This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Chinese milk scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving 2008 Chinese milk scandal was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 September 2008. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 16, 2013 and July 16, 2018. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are reports in the South Korean media that tainted milk powder from China has also been used in various exported products containing chocolate, such as candy-bars and cookies, leading to the recall of those products in South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.47.81.52 ( talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it reads like the use of melamine in food is banned only in China and US but I don't believe any country allows the use of melamine in food.-- Revth ( talk) 07:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: the banning of melamine in food. I do not see, in a fairly quick search, any sources for such a ban outside China and the U.S., but such a ban is implicit in articles like this one, from the International Herald Tribune: "Asian and African States ban China mil products" ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/24/asia/milkbox.php). The products are banned because of their possible melamine content. A useful source for a differently stated assertion, maybe? writingjen ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The news reports that I read said plainly that the melamine was added not to baby formula or powdered milk but to liquid milk from one or more dairies. The fault was committed at the dairies. In other words, liquid milk or other products containing milk could be contaminated as well. Are adults immune to kidney stones from this cause? -- Monado ( talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Can the editor who placed the {{ refimprove}} tag be more specific what you meant by "some same line or statement may need additional source to reinforce it". As almost every sentence and certainly every paragraph is sourced, so specifically which statements you are referring to? Thanks, Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently this article doesn't mention cyanuric acid. I'll fix that, but just to clarify in less formal language: Melamine has very little toxicity. Cyanuric acid has very little toxicity. Both are industrial chemicals rich in nitrogen with a similar chemical structure. Added to protein-containing products they are both cheap, easy adulterants. There have been pet food outbreaks dating back at least to 2004, so this is not a very new idea.
The problem is that when both adulterants are consumed by the same person or animal, they link up and turn into a solid that blocks up the kidneys with stones and leads to fibrosis and failure. This has only been known since the 2007 pet food outbreak. The way they turn solid is to form a lattice that is something like a DNA base pair. [1] The interaction is very strong and forms a large structure, so tiny concentrations of both chemicals do something that large concentrations of either alone do not.
This is how we see statements that melamine is non-toxic next to statements that it is known to cause kidney stones. It also explains how people in industry with conniving but not homicidal intent could mock up food that they'd even feel safe to consume themselves, yet end up causing major outbreaks of poisoning anyway.
I think history will look back at this incident as a watershed event in the history of chemical pollution. For some time people have been worrying that exposing themselves to too many different "safe" chemicals not present in the natural environment can cause problems that are very hard to track down. Now we know this really can happen. Wnt ( talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor appears to have dedicated him-/herself to spamming talk pages with long lists of WikiProject banners. This goes against the good advice at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging, which recommends against speculatively spamming a long list of tangentially related WikiProjects to an article.
The editor often adds empty {{ todo}} lists and usually {{ talkheader}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.
While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)
If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:
I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) (who points out for this particular page: WPMED doesn't usually support current events, even if they involve people getting sick. We would support an article about an event that resulted in "lessons learned" for the field of medicine (as opposed to lessons learned for regulatory agencies, which seems more likely in this instance). Please feel free to follow the instructions above for another opinion if you happen to disagree with my view.)
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the word "summonsed", and I would appreciate it if those editors who keep on changing in thinking it is a spelling mistake to please stop. It is perfectly good English, as it comes from the legal word 'to summons' to be called by the authorities - past tense, add -ed, and you end up with "summonsed". Also, this article is in British English, and I believe 'centre' is an acceptable spelling of the word. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank the editor(s) who has gone and inserted citation templates for all the refs cited. However, please note that The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. ( WP:CITE) That means they are not obligatory. Up to now, I have ensured that the citations are consistent, thus I do not believe the templates need to be added. In addition, the change of all the dates to ISO format is driving me mad: the template automatically links the dates so formatted, despite the fact that the linking of dates is now deprecated. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This states (6 paragraphs from the bottom) that 13 babies died in a similar scandal in 2004. Anybody know more? Should it have a section here? Probably deserves its own article in fact - if there is enough information out there of course (we all know how good China is at cover-ups). Malick78 ( talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Chinese_milk_scandal#2004_baby_milk_scandal.3F
I understand from reading Chinese webpages that Sanlu was named as one of the firms involved in that 2004 incident. However after "further investigation" their name was cleared and it was blamed on "fake Sanlu" milk.
