Wikipedia

Talk:Agent Orange/Archive 2

< Talk:Agent Orange
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Know Einstein in topic Oxford Dictionary
Archive 1 Archive 2

Including photojournalism in article

Latest comment: 8 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

I noticed the removal of a Daily Mail link and i added it back because it seems to be part of a pattern of user Keilana removing Daily Mail stories across the board. I would be interested to discuss specifically whether this link serves this article or not, or to hear why Daily Mail is not suitable for any sourcing. Thanks for any dialogue on this. Just noting the edit for discussion. SageRad (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing a tabloid as a source is a bad thing...it in no way meets WP:RS and doesn't belong here. I've been removing links to the Daily Mail in medical articles, where they absolutely do not meet MEDRS. Keilana (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
For everyone's convenience, here is the link to the article in question. Would you please give some more detail on Daily Mail being an unreliable source across the board, such as perhaps a link to RS board discussions, etc, where it's established that it's not suitable as a source anywhere? I would like to specifically look at this source in the context of this article to see whether it serves the readers or not, instead of removing it solely because of the source being what it is. At least we have discussion on it here, now. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Just reading Daily Mail should clue anyone reading in to why it's an inappropriate source. It is a tabloid newspaper, which by their nature focus on sensationalized sources and are known to be unreliable. There are many, many discussions on the RS noticeboard about this. Keilana (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, i will state my opinion as an editor, that this source was indeed serving the reader well by being here, as the article in question is not so much about establishing any contentious facts about Agent Orange, so much as being a photojournalistic exploration on effects of its use. For this reason, i think it ought to remain in the article, despite knowing that the Daily Mail is not a top notch reliable source for controversial fact sourcing. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


My reversion was reverted here with the reason given "This is a very poor source for the statement it is used to reference." but guess what? This source was not used to reference a statement. It was in a list of readings. Therefore, the edit reason makes no sense at all by my estimation. I won't revert immediately to avoid any appearance of edit warring, but i ask CFCF to explain this curiously strange edit reason for reverting this, and to explain in general why they think this source should not be referenced in the article under "Further reading".... thank you. If no reasonable explanation, then i'd think it's a good idea to revert it back in within 24 hours or so, and i am seriously concerned about the way that the edit reason appears to not be based on the use of the source in the article. 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Since when did we put random Daily Mail articles as external links in articles? Harej (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was "random" as it relates directly to the topic of the article, and it is also in a very extensive list of additional readings links, so i am not getting the point of your question, Harej. I didn't add this there in the first place. It was some other editor's work, and i am reluctant to see it removed without a very good reason, and i haven't seen one yet here. I wonder why the desire to remove this link that provides what seems to be useful background for readers on the topic. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Keilana's pattern of removing Daily Mail links from medical articles fits well with her pattern of improving Wikipedia Quanticle (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that this removal in particular serves the reader, and why? Please provide substantial content to your thought in the dialogue. This is the process of editing, in which editors discuss articles toward the goal of serving the reader. In this case, the article in question is a photojournalistic piece. In discussions about the Daily Mail as a source, i have seen editors saying "Sure, Daily Mail is not a good source for factual establishment of some things, but their photojournalism can be very good and useful for articles." And by the way, this article touches on medical topics, but it's not a medical article per se, as it has many sociological and historical dimensions. I am quite familiar with WP:MEDRS and would stand up for it any day of the week, in triplicate, but this is not used to establish medical claims in the article, but is general background literature in a long literature list. SageRad (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The photoessay was listed under "Journal Articles / Papers" and probably should be listed under "News" if we do include it. I have no strong opinion either way, as i only wish to work with other editors to make this article as useful as possible to readers, but i do feel that it is a good source for the reader of the article, to get a visceral sense through photography of the effects of Agent Orange. The Daily Mail has been noted to be a notoriously unreliable source for fact sourcing, especially on controversial topics, but it has also been noted in this conversation for instance that it can be a good source for photographs when not being used to establish facts, such as providing some great photos when Ravi Shankar died, and that's the purpose for which it was in that article, not for any fact sourcing. SageRad (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keilana, I know you from editing multiple chemistry pages with you, and trust that you are a level-headed editor with your heart in the right place.
  • I know SageRad from editing agricultural chemicals and Monsanto related pages and know that he is a level headed editor and scientist with his heart in the right place.
  • I have seen CFCF editing for close to 3 years and though I d like to think that -as a med student- his heart is in the right place, he is unfortunately not level headed, often acts without thinking as here: "This is a very poor source for the statement it is used to reference" (where the source doesnt support any statemnet!) exhibiting extremely dogmatic behavior re MEDRS, probably from lacking life experience and being insecure. He has helped you revert, Keilana, and i realize you are buddies through wikiproject medicine.
  • I do not know Harej, who came here from out of nowhere, but it seems that you, Keilana know her from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red, right? so I trust that her heart is in the right place too.
  • I do not know Quanticle, who hasnt edited for a year and all of a sudden [awakened from sleep] with his comment.

