Talk:Agent Orange/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Agent Orange. 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 removed the external link

Vietnam dioxin spray estimate quadruples Regarding the 2003 National Academy of Sciences sponsored study.

because it required a paid membership to access the article.

The same article is available here without subscription: bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How effective was the spraying? Any figures on the area of cleared forests? About how much did it cost to produce all of the Agent Orange? From my (uneducated?) perspective, this tactic of clearing huge areas of forest for warfare purposes is incredibly baffling, in a way. Similar to trying to move a mountain. Peoplesunionpro 03:44, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

By: me

Why not put something like why was it used and what for. other then just putting ya it was bad.. it is poisonis. put something like where it was used in vietnam. and why. and how effective it was. How was it placed on the forests and stuff

I think that this song should get a mention somewhere in this article. I'm not sure if it directly links to agent orange, but the line "And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?" I think is a reference to human contact with the chemical. If someone could look into that and leave a comment on my talk page (User talk:Xykon) that would be great. (by the way, the reason im not adding this in is because when I did some research into this i turned out nothing) --Xykon 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"National Toxicology Program has classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the dioxin in Agent Orange, to be a known human carcinogen, frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)." Could someone please indicate when the NTP classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as such? --crumb 16:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the following articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I say Images should be included in this article to show the effects of the bio-chemic. I have posted a link in the external links to pictures but i suggest we should add one to the article. Images at http://snopes.com/photos/medical/orange.asp --Anonymous?

http://todayspictures.slate.com/20070507/ Above link shows pictures of Vietnamese victims affected by Agent Orange. (dark stuff)

--Drmistermaster 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article during the Nature controversy. Although I can't comment on the factual problems, I do find the article itself to be of very poor quality.

For one, the introduction states that Agent Orange was deadly, and that one of its two constituants has since been banned. The article later goes on to apparently state that the problem was not the chemicals themselves, but dioxin contamination. These two statements seem to be at odds. If dioxin contamination is the "real" cause of the problem, a statement I have heard in the past, this should be stated clearly in the very first paragraph.

Additionally the history of the lawsuits is mixed with the technical description, which makes the entire article quite confusing. Although I can understand that the "contention" is over the technical details and thus may be mixed with the legalities, I should also point out there is no description, even in passing, of how Agent Orange actually works.

Finally, do we really need a list of songs?!? Does someone actually think this is a reasonable addition to this article? Could this entire section not be replaced with a single statement along the lines of "Due to its politically sensitive nature, Agent Orange has become a common topic in rock music"?

Maury 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We really need to collect the information from the various "color" articles into one. Perhaps Agent Orange is the right place, perhaps not. Anyway, here's some snippage from Agent Purple that does not belong specifically to that article. If someone can tell me where they think the "right" place for this discussion belongs, I will be happy to collect it all...

Maury 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The health effects of Agents Orange and Purple exposure remain unclear. The Government of Canada is not suggesting that these agents are not harmful; however, adverse affects of exposure must be determined by the potential of the chemical to cause harm, the possibility of exposure and the dose of the exposure.

Based on U.S. studies, the Canadian Forces Surgeon General and her expert staff found that significant spray drift beyond the borders of target areas in low wind conditions (as was the case in Gagetown during the 1966-67 tests) is considered extremely unlikely.

      Done! Invadervelcron 07:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We may want to add this info:

"An estimated 19 million gallons of herbicidal agents, including more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange, were used by the United States Armed Forces in South Vietnam during the war. [...] Neither the extent of exposure nor the long-term health effects among the 3.2 million Americans who served in Vietnam are fully understood [...] In the year 1991, The Agent Orange Act instructed the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the available scientific evidence regarding the health effects of dioxin and other chemical compounds in herbicides. Since 1994, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued several reports examining the health risks posed to Vietnam veterans by exposure to Agent Orange. These reports also recommended that the Department of Veteran Affairs facilitate additional epidemiological studies by independent researchers and non-governmental organizations.

North American scientists believe that Vietnam remains contaminated with approximately one-quarter of the dioxin introduced into the country's environment during the war [...] In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a proposal for the development of an exposure model that would become the foundation of new epidemiological research. A geographic information system (GIS) was developed as an exposure methodology to be used in large-scale epidemiological studies." University of Ottawa, Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... -- user:zanimum

This entry implies that it was the herbicides that are problematic, which is not the case. It was dioxin, a byproduct of manufacture of 2,4,5-T that is of concern. Dioxin is persistent in the environment and in the human body, whereas the herbicides are not. In addition, there was a significant amount of dioxin in Agents Purple, Pink and Green, all of which contained 2, 4, 5 - T as well. However, we have less information on these compounds and they were used in lesser quantities.
The entry is on the verge of bias, at least. By use of the word "disputedly" in the second sentence there is at least an implication that the evidence of harm to exposed persons is in question. That is not the case, and the World Health Organization has identified dioxin as a "known human carcinogen", and other organizations such as the US National Academy of Sciences has documented harmful effects to US Air Force personnel.

I agree that there is bias, but in the opposite direction. The WHO is run by the UN, and is not an independent source of scientific knowledge. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? And there's a difference between documenting claims and showing that harm has been caused by a factor. See NPOV problem, below. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mercury News article says that "peripheral neuropathy [is] the disease most widespread among Agent Orange victims"; but in the first technical part of the article it is defined as with "limited evidence". Can this hiatus be explained? It sounds strange that if considered as the "most widespread" disease related to Agent Orange, it continues to be in the category of "limited evidence". If it belong to this category, maybe a hierarchy could be done? Briefly put, the news article highlight it as one of the most evident sign of Agent Orange, although it seems to be still controversial in the scientific community? Could the precise controverse concerning this be further explained? Tazmaniacs 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

is it really necessary to have bold writing when dealing with large numbers? One would almost think someone was trying to overemphasise the figures.

Not only that, but in the grand scheme of things, the numbers aren't that huge. In the US, each year, we spray about 100 times more herbicide than what was sprayed on Vietnam during the entire conflict.

sorry, but i am forced to ask how agent oarnge is disposed of for school.

Anyone know what is going on with the case right now?

Would anyone knowledgeable on the subject care to add a section detailing the use of the Rainbow Agents at CFB Gagetown and the surrounding area and the fight of those exposed to gain recognition and compensation? I think it is an important part of the Agent Orange story, considering that the US military used Gagetown as a testing ground, and the exposure of local civilians to the chemicals in addition to Canadian military personnel. mhunter 18:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is POV. Agent orange was a mixture of two herbicides 24D and 245T both of which had been in use for many years before Vietnam worldwide. 245T was found to be contaminated with dioxins most of which are esentially harmless. However a small number do exhibit toxicity the most toxic of which is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (or TCDD).

TCDD is probably the most studied toxin in human history and yet in doses likely to be encountered in humans the only disease that can be definitively laid at its door is Chloroacne (as suffered by Viktor yushenko after he was poisoned with Doxin.

At the very least the article should acknowledge that serious doubts exist about the effects of Agent Orange.

Incidently the population most highly contaminated by TCDD are the people in Seveso Italy. These people have been followed for years and their exposure to TCDD actually measured. They have suffered no long term effects from their exposure. But this is science not superstition which is what rules discussions on AGENT ORANGE.

I dont know where you got your info, but that sounds like a sack of shit, theres numerous studies that have shown the effects of TCDD, abd the people at Seveso were not the worst expose, and they have suffered long term effect, including birth defects. 195.188.138.214 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We could sort all this out if someone would dig up some references. If there are 'numerous studies' - let's have them cited. If it's 'the most studied toxin in history' then it shouldn't be hard to rebut claims about its toxicity with hard facts. Ewen 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A reference is easy. Just go to http://veterans.iom.edu/subpage.asp?id=6197. The relevant information is as follows:

Sufficient Evidence of an Association - Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, Chloracne. Limited or Suggestive Evidence of an Association - Respiratory cancer (of lung or bronchus, larynx, and trachea), Prostatic cancer, Multiple myeloma, Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Type 2 diabetes, Spina bifida in the children of veterans. Nickleberry (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agent Orange was aold under another name on the commercial market. It was used into the 1980s (I think) in Canada. However, I find nothing about this in the article. // Liftarn 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reformatted some text that was added to the Teratogenesis article and added it here - however, I noticed that someone removed that text from here as well labeling it as linkspam. Just wanted to give notice that I don't have any opinion as to the validity/notability of the text I added under Agent Orange#Miscellaneous(see diff). My interest in adding it here is that the info is not appropriate for the Teratogenesis article, not that I have any expertise on whether it is appropriate here. Trödel 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As it read:

Agent Orange (as well as Agents Purple, Pink, Blue, White, and Green) contained dioxins which are alleged to have caused harm to the health of those exposed during the Vietnam War.