I have been looking for a wikipedia article on "Trustworthiness of the Chinese society", could not find it. Anyone want to start one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.39.149 ( talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is a certain editor so hell-bent on copying substantial chunks of text from sources and pasting them into this article, daring to claim that published news articles are in the public domain? Repeated reinsertion of copyrighted material is considered vandalism, so this has to stop. Plagiarism is so uncool - it's much less boring being original! Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) You don´t have the proves?? 83.148.238.194 ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Experts have expressed skepticism that so many farmers would know to add melamine to milk as the chemical is not water-soluble and must be mixed with formaldehyde or another chemical before it can be dissolved in milk." [2] and "Sanlu’s older and younger infant formulas contained enterobacter sakazakii as well as the toxic melamine." [3] Looking for more sources now. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 17:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
MORE INFO: The New Zealand Herald talks about the bacteria in the same products here, and InsideChinaToday.net discusses it here. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see why the news about EFSA deserves to be in its very own section, interrupting the logic and flow of the news around the world. Of course it's exceptional news, as it is to China and all the affected people and territories. What is more, the EFSA pronouncement is a pre-emptive warning from the EFSA, based on a worse-case analysis. At the moment, it's totally hypothetical. But wait, I'm not saying the information does not belong, just that a separate section is not warranted. After all, the EFSA is the supra-national body in Europe.
Also, I also believe the logo should not be used here as it is copyrighted. This is not an article about the EFSA, and therefore cannot be justified under fair use. Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article can be further clarified if a Affected Products/companies section is added. Can someone help in compiling the list of produce and companies? --KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the title needs to be more descriptive (location, type of event) and less POV ("scandal" is inherently POV). The convention for article naming seems to be to use the word "incident", e.g. 2008 Khurcha incident or January 2008 Société Générale trading loss incident. Something like 2008 China infant formula contamination incident, 2008 China milk contamination incident or similar. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have renamed it to a more proper Title so it can concide with the 2007 Chinese Export Recalls at the Made in China page which im going to add this.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceecookie ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some good links to articles on the regenerated interest in breastfeeding in China in the midst of the scandal for someone who has the time and interest to add this info to the article:
Chinese relearn merits of breastfeeding
WHO Recommends Breastfeeding Amid Tainted Milk Scandal
Got Milk? Chinese Crisis Creates A Market for Human Alternatives
Chinese milk scandal could boost Breastfeeding
UN says China's milk scare could boost breastfeeding
Behind the Tainted Formula Scandal...Chinese Women Don't Like Breastfeeding
- Cab88 ( talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently, there is a Chinese email floating around the Internet. The email was written by an anonymous author. He (she?) claims to be a worker in the dairy industry and he is a chemist at one of the milk collection stations. He explained how the supply chain and the dairy companies operate. He further speculated what actually have happened. It is a lengthy email and I don't have the skill to translate the whole thing here. I'll just highlight a few key points he raised:
1. The farmers are paid by the quality and volume of the milk. The higher the protein contents in the milk, the better they are paid.
2. The test for protein content only measures the nitrogen level, not real protein content.
3. Melamine is a very expensive chemical and not easy to mix with water. One has to bend over backward to get the melamine into the milk.
4. Urea is common agricultural fertilizer assessable to all farmers.
5. Urea can raise the nitrogen reading in lab test, hence the farmers add water and the fertilizer to the milk in order to get higher pay.
6. During powder milk production, the liquid milk is mistified(?) in a high heat chamber to turn the liquid into powder.
7. In high heat, urea turns into melamine, see
Melamine#Synthesis.
According to his theory, the melamine is a by-product of the "additive".
I'm not a chemist, I'll leave this to the experts to verify.
