Talk:Silent Spring/Archive 1

Removed section

An anon removed this text:

==The Book's Claims Examined==

The book attracted hostile attention from scientists, commentators and the chemical industry. Opposition began even before Houghton Mifflin published the book.

One of Carson's controversial claims was that DDT is a carcinogen. Studies have failed to demonstrate a link between DDT and cancer. On the contrary:

• In one study, primates were fed 33,000 times more DDT than the estimated exposure of adult humans in 1969. No conclusive link with cancer was detected.

• A study of 692 women, half of them control subjects, over a period of twenty years, established no correlation between serum DDE and breast cancer. DDE is a matabolite of DDT, and correlates with DDT exposure.

• A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed.

• In another study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. No elevated risk was observed.

I agree that this information should be referenced, it appears to have been stuck in here by someone with a DDT is ok POV, does anyone know where these figures came from? --nixie 23:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This information comes straight from theJunk Science DDT FAQ. Each one of the claims in the FAQ are sourced. If these points aren't restored, I think that a link to the FAQ should at least be in this section of the article. Lokifer 22:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The JunkScience.com web page appears to be produced by a former lobbyist for ExxonMobil and Monsanto (just google it), it's hardly independent or NPOV. This text should be removed from the page immediately. —This unsigned comment was added by 62.255.32.14 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC).

While the former lobbyist may be partial, the scientific studies are not. So long as those scientific studies are sourced to independant parties, I don't think it makes any difference if someone else wants to use it as proof in an arguement. If DDT doesn't cause cancer, this should be stated here, even if someone else is using this information for their own ends. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. —This unsigned comment was added by 144.89.180.230 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

It's true that there was no world ban on DDT. However, the countries that decide to use DDT forfeit their claims to foreign aid. It's no wonder that African countries, who are looking for all the aid they can get, decide not to use a pesticide that they can substitute for other (albiet more toxic) alternatives. —This unsigned comment was added by 12.76.174.1 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

"...the countries that decide to use DDT forfeit their claims to foreign aid." Source, please.Cronos1 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and factual accuracy

This article appears to have several NPOV problems and likely factual accuracy issues such as:

• The statement "Many blame the banning of DDT throughout the world for a resurgence in malari..." is not NPOV. It needs to state who makes these claims. Many is simply a weasel term. Also it would probebly be good if the evidence used by these people to support the numbers cited be referenced.
  • Done. --Theo (Talk) 21:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The statement "The book attracted hostile attention from scientists, commentators and the chemical industry." needs to clarify whether a majority of scientists and commentators where hostile to the book or a small numbers. If one is going to claim a majority then it should be backed up. Also giving examples of hostile scientists and commentators outside of the chemicle industries would help in terms of NPOV.
  • Done. --Theo (Talk) 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The counter claims regarding DDT's possible carcinogenic effects need to be backed by a better source. As others have already noted, the site currently referenced appears to a propaganda website for chemical industry interests. Surely their must be a more neutral source to supports this view. If not then I would suggest the info be either removed or at least make it clear who behind the website presenting this aurgument.
  • Done. --Theo (Talk) 21:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Cab88 10:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Rem text: What else. Surprised it has survived so many edits, not a suitable paragraph for an encyclopedia article, even in a war zone like this one. Andrewa 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yilloslime @19:02, 26 October 2007 reverted my call for a citation for the line 'However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use' with the comment that 'this is well documented at DDT, interested reader can go there.' As an interested reader, I was not referred to that portion of the DDT article, or the citations that make the inclusion of this fact in the DDT article legitimate. If we're going to repeat an apparently controversial fact (apparently controversial based on this very talk page) in this article, it needs a citation here just as much as it needs one at the DDT page. Otherwise, this line should be removed and the reader should be explicitly directed to the DDT page for discussion of that particular issue. 216.254.12.245 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Resurgence in malaria

I see that

'The statement "Many blame the banning of DDT throughout the world for a resurgence in malari..." is not NPOV. It needs to state who makes these claims. Many is simply a weasel term. Also it would probebly be good if the evidence used by these people to support the numbers cited be referenced.'

Has been marked done. I can find no such claim from The Malaria Foundation International - I may not have looked in the right place. Secondly, I would like to see a citation for the claim that DDT has been banned throughout the entire world. To the best of my knowledge, it has not. Specifically, it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. If my understanding is incorrect, I would like to see the documentation. Thank You! --Cronos1 02:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

How could Carson's work have possibly led to a world ban on DDT? A world ban? Passed into law by the legislature of the world and signed into law by the emperor of the world? International law being the spotty, inconsistent, and feeble thing that it is, we can confidentlly assume that any world ban--if there is such a thing--is less than enforceable.

If DDT were consistantly effective in stopping malaria, there would be no compelling reason why African nations--even if they had previously banned the substance--could not reintroduce the product in the battle against malaria. It's not as if the chemical formula is a secret. DDT, if used responsibly, may be a terrific tool in fighting malaria, but it's not foolproof. In fact, the pesticide's effectiveness will probably never again match what it was during World War II. This is because DDT's widespread use, especially its overuse, served to promote the survival of mosquitos resistant to the poison.

Detractors of Carson rush to misrepresent her position on DDT and other pesticides. She did not call for a ban of pesticide spraying. What alarmed her was the indiscriminate use, misuse, and overuse of substances that had not, in her time, been proven safe. (Many had been shown by wildlife biologists to be at least mildly hazardous and most have, in the years since Carson's death, been shown to be far less benign than the chemical industry--which has for decades heaped mud upon Carson and her book--would like everyone to believe.)

Carson never advocated letting insects destroy crops and spread disease unhampered. She was a pioneer in calling for intelligent, sustainable strategies for controlling insect populations.

The Hayes study, cited above and on the Junkscience.com site (which is an extremely biased source), was very poorly conducted. Most of the voluntary participants quit very early on, leaving behind a statistically insignificant sample. Further, the researcher did not follow up on subjects to check for long-term effects.

Tt should be noted that Carson had staunch supporters among the scientific community. They included Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller. The anti-Carson forces (and they really do stoop awfully low) claim that she "lied" or at least misrepresented the work of wildlife biologist James DeWitt. This cannnot be so, because DeWitt actually participated in the preparation of Silent Spring. William Shawn, editor of The New Yorker hired DeWitt to help check Carson's copy before a condensed version of the book appeared in serial form in the magazine. If DeWitt's research had been misused, isn't it likely that he would have corrected Carson at that point?