I have changed the word alleged to known. Why? For starters how about 38CFR3.309 "Disease subject to presumptive service connection" ( link to CFR text ) then page down to (e) "Disease[s] associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents." Not enough? Then I would be happy to discuse this further. Walt Schmidt, Veteran Services Officer and Director of the Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, Long Island, New York, USA, Veterans Services Division, 516.733.8414, and a service-connected Viet Nam veteran whose contact with Agent Orange and other herbicide Dioxins during my three tours in Viet Nam, caused me to become paralyzed and lose the use of all but the partial use of my right arm and hand -- to name just one of the problems caused by my exposure to Agent Orange. Walts0042 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the description section contains lots of irreverent info:

"Diseases associated with dioxin exposure are chloracne, soft tissue sarcomas, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A link has also been found to diabetes, in a study by the Institute of Medicine. Diseases with limited evidence of an association with Agent Orange are respiratory cancers, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, Porphyria cutanea tarda (a type of skin disease), acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, spina bifida, Type 2 diabetes, and acute myelogenous leukemia found only in the second or third generation. Diseases with inadequate or insufficient evidence of an association are hepatobiliary cancers, nasal or nasophargyngeal cancers, bone cancer, female reproductive cancers, renal cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, neonatal or infant death and stillbirths, low birth weight, childhood cancers, abnormal sperm parameters, cognitive neuropsychiatric disorders, ataxia, peripheral nervous system disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, skin cancers, urinary and bladder cancer. Diseases with limited or suggestive evidence of no association are gastrointestinal tumors such as stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, and rectal cancer, and brain tumors."

It basically reads like word vomit (pardon for the harsh words). From what I see, only the disease under "associated" should be included in the page. The other disease only have "limited" evidence, thus should not be included. With the loose association, any substance can also cause the stated diseases with "limited" evidence. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the opening section of this article, it says that "Agent Orange (as well as Agents Purple, Pink, Blue, White, and Green) contained dioxins..." however, the article for Agent White says "Unlike the more infamous Agent Orange, Agent White did not contain dioxin...". Does anyone have any information from a good source as to whether or not Agent White contains dioxin. If it does, then the Agent White article should be changed accordingly, if not, then please remove it from the list of other defoliants listed on the Agent Orange article. Daniel,levine 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Page sixteen of this report from the EPA on impact to Alaska fishing of herbicides lists all of the active ingredients. It is not a Dioxide from what I can determine. Correcting the statement. FYI - The active ingredient of Agent White is currently sold under many brand names: Bladex-B, Brush Killer 64, Dicofur, Dormon, Ipaner, Moxon, Netagrone, Pielik, Verton 38, Mota Maskros, Silvaprop 1, Agricorn D, Acme LV4, Croprider, Fernesta, Lawn-Keep, Pennamine D, Plantgard, Tributon, Weed-B-Gon, Weedatul, Agroxone, Weedar, Salvo, Green Cross Weed-No-More 80, Red Devil Dry Weed Killer, Scott's 4XD, Weed-Rhap LV40, Weedone 100, 2,4-Dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid, Tordon* 101. That may be useful to verify the results I found at the FDA. --Trödel 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph needs to be cleaned up and narrowed down to a shorter description. It goes into too much detail for a lead paragraph. --Kalmia 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"The U.S. military sprayed some 11 million gallons of the defoliant over the leafy jungles of southern and central Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 in an effort to expose enemy supply lines, sanctuaries and bases." Based upon this reference, does anyone feel the 'Use in South East Asia (1961-1971)' section should be updated? -- ViaBest 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

can we add some pop culture references to agent orange? considering there are many songs; television shows and movies that had made reference to it (most recently the film "The Host" took a good shot by having the US military drop "Agent Yellow" on innocent korenas to try to kill off a creature and virus, with the only successful effect being respiratory problems to the civilians). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.166.225.96 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Is there a reason the picture of Planes cropdusting says the operation went from 1962-71, it appears to contradict the article, as it says the program ran from 1961-71? Robert Beck 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is with this article, but I have some serious issues with the use of the weasel words here. Agent Orange DOES cause serious health problems. These problems are direct and serious, no matter what the authors of this article think. I highly encourage you to look at the enclosed link and then tell me that Agent Orange "allegedly" causes problems.

I am seriously appalled at this. This article is the worst instance of misinformation and/or propaganda I've ever seen on the Wikipedia. Something must be done about this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manej1 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. There doesn't appear to be anything relating to the effects it has on humans, nor the responsibility which has been undertaken to assist those affected. Dailly Rubbings 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because it doesn't have any effect on humans. Anyone who claims to have serious health problems caused by Agent Orange is either guessing or lying. -- Zsero (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you a major Monsanto shareholder or something!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To Zsero: have you ever been to Vietnam? Have you seen the horrible deformed women and children here? I dare you to come here, meet them, and tell me they are guessing or lying. Leson2403 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be information mentioned on the health effects of this chemical. If you are to look up "agent orange" in an image search, there will be many people (high likeness of Vietnamese) who are deformed as a possible effect from the chemical. Someone who is able, please fill in this vital information. Thanks, Dailly Rubbings 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

yes indeed. My brother was born with severe birth defects. I find this article totally fabricated as far it can be. He is dead now, peace - and he's not even Vietnamese! Just a note from a veteran's daughter. (Let the truth be known and even if they claim they never knew - not good enough) never again(must be accountable). When it all comes dowm to it we're all human. We who suffer the effect of your wars are not restricted to "a side" And will carry on(like dioxion) well past your presidency, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.36.148 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this. My Uncle just passed away from ailments attributed to exposure to Agent Orange in the Korean War. 55 years after the war was finished and it's still claiming casualties.68.179.102.105 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to do a vandalism and article tag problem revert. I may have removed one edit that was at least partly editorially valuable and partly not, and that had tag errors. I think I have left the page in the best form it could be for now, and have requested an editorial review from the WikiProject, so that someone more experienced can take a look at this. --Warphammer 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a Wiki review, note this entry is becoming increasingly POV with numerous opinions entered in place of fact, i.e. that all those exposed will die before age 65.

This article is a disgrace. It took me until the "see also" section to understand why. Depleted Uranium? Thalidomide? Ah, yes, the liberal anti-chemical lobby subverts the encyclopedia yet again. I remember using "agent orange" in the 1980s. It was an agricultural chemical containing 2,4,5-T which was later withdrawn from use because of concerns with dioxin impurities. It was used on millions of farms for decades up until about 1990. No scare stories. No crisis. Real world. As a professional chemical applicator it does not worry me one bit about handling this chemical. There is no need for it now of course, as better, safer chemicals are available. Tom 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting -- I was just going to say that it's a disgrace to dump millions of gallons of herbicides on the civilian population of a third-world country...Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How are there safer chemicals now available. I thought you just said agent orange was totally safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"How are there safer chemicals now available. I thought you just said agent orange was totally safe." LOL you pwned him! If herbicides weren't bad for humans we wouldn't wear masks and uniforms when we spray our plants (or use planes), we would let our children play in the chemical rain. And why was the USA spraying harmless herbicides in Vietnam? To cure their crops so they (the enemy) didn't starve? No, it was a clear war crime (Geneva) and the US courts have tried to weasel out so far. Let's hope the Supreme Court fixes this injustice. Komninos

I think this article needs more info about why these chemicals were used. We can see that it is an herbicide but not much more. I agree that the health and social effects are very important, but I am interested in why Agent Orange was dropped during the war. If there is another entry about this, I must have missed it.

>I think this article needs more info about why these chemicals were used.

The white anglo-saxon protestant male race ruled USA in the 1960s and civil rights movement was in its infancy. Asians, among other coloured races were considered little more than animals and whites had no more qualms about posioning "yellow enemy" then nazis had with the jews and the gypsy in the gas chambers. The Agent Orange issue is in the same league of outrage as the nazi gas chambers, yet it gets very little attention in the world media. That is very unjust. 91.82.32.98 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, carry on quoting the Revolutionary Communist Party propaganda leaflet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It was used to uncover hiding spots within the dense vegatation.

at the moment there isnt even an estimation of the numbers of vietnames affected in this article or any of the negibouring ones, it really isnt serious to not have any information at all. I leave it to more knowledgable to find accurate information though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.0.70 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading this article, I see no comment on the effectiveness of Agent Orange as a defoliant. Why is there no section in the article to discuss it's military application or to say where and why it was used during the Vietnam War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.68.170 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this was one of the least informative articles i have ever read! Okay it had an affect on health, what about the effectiveness of the agent. Some pictures showing "before and after". The health affects should be secondary. When i read an article about nuclear weapons i'm more interested in method of action and effects rather than nuclear fallout (although important). In this article there is NO mention of if the stuff works, how well etc. 23:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondaracer (talk • contribs)

Resolved

– blocked indefinitely --Rodhull andemu 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A user by the name of Corny121 has apparently repeatedly vandalized this page. He is a vandal of the more dangerous type, because he makes small alterations such as dates and names, rather than easy to spot vandalisms. I suggest somebody ban this user. I just undid his latest vandalisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.180.184 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This sort of thing is best reported here but I caught him on some other pages. --Rodhull andemu 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of broad-leaf weeds on my lawn I wish to defoliate. 209.29.94.116 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Demoted to "Start", as citations are needed in the Description section. Ejosse1 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a site with a specific agenda. I am dubious of citing it as RS... maybe it should be an external reference? I have taken out some PoV... but I am dubious of the intro to the "Use outside of Vietname" section. sinneed (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

President Triet was the President of Vietnam. If you can find anymore information about him, then please make a page about him. Thank You --Lord of the Pit (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my language, please, but I am pissed off at the structure of this article. I am awash in repetitive information as to the adverse health effects and statistics of Agent Orange - apparently everyone has their own health stats to report here, ok, wonderful - but I can not for the life of me find out how Agent Orange works and it's Military-related effectiveness. It looks to me like it doesn't exist anywhere in this article! Good job, you "encyclopedists"!

