Talk:Silent Spring

Support and Criticism

Perhaps we should merge some of the content from Rachel Carson#Silent Spring over here. It's quite clearly better presented than this article and it does a much better job of detailing the supporters and critics of the book. Thoughts? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Criticisms"?

The section titled "criticism" spends more time defending her claims than it does actually citing the criticisms themselves. Until I added it, it didn't even mention the eggshell issue (which was mentioned in the opening blurb without noting the fact that it's been pretty much debunked), and makes some interesting claims about how "it's never been banned for anti-mosquito use", which is specious at best, a lie by ommission, as many, if not most developed nations have banned its use for all purposes, not just "mosquito based" uses.
Biased, much? This is the sort of thing which gives Wiki a bad rep, as the article is anything but balanced or neutral on the topic. --OBloodyHell (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The eggshell issue is a non-issue: that DDT thins eggshells is a well established scientific fact. Despite what you may occationally read in Spiked Online, 21st Century Science and Technology, Reason (magazine), and other right-wing sources, DDT does cause eggshell thinning. See DDT for more info. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This Wiki article does not even MENTION eggshell thinning...let alone the clinical experimentation that suggest it does not cause thinning. There is no reference to Carson's claims that DDT is carcinogenic. After TWO YEARS of discussion, I had to follow the link to the Reason (magazine) article cited to find out what the criticisms of Silent Spring even ARE. There is no mention of the EPA judge's ruling in 1972 that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Nor is there any reference to Carson's use of absurd anecdotal evidence to supposedly prove that DDT was harmful to humans, such as a woman using DDT to spray for spiders and dying of leukemia a month later. I agree that this is the problem with Wikipedia. The "true-believers" have sufficient impetus to want to control what people see on a subject. People who are merely looking for information and want to record what they have found, eventually give up. Why bother? They know there are better places to get the information ....such as the Reason Magazine article.(Manawyddan (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

"This Wiki article does not even MENTION eggshell thinning..."BUT two years ago, it did. The appropriate place to talk about such matters is in the DDT article.Cronos1 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The "criticism" section is more of an "attacking the critics" section. This whole screed is way beyond NPOV. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked the footnote for the "never been banned for anti-mosquito use," and the reference is some sort of general page that says no such thing. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comments above. The critics should be able to stand on their own. The editorializing and qualifications are out of place in this section and display an obvious and unnecessary bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.229.129 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the link to the "general page that says no such thing" and changed it to the closest thing on that site I could find. Clearly, the citer was reading between the lines.--Auric (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the "never been banned for anti-mosquito use," is sourced to footnote [20], which says no such thing. This phrase should be removed completely.192.206.187.60 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I wrote about it down here, too (didn't see it was already discussed). Now we hope the changes will be left untouched, because there is no reason to keep it. 119.31.121.91 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The specific line, "never been banned for anti-malarial use" has been removed as per consensus. The source did not support the statement and it is factually untrue, especially as the Stockholm Convention has already planned to completely ban manufacturing and usage of DDT worldwide by 2017. MrDestructo (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The following countries have an outright ban on DDT, which includes anti-malarial applications: Canada, Chile, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Korea, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland Source: Pesticides News No.40, June 1998, p18-20MrDestructo (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The source may be found here:http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm ...I think some further work needs to be done on this as the current wording does not show that the claims of "deaths" caused by a DDT ban do not pertain to Canada, Chile, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Korea, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland.Cronos1 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record (lots of misleading info being paraded around)The Stockholm Convention's "already planned to completely ban manufacturing and usage of DDT worldwide by 2017" has three phases. "The three phases are: 1) Preparation of a global business plan and partnership on developing alternatives to DDT and establishing the national capacities to deploy these alternatives (2007-2010); 2) Deployment of selected alternatives to DDT, resulting in a termination of DDT production (2009 – 2017); and 3) Destruction of all remaining stocks and stockpiles of DDT by

