Talk:Light brown apple moth controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article split off from Light brown apple moth

The section on the controversy in California was beginning to dominate the other article, so I fissioned it. Note that there was substantial discussion on the other talk page about the external links. —johndburger 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality issues

This article was split from Light brown apple moth, and bias was introduced in the process. Specifically, the factual assertion that this is "untested" suggests to the reader the pheromone is potentially dangerous, even though this is a point of contention. Further, the article is sprinkled with the term "insecticide pesticide". While one could make the argument that since the pheromone is intended to "control" the pest, it should be an insecticide a pesticide, this is disingenuous. All pesticides work through killing or directly inhibiting the growth or reproduction of the species. In that sense, all pesticides are poisons of some manner. Pheromones work by mimicking substances already expected to be in the environment, thereby confusing the pests and indirectly preventing them from mating. A more neutral term should be used, and all of these points of contention should be discussed as points of contention instead of assumed as fact.

This article appears to be nothing more than a POV fork, in violation of WP:NPOV. For that reason I'm nominating it to be checked for neutrality. --Fastolfe00 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure my split introduced any bias, as I simply cut and pasted material in the original article. However, I agree that the article could use some work to bring it up to standards. —johndburger 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC):

I should also make clear that POV forking was not why I split the article, as should be evident from reading the original talk page. What POV forking is not has several sections that apply here, specifically Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and Related articles. —johndburger 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for suggesting that. The bias I perceive in the article was (mostly) added through subsequent edits. Much of it didn't even come from the source, so it's not your fault on both counts. Thanks for pointing that out. I do agree that the controversy deserves its own article. --Fastolfe00 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag given that experts have weighed in on the points about it being potentially dangerous until an EIR is done [1] -- the only ones saying it's fine are those who have the money sitting behind them to spray ($70 mil) but no one who does not have an interest in spraying says it is "safe". The pheromone is MIXED with other chemicals composed of proprietary ingredients which means they are unknown to the public. This is clearly unsafe and cities are now joining forces to file their lawsuits. The focus is also now beginning by major media onto the financial ties of the Checkmate maker to this whole effort.[2] 76.103.153.118 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"unknown to the public" but known to the EPA (a public agency). Your comment makes it sound like it's OK to spread an assertion because you believe the assertion. The goal of the article should be to document the controversy, not add to it. The article should not presume or assume as fact any assertion or clever word choice suggesting the spraying is dangerous in any way. If this were indeed factually supported, there would be no controversy. --Fastolfe00 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'pesticide' is probably correct even though the usage may not be neutral, and the usage isn't necessarily disingenuous. This product seems to fit well within the Wikipedia & EPA definition of pesticide-- "A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances used for preventing, controlling, or lessening the damage caused by a pest". A more neutral term may may be biopesticides, or even biochemical pesticides. Gigglesworth (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The EPA's definition is more of a label for a particular classification, not an actual attempt to define the term. Most dictionary definitions of the term pesticide seem to involve controlling pests by killing or sterilizing them. But I will concede that many dictionary definitions aren't so explicit and use definitions similar to the one you provide above. The fact that many definitions suggest pesticides are poisons, however, support my argument that readers of this article, hearing that this stuff is a "pesticide", may react more harshly than if a term like "pheromone" were used instead. Whether or not this is sufficient to warrant a change to the article, I don't know. I seem to be in the minority here and I'm willing to accept that. --Fastolfe00 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The abundance of external links, and the earlier categorization of them into anti- and pro-spraying, suggests that some editors don't understand the point of such a section. WIkipedia is not a link directory of vaguely related web sites. External links should only be added if they extend the reader's understanding of the topic—many of these links do nothing of the sort. These need to be thinned out considerably. —johndburger 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at the links on Holocaust denial -- controversial subjects will have more links when ongoing controversy and information sharing exist around an issue. Right now this issue is evolving. It is not only historical. New investigative and political papers and articles are coming out every week. Average local elected officials describe the public response -- currently -- as an "uproar". To ignore that is to distort reality on this subject. Because this is the "controversy" page, the current links function to expose the relevant issues of the controversy.152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)