Yes, I understand the health effects were dramatic, but there is an astounding amount of repetition with effects and reactions and reactions to reactions - that's fine if that information is posted (once is fine enough IMO though)it's important, but I came to this page to know effectiveness as an herbicide/weapon. -How fast were crops killed -How did it affect the carry-on of warfare? Was it successful in giving USA an advantage or did it not improve/possibly hinder USA? -What was the reaction of Vietnamese forces? What were their countermeasures? How badly (if at all) were they affected?

Maybe this information DOES exist, but I've been scouring this page too long to be able to find it - If it is posted, it needs to not only be easily found, but I think it also deserves just as large section(s) as the health effects, as it was Agent Orange's primary objective.

Thank you, Jeremy Bullercruz1 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article."Vietnam, US still in conflict over Agent Orange", Ben Stocking, Associated Press (if the link is dead, Google for other sources). The facts seem to largely disagree with most of the Wikipedia article though. I don't see how basic facts could be so disparate from seemingly neutral sources as Wikipedia and Associated Press. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is AWEFUL. I came to find information on how agent orange worked AS A DEFOILANT! Not all the aweful things it did to humans. I would edit it but I don't even know where to start so I will just list my issues with it and hopefully someone who is better equipped to sort out this mess than me will agree with me and edit it: 1. NO discription of its mechanisms of operation or effectiveness for its intended purpose. How could something as basic as somethings primary function not be discribed in the aricle about it? Imagine if the aricle on cars said "cars are used by people to get around. In 2006 X number of car accidents were reported and X number of people died... And went on for 20 paragraphs talking about car accidents... It would be just as stupid.

2. This aricle was so obviously written by someone with an ax to grind that it is laughable. Mentions of a "Canada lawsuit" that got thrown out? Lawsuites are filed every day... One that got thrown out is certainly not worth mentioning. Also: Again I have the mention the COMPLETE absence of ANY other viewpoints or even basic information about the product... A one sentance summary could read like this: Agent Orange is a defoilant that is BAD BAD BAD and kills little babies, helpless kittens and VETRANS! At LEAST add a bit of info about what it does and one or two lines about other viewpoints (what do the companies that made the stuff have to say? Sure they have a vested interest in it but they also KNOW more about it than anyone else... I doubt they agree with the view point of this article)

3. "Canada lawsuit"? Shouldn't that be CANADIAN lawsuit? Not to mention that the "litigation" section is broken into non-sensical sub-sections of disparate catagories. The formant of style of the whole article is shoddy.

Yeah... The whole article is a joke and a disgrace to an otherwise awesome web site. PS: username is duncanstives... I just can't remember my login right now

74.131.89.233 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a dearth of information on how the chemical works as a defoliant, not to mention why it was used (and I certainly would like to see more about both, but I'm not that knowledgeable about bio-chem, so I wouldn't know where to look for the info), I don't think the health impacts are unimportant. Yes, the article is pretty negative, but, as a whole, the product was terrible, as is backed by numerous scientific studies. Therefore, that's what the article is going to be about.

For example, if Tylenol caused massive genetic mutations, while its primary use was merely to treat minor aches and pains, an article about Tylenol would be primarily about the genetic mutations. Or let's take a look at the article on heroin. There are a few legit uses for heroin, but, for the most part, it is a horrific drug that causes systemic damage to the human body. If that article focused on the small amount of positive effect that heroin had, rather than the gigantic negatives, people would be (rightly, in my opinion) up in arms. If a product is primarily detrimental, then an article about it is likely to be primarily about its detrimental effects.I doubt that this article was written by one person. There are a good many of people who have issues with Agent Orange, and for an exceptionally good reason. Don't forget that the US government is paying for medical care for every US soldier who was exposed to the stuff, and for the medical care of those soldiers' children in the numerous cases of spina bifeda that have occurred. I agree that it would be interesting to see the company's viewpoint. However, in every article I've read about the stuff, I've never seen a comment by the company. I encourage you to find comments from them and quote them on it, as I would love to hear their take. "Canada lawsuit" is acceptable. It lists the location and the action being taken. A bit simplistic, but acceptable. Wyrdsol (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the heading "Acknowledgement by the U.S. Government", 5th paragraph, last sentence "The appropriation was renewed in the fiscal year 2009 ad again in FY 2010"...please change ad to and. The sentence should read "The appropriation was renewed in the fiscal year 2009 and again in FY 2010"

Malovett78 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with all the italics in the article text? This is not a tabloid newspaper. 195.166.158.227 (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to log in. ^ This is me. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through and begun removing the italics, and I'll finish them off in a minute. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This study in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "International Journal of Epidemiology" (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/5/1230.full) states the following: "...we are not convinced that Vietnamese investigations linking congenital malformations to dioxin are, as yet, more than suggestive." It goes on to say "This article and its novel approach confirm the need for continued rigorously controlled research to definitively answer the question posed at the opening of this commentary [dealing with the effects of Agent Orange]. To date the answer is, at best, scientifically equivocal and, at worst, without valid positive scientific evidence." This article reviewed a large number of research on Agent Orange, yet found the data inconclusive. This deserves at least passing mention in the Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.126.98 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

12 AGENT ORANGE WAS USED IN KOREA "Agent Orange" is practically synonymous with the Vietnam War. The Dow Chemical defoliant was used to de-junglize large areas, exposing enemy troops, supplies, and infiltrators. It has been linked, though never definitively, to a number of nasty health problems such as Hodgkin's disease and adult-onset diabetes, plus spina bifida in offspring. The Veterans Administration compensates sick veterans who were exposed in Vietnam. But it turns out that 'Nam wasn't the only place to get doused with this super-herbicide. From April 1968 to July 1969, 21,000 gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed along a strip of land abutting the southern border of the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas. During that time period, mound 80,000 US military personnel served in South Korea, although not all of them would've been in the vicinity of the DMZ. The VA contradicts itself regarding who did the spraying, claiming at one point that it was South Korea but saying at another that the Department of Defense did it. In September 2000, the VA quietly sent letters to veterans who served in Korea during the spraying, letting them know that they may have been dosed with Agent Orange. Since these letters were sent over 30 years after the exposure, the Pentagon must've just found out about it, light? Actually, even if you buy the story that the South Koreans were responsible, the US military knew about the spraying at the time it happened but kept quiet about it for decades. It was only when news reports began citing declassified documents in 1999 that the government decided to do something. Possibly exposed vets can get tested for free by the Veterans Administration. The catch is, if they're sick with Hodgkin's or some other horrible disease, they — unlike their Vietnam compatriots — aren't eligible for compensation or additional health care. - is written in Russ Kick's 50 things you are not supposed to know - it contradicts the article's claim that ONLY Korean's sprayed the Agent - so is there a clear source showing that it was only the Koreans?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.178.239 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a combat veteran of the South Viet Nam war. I patroled on a river boat every nite.In reading comments on agent orange, I saw where someone wanted to know how agent orange worked. I w/a member of Brown Water Navy, Task Force 116. I am 100% P.T.S.D., rated total & permanent w/the VA. When vegatation is sprayed w/agent orange. Agent Orange causes broad leafed plants & trees to go into a very rapid growth cycle. It causes the broad leafed plants to grow them selves to death in a couple of weeks! It gets old & falls over dead due to the rapid growth cycle. On the Baasac & Mekong rivers in S. Viet Nam. There were no living plants on either side of the rivers. I w/there Oct.,1969 to Oct.,1970. We crossed into Cambodia all of May,1970. I w/boat engineer on a 36/ river boat. Part of a 4 man crew.The first thing I noticed when we crossed over into Cambodia April 29, 1970. Black Beret, Special Forces. When the sun rose on the first day in. W/that there w/green grass growing on the river banks of the Mekong River!! I had been bathing in river water & brushing my teeth w/river water(Brown Water) for 6 months then. Go to tf116.org to check any of this out. I have no teeth now & suffer from cloracne & periphial Neuropathy now. The VA wrote the rules so that I have no claim to any of this agent orange related illnesses. They told us on the rivers that none of it w/hurt us, then. After I got my honorable discgarge, I found out from the lawyers that we started the lawsuit against the chemical co.s that made the defoliants. That the rules were that I had one year from the date of my agent orange exposure, to file a diasability claim w/the VA. For any problems I had that were caused by agent orange exposure. Later, Gypsy116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.153.199 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The VA has recently updated a list of diseases that are linked to Agent Orange Exposure.

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseases.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.90.214 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This article apparently exists chiefly to support the viewpoint that exposure to Agent Orange has hurt many people's health - both through direct exposure to living people, and also by causing birth defects. The article basically assumes that the claims are true, since they came from verifiable sources like the governments of Vietnam and the USA ... neither of which presumably would ever tell a lie.