Kowloonese ( talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For "Organic Chemical Reaction" to occur, you need to have precise (1) temperature (2) pressure (3) precise(pure) and correct amounts of reagents (4) pure form of catalyst to speed up the rate of reaction, otherwise the reaction will take too long to be feasible (5) uncontaminated container (must be stainless steel). The process described in the e-mail is a physical reaction(milk turned into milk powder, a simple drying process), not a chemical reaction. I hope my answer can clear things up a bit. Arilang1234 ( talk) 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this include Antarctica? BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I inserted a column in the table of countries to show products which were banned in each country. There have been some changes thereto which I believe may not be fully justified. I think that insertion of a 'various products' where the action was a blanket ban would be wholly inappropriate; also, listing of bans which took place without any testing whatsoever would both detract from the value of the information contained in the box. For it to be the most informative, I believe the column show the bans which resulted from positive tests in the countries or regions and would exclude preventative bans (as discouraged by the WHO). Blanket and speculative bans would be dealt with in the 'Reaction' column. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, while we are at it, White Rabbit is beginning to appear in almost every row in the table. Let's take it out from the table throughout, and write about it in more general terms in the section above, as it has been affected everywhere it was officially and unofficially exported to. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be coverage about the victims outside of China, since there have been victims outside of "communist China". [5] [6] This scandal has global victims. This shouldn't just be lumped into "reactions" since they are not reactions, they are victims, and should be in a separate section. 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, it says that the number of victims is probably 75,000 in Beijing alone and that the "official number is far too low". Malick78 ( talk) 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well didn't they say they're tracking down who did this? Negabandit86 ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Eggs in Hong Kong from China have been reported in the news media, of having been found contaminated with melamine. I was wondering whether if it tests in foodstuffs in other countries, we might have to change the article title to 2008 Chinese food scandal. ZhaoHong ( talk) 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3dbBQPIFf0
Followup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUB79WJ9ktQ
Another follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-e1bIew5g
I noticed a part of the article has once again been split off to International Reaction to the 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal, ostensibly because there was some sort of consensus to keep. That was back in October, and I merged the articles following which there was no opposition. I had contemplated splitting off the article because of its length, but my difficulty is doing so without detriment to the structure. I disagree with the split carried out today: note that the current title of the demerged article poorly describes the content, for there is a huge chunk about other countries (European Union, USFDA, other third parties etc) which was left in the main article. Making a surgical excision along 'international reaction' lines would harm its coherence. I would appreciate any comments on how to structure both articles, so as to make them relevant, coherent and complementary. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Roman888 ( talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have redirected the split back to this article. There was a rough consensus for the original merger, then defeated by the unilateral splitting undertaken by Roman888. The split article has not been substantively edited since, suggesting that it is probably even more out of date and inaccurate than it was when the split occurred. Further, there is reason to believe that much of the content is copyright violations; I've had a brief check through and found some close paraphrasing. User:Roman888 has now been indefinitely blocked for massive copyright violations. So subject to any disagreement here, I've done the redirect. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Shanghai Daily, 12 Feb 2009, writes about about an ongoing investigation "to find out whether Dumex, the powder-milk unit of France's Danone Group, had produced milk powder contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine." ... "Dumex said on its Chinese Website that it sold the most baby milk powder in China in 2005 and 2006 in terms of volume and revenue."
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200902/20090212/article_390770.htm
I'm just throwing this out there. Have there been more incidents of this recently that should be added to the article? I don't have a source to cite here but I was in China on business in May 2013, and had a few interesting conversations about this with colleagues over there. It sounded recent, like there have been more incidents than just the 2008 and 2009-2010 chapters of this tale. Also, it sounded like a lot more happened to the original whistleblower before his death and the Chinese definitely think the gov't was behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.92.2 ( talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the late 2009, early 2010 incidents at two dairies widely separated geographically, we may want to consider retitling the article. I, for one, am still hoping that these are isolated incidents rather than an indication of widespread contamination that might harm many people. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Nestle milk products have been found been to contain melamine, and have been pulled from shelves, not only in China but also in Taiwan in October 2008 and Saudi Arabia in December 2008.
