Talk:Herbicidal warfare

This article is not properly referenced and should be deleted.

There have been no attempts to provide any reference material for this article. It should be removed. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is to provide verified material, with references. This article does not hold to that idea and is of no use to anyone wishing to do research. NovusLivy (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I said Below. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what can be "found" anywhere else. The idea is that articles on Wikipedia will have references to help validate the material. If someone said you were an idiot without references but told everyone that the proof could be found "out there" somewhere should the rest of us accept that you are an idiot?

Without verifiable references this article should be removed.NovusLivy (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see that reliable sources are being added to the article, and efforts to source it would be much further along if people did not have to spend all of their time reverting your incessant, POV blanking of content. You blank content on Only 2 pages, this page and Agent Orange. You must stop. If I google "Herbicidal Warfare," I will find that it is a Valid Concept with Valid References. The idea that wikipedia is a work in progress very much applies here. Your editing is Borderline vandalism and must stop Now. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what accusation you are making about vandalism, but I would caution you to be careful of unfounded statements such as that. As to the "work in progress" comment, this article is several years old and has been challenged for quite some time. I don't see how that can be considered a work in progress. The article had no references until recently and even those now included are vague and unspecific.NovusLivy (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The statement is well founded in your edit contribution history. You continue to blank content in two distinct places despite stern warnings to the contrary. Your edits constitute vandalism. If you continue to blank content, you will be blocked. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article needs references. That map looks pretty good and some of the info seems good but without references it is simply no use. This page should probably be removed. (Lcohalan (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

Delete this Article?

Why doe this article still exist. There have been no references given to establish the authenticity of the information. It has been nearly five years and still nothing. It is time to remove this tripe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NovusLivy (talk • contribs)

Just because references are not on the page does not mean that they are not able to be found. In fact, many of the information here can be easily referenced, a process which you yourself can do. If you just have a POV agenda, wanting to blank this page for no reason, then you should know that that is not tolerated. (Pardon me, forgot to sign) --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As of this date there have been no verified and validated references given for this article. Since it has been over four years without these references I submit that the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NovusLivy (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not actively working on this article, but the topic is certainly documented -- someone could use the sources at Google Scholar and Google Books as a starting point to better references. --macrakis (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconvenient name?

"United States' plans for reducing Japanese rice crops for the invasion of Japan were rejected due to the similarity of the herbicide's name to the poison cyanide."

Is this true? It seems unlikely that the strategy would have been rejected simply because of a name, which presumably could be altered, or if it was the official chemical name, been 'marketed' using a different term. Could this point be clarified?

81.102.253.212 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to delete this spurious sentence but on the same grounds, practically the whole article would have to be deleted. Is it true? Is it made up? Not up to Wikipedia standards. (Lcohalan (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

This article is intended to be a super-heading for the article on agent orange and for linking to the articles on biological warfare and chemical warfare. I will be adding some images soon and revising the layout according to the recommended science template.

--Reid Kirby 15:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Carthage salt

I have removed the paragraph on the salting of Carthage from the article:

The first known use of herbicides in warfare is the reputed sowing of salt into the soil around Carthage by the Romans in 146 BC to sterilize the soil. This story seems extremely unlikely, at least as reported, due to the amount of salt that would be needed -- it would be a difficult task even today.

As documented in the salting the earth article, there is no ancient documentation for sowing Carthage with salt; when ancient cities were 'salted', it was a symbolic act, not an act of herbicide; and of course, as the above paragraph says, the amount of salt required would be absurdly large. --macrakis (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Broad discussen attempt about chemical warfare

amazon lists books about Purple Death. The cause for the end of WWI in the midst of nowhere in Belgium. The German TV-Channel "Phoenix" had a doku about the war. Unfortunately in this world many things are possible. Purple Death fells like a respiratory fever, but is caused by nerve gas. the old stuff, works, but noadays millitary-industial-complexes have uglyer things.

so long keep breathing properly - 79.234.232.172 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Crime

It would be interesting to know if this can be considered a crime against humanity, war crime (and/or ecosystems related crime) according to some treaties, and if so, where and which, and document it with appropriate references... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)