---dph--- —This unsigned comment was added by 216.165.154.149 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

• • It should also be noted that Hermann Müller was the scientist who patented DDT in Switzerland (1940) the United States (1942) and Australia (1943)

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1948/muller-bio.html

-Anon —This unsigned comment was added by 142.177.153.0 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

Use of the $5 "sustainable." Want a gold star sticker? Jamesg 10:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that no ban on DDT was put into place, the public pressure caused by Silent Spring was enough to make the United States government ban its sale to third-world countries, and to stop sending aid to countries who used it. I think this should be included in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.156.226 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I have removed tag. All criticism/vindication are cited. Therefore, from Wikipedia POV, there is no question of neutrality. Just because someone criticise or advocate Carson does not make sections "biased" in term of wikipedia. FWBOarticle

The problem is not that the criticisms are not cited; the problem is balancing the overall weight of opinions correctly; the criticisms were real, but in the beginning came from VERY self-interested chemical industry scientists. Later criticisms have varied widely, but I believe the majority view is actually that most of Silent Spring was/is legitimate, and the harshest critics are still often considered cranks.--ragesoss 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the title of the section is "Criticism". So the idea that criticims is not being balanced for being criticims is absurd. Plus, it is obvious that pro Carson would consider Carson's critics as "VERY self-interested chemical industry scientists". But I could easily describe Carson's supporter as "VERY agenda-oriented green lobby ideologue" but that would not be NPOV. More importantly, what type of "majority" view are we talking here? Is it majority view of general book reading public (which include Time) or majority view of agricultural or medical or biological science journals. Can anyone cite a single positive review of the book from any of scientific journals? Plus, listed experiment showing lack of link between DDT and cancers are direct testing of DDT while research indicating possible link between DDT and cancers are anecdotal. Moreover, all these annecdotal evidences are produced "after" the publication of the book. What kind of evidences did Carson used to claim that DDT is a carcinogen. Did she even bother about evidence? Another thing is that she only has bachelor degree in marine biology and master degree in zoology. Usually, this field of sience does not concern itself with hard science such as bio-chemistry. So she got it right in regard to food chain and bird eggs, but did she get it right or did she even had qualification to voice scientific opinion in regard to DDT's medical effect on human? FWBOarticle

I don't have time to dig up much about it now, but as I understand it the vast majority of the book was based on a synthesis of scientific publications (you can get an idea by browsing through the 55 pages of the "List of Principle Sources" in the back of the book). The fact that she didn't have a PhD is not particularly relevant, since the book wasn't based on her original research; she was employed as a science writer who distilled the essence of other people's research for a living. I'm moderately certain that there were favorable reviews from science journals shortly after publication. Of course, I won't make any changes until I have the time to actually track down the evidence. But DDT as a carcinogen is only a very small part of the book and its argument, and she specifically notes who it was classifying as a "chemical carniogen" (Dr. Hueper in Occupational Tumors, which, at least according to Carson, was a respected scientific monograph on the subject). Throughout the book, she carefully notes the scientific publications on which she bases her claims: ". Much of the immediate criticism was outright lies and character assassination (though I don't doubt that some of the later criticism is legitimate). She provided the source for pretty much every scientific claim she made, and was very clear about where she was being speculative; the degree to which the criticisms are valid is more-or-less the degree to which the accepted science has changed.--ragesoss 06:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Support/Criticims Split

It is clear from criticims section that at lease, "some" claims by Carson is not backed by science. Plus, to say that her criticims came from chemical industry and scentist would be NPOV. However, if one try to imply that critcism of carson come "only" from "self serving" chemical industry and scentist paid by the industry, that is POV and it should be placed in "Support" section. IMO, this book looks like a reverse of the Skeptical Environmentalist. FWBOarticle

Ronald Bailey is an adjunct fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This makes him an industry advocate. A review of his writings in his journal will reveal that they are, in general, highly supportive of industrial interests over those of public health. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute/Personnel Cronos1 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true at all. He's a free market advocate, true, but that's not the same thing. Just because someone argues for fewer government regulations doesn't mean a corporation is paying them to say it. If you find a source stating that Bailey is an industry advocate, then fine, but otherwise that claim doesn't belong here. Korny O'Near 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"He's a free market advocate, true, but that's not the same thing." Technically, yes, you could be free market and not an advocate for industry, but that is clearly not the case here. "CEI advocates for the elimination of regulations It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelimng scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed US vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry." 'doesn't mean a corporation is paying them to say it'...CEI and the American Enterprise Institute "have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute Cronos1 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just guilt-by-association. It's no surprise that corporations would give a lot of financial support to think tanks that argue their side of the issues. That doesn't mean that the people at those think tanks don't actually believe what they're saying, or that they're somehow being told what to say by their benefactors. This is Wikipedia; for a controversial statement like what you're claiming, you really need to have a source. And no, I don't think SourceWatch counts: it's a wiki by and for left-wing activists. Not that that article itself even says that Bailey or CEI are industry shills; it just lays out some damning-sounding facts and expects the reader to draw conclusions. Korny O'Near 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

'That's just guilt-by-association.' Nonsense, sources have been cited saying that Ronald Bailey is a fellow of CEI, CEI advocates for deregulation to benefit business/industry, moreover, CEI takes money from corporations (circumstantial evidence of quid pro quo). Provide sources disproving one of those three statements or leave the issue alone. You are the one arguing a controversial statement and backing it up not with sources but with broad platitudes of a supposed 'free-market advocacy' that is not somehow pro-industry when it argues for deregulation which benefits industry.

I have read several articles in scientific journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries from respected and reputable scientific institutions & publishers published in the last 5 years, not a single one has ever contained any hint that there is any substance to Ron Bailey's charge that Rachel Carson was 'ignorant of the facts' (which facts, Bailey doesn't identify or source, is this so he doesn't have to prove it?). The sole reason Bailey's article remains in this entry is to demonstrate that industry continues to try to undermine the public's support for environmental regulation, which began, argueably with Silent Springs' publication.Cronos1 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the reason Bailey's quote is in here is because he's a journalist who had something to say about "Silent Spring". It's not the job of Wikipedia to confirm or refute his statements. As to the circumstantial evidence you cite, is he now "guilty until proven innocent"? That's now how it works in Wikipedia. The burden is on you to prove anything beyond the bare facts stated, which are "Journalist A made criticism B". Korny O'Near 14:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I cited sources (according to you, It's not the job of Wikipedia to confirm or refute the sources cited) which established Ronald Bailey is a fellow of CEI, CEI advocates for deregulation to benefit business/industry. Disprove one of the two or leave the description as is, it's that simple. The only thing circumstantial in the above is that there is a quid pro quo relationship between industry and CEI which is not necessarily relevant to Silent Spring, but is a proof against your rather fanciful idea of what constitutes a advocacy group..."Just because someone argues for fewer government regulations doesn't mean a corporation is paying them to say it" ...the corporations are paying them for something. Cronos1 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The idea that Bailey is a corporate advocate is SourceWatch's opinion, but you want to present it as fact. The correct way to write it might be "Ronald Bailey, who, according to SourceWatch, is a corporate advocate (link), wrote:..." Then again, their page doesn't even say he's a corporate advocate - they just lay out some facts that suggest that that's what they're getting at. The only person or source directly calling him a corporate advocate seems to be you. Find someone else who says it and then you can stick the assertion in (but still, it would need an "according to"). Korny O'Near 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken, I have not yet given my understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have quoted your representation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy back to you to see if you apply the interpretation equitably to your own claims and, apparently you do not; choosing to apply on a selective basis as you perceive an advantage to your own position. For the 3rd & final time, I cited sources which established Ronald Bailey is a fellow of CEI, CEI advocates for deregulation to benefit business/industry (and yes, if you check in SW, you will find a place that lists industry-friendly experts, documented, mind you-unlike Bailey's smear-you can also easily find other sites that give this view of Bailey). Disprove one of the two or leave the description as is, it's that simple. Cronos1 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first of all your pointless ultimatums just sound silly. Second of all, I am applying Wikipedia's policy equitably. A controversial statement like "Bailey is a corporate advocate" should be neither confirmed nor refuted by Wikipedia, but by presenting it as fact, you essentially want Wikipedia to confirm it. I, on the other hand, think it's fine for it to be included, as long as find you a source to state it. Do I have the same approach to Bailey's statements? Yes, I do - they're not presented as facts, they're presented as one man's opinions. Note the quotation marks around them. Now do you see the issue? Korny O'Near 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Food chain and DDT

Cut from intro:

Research has shown that the pesticide DDT is persistent in the environment, ingested by members of the bottom of the food chain, and becomes more concentrated in higher members of the food chain (birds and humans).

