Talk:Hexachloroethane

Details of half-life

Under WHAT specific conditions does this have a half life of 36 minutes? "Reductive" is too vague. Walkerma (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hexachloroethane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140213130143/http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/publications/health_research/SAS_Report/Documents/AppendixE.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/publications/health_research/SAS_Report/Documents/AppendixE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use against protesters

I added a sourced, if brief, section about its use against protesters. This was removed without explanation. I have restored it. If anyone has any reason to remove it, please explain. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this once again, however placing it under the smoke agent section, along with an additional ref from Oregon Public Broadcasting that has additional details about the lasting effects of the chemical months afterward which should probably be included. Laval (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A page on the chemical substance isn't the appropriate place for recentism stuff like this, although it would be appropriate to reference to this compound on those recent events' pages. Graywalls (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Hexachloroethane Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material is reliably sourced and should not be removed unless there is consensus to do so. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines disallowing this material here. Laval (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval: That is not quite correct. It is on those wishing to insert something to establish consensus per WP:ONUS when a recent addition has been disputed and consensus has not be established. Graywalls (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Simply because you claim there is no consensus to include this information does not make it so. Another editor here added this information prior to myself, which you then removed without proper justification. Take this up at an admin noticeboard and I am certain there will be agreement that your justification for removing this is incorrect. Laval (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls is right, per WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This policy is very clear. Additionally, I have seen no convincing argument why this article should mention the events/places where HCE smoke grenades have been used. JimRenge (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can see, some posters have decided this should be removed, because it's disputed content, and it's disputed content, because they have decided it should be removed.

So, 1st, are the facts in dispute?

2nd, why would the police have any use for smoke screens vs. protesters, as opposed to another chemical weapon vs. protesters?

3rd, is there a more appropriate article for discussion of its use as a weapon?138.88.18.245 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ONE poster, Graywalls, hass decided this, and anyone who disagrees is "pushing".138.88.18.245 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would suggest you register an account. It's difficult to keep track of whose actually unique participants, because same person can appear as different people for example if they participate from their phone in one session, then on their desktop at home at next session. due weight consideration needs to be taken into account on relevance of the specific inclusion to the article. Agent Orange and Vietnam War are sufficiently related to each other to be included in each article, but a local incident in which a golf ball was used for an attack is an undue inclusion as golf balls are not sufficiently recognized for that incident. However, if that local incident is notable, then golf balls can be talked about in that article. Is this making sense to you? Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me why this well-sourced, factually accurate, and socially relevant usage of HC would be in dispute according to any of the Wikipedia guidelines. Inclusion of this content demonstrably improved the relevance and information content of the article. Indeed, the sentence citing Steinritz et al, which precedes the section in question, gives the explicit impression that "Most Western Countries" have gotten rid of it. And yet here is the US not only using it, but using it on its own public. The significance of its use was detailed extensively in the cited sources, anyone who questions the important of the information would do well by reading the links (which are summarized sufficiently in the proposed text). Especially given the social relevance of the deployment of federal agents during Portland Oregon's 2020 protests, there is overwhelming evidence of the improvement of the article by its inclusion. It's not clear to me what else consensus would need to be reached on. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not changing any main text here, but I give a +1 to the edits that @Laval: had most recently up Juniperlsimonis (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)juniperlsimonis[reply]