Of course, this completely sidesteps the fact that both governments accused each other of massive disinformation and propaganda campaigns during the Vietnam War.

Also not mentioned enough is the huge amount of money at stake. If the USA concedes it was at fault, then it will have to pay out billions of dollars to settle health claims. (It is generally conceded ... outside of WP anyway ... that people having a large financial income in the outcome of a debate are unlikely to be sources of objective information.)

Where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies, showing a cause and effect linkage between exposure and symptom?

Disclaimer: I am not saying that Agent Orange or Category:Dioxins are harmless. Nor am I asserting that they are harmful. I am just saying that we should present the scientific evidence for and against the "Orange is bad" POV. Or at least, provide a list of the various sources who have made claims even if they didn't provide evidence and/or reasoning. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't assume anything is true. It just reports what reliable sources have to say is true. See WP:V.

Please provide specific suggestions of what you'd like to fix, backed by reliable sources, otherwise, you are just performing original research.

Also, there are already several scientific studies in the article -- see the section "Chemical description and toxicology" for instance. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want to do any original research on this issue, because my expertise is in computer programming and online databases - not toxicology. Was there some specific claim of mine that raised a red flag?

If the article isn't making any assumptions, then maybe it's just a feeling ... you know, like tone and nuance. There seemed to be an assumption, if only an unstated one, that the claims of harm from AO and dioxins were already so well established as to need no further mention, in terms of evidence or reasoning. But if you don't get that feeling, maybe I'm reading too much into it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the claims of harm from Agent Orange and dioxins, yes the scientific consensus that they are harmful is so well established that any arguments that they are not would be considered a fringe theory. I don't know why you are suggesting that no evidence is presented -- there are numerous reliable, academic sources that are discussing the negative health effects, and you could easily find more if you feel the need. As far as original research, I was referring to your analysis of the money involved. Personally, I mostly agree with you that the reason that the U.S. is so reluctant to take responsibility is that it would cost too much. I would also add that publicizing the full extent of the damage they did would be an extremely negative PR hit -- it's a pretty clear case of genocide. But saying this in the article without reliable sources is original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-10.jpg

Some things are simply gruesome and shocking. It's not unencyclopedic to talk about them openly.

Skimmed the article awhile back and didn't really see anything in the way of OR, but this thing reads a lot like an activist shock site or something. Lots of gore, barrels with dead kids, etc. I have to question it less on the grounds of censorship and more on the necessity and relevance. Maybe it should be, at the least, split off into a second page RE: the reported effects of exposure? To qualify: I'm not disputing the claims made here, just...the way they're being presented strikes me as somewhat unencyclopedic (Is that even a word? I'll pretend it is.) and slanted. We're supposed to be reporting facts here, not advancing an agenda. 75.43.165.87 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things are shocking when objectively reported. Take for instance, the images at Buchenwald. It's not "activism" to show pictures of Buchenwald victims in an article about Buchenwald, and it's not "activist" to show pictures of Agent Orange victims in an article about Agent Orange. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there's a difference between reporting the facts and *using* the facts to make a point. This feels like the latter to me, and judging from the rest of this page, I'm clearly not the only one who feels this way. Since there's been a near-continuous debate on the issue of POV pretty much from the beginning, and given the historical and social significance of the subject in question, this may warrant a wider review. Is there some reason that would be objectionable? 75.43.165.87 (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Every controversial topic (which certainly characterizes Agent Orange) has issues with people claiming that articles are "POV". However, what matters is not people merely saying that the article is POV, but that they describe specific things that violate WP:NPOV. Considering the amount of traffic this article gets, I think it says a lot in favor of the article's that there are only a handful of people that have complained about it thus far (and without making any specific complaints). If 100,000 people view this every month, and only 3 or 4 have had problems with it, I think it's hard to claim that there is a major problem with neutrality. However, I agree that the article needs work, and if there are specific concerns that you've got, I'd like to work through those with you. What are the specific parts of the article that you think are in violation of WP:NPOV? Which parts of WP:NPOV do they violate? What "point" do you feel like is being made, and which facts do you feel like are being misused? How would you express these facts differently without removing them merely because you find them shocking? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like at least a few people had some sort of far-right political agenda when they called the facts into question, but I did see a couple of posts on here that mirrored mine. There were some instances of weighted or overly conversational phrasing that I took issue with the last time I read the page, but it appears the most glaring examples have since been removed, so I'll concede that one. I'm seeing some cases of data - mainly statistical info - being copied and pasted throughout the article. I'm not sure what WP policy is regarding that sort of thing, and it's more "clumsy writing" than "POV" in my opinion. The article does seem to be more about the effects of the defoliant than the defoliant itself, but that's most likely just a function of the kinds of information available and the fact that people are more likely to be looking for information on the effects anyway. I could go either way on that one. I'm still wondering if it wouldn't make sense to split the article into a second section focusing on the various physical and political subjects to keep things more concise, but my editing experience is limited, so I probably shouldn't be the one to make that call. As far as images go, it's more about quantity and lack of context to me. I'm of the opinion that less is usually more in any article, not just the ugly ones. The article on pornography isn't covered in sexually explicit images, for example, but it sort of looks like at least a few of the images in this one are just kind of...there. Because, hey, who doesn't like seeing a guy with half a face? Please understand that I'm not proposing a whitewash or anything that drastic, but maybe...dial it back a notch or something? I know that this particular aspect can stray pretty quickly into a censorship debate, so I'll let it be if no one agrees, but I still feel it deserves a mention. -- 75.43.165.87 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the jumble of statistics in the article makes for poor reading. I'd like to see more of a flowing narrative to the article as well. I think the statistics are important and need to remain, but it would be nice to see some analysis of their significance (from reliable sources, of course). As far as the article being mostly about the effects of the defoliant, rather than the defoliant itself -- I think that is for the reason you mentioned. I would like to see more information about the defoliant itself, though, if you've got some to add. Overall though, as you said, I think that people are mostly looking for the effects, so I don't feel this is a problem (especially since almost all of the reliable sources discussing this topic focus on the effects). As far as the images, I know some of them are gruesome, but honestly, the range of effects of the defoliant is pretty gruesome. The guy with the burned face for instance, shows an example of skin ailments that occur from exposure, and also illustrates that it was not only Vietnamese civilians that were targeted by Agent Orange. By the way, there isn't really a limit on number of images in an article. As far as article length, and number of pictures, take a look at American Civil War. For example, they have five pictures of postage stamps (as far as images that are "just there") and two portraits of Presidents (and that article was rated as a Good Article). I think in comparison our images are much more illustrative and on topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Article says 20 mill, source says 12 mill. I've found this on another source as well (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6933/abs/nature01537.html). If there are no objections, I'll change it.

Article says 20 mill, source says 12 mill. I've found this on another source as well (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6933/abs/nature01537.html). If there are no objections, I'll change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordthorpez (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I really really think we should relocate some of the disturbing images found in this article. I was just reading about various pesticides and defoliants and whatnot, then I click on the Agent Orange and I am faced with this really disturbing image of a deformed man. It was really quite a surprise and made me feel ill for some time. There is also an image later on with a caption that says it features deformed and stillborn babies, although I don't know what it looks like because I have images disabled now.

My point is that I think we should maybe construct the article so that it gives more warning. If you go to an article about a battle or something, then you expect to see that kind of thing, but I think this was a little surprising. Perhaps we should move the photograph of the deformed man a little down so that it's not the first thing you see?

Thanks!! Robo56 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I'm here to learn about pesticides, not a barrel of dead babies, and if you told me that's what was on this page I wouldn't believe it.--Hoyt596 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't remove accurate, on-topic images just because some people find them "disturbing". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue here. Robo56 was not advocating removing any images, simply moving them, so I don't think he was trying to censor anything. At the same time, the purpose here is to inform and sometimes, as in this case, the truth is disturbing.

As I see it, the problem with the proposal is if the article only initially shows the helicopter spraying defoliant, the article is only presenting one side of the story. We must also consider that there are much more disturbing images later in the article. So by including this image up-front, it not only presents the very real and tragic results of Agent Orange's use, but it also serves as an implied warning that even more disturbing images (such as the one of Major Tự Đức Phang) may follow. As a result, I think the image should stay where it is.

Jds7813 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The page has several photos of deformities allegedly caused by Agent Orange but there is no way of verifying whether or not this is the case.

is "Vietnamese man born with deformed face as a result of prenatal exposure to Agent Orange" Which goes back to the "Hactivist News Service". It's evidentially reprint of a press release from the Comité International de Soutien aux victimes vietnamiennes de l’Agent Orange et au procès de New York (International Committee for the Support of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange) which is an advocacy group that was involved in a lawsuit against the US government and corporations in New York. The author, André Bouny is an activist. This isn't a reliable source for what is being represented.
Re. "Major Tu Duc Phang" the article states unequivocally that this was "caused by exposure to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange" The photograph, attributed to the "4th "Vietnam: Land and its People" Photographic Contest and Exhibition held recently by Vietnam Pictorial and Vietnam Association of Photographic Artists, a group of pictures entitled "Dioxin - Responsibility of the US" by photographer Ngo My won the First Prize" appears to be from a Vietnamese state sponsored photo contest. This hasn't had any legitimate editorial oversight, it's essentially published by the state and isn't a reliable source for what is being represented.
"Group of handicapped Vietnamese children at a medical treatment facility, most of them victims of Agent Orange" and "Handicapped Vietnamese boy posing in front of the billboard denouncing Operation Ranch Hand" are self-published photos by Alexis Duclos; no editorial oversight and not a reliable source.

