![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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:
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
|
---|
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)
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)
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)
"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/?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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Hi Chiswick Chap, I think this link could help. Uptoniga ( talk) 13:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
<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>
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. |
they hid in speical dens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.42.150 ( talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an official "Good Article" lol.
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.guamagentorange.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Johnston_Atoll_History.261114404.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
A lot of focus on the impact but no focus on the underlying biochemistry. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Source: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210125-french-court-hears-agent-orange-case-against-chemical-firms FusionLord ( talk) 12:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
There is a duplicate picture in the gallery.
is a black and white, cropped version of
Lhoriman (
talk)
18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
a herbicide /ˈhəːbɪsʌɪd/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8209:7100:28D1:BA21:4E75:2ECD ( talk) 10:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)