Is this part of her argument for banning DDT, or what? If so, could someone fill in the gaps?

Was Carson arguing that because of the concentration, birds and humans actually did ingested harmful amounts of DDT?

If so, let's do two things:

1. Clarify that this was her argument
2. Present any readily available evidence which bolsters or counters her argument.

It would be good to present some numbers with this evidence. For instance, how much DDT per day can a human (or bird) eat without any significant health or reproductive problems?

Also, has there been deception in some studies? I read today that one researcher fed birds a diet which contained 80% less calcium than normal as well as a bit more DDT than normal. How can we tell whether the thinner egg shells were because of more DDT or MUCH LESS calcium? --Uncle Ed 20:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated references

I consolidated most references into the notes section, using the <ref>, </ref> system, in the process moving the inline external links there as well. Some of the references formerly in the external links section also now appear in the notes. The only external link that was removed was to a pay-only school notes site. Some of the references had dead links, and these were repaired. --Blainster 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unverified and citecheck tags

I have added warning tags; the way the studies are represented on JunkScience and similar sites is often not "clean". E.g. studies of limited scope are presented as general fact, and claims are habitually overblown or even false to start with (like the supposed "global ban" - there is none. What is considered bad practice is indiscriminate, large-scale, long-term use of the stuff.). For example, chickens are for some reason very unsusceptible to adverse effects of DDT (which, as with any substance, exist; it is the dosage that matters), which renders most controlled-condition research on DDT environmental toxicity ultimately meaningless. It is highly advised that someone who takes no strong stand on the issue reviews the papers. Dysmorodrepanis 22:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the citecheck flag. Perhaps {{unreliable}} would be better? It seems that the sources here were cited appropriately, but the value of the sources themselves is in doubt. Citecheck is for out-of-context quotes and other misrepresentations of a source. Durova 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring"

Alright, this is essentially the same discussion as above. This sentence appears in the article, even though there has not been a single source found to state that either of the critics quoted, Dick Taverne or Ronald Bailey, are industry or agribusiness advocates. They've certainly never called themseves that. This is instead the opinion of one Wikipedia user, and thus does not belong in this article; it should be removed. Korny O'Near 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it has one element in common with the discussion above, but the situation has changed; before you complained because you said the sentence made it seem like Ronald Bailey, fellow of CEI & anti-regulatory 'journalist' was a industry advocate, the section was rearranged so that Bailey's screed did not follow the sentence and can no longer be considered the subject of the sentence. Am I now to assume you require a source for Taverne's industry advocacy and when it is provided, the sentence may remain? Cronos1 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a safe assumption. Korny O'Near 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a profile of the lobbying group chaired by Lord Taverne:

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151

and another profile specifically mentioning his 'support of biotechnology':

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=127&page=T

Cronos1 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is more of the same circumstantial evidence you brought up for Bailey. I don't think there's been a think tank or lobbying group in history that's never gotten corporate funding. By your standard, then, everyone who's ever worked at a think tank or lobbying group is thus an "industry advocate" for some industry or another. This is innuendo, and it's not nearly evidence enough to state, as fact, that Taverne is essentially a paid shill. Korny O'Near 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that saying someone is an industry advocate equates to calling them 'essentially a paid shill' but it does communicate a POV of a cited source that is relevant & critical in this case. Out of curiousity, what is your definition of an advocate? A 'paid shill'? Cronos1 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure - someone who says certain things only because one or more companies are paying him/her to say it. What does it mean to you? Korny O'Near 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the strict sence of usage above, from the OED:

3. One who defends, maintains, publicly recommends, or raises his voice in behalf of a proposal or tenet. Const. of (for ? obs.).

This would, of course, include shills. Cronos1 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking about "industry advocate". Yes, "advocate" is a fairly neutral term, but "industry advocate" is not - it indicates that money is changinc hands. I'm sure you agree, since otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep the term. Am I right? Korny O'Near 04:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Industry and Agribusiness advocate means what it says, someone who is a proponent of industry & agribusiness interests. As far as I know the only advocacy that by definition implies financial compensation is the legal variety. I fight hard to keep the term in because it is both accurate, relevant, and not a POV term like 'corporate shill'.Cronos1 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, have we been arguing all this time because of a semantic issue? I think that "industry advocate" implies payment, and you don't? Because if so, this argument should be much easier to resolve. Then again, I don't know if that's the case, since earlier in our discussions you talked about "circumstantial evidence of quid pro quo". So which is it? Korny O'Near 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Financial support would be evidence of 'quid pro quo' which is what I was using to establish to you that there was and is advocacy, which is what your original edit denied the existence of...so yeah, I think it would depend upon the reader's understanding of the word. If you can find a definition which says that the condition of advocacy is dependent on financial consideration, please let me know.Cronos1 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a definiton, but there are certainly examples of that connection being established; here's one. I'm just curious as to what exactly you think an industry advocate is. Anyone who's spoken out in favor of an industry? By that definion, anyone who writes something against "Silent Spring" is an industry advocate, since they're presumably writing in favor of less regulations on industry. Korny O'Near 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your example 'paid consultant' would be an advocate, and may be what some would call a shill. 'Shills' being a subset of advocates.

No, you could have a non-industry advocate articulate an arguement against 'Silent Spring'. I have yet to see one.Cronos1 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So again, just to be clear, what's your definition of an industry advocate? Korny O'Near 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One who defends, maintains, publicly recommends, or raises his voice in behalf of industryCronos1 22:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So if I wrote an editorial saying that agribusinesses have done a lot of good and that we should reduce regulations on them, would that make me an industry advocate? Korny O'Near 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty clear about how defined above.Cronos1 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you spelled it out. As we've seen, the term can mean different things to different people. Come to think it, that in itself might be reason enough to keep it out of the article. Korny O'Near 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"the term can mean different things to different people" - but this is constrained by what people can find in a dictionary. So, one could not maintain that it means a only a compensated person who defends, maintains, publicly recommends, or raises his voice in behalf of a proposal or tenet without producing a dictionary entry to that effect, regardless of how imprecise that person's understanding of the word might be.Cronos1 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But... there is no dictionary definition of "industry advocate". At least, we haven't found any. Look, if the term just means to you something like "someone who takes the side of industry in an argument", then by definition anyone who criticizes "Silent Spring" is going to be an industry advocate; the term is redundant. Korny O'Near

So, ‘Industry Advocate’ is not in the dictionary; this shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise since they are two separate words, each of which is, however, in the dictionary. Questions arising from their usage should be derived from dictionary definitions or a specific usage. What is your concern? Earlier you positioned your objections on the premise that advocacy implied payment. Are you still confused? You also seem to be implying that opposition to Rachel Carson’s book and regulations derived thereof determine that one is an industry advocate, you further imply that, if this is the case, that determination is somehow not legitimate. You will need to demonstrate how and why you think this applies to the specific issue at hand before I can make any comment beyond what I have already stated.Cronos1 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