The photos should be pulled until they can be reliably sourced.V7-sport (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Wikipedia's policy on article content with some imagined similar criteria for images. There is no policy requiring "editorial oversight" for images. Regardless, a few comments:

1) A group being an "advocacy group" does not make it a non-reliable source. The International Committee for the Support of Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange is a totally reliable source for images related to Agent Orange.

2) The Vietnamese government is no different from the U.S. government as far as reliability is concerned. If they sponsored a photo contest, that is completely irrelevant, unless I missed the "state-sponsored photos" section of WP:RS. The source is Vietnam News Agency which is reliable, just like Voice of America, or any of the other U.S. government agencies from which we have pulled the tens of thousands of public domain photos that exist on Wikipedia.

3) Again, no requirements for editorial oversight, and no reason to doubt that the photos are authentic.

Also, I would suggest that you take a look at WP:STALK and cease following me to articles where I am involved. You have followed me to enough articles now that I have trouble believing that it is a coincidence, and would suggest that you stop before you get yourself blocked for harassment. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re #1, They re an activist group, involved in litigation against the USA with financial interest in calming deformities are a result of agent orange; they are certainty not a totally reliable source. Further, the "Hactivist News Service"? Really?

Re #2, The Vietnamese government also has a financial interest in labeling deformities as a result of American herbicide use. Per WP:RS Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Re #3, anything challenged has to be attributed to an RS. Self-published

"Also, I would suggest that you take a look at WP:STALK and perhaps voluntarily recuse yourself from following me to articles where I am involved", I had actually planned on doing this at a later date since we are already in dispute elsewhere, however a similar photo was just reverted. I've been watching the article for a while.V7-sport (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2

And I see that you have already reverted. How would you like to handle this? Mediation?V7-sport (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Further, the 'Hactivist News Service'? Really?" -- No, the International Committee for the Support of Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange.

"The Vietnamese government also has a financial interest in labeling deformities as a result of American herbicide use." -- The Vietnam News Agency is a reliable source, just like Voice of America. Enough said.

"anything challenged has to be attributed to an RS" -- Again, that policy is not relevant to a non-controversial image. There is no reason to doubt that this is a legitimate photo of an Agent Orange clinic (which exist all over vietnam, and which you can find plenty of similar photos of elsewhere).

"I had actually planned on doing this at a later date since we are already in dispute elsewhere" -- I would suggest you do it now, as I did when I edited Richard Falk before realizing you were involved there. I believe that until the dispute elsewhere is resolved that we should mutually avoid each other, as much as is possible.

"however a similar photo was just reverted" -- This photo was removed by an IP editor because it was "gory", which is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTCENSORED.

"And I see that you have already reverted. How would you like to handle this?" -- I would like you to handle this by voluntarily stepping aside, due to our disputes elsewhere, and letting someone else handle it if they believe that it is a problem. Your talk page messages will be here, and anyone who has a problem with the images will see them, and can pick up where you left off.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"No, the International Committee for the Support of Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange." 1)The link goes back to the Hactivist News Service, not a legitimate news organization. 2)ICSVVAO is an activist organization with a vested interest.

"The Vietnam News Agency is a reliable source, just like Voice of America." They are run by the same entity that is involved in litigation with the US government over this issue. The title of the pictures was "Dioxin - Responsibility of the US"...

"Again, that policy is not relevant to a non-controversial image." It applies to anything challenged or likely to be challenged. It's challenged.

Re.Falk, what you dd was get someone else to revert an edit I didn't make.

Re the Ip editor, that's what popped up on the watch list.

You have been a prolific editor here, am I supposed to avoid any page that you have edited? Especially when they are related to the pages that I have been working on for the months?V7-sport (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

????? Seriously, at least 3 out of the 4 images are self published and make un-verifyable assertions without any legitimate editorial oversight. V7-sport (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a reference here to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Need_to_clarify_image_sourcing_policy_.28WP:OI.29 referring to a picture used here, the one of children in a centre in Vietnam. My position is basically you'd need to challenge he text in the section of the article beside it first as it is an illustration that is faithful to the text in that section. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a reference here to the discussion" -- I didn't place a reference here for the same reason that I didn't place it on every other article that would be affected by a change to WP:OI. Agent Orange was used as an example in the discussion there, but the discussion there is about WP:OI not Agent Orange.

"My position is basically you'd need to challenge he text in the section of the article beside it first as it is an illustration that is faithful to the text in that section." -- I agree. As I said in the discussion about WP:OI, the only thing this image is "illustrating" is the existence of an OBGYN clinic in Vietnam that treats children who have been deformed as a result of Agent Orange exposure. This clinic can clearly be seen to exist by a Google search for its name (Tu Du Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital), and it can also be verified that the woman in the photograph (Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong) works at this hospital. Furthermore, there are numerous non-free images that depict these clinics, so we have no reason to doubt that the situation depicted here is unrealistic. I personally see no reason why there is any reason to doubt the validity of the photograph. I see no reason, given this, to believe that the author of the photo is lying that this picture was taken at Tu Du, and that some of the children in the photo are being treated by disorders related to Agent Orange. As WP:IMAGE says:

Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. For example, if you take a picture in your neighborhood, you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood. However, if such sources are available, please provide them.

I don't see any reason to doubt that the author of the image above is correctly identifying the contents of the image, and unless V7-sport can provide some reason besides "I'm challenging it" that the accuracy of the image is to be doubted, then I feel that the image should be usable, and that we can assume in good faith that the image is a photo of Tu Du hospital, and that the children are being treated for the conditions stated on the image description page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, you brought it to another noticeboard and didn't post notice here or alert me that something I was disputing was being discussed. Any consensus that comes out of that is a false one as you didn't alert the editor involved or post notice here. The reason I am challenging the photos is that they are self published from an unknown source or from a non reliable source and this is a contentious issue. Re the fist, "Hactivist News Service" is not an RS. Re Alexis Duclos, there is no way of verifying the photographers claims and they are not backed by any reputable journalistic entity. (He also has his website information on the photos) They are self published, from his website. V7-sport (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, you brought it to another noticeboard and didn't post notice here or alert me that something I was disputing was being discussed. -- This article will likely be affected by the discussion at WP:NOR, as will many others. I did not place notification of any of the hundreds/thousands of articles it would affect, including this one. If you were the type that cared about such things, I'm sure you would have been watching on one of the multiple policy and noticeboard pages where I mentioned it. I did not attempt to have this dispute (of Vietnamese hospital images) to a noticeboard be the center of the conversation at WP:NOR. In fact, I specifically did not want this to happen. What I brought to the talk page of a policy article was concerns about a clash between the guidelines laid out in WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:IMAGE, and used this dispute as an example. As I've mentioned there, this is an issue with our image policies that comes up often, and I think it should be resolved. Considering that you rarely participate in anything other than partisan bickering and edit warring on U.S. foreign policy articles, I did not think you would be interested, nor did I think you'd have much to contribute in a conversation about general image use policies, and I'm under no obligation to start every conversation with you tagging along as a disruption. So, no, I didn't send you a notification; sorry Sport.
The reason I am challenging the photos is that they are self published from an unknown source and this is a contentious issue. There is no way of verifying the photographers claims and they are not backed by any reputable journalistic entity. -- Again, please see WP:IMAGE. Specifically, note the part that says: " Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." Also see the sources I have presented above regarding Tu Du, etc. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the image itself, or what the author claims the image contains? If so, please provide it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I did not place notification of any of the hundreds/thousands of articles it would affect"
Did you reference any of those other hundreds of thousands of articles? Nope, just this one, which is the sole reason you brought it there.
"If you were the type that cared about such things, "
Great how you can shoehorn a little condensation in there.
" I'm sure you would have been watching on one of the multiple policy and noticeboard pages where I mentioned it."
Gee, you just wrote: "You have followed me to enough articles now that I have trouble believing that it is a coincidence, and would suggest that you stop before you get yourself blocked for harassment" one wonders what you would have written had I stumbled across the other forum. You wrote "multiple policy and noticeboard pages", What other forums have you brought it to?
"Considering that you rarely participate in anything other than partisan bickering and edit warring on U.S. foreign policy articles, I did not think you would be interested, nor did I think you'd have much to contribute in a conversation about general image use policies, and I'm under no obligation to start every conversation with you tagging along as a disruption. So, no, I didn't send you a notification; sorry Sport."
It doesn't say good things about your self-esteem that you need to perpetually assert yourself. The over-the-top hostility isn't a rebuttal to anything I have written. Regardless, it doesn't look like it went the way you wanted it to go on the other forum.
Again, please see WP:IMAGE. Specifically, note the part that says: " Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken."
Good faith and verifiability are 2 different things. Again, please see WP:CHALLENGE (any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source.)
Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the image itself, or what the author claims the image contains? If so, please provide it.
Per WP:BURDEN It's not up to me to disprove other peoples claims, it's up to the person adding the information to make sure they are properly sourced. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What other forums have you brought it to? -- I placed notifications of my discussion about WP:OI at WP:V, WP:NORN, in addition to the talk page for WP:NOR.
It doesn't say good things about your self-esteem that you need to perpetually assert yourself. The over-the-top hostility isn't a rebuttal to anything I have written.-- I'm not interested in your uninformed speculations about my self-esteem. I do, however, agree that my statement is not (and was never intended to be) a "rebuttal" of anything you have written. It was an explanation of my motivation for not notifying you of a discussion, based on my general observations of your disruptive behavior and lack of involvement outside of a narrow topic area, and I hope that you can learn from it and start contributing more to the encyclopedia.
Regardless, it doesn't look like it went the way you wanted it to go on the other forum. -- They're going fine. We're discussing the image policies, and working on how to clarify them. There is a possibility they will agree with you (namely "all original images must be accompanied by reliable sources, if challenged"). In that case, I will accept their determination. Either way, a clarification of the image use policies is what I want, so if that's what is happening at WP:NOR, then things are indeed "going the way I want".
Did you reference any of those other hundreds of thousands of articles? -- I referenced the other articles where this has been an issue, collectively, by referring to the past discussions regarding WP:OI: here and here.
Good faith and verifiability are 2 different things. Again, please see WP:CHALLENGE (any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source.) -- I'm not disagreeing with you about what WP:CHALLENGE says. What I'm pointing out is that WP:IMAGE contradicts this, saying "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. For example, if you take a picture in your neighborhood, you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