the year 2020." http://www.ciel.org/Publications/IPEN_QuickViewsCOP4_18Apr09.pdf Cronos1 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV of this article is very weak in general; the criticism section is especially troubled. Clearly contains an environmentalist slant. 132.38.190.22 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The following quote, taken from the criticism section, is an absolute joke: "Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring. In a 2005 essay, "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson." You have got to be kidding me. A politician makes a well-reasoned criticism of Silent Spring therefore it is self-evident he is a shill for "industry and agribusiness"(the term industry advocate is so ridiculously overbroad it is absolutely worthless as a descriptor)? The attempt to portray Taverne's criticism, and pretty much every other criticism, as being somehow bought and paid for by agribusiness paymasters is absolutely pathetic. And of course, when discussing such biases in the talk section, those defending the absurdly blatant bias trot out the ole reliable "right wing" charge, as if merely calling someone "right wing" is some sort of trump card when discussing issues relating to the negative effects of junk science and over-zealous environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here, as the criticisms section should be views critical of something, and then maybe with some limited qualifications, so something needs changing. The problem is that nearly all of the criticisms are obviously misrepresentative, misleading and easily disproved, so letting them stand on their own would be a bad idea. The book has provoked a lot of criticism (even if most of it is undue) so cutting most of it wouldn't be appropriate. Not sure there is a good solution here, maybe change the section name to "Reaction" or "Reception" and broaden out the content in it would help. --86.162.173.115 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is fine to have a section called "Response to Criticism" where very specific rebuttal of the listed criticisms are addressed. Ad hominem responses (such as are implied in the current "Criticism" section) would be out of bounds. Nor would responses be permitted to expand the argument to include new facts not detailed previously. Should the Silent Spring article only permit criticisms to be listed that some editors consider unfair or untrue? How does that allow people to find out anything about the criticism? Why not allow the criticism to be listed and then others --in the following section-- can add responses. That way the neutrality of the "Criticisms" section will not be called into question and it will be obvious which criticisms are disputed and which aren't.(Manawyddan (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

DDT Ban

I removed the sentence + ref which said DDT was never banned for use against moscitoues, because the ref didn't support it. My changes was deleted without good reason. The ref really don't say DDT was *never* banned of that reason. 119.31.121.91 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of some very strange reason, editors here don't want to discuss this thing, and still only undo this change. This is not a proper behavior and cannot be accepted. Look further in the section "Personal opinion and not a scientific fact" belov. Yes, I am frustrated and probably sound like that, but of good reason. This behavior is not serious - and certainly not academic. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthiessen quote

Not sure why you think its necessary. Its cited in note 17: Matthiessen, Peter (March 29, 1999), "Environmentalist RACHEL CARSON", Time Magazine 153 (12): 3 of 4, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990622-3,00.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit incorrectly infers that Time made a neutral journalistic finding. This is not supported by the byline that Time itself affixed to the opinion piece.{1}

Your version:

Even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962, there was strong opposition to it. According to Time in 1999:

My edit:

It was the opinion of noted environmental activist Peter Matthiessen writing in Time in 1999 that even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962 that there was strong opposition to it.

Like night and day. .99.142.6.159 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight correction, this was not 'my' edit, the existing version was fine the way it was without the unecessary redundancy implying that Matthiessen's POV is out of the mainstream. Your assertion that Time didn't make a neutral journalistic finding is rather strange, a by-line does not imply that the publication takes no responsibility for the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about why the "activist" label has been added. The Time article did not use that label. Moreover the online edition of the 100 Most Important People Of The Century does not include the modifier in it's by-line. If I look at the Wikipedia entry for Philo Farnsworth it does not say named as one of the most important people of the twentieth century by Neil Postman, Professor of Media Ecology .

