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)