On 21 September, 2008, Nestle issued this statement:
"Since the safety of consumers is of utmost importance to the company, Nestlé once again expresses confidence that none of its products in China is made from milk adulterated with melamine." -- from Nestle's Web site: http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/AllPressReleases/No+melamine+adulteration.htm
On another page on their own site, they discuss the 3 December recall of a Nestle product from Saudi Arabi because authorities found trace levels of melamine: http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/SpeechesAndStatements/AllSpeechesAndStatements/Melamine+-+Saudi+Arabia.htm
In the statement, Nestle admits that its products do contain melamine: "The results were well below the limits defined by a number of governments, including Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, and by international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO)." Pmkate ( talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkate ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I found that the chinese article from the page has some useful info. Translated with google chrome it says:
I'm asuming this is open-source, it's from wikipedia itself, and there may be some good info. Jasonxu98 ( talk) 00:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a number of indeterminate time references that need to be cleaned up. For instance "the past two years" appears several times, and there's a reference to something that happened "on Monday," rather than giving a specific date. For clarity's sake, this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.33.206 ( talk) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Western media speculated China's desire for a perfect summer Olympics contributed to the delayed recall of the baby milk, citing a guideline allegedly issued to Chinese media that reporting food safety issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, was "off-limits"" the article says.
In other places I read this:
"According to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, a 21-point coverage directive issued by the Central Propaganda Department in August included this edict to domestic media: “All food safety issues [are] off-limits.”
You want to tell me that the South China Morning Post is "western media"? This newspaper is known as "pro-Beijing" as you can read in the Wikipedia-article. -- 13Peewit ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
-business-review\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The 2008 Chinese milk scandal has been partly associated with the significant increase in import of Infant formula and other organic and foreign milk products to China, which has been very significant, particularly for companies such as Bellamy's Australia and The a2 Milk Company which have stepped up to supply high quality safe products to China; but there is practically no mention of this in the article. It's also had a significant resulting impact on supply of Infant formula in Australia consequently. -- Aeonx ( talk) 03:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Some News References: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4349627.htm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
2008 Chinese milk scandal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 Chinese milk scandal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 186 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dwnews.com/gb/MainNews/Forums/BackStage/2008_9_22_10_59_27_104.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 23 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VenusL ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by VenusL ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Chinese milk scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving 2008 Chinese milk scandal was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 September 2008. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 16, 2013 and July 16, 2018. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are reports in the South Korean media that tainted milk powder from China has also been used in various exported products containing chocolate, such as candy-bars and cookies, leading to the recall of those products in South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.47.81.52 ( talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it reads like the use of melamine in food is banned only in China and US but I don't believe any country allows the use of melamine in food.-- Revth ( talk) 07:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: the banning of melamine in food. I do not see, in a fairly quick search, any sources for such a ban outside China and the U.S., but such a ban is implicit in articles like this one, from the International Herald Tribune: "Asian and African States ban China mil products" ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/24/asia/milkbox.php). The products are banned because of their possible melamine content. A useful source for a differently stated assertion, maybe? writingjen ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The news reports that I read said plainly that the melamine was added not to baby formula or powdered milk but to liquid milk from one or more dairies. The fault was committed at the dairies. In other words, liquid milk or other products containing milk could be contaminated as well. Are adults immune to kidney stones from this cause? -- Monado ( talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Can the editor who placed the {{ refimprove}} tag be more specific what you meant by "some same line or statement may need additional source to reinforce it". As almost every sentence and certainly every paragraph is sourced, so specifically which statements you are referring to? Thanks, Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently this article doesn't mention cyanuric acid. I'll fix that, but just to clarify in less formal language: Melamine has very little toxicity. Cyanuric acid has very little toxicity. Both are industrial chemicals rich in nitrogen with a similar chemical structure. Added to protein-containing products they are both cheap, easy adulterants. There have been pet food outbreaks dating back at least to 2004, so this is not a very new idea.
The problem is that when both adulterants are consumed by the same person or animal, they link up and turn into a solid that blocks up the kidneys with stones and leads to fibrosis and failure. This has only been known since the 2007 pet food outbreak. The way they turn solid is to form a lattice that is something like a DNA base pair. [1] The interaction is very strong and forms a large structure, so tiny concentrations of both chemicals do something that large concentrations of either alone do not.