It seems like a pretty weak arguement that Time Inc was using a by-line to distance itself from its selection of these individuals.Cronos1 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From the online edition of 'The 1oo greatest': “One century, 100 remarkable people. Time has profiled those individuals who – for better or worse – most influenced the last 100 years”. That sounds to me like Time Inc is claiming ownership of the profiles, they hired experts within the fields to write the profiles, but it's Time's list.--Cronos1 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthiessen's wiki bio lists him as an environmental activist - hence the conforming and consistent listing here within the project (See WP:MOS for more). It is also proper to attribute, as per "Key Wikipedia Guidlines" - "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." Note too that it was Matthiessen's quote alone that was the only unattributed one in the article. Not terribly contentious stuff really. .99.142.6.159 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about the attribution. The contentious stuff comes from your use of a contentious label "WP:WORDS". Nice use of an example from Times 100 list. only difference is a partial quote. I'll have a go at rewriting when I've given the matter some thought.--Cronos1 (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the consensus of Matthiessen's Wikipedia biographers, a neutral descriptive. . 99.142.6.159 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard to believe such a neutral descriptive doesn't rate a wikipedia entry. I'm pretty familiar with Matthiessen, it's rather improbable that the priority description of the man would be "environmental activist". I'll have to loook into whether his bio requires editing after I've thought about the best way to bring this entry up to wiki standards. If you think of something in the mean time, let me know.--Cronos1 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick check shows the precise descriptive used by Bryn Mawr, PBS, NBC, and well, hundreds more.12345 .99.142.6.159 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. The precise description used by Bryn Mawr, for example, is "Celebrated Writer, Naturalist, and Environmental Activist". TimLambert (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You've just cherry-picked a single sentence from the 4 refs cited and hundreds introduced - and then used that to call me a liar. Why? It was perfectly reasonable to use his Wiki bio descriptive here, in an article about environmental activism. Showing that even his hagiographers use the term routinely strongly supports the term as an accurate descriptive. Why the cherry picking though? Why not use PBS's sentence, "best known as both a novelist and non-fiction writer, but he's also an environmental activist, American Indian rights advocate and former C.I.A. recruit." 99.142.6.159 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I chose the first one you gave for my example, but the PBS one makes my point just as well. The PBS description is not precisely "environmental activist", but includes several other words as well. Why not use all those words to describe Mattheissen? I'm not interested in an edit war, so I haven't reverted your edit, but I'm inviting others to do so if they agree with me. TimLambert (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Environmentalist" is not the same as "Environmental activist". And i fail to see why we are attributing the Time article, as if it was an opinion article, since it isn't. Thus i reverted.[1] I see that i should've checked talk first... Hmmm. Environmental writer would be accurate - but still there seems to be a problem with why it should be specifically attributed to Matthiessen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. Perhaps that's why both the neutral wiki bio and neutral secondary sources - as well as the hagiographers - have all chosen the latter in droves as the more accurate.99.142.6.159 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on the "byline", which doesn't say activist, i have no idea who Matthiessen is. The major problem here is that you are assuming that a description of the author ("byline") implies that it is an opinion article - this is not correct. Opinion articles would be marked as such in front of the article, not at the end. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, lots of comments. Before I came back here and read the comments, I checked into the usage as described by our anonymous editor (99.142.6.159) and found pretty much what he/she has shown. I don't much care for the term for a couple of reasons; firstly, its kind of vague. It's not clear to me what the difference is between an environmentalist and an environmental activist is, for example. Secondly 'Activist' is frequently used by people who are definately not NPOV. That said, it is used often enough by neutral sources and the subject himself that I'm OK with the tag. The thing that's missing from the original edit (replacing 'Time' with Peter Matthiessen - Environmental Activist) is the context that defines the story as Time's reporting of the 100 most important people, that its not just an oped opinion.--Cronos1 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion and not a scientific fact

I changed this:

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields made some populaions of mosquitos DDT-resistant. The etymologist May Berenbaum has argued this threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.

To this:

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields made some populaions of mosquitos DDT-resistant. The etymologist May Berenbaum has argued this threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.

It is obvious that this is not a scientific fact, only a personal opinion in a newspaper column. 119.31.126.81 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So you made no change whatsoever? Riiiiiiiight.... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You undestand perfectly well it was a mistake over here. I changed this text:

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields contributed to the selection of DDT-resistant mosquito populations. This threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.

When you look at the source, this is obviously only a personal opinion and not a scientific fact. It is no research, only a personal newspaper column. You deleted my changes, but now I undo them. If you of some reason not agree, we discuss it, before you make further changes. 119.31.121.72 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw now that you even deleted my revision of the claims about DDT ban (se discussion above). If you cannot discuss this, then you should not edit it either. 119.31.121.72 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The author of what you call a personal opinion is head of the department of entomology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. --Cronos1 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as you see yourself, it is not research and not a scientific fact, it is an opinion. And there before we describe it as that. Right? Or else, you or someone else give a source who really tell us this is a scientific fact. Right again? 119.31.121.91 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a scientific fact and the wikipedia page should say so. Is there any source at all that you would accept for that? TimLambert (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is not a scientific fact, because it is a speculation in a newspaper column. Not research. This is not hard to understand at all. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying you are right and I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand what you are objecting to...it almost sounds like you are saying that only peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals are acceptable. I appreciate your posting in discussion. I really do. If I could offer a little advise it would be that you should find the specific Wiki policy or guideline you think is violated and cite it, we can decide if we think the edit appropriate or not. Thank You--Cronos1 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is proper to formulate this as what it is: An opinion from an etymologist. I am sure you understant this very, very well, because it is very simple. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And once again, I saw you deleted my edit about the DDT-Moscuito-ban. It is very simple here too: The ref don't support that DDT was never banned for mosquito use. If you have a source which say this, give us that; but as it is now, it is not proper. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If your reason for deleting is that it is an opinion and not a fact as you describe it, that reason is inadequate. And therefore the sentences will be reinstated. In addition, I will provide a source for the banning when I reinstate later today- even though I do not think it is entirely accurate. Thank you--Cronos1 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As you probably understand too, I did not delete the text about Berenbaums personal opinion, I only rewrote it so it not was expressed as a scientific fact. About the banning: Good. This two very simple things should never be such a big problem as this. 119.31.121.70 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it makes it sound like Berenbaum's "opinion" is not one shared by other scientists...who have done studies that support that conclusion. I will not revert, but work to make this section NPOV remains.--Cronos1 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That "sounding" is in your head only; I only wanted this to be correct. A lot of editors act as they have paranoia regarding environmental issues, and the following discussions turn into a mess. The changes now are very good, and I appreciate it. 119.31.121.88 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a rookie would mistake this as something in "my head only": but thanks for your ernestness.--Cronos1 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notabilty