with introductions out of the way let me ask you all (but SageRad, who I think made his case clear already) to plse answer 2 questions about the article, after you have read it:

  1. what do you think of the photos?
  2. what do you think about the article text? (brief answers). Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I appreciate the support in getting to the heart of the matter of maintaining the best article for readers. I would just gently caution against omitting motives or reasons for other editors' edits unless it's absolutely necessary to the discussion of the content. That may be a distraction and could be seen as uncivil. I'd suggest in a friendly advice striking that sort of talk that might be felt as an insult, about being insecure or other such things. SageRad (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, a lack of arguments followed by ad hominem attacks and poor pop-psychology analysis of motives is not going to increase the likelyhood that we would use low quality sources in articles. Using statement in my edit summary may be questionable, but regardless what it is intended to support (be it a general overview of Agent Orange victims) the Daily Mail is low quality tabloid. The fact that it includes decent images does not retract from the poor quality analysis associated with anything the Daily Mail touches.
There are better sources that have made similar photojournalistic galleries, such as Aljazeera, National Geographic [1][2], or CNN [3](maybe the best gallery). CFCF 💌 📧 11:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the links. I could see having a section to photojournalistic sources in the reading list. SageRad (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Hey, it's nice to cross paths with you again. I would love to see some photojournalism in the external links/further reading section but I would prefer it be from more reputable outlets. CFCF found several that would be great (especially the Al Jazeera and CNN ones); would everyone here be okay with adding those? I absolutely agree with SageRad that we could have a section of the reading list dedicated to photojournalism. Keilana (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Posts by topic-banned editors
The 2013 CNN blog source with 11 photos of effects-of-agent-orange-ongoing-silently-in-children has the most pictures. The 4/2015 Al Jazeera link has 7 photos-in-vietnam-the-after-effects-of-agent-orange-persist, equally good, well footnoted and loads faster for me. I'd insert both sources, SageRad?--Wuerzele (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it. Let's include a photojournalism section in the reading list. SageRad (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. SageRad (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, please refrain from inserting content by the topic-banned editors that occurred after their topic ban. If you check the article history, the edits have now been removed twice from the article specifying this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In the discussion above CFCF and Keilana suggested adding the CNN & Al Jazeera photojournalism links because it would improve the article; I concur with that assessment. NE Ent 02:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur, too. It seems like it was a good addition to the article. ElectraGrrl (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Having stumbled on this discussion, I would say that the original Daily Mail feature would have been a more appropriate addition to Agent Orange's effects on the Vietnamese people or an article about Brian Driscoll, the photographer. I'm surprised the link was removed based on the fact it was a Daily Mail article, rather than the (far better) reason it very clearly wasn't appropriate for "Journal articles / Papers". In any case, there are clearly a tremendous number of very high quality book and journal sources for the subject, so adding links to every photo story on the subject is quite unnecessary.

