Talk:Light brown apple moth

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adult Picture

Anyone have a picture of a light brown apple moth to embed in the text?

Zven 01:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done Goldfinger820 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name

Isn't the common name lightbrown (one word) rather than light brown? DiggerBob 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Light brown apple moth" beats "lightbrown apple moth" 3:2 on a web search, but, more importantly, avoids the ugly non-word "lightbrown". --Stemonitis 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

these links are to website explaining the controversial nature of the spray program in California. Before putting them in the exterbal refs section, we should write a coherent and NPOV discussion of the controversy surrounding the spraying (i.e- weight-up both side of the story). Goldfinger820 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous activist organizations have now formed around the issue of the LBAM and are not "spam" sites, but often are hosting calendars being referenced by local newspapers and documentation of court challenges, public letters, etc. I have reposted the links. Please do not remove them without discussion. bov (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you actually read the external links policies? Aside from the general rules that "Links should be kept to a minimum" and "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified," I particularly recommend the "Advertising and conflicts of interest" and the "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" sections to you.

Here's my take on these specific links:

lbamspray.com appears to contain no information about the LBAM. It prominently displays (red text) two requests for donations, and it is clearly involved in orchestrating a letter-writing campaign, but if you wanted to know something about the moth, you won't find it there.
stopthespray.org says "Sign the petition, Spread the word, Contact your representative in the Bay Area, Santa Cruz, or Monterey" Visible information about the moth? I sure didn't see any.
eastbaypesticidealert.org has a page that claims to be about LBAM, but first of all that's not the page that the link takes you to, and secondly when you do get there, the only information about the LBAM that it gives you is its name.
cassonline.org doesn't have any information about LBAM, although it has a very pretty website.
hopefortruth.com takes you to the large headline "An Untested Biochemical is Being Sprayed on California Residents Who Are Now Unwilling Participants in an Illegal Human Pesticide Experiment." If this link took you to their page on LBAM (which at least has some accurate information), then we could consider it.

I don't know if it occurred to you, but the article, taken as a whole, is supposed to be about the moth itself, and not so much about a single political controversy. This is not WikiNews: breaking news, current calendars, latest updates, and so forth don't belong here. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, and external links are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature." Websites whose purpose is to promote immediate political action are not generally considered encyclopedic.

I recommend that you read the external links policy; it may help you understand the perspective of the editors who keep removing your advertising. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"and not so much about a single political controversy"

The moth, like a public figure, is now at the center of a growing public controversy in one the most politically active areas in the US. Much as you disagree with the websites expressing citizen opposition, that outcry from the public is huge and notable, as shown by the sudden legislation efforts by state officials and city council resolutions. The links are the documentation of the public response to the moth eradication efforts. Whether the links are correct or not, or provide the info you would like, is not the issue. The header describes what they are about. These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. bov (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't actually say that I "agree" or "disagree" with any of these websites. What I do disagree with is the value to Wikipedia in including them. I have assumed that the primary reason you want to include them is for promotional purposes -- so that people who are interested in the local political dispute can find a way to get connected to the critics of the spraying program, and perhaps write a letter or attend a meeting about the program.

If, however, these links are actually supposed to be "the documentation of the public response", then they need to be listed as references, not as external links. The external links section is for stuff that is not already in the article. See, for example this rule: Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.

I want to be clear: I'm not the person who created this policy. If you don't like the policy, then go to WP:EL and convince them to change it. But so long as this policy is in place, we all should make a reasonable effort to follow it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are even more groups than listed here already, it sounds like the policy is being adhered to. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the light brown apple moth. External links that do not enlighten the reader about the insect do not belong here. By the same argument, much of the text of the section Eradication measures in California does not belong here either—that section is beginning to dominate the article. There are many articles about pest eradication, etc., where this material might belong, but not here. You might also wish to start a new article about the current event. Note, for example, the following two articles: snail darter and snail darter controversy.

As for reasoning like that above: These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. Uh, how is that relevant? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. —johndburger 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that section is beginning to dominate the article"

Gee, so you're saying that the social and political relevance of the presence of the moth in California and the Federal/state efforts to eradicate it which have sparked both a massive and unprecedented public outcry, as well as a sudden public education about the moth, is not notable on an article about the moth? I have to disagree. The phrase that people will look up around this issue is not "pest eradication" but the one that has something about "the moth". The info belongs both here and on pages devoted to pesticides. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would start a new article if I had the time. I'm not a paid editor on here like others. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and appropriateness for this article are two different issues. Dunno what a paid editor is, but I'm not one. I started the new article—it took five minutes. —johndburger 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I think that letting the moth and the controversy be separate articles will improve both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just wanted to say that I pulled that "fact" because I couldn't find a reliable source to support it. I have no opinion on the truth or falsity of the statement: I just couldn't find a reliable source that asserted it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Quarantine measures are things like "local nurseries aren't allowed to ship plants out of the area unless they've been inspected."[1] Aerial spraying is not a kind of quarantine. This is the second time I've fixed that error. Please quit re-introducing it.

Furthermore, the proprietary mix of chemicals is the pheromone. It's not a pheromone plus a bunch of chemicals: the pheromone is a bunch of chemicals. If you find this confusing, let's talk about it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So which pheromone does the moth produce with the name "Checkmate"? Describing it as a pheromone alone is just a way to make people think it is completely natural, which it is not. This is bias, regardless of if you can argue it on technicalities. Pesticide would be the better term to use. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I support specifically calling it a synthetic pheromone: it's perfectly clear about its non-natural state, it's entirely accurate, and we don't have to deal with people's different definitions of pesticide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Entirely accurate"? Except that it's missing the key details. The issue is not just about it being "non-natural", it's about the fact that unknown ingredients are included which are designed to cope with the administration and persistence of the agent, i.e., the time release, the microcapsules, the suficant, etc. And the label on the Checkmate container itself includes the word "pesticide", as do the media articles, so I'm not sure what basis there is not to call it what it's described as on its own label. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]