What other forums have you brought it to? -- I placed notifications of my discussion on WP:OI at WP:V, WP:NORN, in addition to the talk page for WP:NOR"...

But nothing here. The conversation there seems to have has run it's course at this point.

not interested in your uninformed speculations about my self-esteem.

Just cut out the incivility. We don't have to like each other but the little digs don't accomplish anything.

It was an explanation of my motivation for not notifying you of a discussion, based on my general observations of your disruptive behavior and lack of involvement outside of a narrow topic area, and I hope that you can learn from it and start contributing more to the encyclopedia.

Cute.

"Interesting that you cut off the last half of the quoted guideline before responding to it."

My response still stands though whether or not you include the whole section. There is no way of verifying the information being represented because they trace back to sources that don't have legitimate editorial oversight. Some are involved in a litigation where they would benefit from calling these people victims of agent orange. Assuming good faith doesn't mean automatically accepting -whatever- as fact.

you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood."

You do if it's challenged. V7-sport (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've repeatedly requested that you give actual reasons why you think we should ignore the original image sourcing guidelines in WP:IMAGE, or at the very least explain some reason why you "challenge it". I understand that there is something at WP:CHALLENGE that leads you to believe that you can just say "I challenge it! I challenge it!" and have that be sufficient to remove an original photograph of a hospital that we know to exist, which depicts a woman who we know works at the hospital, and which treats patients similar to those depicted. The author of the photo is not making an outlandish claim, but merely taking a photograph of a notable hospital unit in Vietnam. I see no reason to doubt this any more than a photo of a notable burn unit from Paris. If you do have a reason why we should not "assume in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken" then please share it. Otherwise, if you really believe that you shouldn't have to give a reason, and should just be able to say "But I'm challenging it! WP:V WP:V!", then I'm going to await clarification on the purpose of the guidelines in WP:IMAGE and WP:OI vs. those in WP:V. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"I've repeatedly requested that you give actual reasons why you think we should ignore the original image sourcing guidelines in WP:IMAGE,"

I'm not ignoring any sourcing guidelines.

at the very least explain some reason why you "challenge it"

I did, here:

I understand that there is something at WP:CHALLENGE that leads you to believe that you can just say "I challenge it! I challenge it!'

I have outlined, several times why I don't think the sources are reliable.

The author of the photo is not making an outlandish claim

1)Which photo? and 2) That' a matter of opinion, that's why the encyclopedia insists on verifiability from reliable sources.

I see no reason to doubt this any more than a photo of a notable burn unit from Paris.

Well, If the photo from Paris was sourced to joe Shmoe from Joeshmow.eu and claimed that the burns were caused by someone they were in litigation with you might have cause to doubt it.

"If you do have a reason why we should not "assume in good faith...."

In the case of some of the photographs there are from sources that are involved in a dispute that would benefit them by calling these people victims of agent orange. In the other cases they are from a photographer who has self published the photos. There is no way verifying what is in them and no journalistic oversight and no accountability if they were found to be inaccurate.

Otherwise, if you really believe that you shouldn't have to give a reason, and should just be able to say "But I'm challenging it! WP:V WP:V!"...

Not really what I have written.V7-sport (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I was bold and implemented a compromise. Nobody seriously disputes that the substance caused stillbirths and deformities, I hope. The over-detailed captions were over-the-top. They would have needed references to be acceptable. We are better without them, in my opinion. --John (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a compromise on sourcing requirements? Not being a jerk but is that something that gets compromised on? V7-sport (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If the propensity of this chemical to produce this type of effect is not disputed, I think there is no point in challenging the images here. I agree the captions were problematic. Here's a less emotionally charged example for comparison; if you look at Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway, which I almost entirely wrote, all the photos there come from me. If somebody challenged them, there is no way I could prove they depict what I say they depict. Nevertheless, the norm is to accept photos unless they show a misleading or undue weight. I think having an article about a dangerous chemical show the effects of the chemical is reasonable. We generally assume more good faith in images than in text, I suppose is what I am saying. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the types of effects have been in dispute. (The U.S. government says the actual number of people affected is much lower and that Vietnamese are too quick to blame Agent Orange for birth defects that can be caused by malnutrition or other environmental factors.) There's also a difference between illustrating the supposed effects and rubbing peoples nose in what they are viewing to make a point. (As some here delight in doing.) As a compromise lets lose the photo from the "Hactivist News Service" as it is clearly from an activist/unreliable source. That will leave 4 other poorly sourced photos of Vietnamese birth defects and dead babies in buckets which gratuitous enough.V7-sport (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that Agent Orange and dioxins cause birth defects, the debate is over how many it has caused. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport -- by your own flawed logic above, the US Government should NOT be a "reliable source" of information because it has a "financial interest" (amongst many others) in minimizing, dismissing or even lying about the effects of Agent Orange. It is logically inconsistent for you to call an invested entity on one side of an issue "unreliable" while implicitly advocating the reliability of another invested entity just because it is on the other side. This line of reasoning doesn't make for a productive discussion. If you can't be more objective, I would suggest you step aside and let others with a more consistent and ethical workflow on this subject continue to edit the article and hash out the related editorial policy discussions therein.96.25.84.50 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

logically inconsistent ? OK, we can take down the "pro US side of the equation" photos as well. You are muddying the waters, the advocacy group that the photos originated with is not a reliable source. They are not a journalistic entity and they have a vested interest in calling these people victims of Agent Orange. The US government isn't represented here in terms of a counterargument to that and there is no such thing as a "non-agent orange" photo that could be offered as such.V7-sport (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"U.S. officials point out that an "association" has been established between Agent Orange and the illnesses on the list, but that the scientific evidence has not been high enough to establish a causal relationship." The point was, if there is a dispute there needs to be a reliable source.V7-sport (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever their source and whatever their authenticity (which appears dubious prima facie), the distraction factor of the horror photos actually interferes with understanding of the subject. There is no evidence that they have anything to do with Agent Orange. They should be removed permanently because they undermine the objectivity of the article, at the very least. What's more, their continued presence, in spite of numerous objections, is just one more reason why Wikipedia is seen as a joke to so many people. Absurd editorial laxity serves to underscore that opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhD (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How and why exactly is it that someone's emotional reactions to pictures should be a consideration in whether the pictures are accurate, relevant and appropriate for an article? If the pictures themselves are indeed accurate, as the body of evidence comprising our understanding of Agent Orange suggests, then the pictures provide a very clear illustration of the impacts of Agent Orange. Emotional responses to that understanding are sometimes unavoidable, and are not necessarily a result of propaganda. In contrast, removing them might require the addition of text describing categories of effects of Agent Orange poisoning. While easier to ignore, I think reading them would be no less emotionally compelling. A more relevant line of discussion I think would consider the balance of impact-related pictures vs other pictures.96.25.84.50 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The pictures are poorly/un-sourced. The body of evidence suggests that dijoxen can cause birth defects like spina bifida, it hasn't been established that it causes deformities on the scale as represented here."Balance of impact-related pictures vs other pictures" isn't going to work in practical terms because the counterbalance to a baby in a bucket photo is a normal birth photo, which wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. V7-sport (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS I removed 3 of the 5 photos. V7-sport (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– Fixed broken archive box, and replaced Cluebot with Mizsabot. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are they here?V7-sport (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'm working on fixing that now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vietnam Era Weapon Being Used to Clear the Amazon--91.39.99.159 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the same judge referred to as "Federal Judge Julius Weinstein" and later down referred to as "Judge Jack B. Weinstein" ?