As for the general quality of the Daily Mail, I'd be inclined to take each article on its merits. Because the newspaper has its articles freely available online, it is sometimes the only source easily available on a subject. This clearly isn't the case here. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Actual military effectiveness?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article describes the history, application, and long lasting medical effects of Agent Orange but I see very little mention of its actual military effectiveness. For all the stuff that was dumped, did it actually work? Hooperbloob (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question, the article does mention an exodus of millions of Vietnamese from the jungles/fields to the cities but none of the sources I've seen specifically link this exodus due solely to agent orange, I imagine the dangers from both the Vietcong & US having a war amongst themselves in their neighborhood, likely caused the greatest impetus to move out of there to relative safety.
109.125.16.122 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"this voids any protection of any military or civilians from a napalm attack or something like agent Orange and is clear that it was designed to cover situations like U.S. tactics in Vietnam. This clause has yet to be revised."

I don't have an opinion on the topic, but whomever edited/authored it clearly does.

"and is clear that it was designed to cover..." seems to establish a point of view for the article. If this is important to keep in, perhaps consider stating in the article whatever authority that believes this is "clear". It seems important enough to be included in the text.


"or something like"?

Thats just sloppy.

68.63.19.44 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This article has some extreme vandalism. "The scientific data supporting a causal link between Agent Orange/dioxin exposure and birth defects is controversial and weak"? Wiki mods/admins need to keep the U.S. fascism under control instead of letting them erase hundreds of thousands of maimed victims from history. Chemical warfare breaks international law by the way. Wikipedia is payed for by the proletariat. So don't let corporations completely censor articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Orange&oldid=468163158 The original article on Agent Orange is completely censored. Whoever is responsible needs to lose edit privileges over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.176.40 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agent Orange. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright applied incorrectly

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a copyright hold on the Agent Orange page, suggesting content had been lifted from the following URL's http://veteransinfo.tripod.com/Background_on_Agent_Orange.pdf, http://bc.ctvnews.ca/toxic-agent-orange-sprayed-in-b-c-documents-1.791471.

The information contained therein is in the public domain, and being used for educational purposes.

As such, the copyright hold on the page should be lifted.

Regards,

A new wiki user.

2601:19B:100:5814:6058:CE87:3758:D5BE (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sure you are mistaken; two of the pages are marked as © 2016 Arizona Board of Regents and © 2017 Bell Media All rights reserved. The third page does not have a copyright notice, but under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. The page will be assessed and resolved in about a week by an administrator or copyright problems clerk and the template will be removed at that time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Agent Orange/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Comments

There seems to be very little wrong with this carefully written and well cited article. I note that the article has recently been through a rigorous copyright check, which found and removed longstanding violations; it easily passes such a check today.