This is how we see statements that melamine is non-toxic next to statements that it is known to cause kidney stones. It also explains how people in industry with conniving but not homicidal intent could mock up food that they'd even feel safe to consume themselves, yet end up causing major outbreaks of poisoning anyway.
I think history will look back at this incident as a watershed event in the history of chemical pollution. For some time people have been worrying that exposing themselves to too many different "safe" chemicals not present in the natural environment can cause problems that are very hard to track down. Now we know this really can happen. Wnt ( talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor appears to have dedicated him-/herself to spamming talk pages with long lists of WikiProject banners. This goes against the good advice at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging, which recommends against speculatively spamming a long list of tangentially related WikiProjects to an article.
The editor often adds empty {{ todo}} lists and usually {{ talkheader}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.
While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)
If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:
I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) (who points out for this particular page: WPMED doesn't usually support current events, even if they involve people getting sick. We would support an article about an event that resulted in "lessons learned" for the field of medicine (as opposed to lessons learned for regulatory agencies, which seems more likely in this instance). Please feel free to follow the instructions above for another opinion if you happen to disagree with my view.)
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the word "summonsed", and I would appreciate it if those editors who keep on changing in thinking it is a spelling mistake to please stop. It is perfectly good English, as it comes from the legal word 'to summons' to be called by the authorities - past tense, add -ed, and you end up with "summonsed". Also, this article is in British English, and I believe 'centre' is an acceptable spelling of the word. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank the editor(s) who has gone and inserted citation templates for all the refs cited. However, please note that The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. ( WP:CITE) That means they are not obligatory. Up to now, I have ensured that the citations are consistent, thus I do not believe the templates need to be added. In addition, the change of all the dates to ISO format is driving me mad: the template automatically links the dates so formatted, despite the fact that the linking of dates is now deprecated. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This states (6 paragraphs from the bottom) that 13 babies died in a similar scandal in 2004. Anybody know more? Should it have a section here? Probably deserves its own article in fact - if there is enough information out there of course (we all know how good China is at cover-ups). Malick78 ( talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Chinese_milk_scandal#2004_baby_milk_scandal.3F
I understand from reading Chinese webpages that Sanlu was named as one of the firms involved in that 2004 incident. However after "further investigation" their name was cleared and it was blamed on "fake Sanlu" milk.
I have been looking for a wikipedia article on "Trustworthiness of the Chinese society", could not find it. Anyone want to start one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.39.149 ( talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is a certain editor so hell-bent on copying substantial chunks of text from sources and pasting them into this article, daring to claim that published news articles are in the public domain? Repeated reinsertion of copyrighted material is considered vandalism, so this has to stop. Plagiarism is so uncool - it's much less boring being original! Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) You don´t have the proves?? 83.148.238.194 ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Experts have expressed skepticism that so many farmers would know to add melamine to milk as the chemical is not water-soluble and must be mixed with formaldehyde or another chemical before it can be dissolved in milk." [2] and "Sanlu’s older and younger infant formulas contained enterobacter sakazakii as well as the toxic melamine." [3] Looking for more sources now. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 17:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
MORE INFO: The New Zealand Herald talks about the bacteria in the same products here, and InsideChinaToday.net discusses it here. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see why the news about EFSA deserves to be in its very own section, interrupting the logic and flow of the news around the world. Of course it's exceptional news, as it is to China and all the affected people and territories. What is more, the EFSA pronouncement is a pre-emptive warning from the EFSA, based on a worse-case analysis. At the moment, it's totally hypothetical. But wait, I'm not saying the information does not belong, just that a separate section is not warranted. After all, the EFSA is the supra-national body in Europe.