News flash: there's plenty of two-word terms in the dictionary. See brain drain, for example, which isn't literally a drain of brains. So yes, "industry advocate" could have been in the dictionary, since it has specific, non-literal meanings; unfortunately it isn't. In any case, let me spell out simply, so you understand: some people, like me but not just me, think the phrase implies payment: if that's true it shouldn't be in the article because it's an unsourced allegation. Others, like you, think it just means someone who's sympathetic to industry: if that's true it shouldn't be in the article because it's redundant. In either case, it doesn't belong. In addition, the mere fact that there's different interpretations of the term means that it should probably be phrased differently, to avoid confusion. Now do you see the issue? Korny O'Near 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the News Flash. I would not characterize the number of two word dictionary entries as ‘plenty’ but understand that yes, there are some. If one were to estimate the percentage of noun and modifier entries out of possible combinations, surely you would agree that this number is less than 10% of the possible entries, and therefore not a ‘big surprise’ that one of those possible entries does not, in fact, appear. I made that observation, not to hurt your feelings but to affirm that the absence of an entry does not imply some sort of linguistic trickery on my part. There are similar two word phrases that one could think of…Cat Fancier & Cigar Aficionado are the names of two magazines that come to mind, without looking I would say that the absence of an dictionary entry ‘shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise since they are two separate words’. What is more, I would think that looking at the definitions of each word, reasonable people could agree on what a combined definition would be. The strength of your argument that industry advocates must be of the compensated variety is only as strong as the authority you cite to prove the argument. Clearly, based upon the evidence I have seen and upon the evidence you have provided, the people who think that Industry Advocate implies payment misunderstand the term advocate and cannot provide either a dictionary or published article duplicating this misuse of the term. If I were to insist that the term ‘Journalist’ means someone who works for the major networks, local affiliates, metro-newspapers, or Time and Newsweek only, and I insisted that ‘Journalist’ be removed from the description of Ron Bailey based upon my understanding of the word, surely you would agree that the burden of proof is on me (& "people like me")? Ralph Nader is frequently referred to as a Consumer Advocate (also Consumer Activist)…does this imply that he is paid by consumers? When you buy a Corvair, do you pay a service charge to fund Ralph Nader? Of course not! Advocates advocate, payment is optional. In my mind, the most common usage of the description ‘advocate’ is used with ‘not-for-profit’ causes, ending world hunger, stopping drunk driving, etc., so if anything, the connotation should be non-payment! This other notion, that Industry Advocates are understood to be the only people who criticize Carson, is begging the question a bit much. If Industry thought that transparency was good, there would be no CEI or Reason Foundation (funded by Exxon that is); Exxon would simply issue press releases stamped ‘Exxon Corporation Public Relations’ and be done with it. If that were the case, I would agree that it would be redundant to note that Exxon is an Industry. On the other hand, I am not some sort of Rachel Carson personality cultist; while I do not know of any peer-reviewed scientific criticism of her work, I would not want the presumption to be that any such criticism is merely the machinations of industry. You asked why I was determined to keep the sentence in the entry, at this point your argumentation is so improbable, I would like to know why you are so desperate to take a very mild pejorative (only in the emotional/psychologically associative sense at that! & only for a few select people!) removed from the article?Cronos1 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you know what? You win. I've lost my patience for this argument. I think you gave yourself away at the end there with your statement that these "industry advocates" are in fact paid shills, and I'm sure we could have many more back-and-forths about that, but in any case, this argument has already gone on for far too long; we both have better things to do, even just on Wikipedia. Take care. Korny O'Near 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, since you have given up this arguement, you won't reply, but a quick review of the above discussion will in fact reveal that I never made a 'statement that "industry advocates" are in fact paid shills'. Nice try though.Cronos1 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arr.... dammit, I can't resist responding to that. Note the one word you dropped out in your re-quoting of me. Korny O'Near 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What, 'these'?? If so, I suppose you mean Bailey & Taverne? I still didn't say it! So don't know what your going on about.Cronos1 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Style of book

The big problem with Silent Spring (in my opinion) is that the book gives the impression that DDT is poisonous to to an extent that is not supported by a close attention to the exact text. When you read closely you notice that she mentions DDT, PCB, Dioxin, Lindan and other substances together but most of the time when she specifically mentions the documented poison DDT or PCB is not mentioned.

Example: She mentions the spraying of the forrests of New England with DDT. (Stupid on other grounds as "Will not work", "Will kill many useful insects" etc.) She then mentions that there was a stink of fuel oil in the forrest and that there was a sheen of oil on the waters. She then mentions that the spawning of salmon was ruined for several years. Impression was that salmon was poisoned by DDT even though she later on mentions that second yearlings died from hunger since the food (mulatiyear insects was not reestablished yet) was not there for a few years.

In other places she mentions Mississippi poisoned by organoclorides from the pesticide factories, mentioning Lindan, Dieldrin and DDT. She then gives evidence that Dieldrin poisoned fishes giving the impression that all poisoned fishes.

She never gives actual messures of killing potential (like LD50 for species, make a search on the net with LD50 and the poison and you will find sites.

I could go on but that is enough.

She had a very good point in that misuse of pesticides was ruining the enviroment (Just imagine using arsenic as a weedkiller in farming! TRUE) and also (like misuse of antibiotica) making them useless when really neeeded.

I could also point out that it is a very effective way of arguing, link something demostrably wrong with something you want to blacken and it is difficult to separate the two in mind and in debate.

Seniorsag 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition:

First: I do not know how to reply to personal messages, can someone please inform me. I could find nothing on the help pages but that may be my incompetence or hurry. I was to slow to confirm my mail adress so I do not get mail, could someone inform me on how to get that working?.

Second: The idea behind the comment is that sometimes I do get irritated that people react to the impression of books etc insted of what is actually written. When you get into "political" issues it is wery common that intentionally the impression is other than what is actually written. (Or sometimes what the popular summaries sums it to.) (One example is Malthus "An Essay on the Principle of Population" which many thimk proposes active birth control. That is false, he proposes late marriages, in his opinion "if you are married it is your cristian duty to have as mmany children as you can, not even abstinence in marriage is allowed". I have found that many impressions of debated books have little or no support in the books, much of the debate is pseudodebate for that reason. Silent Spring is one case, she is arguing a very good case (against misuse of pesticides and weedkillers) but she (like many other) suspected more substances to be poisonous than was substanciated by fact. She (in difference to other debatists) was careful not to claim more than she could prove.