  • I have marked 5 places where citations seem to be needed, or uncited text needs to be removed.
  • The lead image has no date, nor does it mention the Vietnam War (1961-71). It should do one or the other, and wikilink as necessary.
  • Chemical composition: please spell out the chemical names in the image captions, and wikilink them. You may give the abbreviations after these if desired, in parentheses.
  • Development: "during WWII": please spell out and wikilink.
  • Early Use: please use sentence case (Early use). Please also give dates of the Malayan Emergency.
  • Early use image: please remove mention of later Vietnam War from image caption.
  • Use in the Vietnam War: "Spraying was usually done " is inelegant. Suggest "Agent Orange was usually sprayed".
  • "including Arthur Galston": Please gloss him (e.g. "the botanist and bioethicist Arthur Galston)" at first mention.
  • "A weapon, by definition, is any device used to injure, defeat, or destroy living beings, structures, or systems, and Agent Orange did not qualify under that definition." This isn't true as it stands, as Agent Orange evidently destroys living plants, so we must not make the statement in Wikipedia's voice. Please attribute it appropriately, e.g. "The U.S. delegation argued that ...".
  • " if they (the VC) " - if this is an editorial gloss, then please format it with square brackets as [the Vietcong]; if not, then please gloss it with "(sic)" as it's a non-standard format.
  • "Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased ........ Saigon slums." Does Luong 2003 specifically attribute this flow to Agent Orange, or simply to the war? We need an actual quotation here, either in the text or in the citation, to cover this. If it's simply to the war, the paragraph is WP:OR.
You've altered the paragraph without addressing the issue here. If Luong 2003 specifically attributes the population flow to Agent Orange, please supply a quotation (can be |quote=..... inside the citation); if not, the paragraph must be removed. [done]
Removing that paragraph fixes the question of whether it was OR, but the sociopolitical effects are now not adequately covered (i.e. the article is more unbalanced, and it was already very heavy on the health effects, just as it is very heavy on Vietnam despite efforts at balance with "Use outside Vietnam"). What we need to do is find some reliable sources on the sociopolitical effects, including rural depopulation and migration to the big cities; Luong is certainly reliable but we ought to know what it actually says. The article Effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people should be linked somewhere (probably a {{main| }} link; it may offer useful sources on the sociopolitical effects.
I've had a look for sources, and can't find anything usable. There certainly was rural depopulation, but that was attributed in the sources I found to fighting, including artillery and bombing. I've therefore removed the section. If anyone finds reliable sources in future, they are welcome to reinsert a section on this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  • References 2, 3, 39, 40, 57, 85, 88, 90, 93, 94, 97, 99, 110, 116, 121, 128, 129, 130, 131, 139, 146, 147, 156, 157 are inadequately formatted or not formatted at all. Many others are incompletely formatted so all references in the article (not just these specifically listed) now require checking. I've formatted the first few for you to show what is wanted.
  • Every ref requires a title, publisher, date/accessdate, and author (in Surname, I.J. (last name, comma, space, initial, dot, initial, dot; or Surname, Forename and middle initial) if available. Please use the {{cite web |title= ...}} or similar template (cite journal, etc) throughout the article for consistent formatting.
  • I note the detailed References and Bibliography (which ought really to be linked using the Harvard mechanism), but do not see why there is also a lengthy "Further reading" list with Books, "Journal articles/papers", News, Video, Photojournalism - if these are needed, please link them; otherwise, please remove them from the article.
Removed the Journal articles/papers, only 2 minor items not adding substantially to article.
  • The same basically applies to the Government/NGO reports: these ought to be linked in the existing text, or briefly mentioned and linked if they aren't there already, but it's not a pass/fail issue.
  • External links: what are these for? Things like "Poisoned Lives" seem POV if not off-topic altogether. Please justify or remove each item.

Sociopolitical impact

https://books.google.com/books?id=PeFK5dkYZsEC&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=agent+orange,+crops,+people+abandoned+countryside&source=bl&ots=F-WA-MM2FS&sig=PPABL_fQsYcWTDgKVJ7R9mCR2lU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLrIShq_7SAhWFTCYKHVifD0kQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=agent%20orange%2C%20crops%2C%20people%20abandoned%20countryside&f=false

Hi Chiswick Chap, I think this link could help. Uptoniga (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Uptoniga Yes it could, along with the RAND quote and citation, and Luong 2003, so you are authorised to restore the old material and to extend it. Please be careful to say that bombing and artillery, bulldozing, and Agent Orange spraying, including deliberate spraying of rice paddies, all contributed to forcing the depopulation of rural Vietnam, and the resulting surge of people into the cities. It is essentially impossible to separate the effects of these, given that they were essentially all simultaneous, widespread, and of long duration, and Turse wisely discusses them together.
Here is the Turse citation, formatted:

<ref>{{cite book|last=Turse|first=Nick|title=Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PeFK5dkYZsEC&pg=PT95|date=2013-01-15|publisher=Henry Holt and Company|isbn=978-0-8050-9547-0|pages=95–99}}</ref>

Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

  • The lead section currently spends 2 of its 3 paragraphs on law, and says nothing about many of the sections of the article (e.g. Use outside Vietnam, legal and diplomatic proceedings) and almost nothing about Health effects, Ecological and Sociopolitical impact. Please move the 2 law paragraphs into the body of the article (a new section, International law, perhaps), and create 2 or 3 new paragraphs in the lead to summarize the contents of the article.

Summary

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  2c. it contains no original research.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Reasonably so.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment. This is a long-established article on a controversial subject. A substantial effort has been made to provide reliable sources and to cover the main points fairly and evenly. The article is now well cited and appropriate in tone and coverage, which is quite an achievement. Well done all who helped.

ho chi minh trail 931===4207

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

they hid in speical dens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.42.150 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How long does it take to have effect?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article doesn't mention the time elapsed between application and defoliation. It does discuss the substance decomposing, but not how long it takes to have effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.40.156 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agent Orange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Horribly credulous article

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is an official "Good Article" lol.

