Talk:Agent Orange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Toxicology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment  
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


RFC: Can reliably sourced content be removed without any explanation?[edit]

Resolved

Should reliably sourced content be removed from the lead of this article with no justification? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • This is the wrong question and is premature. In a series of 4 edits, the OP basically reverted the article to an old version, without edit notes or discussion on Talk, and is refusing to discuss the details. There are many issues re-introduced that had been fixed. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
These claims that I "basically reverted to" an older revision is clearly false, as anyone can see from the edit history. This kind of dishonesty and refusal to explain the removal of reliably sourced content, even after repeated requests, is precisely why this RFC is not "premature". I don't want to edit war with this person, and would like someone else to try to extract from them their motives for removing the content. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
all you have to do is actually slow down and discuss things. That is what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried several times to discuss the changes with you, but you repeatedly refused to provide a justification for removing them up until I filed this RFC. How can I discuss your removal of content, if you are unwilling to even explain why you removed it? Now that you've provided some actual reasoning for some of your reverts, we can begin discussing them. My only reason for opening it is that you were removing things based on a baseless copyright claim, and then refusing to discuss why you wanted to keep the content out even after you were shown that there was no copyvio. But since you now appear to be willing to openly discuss your reasons for removing the content, I'm willing to work try to with you, and I am willing to close this RFC if you are. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
i have been willing to discuss from the get go. i am glad you are ready to discuss as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • See the discussion above. User Jytdog originally removed the content, claiming that it was a copyvio. After demonstrating to them that it clearly wasn't a copyvio (in fact, the article they linked to was violating copyright by using WP content without attribution), they then refused to restore the content anyway and are refusing to provide a justification for why they want the content removed. I think that now that their original justification for removal has been shown to be baseless, they needs to provide a valid justification for its removal, or restore the content. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
as i wrote above: "I reverted you for two reasons. The overwhelming one was concern about WP:COPYVIO which we cannot take lightly. The second, was that you made dramatic changes to the article and provided no edit notes. ... If, what you were in fact doing, was reverting to an earlier version of this article, can you show the dif? And if that is what you were doing, would you please explain why you did a massive revert? The article got where it is step-wise, with explanations all along the way. " I am asking you to discuss your changes, which is completely normal per WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyvio "concern" was baseless, as has been pointed out, and thus it certainly can be taken lightly. Re: discussing my changes, see above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What i see in the history linked by Jytdog is a series of decent edits by use Jrtayloriv and what i also surmise is a pattern of disruptive editing that pulls down work done by others with ingenuine reasons given. SageRad (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad Reference[edit]

"Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963 Volume I, Vietnam, 1961, Document 275" results 502 Bad Gateway nginx/1.6.2. There is a copy available here that is working. http://history-matters.com/archive/vietnam/frus_61-63_4/html/Vol4_0005a.htm I'd like to see a resolution Jytdog's redaction resolved before adding this reference and contributing to the edit history of the article. Xkit (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source. I looked at it, and it is a conspiracy theory site and I do not support using it in Wikipedia. But what "redaction" of mine are you concerned about? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The parent page is still live [1] and from there you can download the volume in ebook form. A working external link is not strictly necessary for this source. I looked at the quote and it checks out, the only difference is that document 275 has "helicopters" instead of "aircraft"--Sus scrofa (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! fixed ref and quote. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos are disappearing[edit]

I am making a note that photos are disappearing and not being replaced. There was a note made here about a photo being unsuitable because it's not free, with the sentiment that it could be replaced by another one. However, it's gone and it's not been replaced. And another photo has also disappeared. These are not pleasant photos, but the effects of Agent Orange on the people of Southeast Asia is not a pleasant thing, either, and i think we should represent reality as it is. The photos made a point in the article. I am personally too busy right now, and not experienced with finding images, but hope someone else will do so, or even just comment to note that you also notice the missing photos and have some concern about it, please. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice another image disappeared here with reason given "WP:PROMO see editor's talk page" and yet, i see nothing in the talk page that appears to be about this deletion. User Jytdog, you're the one who made this deletion. Can you explain what the reason is, in sufficient detail that people can follow your reasoning as applied from the photo and caption, to the policy you cited? SageRad (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On the first paragraph, nothing was said at RSN about replacing it with another one. Please do not misrepresent what other editors say. And there is a discussion on that editor's page. please look at the entire dif to which you linked, and the COI/promo discussion at the editor's page. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I admit you're right, i'm wrong, Jytdog, in that nothing was said about replacing the photo in the RSN. My bad there. Another editor did express the sentiment that it was ok because there was another photo underneath the one that is gone now, showing handicapped children. I guess it's my own sentiment that another photo to replace the one that went away would be appropriate. You have no obligation to do so, but as the page arrived at current state by a long process, i think it would be good to replace it with another that is suitably sourced. I don't have time but maybe another editor will do so. I don't think technicalities like copy vio should change the intent of the article as arrived at by editorial process. SageRad (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)