Talk:Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction
 | This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
How do I change the title to Chemical Biological Warfare in Rhodesia Rh Mosstrooper (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rh Mosstrooper, Huon moved it to this title for consistency reasons from the original title. If you want to go through with a move, it would probably be best to request an WP:RM. If you don't know how to do this after reading that page, I can create one procedurally for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Another proposed move
editWhile the acronym "CBW" is used a lot in the text of this article - meaning chemical and biological - Rhodesia did not develop or possess chemical weapons. The Rhodesian "CBW" programme focused primarily on the weaponisation of biological agents such as anthrax. I am proposing this article be moved to Rhodesian biological warfare programme accordingly, similar to United States biological warfare program.
It's an article solely about biological warfare, unlike say South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. So let's give it an appropriate title as such. --Katangais (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Three points--article consistently refers to Rhodesian use of chemical and biological warfare agents. CBW can refer to either chemical and biological weapons (CBW) or chemical and biological warfare (CBW). Believe that it's clear from the context that in this article, CBW refers to chemical and biological warfare. Second, the Rhodesian focus was on the use of chemical warfare agents, such as organophosphate poisons, not anthrax. Any insinuation that the Rhodesian effort concentrated on anthrax as its focus in simply erroneous. Third, the article describes the Rhodesian use of chemical and biological warfare agents. The article is not about biological warfare alone. Changing the title would be misleading. Lastly, spellings should retain US spellings. 68.106.12.195 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the current title is good, but per the WP:ENGVAR policy the spelling and vocabulary must be changed away from US to Commonwealth spelling and vocabulary. Rhodesia was (and Zimbabwe still is) an English-speaking country that uses British style and spelling. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please re-title the article to preserve the meaning of "weapons of mass destruction"
editThermonuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Poisons and biological agents used to contaminate of food, water, and supplies are not. Call chemical and biological weapons by their names, please, not every poison or disease agent a “weapon of mass destruction”. We should not degrade the term by stretching it to cover both megaton bombs that kill millions and chemical agents that kill hundreds. 2A00:23C4:402C:AC00:80DA:B11F:CCE9:F65B (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)