Also, I also believe the logo should not be used here as it is copyrighted. This is not an article about the EFSA, and therefore cannot be justified under fair use. Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article can be further clarified if a Affected Products/companies section is added. Can someone help in compiling the list of produce and companies? --KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the title needs to be more descriptive (location, type of event) and less POV ("scandal" is inherently POV). The convention for article naming seems to be to use the word "incident", e.g. 2008 Khurcha incident or January 2008 Société Générale trading loss incident. Something like 2008 China infant formula contamination incident, 2008 China milk contamination incident or similar. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have renamed it to a more proper Title so it can concide with the 2007 Chinese Export Recalls at the Made in China page which im going to add this.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceecookie ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some good links to articles on the regenerated interest in breastfeeding in China in the midst of the scandal for someone who has the time and interest to add this info to the article:
Chinese relearn merits of breastfeeding
WHO Recommends Breastfeeding Amid Tainted Milk Scandal
Got Milk? Chinese Crisis Creates A Market for Human Alternatives
Chinese milk scandal could boost Breastfeeding
UN says China's milk scare could boost breastfeeding
Behind the Tainted Formula Scandal...Chinese Women Don't Like Breastfeeding
- Cab88 ( talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently, there is a Chinese email floating around the Internet. The email was written by an anonymous author. He (she?) claims to be a worker in the dairy industry and he is a chemist at one of the milk collection stations. He explained how the supply chain and the dairy companies operate. He further speculated what actually have happened. It is a lengthy email and I don't have the skill to translate the whole thing here. I'll just highlight a few key points he raised:
1. The farmers are paid by the quality and volume of the milk. The higher the protein contents in the milk, the better they are paid.
2. The test for protein content only measures the nitrogen level, not real protein content.
3. Melamine is a very expensive chemical and not easy to mix with water. One has to bend over backward to get the melamine into the milk.
4. Urea is common agricultural fertilizer assessable to all farmers.
5. Urea can raise the nitrogen reading in lab test, hence the farmers add water and the fertilizer to the milk in order to get higher pay.
6. During powder milk production, the liquid milk is mistified(?) in a high heat chamber to turn the liquid into powder.
7. In high heat, urea turns into melamine, see
Melamine#Synthesis.
According to his theory, the melamine is a by-product of the "additive".
I'm not a chemist, I'll leave this to the experts to verify.
Kowloonese ( talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For "Organic Chemical Reaction" to occur, you need to have precise (1) temperature (2) pressure (3) precise(pure) and correct amounts of reagents (4) pure form of catalyst to speed up the rate of reaction, otherwise the reaction will take too long to be feasible (5) uncontaminated container (must be stainless steel). The process described in the e-mail is a physical reaction(milk turned into milk powder, a simple drying process), not a chemical reaction. I hope my answer can clear things up a bit. Arilang1234 ( talk) 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this include Antarctica? BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I inserted a column in the table of countries to show products which were banned in each country. There have been some changes thereto which I believe may not be fully justified. I think that insertion of a 'various products' where the action was a blanket ban would be wholly inappropriate; also, listing of bans which took place without any testing whatsoever would both detract from the value of the information contained in the box. For it to be the most informative, I believe the column show the bans which resulted from positive tests in the countries or regions and would exclude preventative bans (as discouraged by the WHO). Blanket and speculative bans would be dealt with in the 'Reaction' column. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, while we are at it, White Rabbit is beginning to appear in almost every row in the table. Let's take it out from the table throughout, and write about it in more general terms in the section above, as it has been affected everywhere it was officially and unofficially exported to. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be coverage about the victims outside of China, since there have been victims outside of "communist China". [5] [6] This scandal has global victims. This shouldn't just be lumped into "reactions" since they are not reactions, they are victims, and should be in a separate section. 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, it says that the number of victims is probably 75,000 in Beijing alone and that the "official number is far too low". Malick78 ( talk) 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well didn't they say they're tracking down who did this? Negabandit86 ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Eggs in Hong Kong from China have been reported in the news media, of having been found contaminated with melamine. I was wondering whether if it tests in foodstuffs in other countries, we might have to change the article title to 2008 Chinese food scandal. ZhaoHong ( talk) 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3dbBQPIFf0
Followup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUB79WJ9ktQ
Another follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-e1bIew5g
I noticed a part of the article has once again been split off to International Reaction to the 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal, ostensibly because there was some sort of consensus to keep. That was back in October, and I merged the articles following which there was no opposition. I had contemplated splitting off the article because of its length, but my difficulty is doing so without detriment to the structure. I disagree with the split carried out today: note that the current title of the demerged article poorly describes the content, for there is a huge chunk about other countries (European Union, USFDA, other third parties etc) which was left in the main article. Making a surgical excision along 'international reaction' lines would harm its coherence. I would appreciate any comments on how to structure both articles, so as to make them relevant, coherent and complementary. Ohconfucius ( talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Roman888 ( talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have redirected the split back to this article. There was a rough consensus for the original merger, then defeated by the unilateral splitting undertaken by Roman888. The split article has not been substantively edited since, suggesting that it is probably even more out of date and inaccurate than it was when the split occurred. Further, there is reason to believe that much of the content is copyright violations; I've had a brief check through and found some close paraphrasing. User:Roman888 has now been indefinitely blocked for massive copyright violations. So subject to any disagreement here, I've done the redirect. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Shanghai Daily, 12 Feb 2009, writes about about an ongoing investigation "to find out whether Dumex, the powder-milk unit of France's Danone Group, had produced milk powder contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine." ... "Dumex said on its Chinese Website that it sold the most baby milk powder in China in 2005 and 2006 in terms of volume and revenue."