I will not edit the article for such details since that will probably start an edit war but I want to point out the fact to those who have learnt that POV and debate exists in TALK, giving more information than exists in the articles. Seniorsag 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but both of you are missing one critical point with regard to the book's style, namely the style of prose Carson wrote in. Debate evidence elsewhere, but for goodness sake if you are going to talk about 'style' then at least have the credence to mention her style was something other than the cold objective male-dominated logic-to-dearth science of the mid-20th century. (154.5.194.215 20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Criticism

A User without a valid username (209.195.161.82) has edited the Criticism section multiple times eliminating a valid and relevant comment on one of the criticisms; moreover, the eliminated paragraph refers the reader to article DDT's effectiveness against malaria which is the most appropriate article to debate the merits. As another editor has observed, the public relations statements of the pesticide industry are not appropriate and as importantly, do not address the issue the deleted paragraph (correctly) states: Traverne's criticism of Carson is made without regard to the fact that what Carson advocated was not total elimination of DDT usage, but the widespread use which results in pesticide resistance. The editor (209.195.161.82) should read the article DDT's effectiveness against malaria and understand that current "effective" usage is indoor spraying-not addressed in Silent Spring. Cronos1 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This user without a valid username never removed the reference to DDT resistence. There is an embedded support section in the critisism section. This seems misplaced. I first tried to rewrite the offending comment into an actual critisism, then I moved it to the support section. I can understand your dislike of some of my edits, but total reversion and labelling me a vandal seems harsh. And the actual critisism of the critisism is midguided. The critisism starts that banning DDT was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century. The rebuttal is that DDT was loosing its effectiveness. So should the original critisism be changed to millions or hundreds of thousands of dead? The critisism of the critisism is a statement of support in the critisism section. The original critisism was a cited source, the critisism of the critisism is a referenced opinion. Anyway, if you don't want anonymous additions, require a username. Otherwise, you'll have to deal with my IP. Invalid User 209.195.161.82

However, this criticism doesn't consider that, as reported also in Silent Spring, mosquitoes had started to develop pesticide resistance. Hence already before publishing Silent Spring, DDT was no longer as effective as this criticism implies. See also DDT's effectiveness against malaria.

But it should be noted that DDT resistance does not negate DDT's effectiveness as per Sharma et al in Impact of DDT spraying on malaria transmission in Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh, India

I'm not entirely sure what purpose was served by Dtheque's moving the above comments to the Talk page, so if you wouldn't mind explaining, I would appreciate. Secondly, the citation of 'Impact of DDT spraying on malaria transmission in Bareilly District' does not belong in an article about Silent Spring. To do so completely ignores the historical context of DDT usage & Carson's purpose for writing the book. As noted in the article, "Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use..." which would appear to include 'Indoor Spraying' for the purpose of Malaria control, but not the widespread and indescriminate agricultural use of the pesticide which the book questioned. Thirdly, the appropriate place for the information in the Bareilly District paper is in the DDT#Effectiveness against Malaria article. And lastly, the statement "DDT resistance does not negate DDT's effectiveness" is true only to the extent that DDT still has some effectiveness, mainly on the non-resistant portion of the mosquito population. If all the mosquitoes in the world were DDT resistant, DDT would not impact malaria rates!Cronos1 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU MUST READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT! Michael B. Smith, "'Silence, Miss Carson!' Science, Gender, and the Reception of Silent Spring," Feminist Studies 27 (2001): 733-55. (154.5.194.215 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

The following sentences have been removed: "On page 121, Ms. Carson reported on a study conducted by Dr. James DeWitt to test the affects of DDT on quail and pheasant reproduction. Dr. DeWitt's findings showed that pheasants exposed to DDT had better reproductive success rates than the control group. Ms. Carson, however, wrote that Dr. DeWitt found the exact opposite result."

This is untrue as documented in 'Gordon Edwards, Rachel Carson, and DDT' http://www.new-cue.org/quetchenbach%20thoreau%20ASLE.pdf

'Much has been made of Carson's "distortion" of the findings of James DeWitt, who conducted DDT experiments involving quail and pheasants. Edwards, followed by a host of others, concludes that "Carson either did not read DeWitt's paper, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt's experiment on pheasants." On this point, though, Carson has her cyber-defenders, though you have to look to find them. Jim Norton's Info-Pollution site points out, correctly, that Carson is actually talking about two studies by DeWitt, the overall conclusions of which are in line with Carson's portrayal of his research. Carson does mention DeWitt's pheasant studies, but only as a bridge between DeWitt's quail research and pheasant studies by other researchers. Carson could have more clearly distinguished between the two studies, but this is a mighty small nail on which to peg an accusation that Carson deliberately misrepresents DeWitt. In fact, it appears that Edwards himself misrepresents him in a much more substantial way.'

The journalists accusations that RC overstated incidents of cancer in children are acceptable in terms of a modern criticism. The chemical companies spared no effort to smear Carson and it is beyond reason that they would have missed the opportunity to level this criticism contemporaneously at the time of Silent Spring's publication. The fact that DDT is still considered a Probable Human Carcinogen after decades of testing should be a clear indicator that it is wholly unreasonable to criticize Carson's understanding of this aspect of DDT in 1962.Cronos1 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User 64.203.63.21 inserted comments from 'The Straight' Dope and the BMJ into this section. The comment regarding Africa's inability to use DDT is not supported by the article cited. The article contains a likely spurious charge regarding Mozambique's ability to use the pesticide. If any portion of this charge is to be correctly inserted, would ask that other sources be consulted which have a far more plausible explanation for non-use of DDT in certain countries. The "Straight Dope" article is repudiating LaRouche claims about DDT. Unfortunately, Adams makes a number of errors of fact (eggshells, etc) and article is not really appropriate as source. However, if it is to be used as such, please do so in a way that accurately reflects article's content, those accusing Carson are wrong, etc.Cronos1 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NYT article today (6/5/07)

If anyone wants to incorporate some of its arguments...I don't know enough on the subject to help. 192.31.106.35 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is something I posted yesterday on the DDT talk page in response to a post about the NYT article:

Misconceptions in the NYT article (This is for Quodfui). This isn't an exhaustive list, but for starters:

• Tierney relies heavily on the critical review of Silent Spring by I. L. Baldwin published in Science in 1972, while ignoring the later (1963) findings of Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee which largely agreed with Silent Spring.
• Tierney paints the picture that Carson claimed DDT causes cancer in humans and that claim this has been since disproven. This wrong on two levels:
  • A common misconception amoung people who haven't actually taken the time to read Silent Sping is that she, personally claimed that DDT causes cancer. She didn't. The thesis of the relevant chaprters of the book is that: We know little about the long term effects of DDT and other chemicals on human health. Similar chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, so we're not safe simply assuming that DDT is benign. And at least one doctor believes DDT is in fact a cancinogen. In other words, she doesn't say "I think/know DDT causes cancer." Instead she points out the paucity studies on cancinogenicity and points out that at least one doctor who has studied the issue thinks that DDT does cause cancer. This might seem like splitting hairs, but there is a huge difference between making one's own wild claims and acurately relaying the state of scientific knowledge.
  • The second reason that Tierney is wrong is that the debate over whether DDT causes cancer is far from settled. New studies come out all time that find or fail to find associations between DDT and cancer. In fact, DDT is listed by the EPA as a probable carcinogen.
• "Carson didn’t urge an outright ban on DDT, but she tried to downplay its effectiveness against malaria and refused to acknowledge what it had accomplished." 100% false. Read the book. The book focuses almost exclusively on domestic pesticide use, thus DDT use in malaria control in the developing world was beyond the scope of the book. She cannot be accused of downplaying its effectiveness or ignoring its accomplishments when this was not within the scope of the book. Plus, the only (i believe) time she does mention DDT and malaria control is to say that indiscriminent agricultural use of DDT will promote insect resistence, making it less useful in public health spraying.
• There's more but I'll end with this: "Ms. Carson, though, considered new chemicals to be inherently different." And they are. Tierney ignores what anyone with an advanced degree in chemistry will tell you, including me, and here I go: Many new chemicals are fundamentally different from natural ones. Nature doesn't make molecules that look like DDT (i.e. things with halogens hanging off aromatic rings, trihalomethyl groups, no hydrolyzable groups, etc.), and thus it's reasonable to expect that organisms haven't evolved the metabolic pathways to degrade and detoxify them. Anyone with even a passing familarity with medicinal chemistry or biology can flip through the Merck Index and within seconds identify a structure as natural or synthetic. Yilloslime 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement saying DDT was never banned for anti-malaria conflicts with main Wikipedia DDT article

