave this merger proposal alone for other editors to discuss; I'm probably too busy doing CV work and eleminating stubs. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Clear content fork. Are there any useful data in the infobox at the data page that aren't already included in the infobox in the main article? I haven't checked, but if not, this should just be PRODed. If there is any useful information though, I support the merge. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Hello! Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the content is already in the main CS page. I support the merge. The 28th Duck (talk · contribs) 20:54, 13 November 2021 (EST)

• Temporal WP:DPCLEANUP aims to clean up these data pages (upgrade or delete). This seems to interfere with this individual merge proposal (CS gas (data page)). Anyway cleanup is ontr its way. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

IT IS NOT A GAS, CHANGE IT

As above, it's not a gas, it's an aerosol, the facts matter peeps 92.19.193.42 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

CS gas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept, issues fixed by splitting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. The uses section has been tagged for needing additional citations since may 2021. listed with "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (September 2011, March 2012, September 2013, November 2013, October 2019, June 2020), Failed verification (September 2013), Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2018), ... (May 2021)" on the bambots page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Beside the issue of many unsourced paragraphs, I think the long and indiscriminate laundry list of incidents of usage is problematic with respect to WP:GACR #3(b). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder. The list was a mess, and inappropriate for a text article, so I've split it off as List of uses of CS gas by country and linked that in "See also". I've gone through the "External links" and removed the dead items. Those actions clear all the issues raised above. The rest of the article is fully cited and honestly not too bad (not my cup of tea, but never mind). It covers "the main points", is quite readable (given the subject matter), and is appropriately illustrated. I think it's probably a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, before I close this, are all the details in the infobox cited somewhere in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed some uncited names from the infobox. AFAICT the hazard statements are acceptable in their current form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.