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200902/20090212/article_390770.htm
I'm just throwing this out there. Have there been more incidents of this recently that should be added to the article? I don't have a source to cite here but I was in China on business in May 2013, and had a few interesting conversations about this with colleagues over there. It sounded recent, like there have been more incidents than just the 2008 and 2009-2010 chapters of this tale. Also, it sounded like a lot more happened to the original whistleblower before his death and the Chinese definitely think the gov't was behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.92.2 ( talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the late 2009, early 2010 incidents at two dairies widely separated geographically, we may want to consider retitling the article. I, for one, am still hoping that these are isolated incidents rather than an indication of widespread contamination that might harm many people. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Nestle milk products have been found been to contain melamine, and have been pulled from shelves, not only in China but also in Taiwan in October 2008 and Saudi Arabia in December 2008.
On 21 September, 2008, Nestle issued this statement:
"Since the safety of consumers is of utmost importance to the company, Nestlé once again expresses confidence that none of its products in China is made from milk adulterated with melamine." -- from Nestle's Web site: http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/AllPressReleases/No+melamine+adulteration.htm
On another page on their own site, they discuss the 3 December recall of a Nestle product from Saudi Arabi because authorities found trace levels of melamine: http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/SpeechesAndStatements/AllSpeechesAndStatements/Melamine+-+Saudi+Arabia.htm
In the statement, Nestle admits that its products do contain melamine: "The results were well below the limits defined by a number of governments, including Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, and by international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO)." Pmkate ( talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkate ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I found that the chinese article from the page has some useful info. Translated with google chrome it says:
I'm asuming this is open-source, it's from wikipedia itself, and there may be some good info. Jasonxu98 ( talk) 00:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a number of indeterminate time references that need to be cleaned up. For instance "the past two years" appears several times, and there's a reference to something that happened "on Monday," rather than giving a specific date. For clarity's sake, this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.33.206 ( talk) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Western media speculated China's desire for a perfect summer Olympics contributed to the delayed recall of the baby milk, citing a guideline allegedly issued to Chinese media that reporting food safety issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, was "off-limits"" the article says.
In other places I read this:
"According to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, a 21-point coverage directive issued by the Central Propaganda Department in August included this edict to domestic media: “All food safety issues [are] off-limits.”
You want to tell me that the South China Morning Post is "western media"? This newspaper is known as "pro-Beijing" as you can read in the Wikipedia-article. -- 13Peewit ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
-business-review\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The 2008 Chinese milk scandal has been partly associated with the significant increase in import of Infant formula and other organic and foreign milk products to China, which has been very significant, particularly for companies such as Bellamy's Australia and The a2 Milk Company which have stepped up to supply high quality safe products to China; but there is practically no mention of this in the article. It's also had a significant resulting impact on supply of Infant formula in Australia consequently. -- Aeonx ( talk) 03:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Some News References: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4349627.htm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
2008 Chinese milk scandal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 Chinese milk scandal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 186 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dwnews.com/gb/MainNews/Forums/BackStage/2008_9_22_10_59_27_104.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 23 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VenusL ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by VenusL ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)