Please clarify the following quote from the article:

"However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use"

So it agrees with this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#U.S._ban "In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced a ban on virtually all uses of DDT in the U.S., where it was classified as an EPA Toxicity Class II substance." Chris 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It definitely can be confusing, but there is no contradiction betweem the statements you cite. DDT has never been banned for use in malaria control, but it has been banned for agrcultural use. See DDT for more info. It's use in agriculture has been banned internationally under the Stockholm Convention, and yes, Ruckelshaus did ban "virtually" all uses in the US, but no, it has never been banned for use in malaria control internationally. And since malaria is not a problem in the US, the 1972 US ban did ban "virtually" all uses in the U.S, but there is no contradiction between this article and DDT. Yilloslime 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was effectively banned, since the US would cut off aid to countries that used DDT. Mozambique gets 80% of its annual budget from foreign aid. They could never have used DDT as it would have bankrupted their government. I've clarified the article to say this. 75.31.171.215 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User 75.31.171.215 provided a link to a well-known smear of Rachel Carson. The link was for J. Gordon Edwards' article, The Lies Of Rachel Carson, 21st Century & Technology, (Summer 1992). According to an ArbCom ruling 9/2004, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Since 21st Century & Technology is a LaRouche publication, any quotation, citation, or link to this article will be deleted unless another source can be cited.Cronos1 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

This isn't a GA review, just a quick comment. I think this article is far from complete. Silent Spring has a ton written about it (entire books, about this one book, one of which is sitting on my shelf and which I hope to use for this article after I finish with Rachel Carson and some other articles), and there is a lot more to say than just the brief Support and Criticism sections presented here. There will also need to be a discussion of the book's influence, and its reception and sales (as distinct from "support" or "criticism" in the sense of backing up or refuting the book's claims), and probably a little bit on Carson's research and writing process for the book and promotion after the book's release. I don't think it's nearly ready for Good Article status.--ragesoss 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. The article no longer contains huge amounts of falsehoods, but it is far from complete; although I don't know if that's what a GA means, suppose I'll have to look up the wiki on GA.Cronos1 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

'Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic...', guess it depends on what you consider a major facet...Cronos1 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination - Comments after my review

Hi,

This is an article on a controversial book on an extremely sensitive issue with NPOV issues and vested interests out in the real world. The power of the book can be seen from the wiki itself wherein chemical industry sponsored academicians are trashing the book and undercutting its basic premise 40 years after it was published.

I read this book many years ago, and I grew up with this book being quoted on a large number of occasions and contexts. So I am going to stay strictly neutral and place NPOV as the one main criterion on this one.

Analytically, if we have an article on a book having a controversial topic which has been hotly debated in the world, much less on Wikipedia, we would expect the following kind of structure to ensure NPOV -

• The first section should deal holistically with the book - its printing, its production history, reviews etc. The origin of the name could come here.

• The second section should outline the thesis. Someone must carefully read the book and give an accurate, brief, and balanced summary of her thesis. This must be at least three to four paragraphs long. In this case, one line statement of the thesis and the trivia regarding the origin of the name does NOT qualify as correct and complete treatment of this issue. Here absence of a competent treatment of the central premise of her book is pushing a POV by omission rather than commission. There is some text in the introduction which actually forms part of her thesis and should be moved here.

• The third section would be about the criticism and support - a lead paragraph under the main section heading telling in summary the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments. The Support and Criticisms may remain as sections (as is presently the case) or as subsections under the main section heading. However the material needs expansion (more incidents, arguments, references), summarising (reduce the size of each of these) and organised to read well. My assessment: the criticism of the chemical industry has more text and examples than the thesis and support sections combined. That is a subtle pushing of anti-book POV here. There is also far too much quoting in the criticisms while the support section has restrained quoting in contrast. This too pushes POV. You also cannot end the article with a vehemently worded argument for or against the article. It leaves the reader with the impression that this is the neutral summary of the article and it gives a residual bias to the reader. Instead the article should close as mentioned in the next paragraph.

• It is suggested that a fourth section be created which would list the present state of scientific evidence in brief. This would help answer the natural question a reader would have after reading the wiki - so what do we know about Rachel Carson's thesis in light of present scientific knowledge.

• Though I mention it here, but first in sequence in the wiki, a correctly organised introduction which summarises all the above. The present introduction has material not part of a section and thus does not summarise the article as is required by criterion 2 (a) of FA Criteria. (Yeah, yeah, should'nt apply FA to GAC, but I think this criterion should logically apply to all general articles.)

• Needless to say, but I am re-emphasising, the article needs extensive and balanced referencing with great care to weed out junk references. I think previous editors have been quite diligent in this aspect to date. It needs to be continued and extended.

• Lastly, the language must read well and be fair to both sides of the view.

Now, I am sure the contributing editors have done a difficult job really well so far. This is visible all over the article. The development of wikis on a controversial topic is much more hassling and time-consuming than on a relatively benign subject, so I admire the courage of the editors who have taken it upon themselves. Having said that, I am constrained to give my opinion as follows.

My assessment would have been QUICKFAIL due to failure to meet NPOV Criterion 4 and FAIL due to inability to meet Criterion 3 of GA Criteria but I am placing it ON HOLD. I'll have another look after seven days.

As of now the wiki appears to me as a skewed article which requires more development. I would like to add to the disappointed editors to persevere with the endeavour. What I have asked for may be difficult but it is definitely worth it. Nothing really worthwhile is easy. You have my complete moral support.

Regards, AshLin 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments in the previous post also have many valuable points and I request these may all be considered holistically while improving the article. AshLin 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I am unable to find reviewers who have the time and resources to improve the article or respond to the review comments at present, I am failing the GA nomination. Should anyone be keen on taking this article to GA status subsequently, he may work on the article as per my comments and more and renominate it for a fresh evaluation. The version reviewed and failed is this one. AshLin 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Extract from User:AshLin's talk page of archival value to this article

By ragesoss

quote .... I agree with much of what you say. Some of the structural suggestions seems reasonable, but may not be the only way to go; I would have to think more about those issues while reworking the article. In any case, your comments will be very helpful when someone (maybe me, maybe not) is ready to do some serious work on it. I don't think there is anyone to do that now, so I would recommend failing the GA nomination. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC) unquote

By Cronos1

quote .... A couple of observations...I am a historian and so my perspective is a little different than a scientist. The controversy, such as it is, is not about the book but about public policy, specifically about the public's (via their elected reps and the bureaucratic mechanisms in the government) ability to require independent review of a commercial product not limited in scope to effacacious testing or to harm done to one species (man). That is why the scientist and the text are under continuous attack and this will continue in your proposed 3rd section. Rachel Carson did not invent an equation or discover an unknown element; she popularized a way of looking at the world - this was her great contribution and this is what is attacked usually with only a passing nod at anything scientific (whatever best answers the bludgeoning requirements of the author), no citations, etc. just unsupported and (as far as I can tell) specious pronouncements in inflammatory language by those opposed to this world view. So be advised that there will be a tendency to include long quotations that are highly POV and usually defensible under Wiki Rules (again, as far as I can tell). The fourth proposed section is another potential Tempest in a Teapot with competing claims about ddt which better belong in the article on ddt, I would think that the scope of this section would need to be modeled after wiki entries for other landmark scientific works listed in Dicovery's Greatest Scientific Books of all time; I say that without having reviewed 'Origin Of The Species' to see if it is as big a target as Silent Spring.Cronos1 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) unquote

Extracted by AshLin 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) from his talk page.

