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 this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and 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).
 


Production of Agent Orange by Chemical Industries (Kwinana) PTY. LTD[edit]

Agent Orange was produced in Kwinana, a suburb 25km South of Perth, Western Australia by the now defunct Chemical Industries (Kwinana) company. Surplus Agent Orange was transported from Vietnam to Singapore in 44 Gallon Drums and then dispatched to Australia during the US war effort.

The National Toxics Network noted in 2009 that quality control at the Mandurah Road site in the Kwinana industrial strip was poor, and "bad batches" were disposed of in pits, and were occasionally burned. The disposal methods have lead directly to Dioxin contamination of the Kwinana industrial complex, and have dispersed to Perth's northern suburbs via local wind patterns. The State Government agencies have identified a plume of dioxin contaminant beneath the site that is diffusing through the salt wedge at the water table, and is migrating to other nearby industrial sites. The West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation estimates that the plume will enter Cockburn Sound waters by 2050.

Cockburn sound, a slow flushing water body used for shipping at the Kwinana Industrial Complex, is home to one of only two aggregation spawning sites of the Pink Snapper. Local sea grasses, Posidonia and Amphibolis griffithii, directly at risk from the seep of Agent Orange into the coastal waters, are currently stabilising the Parmelia and Success Banks. The Parmelia and Gage Roads shipping channels, dredged at the cost of multiple hundreds of millions of dollars are consequently at risk of collapse, potentially causing untold ecological and economic damage.

Please sign all sections posted. Someone might need to use your talk page, ping you or something. The date is also important data. RhinoMind (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts[edit]

Jytdog reverted my edit here, stating that he thought it was a copyvio from this site. In reality, that site is using Wikipedia content (from an older version of this article) without attribution -- that is, it is actually they who are committing a copyright violation. You can even see on page 1 where (besides using the same image as the lead here), when they were copy/pasting from Wikipedia, and trying to remove the footnote #'s, they accidentally missed #'s 10 and 11 (that article Jytdog linked to doesn't even have footnotes!) ... So I reverted Jytdog's edit (I'm assuming this was a good faith misunderstanding on his part, and he legitimately thought it was a copyvio).

Then Kingofaces43 came along, and reverted me again, saying something about WP:CIRCULAR, which has nothing to do with anything here. WP:CIRCULAR is about Wikipedia articles that use other Wikipedia articles as sources. This isn't even related to what is going on here. We are talking about another website (illegally) copying content from an old version of this Wikipedia article, not about this Wikipedia article referencing an older version of itself (it's not).

