Talk:Agent Orange

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Agent Orange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120319205622/http://www.kpho.com/news/27892124/detail.html to http://www.kpho.com/news/27892124/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agent Orange's Effects on the Vietnamese People

I'm considering creating a new article on the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnamese people specifically in order to increase the specificity and accuracy of the information (particularly the empirical/scientific evidence). Please let me know if you would like to help/how you feel about this idea. Vnguyen518 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Update on "Agent Orange's Effects on the Vietnamese People"

Hi all! I wanted to let everyone who's been working on this page know that I've been hard at work on a consolidation of the information on the effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese People from this page. I plan to expand upon what I have as well as what has been posted on this page already and create a new article. In terms of how it will relate to this article structurally, I will probably transfer the bulk of the "Effects on the Vietnamese People" subheader into my article with additional information such as health effects on refugees and current Vietnamese refugees, ecological effects such as deforestation and the creation of ecological refugees, and finally sociopolitical effects in regards to the class action lawsuit, government responses/accountability, and scientific objections.

All of this information is available in the form of a draft with citations in my sandbox. Let me know what you all think or if you have any suggestions! I plan on moving this article into the mainspace soon and will be placing the link on this page. Consequently I will also transfer the information that is already here to the new article.

To give you an idea of what my proposal entails, take a look at my article topic proposal and let me know what you think. Thanks and I look forward to working and learning from all of you!

Cheers!

Vnguyen518 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Including photojournalism in article

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)

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