Rm'ing Subtle POV

"In 2002, Reason Magazine (part of the Reason Foundation) published an essay by economist Ronald Bailey, a former fellow with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute,[9] marking the book's 40th anniversary. Both the Reason Foundation and the CEI have received substantial funding from corporations in regulated industries.[10][11] Bailey argued that the book had a mixed legacy;"

Bailey was a fellow with the CEI in 1993. The article was written in 2002. His fellowship a decade before is irrelevant, let alone CEI's donors. Nothing to do with the subject - just a lengthy libertarian-bashing manipulative twist. What's more, the second reference to the "corporations" rant is broken (I mean ref 10).Justice III 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No POV intended, factual statements showing link between Bailey and regulated industries via organizations claiming to be libertarian has been established. Libertarian "bashing" not intended, a specific individual's ties to polluting industries that attacked an environmentalist is relevant. Reference 10 has been fixed.Cronos1 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless his ties to those organizations are materially relevant to his arguments regarding DDT, I'm not sure what purpose that line serves other than as an ad hominem attack on Bailey. If they are materially relevant, perhaps that relevance should be called out explicitly, instead of weaseling it into the article in this way? I'm re-removing that line. I suggest that, rather than simply restoring it, it be turned into its own following paragraph explaining how, exactly, this relationship taints his argument. 216.254.12.245 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A Wiki arbritator informed me that a statement of fact (not an "attack" as you erroneously identified) regarding the financial relationship between CEI & Bailey with regulated industries would allow the user to come to their own conclusions about whether Bailey's opinion was materially effected by this relationship. I was also told that creating a 'paragraph explaining how, exactly, this relationship taints his argument' would constitute OR. So, feel free to form your own POV about whether Bailey & CEI's financial relationship "taints" their findings as others will.Cronos1 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Watch source

From the page that ref 14 links to: "HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing."

Number 2 was Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

Marx and Engels received 74 points, Hitler 41.

Rachel Carson received 9 points, making her book tied for 25th place with 4 other books, including Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud.

The banner for Human Events proclaims "Leading the Conservative Movement Since 1944" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

multiple comments on the criticism section

1) the counter-critical comments about the ultimate 'aim' of criticism of SS are nothing more than sheer speculation - do they really belong in a reference article?

[ Copyrighted text removed. ]

Essentially, there are AMPLE refutations of Silent Spring, along with multiple citations, listed in http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html. Styopa (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of this has been discussed before here, at talk:DDT, talk:Steven Milloy, and talk:Rachel Carson. In short, junkscience.com is not a reliable source, but rather an excellent example of the use selective quoting and referencing to manufacture what appears at first glance to be a well referenced narrative that actually that runs counter to the scientific consensus on the subject. see Steve Milloy and DDT for more detail. Yilloslime (t) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Additions to the Criticism Section

Let's all keep in mind that this an article about a book called Silent Spring, not the article on malaria, Rachel Carson, or DDT. The focus of the article should therefore be on the book itself: what it says, how it was received, what lasting impact it's had. And that can certainly include some criticism. But the fact of the matter is that Silent Spring had an enormous impact, is considered one of most important non-fiction works of the 20th century American literature, and most references to it even today are wholly positive. Yet, with all the WP:WEIGHT given to later-day criticism in the article's current state, one might conclude that book has been discredited and is only useful as an example of good intentions gone awry. And while a lot of people do feel that, they do not represent the mainstream view of the book. The article already contained plenty of criticism of SS along these lines, it doesn't need more. And it certainly doesn't benefit from several more <blockquoted> critical excerpts, without any similarly highlighted positive/mainstream quotes. Do any of the people reinserting this material care to justify its inclusion? Yilloslime (t) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When I read the criticism section, my impression was that a good deal of the text was counter criticism, rather than criticism.

In regard to recent newspaper articles and editorials: In the last few years, Silent Spring has come back into the public eye because DDT became a hot topic again relative to the 2007 WHO decision, and also that much of the educated world is very actively debating and trying to find balance between environmental activism, science, ecomomics and public policy in the very large AGW debate. Therefore, I added two recent, major media criticisms because a) they are mainstream publications, and b) they directly level criticism at the book, which is the point of the criticism section.

You also undid my addition of the Edwards writings. I understand the JPandS criticism, but the paper itself is peer reviewed by credible parties, and submitted as part of U.S. Congressional testimony. Edwards' bonafides are quite respectable, his reputation (your comments notwithstanding) among peers and students seems solid. Among Silent Spring critics, he is THE critic. How can his words be left out? Let the reader decide the accuracy of his point of view.

Rbstern (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, last point: I would recommend moving the criticisms that are actually counter arguments, along with whatever supporting text is needed, to the support section, for better weight balance.

Rbstern (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Additional thoughts: Silent Spring was specifically about pesticide use in the U.S. and, of course, focused mostly on DDT. At the time Carson was writing, there was no malaria in the U.S., and DDT had played only a very minor role in making America DDT-free, so she barely mentioned it's use in malaria control; i.e. this was beyond the scope of the book. And what passing mentions she did make of its use in vector control were positive and noted the need for caution as to avoid the evolution of resistance. If one didn't know better and read the 3 quotes inserted today, one would come thinking that Silent Spring argued that DDT should not be used against malaria, which very very far from what the book actually says. Yilloslime (t) 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Rbstern's comments above: nothing you have said addresses the issue of undue weight that I brought up above. You appear to be new here, so I suggest you read our policy on the topic, which you can find here. And while you are at it, you should check WP:NPOV if you haven't yet. To address the points you've brought up: yes, the criticisms you've inserted are recent; yes, two of them come from reliable sources; and yes, this article does have a criticism section; but no, that doesn't mean they should be included in the article. Criticism sections are not repositories for every critical quote that can be dug up, in fact, criticism sections are specifically discouraged on wikipedia. ("In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet.")

And the Edwards article is simply not an appropriate source. JPANDS is not a reliable source, 21st Century Science and Technology is specifically not allowed as a source on wikipedia, junkscience.com (the other place you'll see his work) is a self-published source and therefore out-of-bounds, and the mere fact that somebody entered the article into the congressional record does not make it any more trustworthy or authoritative. The fact that Edwards couldn't get it published in mainstream scientific channels speaks volumes. Yilloslime (t) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the weight and NPOV topics when you first brought them up. Thank you. My comment about the nature of the criticisms (counter criticisms) remains valid. That was my original motivation for adding some "cleaner" criticism to the section. Given the highly controlversial nature of the book, it seems that valid criticism is a necessity. Regarding Edwards, yes, I followed and understood the issue you raised about sourcing. I have two counters to this: 1) The paper was finished and published after his death, so it's probably not fair to fault Edwards for the publishing vehicle. 2) While I cannot say that I have taken it apart with a fine tooth comb, it appears rigorous in addressing claims made in the book. I hate to dismiss apparently good scholarship out of hand because I object to the source. Edwards was passionatly opposed to some of Carson's claims in the book, but he was no qwack. The congressional testimony certainly implies that, on a peer basis, the work was accepted by Roberts, a tropical disease expert.