Anyways, just wanted to make this clear so I don't have to keep trying to explain this in edit summaries, and wasting more time ... --Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't aware, but circular referencing applies to citing sources that cite Wikipedia content., not just directly citing other Wiki articles. Wikipedia content is never a reliable source in this situation whether it's directly or indirectly cited. I'll let you revert your own re-re-re-revert though, but if the source is using Wiki content as you stated, that's exactly what WP:CIRCULAR is addressing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Still not sure what you're talking about ... Where is this article citing Wikipedia content? Where is anyone claiming that Wikipedia is a valid source? There is no source being used anywhere in this article that is using Wikipedia as a source either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I goofed. Your summary, "That site is copying from an old version of this article. *They* are commiting the copyvio by not attributing)" is what caught my eye. I was left with the impression that the site in question was being used as a source here while only doing a cursory checking of content on my phone at the time. Getting back on the computer (and seeing the bigger picture of edits more easily), I can see that isn't the case. Apologies on that one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to Talk, Jrtayloriv. 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. Which made the possibility of Copyvio all the more likely, the way these things go. Also, part of the way these things go, process-wise, is the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that your edits were not copyvio. 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. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre that I'm still having come back here to explain this. What more do you want me to explain? It's quite clear that the article you linked to is copying Wikipedia content without attribution:
1) They forgot to remove the footnotes from the lead - their article doesn't even have footnotes
2) The words that are underlined in their introduction there are precisely those that are Wikilinked here
3) They are using the same image as the one in the lead, again without attribution)
I'm not going to take the time to explain this again. It's so obviously a copyright vio on their part, that I'm starting to suspect (especially looking at your heavy involvement in industrial agriculture articles) that this isn't about copyvio for you at all. ...I didn't do a "massive revert" by the way - I restored a few hundred characters of important information backed by reliable sources, which had been removed without explanation. (I provided you a diff, on my talk page) I think the WP:BURDEN lies with you to show why you think that some obscure PDF from a town-hall meeting, that is clearly plagiarizing content from Wikipedia (for the reasons above), is evidence of a COPYVIO. Because I don't feel like wasting any more time on this, I'm going to ask for a third opinion and let someone else deal with you if you won't voluntarily admit that you made a mistake and revert it back. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Good job User:Jrtayloriv. I have superficially followed the ping-pong edits and its great to document the conflicts and reasons here once and for all, as you also says. I don't know much about the subject, but finds it interesting overall. Hope the issue will be resolved somehow with time. RhinoMind (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, I am willing to step away from the concern about copyvio; thank you for providing evidence that this was in an earlier version of WP. Now, would you please explain why you have simply removed almost a year of work by other editors, without explanation? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad you're "willing to step away" from the completely baseless claim about copyright (and I hope you'll revert your edits now that you've acknowledged your mistake). But again, just as you made a claim that I was violating copyright when the opposite was true, you're now making the bizarre claim that I have "have simply removed almost a year of work by other editors" ... when I didn't remove anything at all! I restored a small amount of content that is backed by reliable sources, and which was removed with no valid explanation. Editors are not required to give a "reason" to you for adding content that is backed by reliable sources ... adding reliably sourced content is supposed to be the primary function of Wikipedia editors, and needs no justification. At this point, your attempts to remove reliably sourced content for no reason are becoming disruptive and are preventing me from doing productive work editing articles. If you can't provide a clear reason why you don't think that this content should be in the article, you need to just acknowledge that you made a mistake and restore my edits. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── you are making this way too personal. Please stop. Again, as you pointed out, you basically reverted to an older version of the article with big swaths of changes, without explaining. WP is driven by WP:CONSENSUS - we are indeed accountable to one another. Sometimes there are policy bases on which we can come to agreement; sometimes it is just about editors' preferences. But at the end of the day, WP:CONSENSUS is what governs. So again I ask you, why did you revert to an old version? Each of the changes you reverted were explained as they were done. If you want to do this in a more piecemeal fashion, slowly, we can discuss each edit as it goes, but since you did such large reversions all at once it is impossible to discuss the details. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're making claims that simply have no basis in reality. I did not "basically revert to an older version of the article with big swaths of changes" and I did not make any "large revisions". I added a few sentences, backed by reliable sources, that had been included in an older version of the article. Restoring a small amount of content from an old revision is not at all equivalent to reverting to an old revision entirely. There is a huge difference between what you're claiming I did, and reality, which anyone can see by looking at the edit history. At this point, since you're continuing to make blatantly false statements, even though I've repeatedly pointed out to you that they are not correct (this is not a "personal" statement, it's just a fact that anyone can verify by looking at the history), I can no longer assume good faith on your part, and won't waste anymore time arguing with you. I'll file an RFC and let someone else work it out with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate: now that you've acknowledged that the original justification you gave for removing the content (COPYVIO) was baseless, you need to provide a justification for removing content backed by reliable sources. Why is it, really, that you don't want this content in the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Some (just some, not all) specific issues:
  • you re-introduced this to the lead: "combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX". This is not discussed in the body, and there is no source anywhere in the article for it. I had looked for a reliable source that discussed this (most sources I found were quoting WP) and found none. So that had come out, a long time ago. But it is back and still unsourced.
  • sources have been re-introduced that i took out ages ago, like an Interview with Ton-That Tung, 1981 that is used to support factual information; the interview is not a reliable source for that information, in my opinion. Happy to discuss it now, but it should be discussed.
  • off-topic content has been brought back into the article, like "rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in South Vietnam, as peasants escaped the war and famine in the countryside by fleeing to the U.S.-dominated cities. The urban population in South Vietnam nearly tripled: from 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums." Unclear to me what that has to do with the subject of the article.
  • a statement was re-introduced that "The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects". The link that used to be there to support that statement (http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseases.asp) was dead and it has been re-introduced in this wholesale reversion to an old version. (that site has redirected to this site for quite some time: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/index.asp which says nothing about the Vietnamese Red Cross). I had searched for a source supporting the statement and couldn't find one, so had found a different source for exposure and wrote new content based on that.
  • other changes, about what to put in the lead and what not to, are very discussable, but you are not willing to discuss - you are just trying to force your version in.
As I said, there is a lot going on in the changes you made - some of it is very problematic, some of it is discussable. I am asking you to make your changes more piecemeal and slowly, so we can discuss them. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)