  • Baseless SRVN claims presented as fact
  • a terribly researched BBC.com article and something called "gaiadiscovery.com" used as a source for medical claims
  • at least one picture of a random disabled beggar on the streets of Saigon solely because the tourist who took it assumes that his disability was "most likely" caused by Agent Orange
  • highly politicized V.A. "presumptive" decisions about "compensation" presented as official recognition that Agent Orange causes the "presumptive" diseases
  • highlighting of cherry-picked individual studies that go against the general consensus of the literature on the question
  • A CDC study that has not published any results randomly cited to support claims of health effects
  • Vietnam Experience Study cited to imply that any disease found at higher rates in their sample is not only indeed prevalent among Vietnam vets, but specifically caused by Agent Orange – even if Ranch Hands, the only vets actually exposed to Agent Orange, show no elevated rates of the disease, and even though there's no evidence of any lasting effect on all-cause mortality among Vietnam vets (the disease rates are probably just the usual multiple comparisons noise)

Basically, the factual and scientific statements made in this article reflect nothing more than the political and social consensus on Agent Orange. Everybody knows that Agent Orange was powerfully toxic and that millions of people were poisoned by it, so that's what this article says, even though it's poorly supported and almost certainly not true.

It's easily the worst official "Good Article" I've ever seen in terms of handling a complex factual controversy well. TiC (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Agent Orange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agent Orange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Higher Ground 1

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To editor Higher Ground 1: Please discuss, rather than edit war. Why do you insist on adding this image as well as unsourced content? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Before/after image problems

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the section "Ecological impact" the image of the mangrove forest purports to be a before/after image but they are clearly not images of the same location. Maybe they are just demonstrative of the *type* of impact caused but labelling it as before/after implies it is an apples to apples comparison, which it isn't. mmj (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Mechanism of action? Time of effect? Duration?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A lot of focus on the impact but no focus on the underlying biochemistry. - Keith D. Tyler 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A person pictured with birth deformities (short arms) appears to have Holt-Oram syndrome

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The person pictured with arm deformities appears to have Holt-Oram syndrome,[4] a genetic condition caused by mutations of the TBX5 gene, or other similar pseudo-thalidomide syndrome. The condition is very likely not Dioxin related. It also important to understand that Dioxin (TCDD and dioxin related compounds) cause congenital malformations by binding with the Aryl hydrocarbon cell receptor (AhR), this in turn induces or mimics dietary folate deficiency. Accordingly, congenital malformations caused by dioxin are theoretically limited neural tube defects only e.g. cleft lip/pallet, spina bifida, encephalocele, iniencephaly and anencephaly. We can use this information to decide if a congenital deformity is likely dioxin relayed or not. -- Diamonddavej (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Should "legal action" be in introduction?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some legal consequences are mentioned in the Agent Orange introduction, seems kind of out of place. Remove from introduction? I don't feel like this small stub of information is important enough to be included in the page introduction. A Magical Badger (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Increased manufacturing temperature causes dioxin

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If they increased the cooking temperature they could make Agent Orange in only 45 minutes instead of 12 hours, BUT this produced the dioxin. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agent Orange Visible Color

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What was the actual color of the agent? I am aware that "Agent Orange" refers to the colored band on its storage barrel, but I am not sure of the color of the actual chemical that was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbadger110 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Agent Orange is not orange in colour. The "Orange" only refers to the orange-coloured band on the outside of its containment barrel. In reality, the chemical is clear and colourless. Agent Orange Colour Mgasparin (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Another Lawsuit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Source: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210125-french-court-hears-agent-orange-case-against-chemical-firmsFusionLord (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FlorenceOpoku98, Stephburns19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate Picture

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a duplicate picture in the gallery.   is a black and white, cropped version of   Lhoriman (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

a herbicide /ˈhəːbɪsʌɪd/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8209:7100:28D1:BA21:4E75:2ECD (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. And Zyklon-B is just a "pesticide". Know Einstein (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Orange/Archive_2&oldid=1182567645"