97.127.90.38 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of specifically which US officials were responsible for this disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.31.101 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is perpetuating the misconceptions about Agent Orange.

Agent Orange comprises a mixture of 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T. Both of these are harmless by themselves.

1. The article calls 2-4-5-T toxic in and of itself, while the separate Wikipedia article on 2-4-5-T calls it mildly toxic and gives it a toxicity number which ranks it less toxic than Aspirin. The separate article is probably correct, given that 2-4-5-T is a hormone, not a poison.

2. The Agent Orange article also says there is a wide body of information linking it to various health and environmental risks. There is a footnote number [14] BUT that reference says the opposite, concluding that 2-4-5-T was banned unnecessarily having the best performance of any herbicide.

3. This article should be re-written to say that the agent itself while controversial, is harmless or would have been if manufactured and used prudently. The only problem with Agent Orange is that 2-4-5-T can become contaminated with dioxin, and that it can be over applied. Neither of these is a problem with the chemicals themselves, or the mixture.

I remember a radio program years ago, probably on NPR, in which one of the main manufacturers was identified as having notified the government of the dioxin problem in batches from the other producers. They approached the government twice and the government never took any action. Nevertheless the main manufacturers are always the ones associated with the problems. I may be editorializing here, but mostly my comments refer to potential errors of fact.

Thanks. KevinInMfrg (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The company was Dow Chemical. Dow notified the government that they could not meet the government specification for Agent Orange because their process produced 2,4,5 T that was dioxin free. The governmnent specification for 2,4,5 T specified a dioxin content. Dow offered to share its process with the other manufactureres to eliminate the dioxin but the government did not agree. Dow had to detune their process to produce the dirty 2,4,5 T. This is documented in documents realeased for various lawsuits and by Dow's published literature on the 2,4,5T herbacide sold commercially in the USA. Smoidel (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC) smoidel May 28, 2012 Smoidel (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

but mostly my comments refer to potential errors of fact

If this is the case you'll have to be much more specific as to what specific facts you are referring to. The concerns you enumerate are all dealt with in the article to my satisfaction:

The first place this appears notes "But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin… and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects". To me, this clearly suggests that dioxin was the problem, not the 2,4,5-T itself. Do you have a different instance in mind?
The reference in question does not "conclude" that at all. The section you refer to is the conclusion of a 3rd party. Page 2, and especially page 3, make repeated references to the safety of 2,4-D and the other herbicides like Blue and Picloram, but I do not see a single "statement of fact" about the safety of 2,4,5-T, real or implied. Do you?
We have no idea if this is true or not. That's because the herbicides were manufactured incorrectly and used indiscriminately. We can draw inferences from its use elsewhere, especially in the US, but those studies are the ones that caused the entire issue to blow up in the first place. Do you know of any examples of widespread use of large doses of non-contaminated 2,4,5-T? You see, the question is not whether or not 2,4,5-T was banned because it was not safe, the question is whether or not it was banned because you always ended up with TDDC as a side-effect of manufacture. Or to put it another way, was 2,4,5-T banned, or the manufacturing of 2,4,5-T? Those are not equivalent statements in any way - look up the post-war history of magnesium casting operations in California for instance.
The unnumbered claim you make about "one of the main manufacturers" is quite clearly mentioned in the article, "Internal memoranda revealed Monsanto Corporation (a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government as early as 1952 that 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a toxic contaminant". This is quoted directly from here.

I do understand what you're getting at, but I also do believe that the article does not express the problem you feel it does. Perhaps you might consider printing it out and reading it that way? At least you'll have good hilights then….

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure the basic facts of the image of Mr. Phang are correct, I suspect, rather strongly, that the colours in the image are not real. I suspect it has either been hand-colored from a B&W original, or "enhanced" in some other way. Do we have an original source for this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On what basis have graphics purporting to show dioxin side-effects been included in this article? It doesn't appear that either of the two now in place (boil-ridden man, deformed stillbornes) come from a medical journal or study of any kind, having only captions to link them to agent orange. As it stands, I don't think either of the images are reliably sourced. WP:IMAGES assumes good faith from image authors at the source in truthfully captioning photos, but these images don't even direct to sources that describe them the way they are used here. It would probably be better to obtain photos from actual studies indicating developmental problems in test animals stemming from TCDD (studies such as "Antiteratogenic Effects of α-naphthoflavone on 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Exposed Mice in Utero" by Yang JY et al, or "Review of the Interaction between TCDD and Glucocorticoids in Embryonic Palate" by Abbott BD).--70.4.71.110 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Although this page states that the chemical, Agent Orange, was used from 1961 to 1971, the article on Rainbow Herbicides claims that it was only used from 1965 to 1971. I'm assuming 1961 is the year in which any of the Rainbow Herbicides was initially used. So, shouldn't this article be changed to state from 1965 to 1971? --108.224.95.15 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Now these pictures (from the 'Effects on Humans' section) are important and illustrative but may be a little extreme for someone who doesn't know what they're getting into. Could they be sidebarred so that you have to click a 'Warning: graphic content -- Click to show' button in order for them to appear? I mean, they are seriously disgusting. Vranak (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a ghastly topic, I don't think I ever seen an article with the arrangement you suggest. For instance the Holocaust contains strong imagery without warnings.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it's much easier to assimilate information when you aren't overloaded and repulsed by disgustingly vivid imagery. I think these pictures harm comprehension. Vranak (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED-- in particular, note the following:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. ... Some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."

Yes, the images are disturbing, but they are clearly "relevant to the content". There is no grounds for their removal, however disturbing they may be. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read my proposal? I'm not asking for them to be removed. Vranak (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your proposal, and I find it equivalent to censorship if it is not applied equally to all articles across Wikipedia. For example, if it is not applied to the "ghastly" images at Holocaust and Bataan Death March and Penis, then it should not be applied here or anywhere else. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And I also believe that hiding them is essentially equivalent to removal for the majority of those cases where readers won't notice them as they are scanning through the page, won't take the time to click through even when they do see it, etc. And in each of these cases we would be depriving these people of important historical information and visual learning stimuli simply because one or a handful of editors found the images offensive. Like the editors who have collaborated on WP:NOTCENSORED, I do not believe we should deprive some of our readers of information in order to comfort others. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I could not disagree with you more. When I'm reading the body of the article and I have these disgusting pictures over on one side, I can't continue without using my adblocker to get rid of them. So much for learning! But hey, just keep crying "censorship!" loud enough, over and over, and maybe that'll shut me up. I submit that they serve no other purpose than to revolt the audience, and perhaps to entertain those of more prurient tastes. Vranak (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Vranak -- When you started out this conversation, you said the images "are important and illustrative", so I don't know if I believe you when you say that you feel they serve no purpose. I do however, believe you are being honest when you say that "When I'm reading the body of the article and I have these disgusting pictures over on one side, I can't continue without using my adblocker to get rid of them." This is why I'm mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not just "crying censorship over and over". And I'm not trying to shut you up. The reason I'm mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED is that you keep saying you want to hide something because it's disturbing, and refusing to explain why you only wish to hide the images on THIS page and not on Holocaust or Bataan Death March or Penis. - Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is the intent of the wiki to be accurate it is important that the information have valid and verifiable references. The use of anecdotal statements by individuals, pamphlets produced by parties with a vested interest, and unverified articles is not enough to support the statements made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.153.65 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The report in question was produced by a professor of biology from the Boston university, an ornithologist from the Smithsonian, and two high-ups from JACADS (the chemical disposal facility run by the US Army). The report also cites the United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine and the US EPA. That's enough credentials to make it a reliable source, in my view.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, although you have nothing verifiable, you will continue to post this inaccurate point.

How does someone override your posting of misinformation in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.153.65 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it not verifiable? We have a source and its authors are identified. The people from JACADS probably know where the chemicals came from.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable requires more than one valid source for the points made. There is nothing in the pamphlet which provides reference to who made the statement, there is no corroboration, nothing.

"Probably" doesn't cut it.

So you use this as your way of saying something is so even when it isn't, and likely can't be, substantiated.

