Talk:Light brown apple moth controversy

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)

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)

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)

NPOV Tagging

I've tagged the article since there doesn't seem to have been any serious discussion about its neutrality since 2008. The way that this article uses sources is problematic, it seems to be designed to push a certain POV. Gigs (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue itself is essentially over with -- LBAM did not ultimately turn out to be a threat to CA agriculture but the pesticide in spray form affected people's health and was stopped. If you have an issue with the links you need to specify the changes you feel need to be made. I see no reason for this tag. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see where it states that the spray adversely effects peoples health, only the claim by the Senator that it contained potentially harmful chemicals. Those chemicals and the report seem to be unavailable. I don't think the article as is pushes a POV, as it was clear to me based on the article that there was never any link established. UnregisteredUser 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second this. I do not see any evidence suggesting that the pheromone application resulted in adverse impacts to exposed persons' or animals' health. As there does not appear to have been any significant impact to CA agriculture after the establishment of the pest (and there seems to be a recession on, limiting State and Federal funding), this issue appears to have fallen on the backburner of the public eye. It is still a Federally regulated pest in other states, and there is an ongoing effort to detect and manage this pest in CA, so presumably the controversy is still going on - just at a lower level. Updates for clarity, summary, and any contemporary facts would be helpful to improve this article. Aderksen (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light brown apple moth controversy. 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/20080317184726/http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/03/aerial_spraying.html to http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/03/aerial_spraying.html

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) 04:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)