Rbstern (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edwards' paper was published before his death -- he chose the place to publish it. He either did not or could not publish it in a credible source. I have looked at some of Edwards' claims and checked them against the original sources he and Carson cites. To be blunt, Carson was honest and Edwards was dishonest. See, for example, DeWitt's papers on pesticides and bird reproduction. --TimLambert (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to honestly assess whether or not the negative human and animal health effects that Carson attributed to DDT are well established by subsequent study. Regardless of her position on DDT relative to malaria control, it was her forecast of negative health impact on humans and animals that earned DDT its pinnacle, negative status among pesticides. The articles added to criticisms fairly cite the book as the reason for DDT's downfall. Not just the banning of DDT in the U.S., but widespread pressure forcing it's abandonment due to health and wildlife concerns, and the resulting impact on malarial control.

Carson raised the spectre of very negative health impact due to human and animal interaction with this substance. The public took that message to heart, despite scientific counterclaims at the time of the original debate. I don't think it's possible to separate what took place in public policy decision making from that message in the book. Rbstern (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your points: Yes valid criticism is in order, and there's plenty of it out there (including some that was already in the article), but Edwards' certainly doesn't fit the bill. The fact the piece was published posthumously is not an excuse, and that it was submitted to the congressional record is not a substitute for legitimate peer review. Whether you personally think its "apparently good scholarship" is irrelevant--we have policies so that we don't have to make these kinds of judgements.

And I'm not going to take the bait and argue here about whether Carson was right about DDT or not. That's not what this talk page is for. But my point still remains: the article gives way more WP:WEIGHT to the book's critics than is warranted. And I fail to see how a quote claiming, without further explanation, that Silent Spring caused more deaths the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is "cleaner" than anything that was in the article before you inserted this material. Yilloslime (t) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Edwards issue: I have to cede the point because the policies are clear. Is there a protocol for whose role it is to remove the reference after this discussion, or does it not matter?

Regarding the Elders of Zion reference: It is a very harsh criticism, and unfortunately, not a unique view. The books proponent's credit the book with the founding of the environmetal movement, which in turn succeeded in demonizing DDT beyond the boundaries of good public health policy. Part of the impact was a large human death toll due to malaria outbreaks in places where DDT had been a primary component in bringing the disease under control. It's hard to disconnect the events. The criticism was written by a major newspaper, considred a valid source, I presume. I purposely cited the comment as quoted by the chief editor of an upright scientific organization (FASEB). He was validating the criticism. I don't see what grounds there are for excluding it in deference to other criticisms. If it's the weight issue, that can be separately addressed (see next).

Finally, regarding the relative weight of the criticism section and what I refer to as counter cricism. The first paragraph, from TIME, is actually a disparagement of Carson's opponents for attacking Carson. The paragrah that begins with However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use,[14] and Carson argued in "Silent Spring" that: and the follow on blockquote are entirely a refutation of criticism, rather than a criticism. Should be edited and moved to support. The final paragraph of criticisms is actually a conspiracy description and justification for that view. How is that criticism? Naming critics and expending text to attribute their motives is not critical. It's counter-critical. Prior to my additions, these "critical" pieces of text made up the majority of criticism. That's why I stuck my fat fingers in.  :) Hope these comments seem reasonable. Rbstern (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your account of the history of malaria control, particularly the role played by DDT, is not accurate, but this talk page is a not forum to discuss such things, rather, it's a place for us to discuss improving the article. That the criticism and praise/counter-criticism of the book are not strictly segregated into Praise and Criticism sections is not a failing of the article, but rather a virtue. As I pointed out above, Criticism sections are generally discouraged from wikipedia articles, and it would be an improvement if we could work critiques and praise of the book into a general discussion of the book, rather than stuffing all negative commentary into one section, and positive into other.

But however the article is arranged, my basic point still stands: the article in its current state horribly fails WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the book's critics. What's more, with all the attention currently lavished on DDT vis-a-vis malaria, the article falsely gives the impression that the book is about DDT and malaria, which it's not. (If you haven't read it, I suggest you do before editing an encyclopedia article on it.) As I see it, the way forward is to remove the new material, and then deconstruct the praise the criticism sections (which is different from removing praise and criticism from the article.) If others have other ideas for improving the article, I'd like to hear them. Yilloslime (t) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some other opinions would be helpful at this juncture. Rbstern (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

well then:

The books proponent's credit the book with the founding of the environmetal movement,

which in turn succeeded in demonizing DDT beyond the boundaries of good public health policy.

Part of the impact was a large human death toll due to malaria outbreaks in places where DDT had been a primary component in bringing the disease under control.

It's hard to disconnect the events.

complete opinion, each and every statement. As such, could be presented as "opinion of whomever", properly cited, but with countering opinions equally prominent. You may not find prominent disagreement with the first statement; in fact it's not clear why it specifies "The books proponents", given as the book's opponents similarly credit it with a surge in environmentalism, which is the motivation for their attacks on it. But you'll sure as hell find plenty of disagreement with the following 3 statements. And i can't help but feel that writing that sequence of statements as a self-evident logically unbreakable syllogism makes you suspect as an unbiased editor for this article, no offense intended. Gzuckier (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The "criticisms" that have historically been inserted into this article under the NPOV banner do not meet any reasonable standard of objectivity; they are merely undocumented charges and have no place in the article.Cronos1 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's complete opinion. We're debating the merits of particular criticism. Is it not your complete opinion that I am biased? Currently, a large portion of the criticism section is devoted to counter criticism argument. That hardly seems like a neutral POV. Critical comments should simply be stated for consideration by the reader, without discounting. I provided critical quotes made specifically about the book, written in major newspapers. I did so because what's happened in this article is that support bias has crept into the criticism section, and support biased editors are claiming that the criticism section is overweighted. Decidedly non NPOV treatment of the criticism section. If a critical statement is made in a major publication, by a credible source, it should be preferable to counter-criticsm text. I'd like to read your arguments on this specific issue, please. Rbstern (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to explain how strictly segregating criticism of the book into one section and praise & counter-criticism into another is in line with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CRITICISM. I'd also be curious to know your opinion on what the relative amounts praise/counter-praise and criticism/counter-criticism given to the book should be. Yilloslime (t) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten Worst Books

Another editor asked me via e-mail:

"Don't know that this is urgent, but your edit implies that Reason named Silent Spring as one of the 10 worst instead of giving it an 'honorable mention' (with several other books)."

First of all, the agent here is not "Reason Magazine" (I take it that "Reason" was only a colloquialism admissable in an e-mail but not in an article) but "Human Events".

Secondly, I cannot see the difference between

>>Human Events gave Silent Spring an honorable mention for the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries"<<

and

>>Human Events mentioned Silent Spring as one of the "Ten Most Harmful Books"<<

except of these:

• I avoids the irony of the "honourable mention" - encyclopedias do not do irony very well.
• It is also grammatically clearer that Silent Spring is deemed one of these ten books by the magazine
• IMHO it is stylistically better to use the single verb "mention" rather than to use the construction "gave a mention"

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article is going to mention this at all, it should accurately describe how SS figures in the list, and any wording saying or implying it's in the top 10 should be avoided. I've taken a stab at fixing this, though it may still need work. Yilloslime (t) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)