Sounds like you have a personal agenda here and that flies in the face of being a factual source, the whole idea behind Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.153.65 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should launch a request for comment, since we don't seem to get anywhere with this argument.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to request a comment about, because IP 108.* hasn't even stated what their problem with it is yet. They have asserted that it's not factual, but have provided zero evidence of that, and we have a source that easily satisfies WP:RS (as far as I can tell) verifying the information ... I'm sure anybody here would welcome the inclusion of more information if IP 108.* would just provide a source. IP 108.* -- Do you have any sources that contain information that demonstrates that the information re: Okinawa isn't accurate? Could you share some links or citations with us, so that we can look them over and try to rework the article? Do you have a suggestion for what you would change it to say? Why would you make those changes? 192.211.30.185 (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I located the reference source in my research for Operation Red Hat. This is not my research, I merely found it. The Japanese press have taken hold of the document and they have an agenda. This is information from the US government, paid with tax dollars. Though a contractor may have written it, they had access to the historical documentation at Johnston Atoll that has not been declassified therefore, they are the experts. The US government states that they have no records on the subject of Herbicides+Okinawa. The comments come from official spokespeople and this document is such a record. All sources are included in references with the original context which you are welcome to verify. I have tried to contact the authors for verification but was not able to (and that is bordering on my own research). I understand the policy about pamphlets made by parties with vested interests. While the producers of the document call it a "magazine" and I admit that the US governments has a vested interest in Agent Orange never proving to have been on Okinawa. The government produced the document in contrary to their own vested interest. When someone does that, they are either highly credible or they want you to believe something. Since this is a government funded study for public consumption, I generally would believe the latter, though without evidence to the contrary, I am forced to accept it. The DoD has not commented on this document. When they do, it will be added to the entry.

There's a lot more information to share under Operation Red Hat on the entries listed below but this is as far as I have gotten and the rest of what I've gathered supports what is already in the main article Operation Red Hat I welcome any more information and this discussion. Both sides of an argument keep entries unbiased.

In researching Okinawa+Herbicides to determine whether the document is genuine, I located information pertaining to Project 112, Project AGILE, Schuyler Otis Bland (T-AK-277), Chemical and Biological warfare at Okinawa/Vietnam and Japanese involvement in BW Anti-Crop and Korean War. This is is not some crazy conspiracy though I admit it does sounds like one. This is not my research, I simply searched for other peoples research. My personal agenda if you want to call it that, is documenting the historical facts which are supported by evidence and official documentation (and also a lot of pictures). The entries are new and my references need more page numbers. There seems to be little to no information on the ship which carried the Agent Orange from Vietnam to Johnston Atoll in 1972 during Operation Pacer IVY. It was called M/T TransPacific. Its replacement is also called MV Transpacific (T-1). "In May 18, 1971, the Transpacific got caught by the treacherous shoals around the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The West German freighter joined other ships that made these waters their final resting place. The ship, shown in a photo from the collection of Al Sykes, had been inland every year from 1959 until the time of her loss." (http://www.vos.noaa.gov/MWL/fall_03/transpacific.shtml). I can't say if the ship never left the spot where it still sits before it carried Agent Orange but that is the evidence that I have. In answer to answer how to block information, I suggest posting any additional information to counter it. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reworded language to address concerns.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I read credible witness account from a woman from the Valley of A Luoi. She said: "I was in the forest, I saw planes throw powder on us, it stung our eyes, burned our skins.” Since that day, her husband and three of her children have died of cancer, and she has a handicapped son. I wonder what this substance might have been? Most likely not Agent Orange, as this was a liquid. Any other possibilities/ideas? 217.7.150.122 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Got the answer myself. 2,4,5-T are solid crystals, Agent Orange apparently had a modified liquid composition of it. It seems to have been common to spread the powder from planes, at least in the beginning of Op. Ranch Hand. 217.7.150.122 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is true, I think it should be covered in the section of use outside of US. 166.147.120.146 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agent Orange is a herbicide not a form of tear gas and would be of no use against protesters. Agent Orange is also not actually the color orange, it was only so named because the containers were marked with orange stripes. A reliable source is what is missing in any case.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with social media protests... if in a week everyone starts losing their leaves and decades later develop systemic health issues we can revisit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.31.230 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that a herbicide is being used against protesters, all it takes is for someone to pick up one of the canisters and have the chemical residue analyzed to prove that it is Agent Orange - but this must still come to us through a reliable source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Since reliable sources make it clear that it was not Agent Orange used in this case, I don't think it is appropriate to even mention it in this article. If there is going to be a discussion about this confusion, it should be in 2013 protests in Turkey, or a related page, instead of here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. 206.47.31.230 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo of a bucket full of deformed dead babies is way to graphic. It also trivialized their deaths to be so casually treated. Pearl2525 (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's no different from any other article regarding a topic were people were killed en masse (e.g. the Holocaust). Wikipedia is not censored. Encyclopedias should inform people about reality, not sweep unpleasant facts under the carpet. I don't see how their deaths are "casually treated"; appearance in an encyclopedia is not for laughs or anything. --Sus scrofa (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't want to see a bucket of dead babies when I came here. It's not about sweeping it under the rug, I just would have preferred to have a choice of whether or not I got that visual. Plus, why are they in a bucket? Most people would view piling deformed still-borns into a bucket to be pretty disrespectful. That's probably what is meant by their deaths being casually treated. If I went to the article about the Haulocost, I would probably expect to see some graphic pictures, but that doesn't mean that every horrific picture should be included or else it's censorship. I have to say that I agree and that a clearly labeled link would be more appropriate. 107.216.122.146 (talk)amyanda2000 —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it needs to be there to show the horrible nature of this dangerous chemical. Maybe it'll shock some people out of their box of belief and into their senses. This stuff DESTROYS PEOPLE. -Some User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.185.138 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Is there any one out there that was stationed at Incirlik CDI  during the time period of December 1975 to Feb 1978 (*545*)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger ray181 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some sources in this article are messed up. Refname ="FAB" points to 2 different sources.

Note 36 (in Early Development section) points to: cite journal |author=Judith Perera and Andy Thomas |date=Apr 18, 1985 |title=New Scientist, April 18, 1985 |pages=34–36 |accessdate=February 22, 2014 which is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=q7v_rDK0uOgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=this+horrible+natural+experiment+Perera+Thomas&source=bl&ots=HbDkNQCTEK&sig=aR2tiCHT5HbJfnwXrQg7Erv_4jU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sxakU_rGO4qmsATLjIDYAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=this%20horrible%20natural%20experiment%20Perera%20Thomas&f=false

And in the first ref In "Use in the Malayan Emergency" section the same refname points to "cite book |title=Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, Second Edition |author=D. Hank Ellison |date=August 24, 2007 |pages=567–570 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=0-8493-1434-8" I was able to find this source online and the pages cites are to a section on viral pathogens and doesn't mention 2,4,5-T nor 2,4-D nor agent orange. I've deleted the information about this book. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be working on this page and related ones in the next few weeks. There appear to be some editors who use term "agent orange" broadly, and to me this is not OK. Agent Orange was a particular blend of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T made in the US for a limited time. It didn't exist, for example, when the Malayan Emergency happened, and as far as I can find in reliable sources about herbicide use in war, a blend of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T was not used by the British or Malayan administration. I agree that the Malayan Emergency is important background for later use of Agent Orange, but the long description of what happened then, is way too much WP:WEIGHT for an article on Agent Orange, and I intend to move that material to the Malayan Emergency article and also the Herbicidal warfare article. There is a lot -- too much -- overlap between this article and the Herbicidal warfare article, and the latter article needs to be better integrated with its related articles... just giving everyone a heads up. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

this source

the whole early development section is copy-pasted and barely edited. removed most of it, and the section on the Malayan Emergency, which also has nothing to do with Agent Orange per se.

... says who? Please provide your signature. It will make your comment much more useful. RhinoMind (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

National Academy of Science study

Redgum's "I was only Nineteen"

Time of classification?

OtherUses template

Images

Nature claims errors

I find this entry confusing... and the song list?

Snippage from another article

many gallons and GOS

Nature errors to correct

Peripheral neuropathy, "limited evidence" vs. "disease most widespread"

bold writing

Disposal of agent oarnge

March 2006 Appellate Court?

CFB Gagetown

POV SCIENCE V SUPERSTITION

Trade name and non-Vietnam use

recent link spamming

A Word Changed

Too much extra info

This Article Contradicts Another Article

Lead paragraph

Update Amount of Agent Orange the U.S. Used

pop culture references

Picture Date

Serious Problems

Health Effects of Agent

Revert on May 23rd

Increasingly POV

More information about why Agent Orange was used

Some information about the numbers of vietnamese affected?

Effectivenesss

Vandalism

Where Can I Buy Agent Orange?

WPMilHist Assessment

bluewaternavy.org...RS?

President Triet

Lost in Information

New AP article on AO and Vietnam

Edit request from Malovett78, 16 June 2010

Sensationalism

Agent Orange effects linking herbicide or dioxin exposure to congenital malformations inconclusive

korean use by US Defense Dept -contradicts article

Agent Orange, how it works

Diseases Linked to Agent Orange by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

NPOV problem

Quantity of Agent Orange Used

Quantity of Agent Orange Used

Disturbing Images

Photos

Clue bot archives.

SOURCE: Brazilian rangers illegally clearing foliage in the rainforrest

incorrect judge first (and middle) name

Who was responsible for Agent Orange?

Perpetuating Misconceptions

Odd image

Timespan of use?

Ghastly images

Lack of valid and verifiable documentation concerning claims about storage on Okinawa.

Powder?

Photos to use

Use by Turkish police?

Use of photos of dead babies too graphic

Agent Orange and Incirlik CDI Turkey

source "FAB"

Terminology

and much of this article is copyvio from This horrible natural experiment".

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

Recent reverts

Bad Reference

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

Photos are disappearing

External links modified

Agent Orange's Effects on the Vietnamese People

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