Once again, we have edits being made without any attempt to build consensus. I reverted appealing to the editor to build consensus on the talk page, but was counter-reverted with the reason provided provided by the editor for the deletion of the material being 'The comments of Moore, of PAN are not in the least notable when a non-neutral source such as PAN self-servingly writes and publishes the article in it's in-house organ PAN magazine - as is done here.' I'm not convinced this is a NPOV edit, and thought I would offer the other editors a chance to share your opinions on the appropriateness of the reason provided. I would question whether the Facts of Publication should be characterized in the manner chosen. For example, Reason Magazine is published by the Reason Foundation, I'm not convinced that it makes all the comments of Reason's editors "self-serving" or "not notable". I'd be interested in the thoughts of the other editors.--Cronos1 (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Author quotation

The Wik article spells "programme" this British way, but the author of SS was American, and SS was published by an American publisher. I find it unlikely that the author would use this spelling. Could some-one check? 211.225.34.177 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: see [2]. Somebody must have been using a UK edition. I'll change that now.—Chowbok ☠ 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Industry and agribusiness advocates"

This biased bit keeps getting added: "Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring". This suggests that the only people who criticize it do so because they're paid shills (also, "industry and agribusiness advocates" is basically the equivalent of calling someone a "black-hearted scoundrel" for progressives). It's just as biased as when someone was called an "environmental activist" earlier, only in the other direction. Many people have honestly and sincerely criticized Silent Spring, not just evil corporate lobbyists.—Chowbok ☠ 06:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've added a lot of non-NPOV editorial into the NPOV statement. If, as you claim, there are "many people have honestly and sincerely criticized Silent Spring" that aren't Industry and agribusiness advocates, please cite them, it could be that they have been unfairly overlooked and should be included.Cronos1 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "environmental activist" was not removed from the article...Cronos1 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This entry is another perfect example of why so many people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously. The following sentence is so bad, it has absolutely no place, at all, in an encyclopedia: "This latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT has been identified as an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement." So all of the complaints concerning Silent Spring are all "industry sponsored"? Give me a fucking break. So those who cite the well-supported statistics indicating a frightening increase of mosquito-borne diseases in Africa? Why they are all being paid for by the chemical industry? What a joke. And the sources cited for this insane level of bias? Left wing activists and opinion sites. Such a claim is the equivalent of me going to the Planned Parenthood entry and inserting this sentence "Liberal support of Roe v. Wade has been identified not as support for so-called 'reproductive rights' rather that support is being coordinated by Planned Parenthood to increase its bottom line". And I guarantee I could find multiple sources for such a claim if I searched the internet. Moreover, I can't recall the last time I saw an entry that had a section labelled "Support" then one labelled "Criticism" and then one labelled "Defense". The fact that the author attempts to rebut the criticisms of the work is biased in and of itself. The support and criticism sections need to stand on their own. It is not the job of the author or this entry to try and rebut the criticisms, particular in fashion that is so far beyond biased that it is laughable.

You have to love the response from Cronos1. The author of this entry, by using weaselly language such as "those who want to discredit the environmental movement", can claim any conservative or libertarian criticism of Silent Spring is really just " an attempt to discredit the environmental movement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.247 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Both of these parts are problematic. I've added a POV tag to the section.—Chowbok ☠ 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to cite criticisms by non-agribusiness and industry advocates, you are free to so.Cronos1 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty already in the article. Ronald Bailey is an economist and journalist; Dick Taverne is a politician; Human Events is a general political magazine. It's unlikely that unnamed New York Times columnist is either one, also. So, clearly, the issue here is not that.—Chowbok ☠ 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty difficult to believe that you've given much thought to a claim that the people and publications listed aren't industry or agribusiness advocates. For example, it is well known that Lord Taverne is a self-described 'bio-tech expert' who promotes GM crops and denounces anyone opposed to GM foods; he was reprimanded by the House of Lords for calling on Prince Charles to be made to relinquish the throne if he made any more statements critical of GM crops(!). If you can make a detailed and well-reasoned arguement, that any of the others aren't industry/agribusiness advocates I will be glad to review and debate if necessary.Cronos1 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the "logic" being employed by Cronos is stupid. According to him, anyone with scientific expertise in the field of GM crops or the effects of pesticides is an industry advocate if he condemns the slipshod science of Silent Spring in a publication that isn't left wing in nature. He couldn't care less about the merits of any of the scientific arguments because he is too preoccupied in pointing out the political affiliations of those who point to the flaws in Carson's work. If he persists in adding the descriptor back into the article, I am going to label every person defending Silent Spring as a liberal or a rabid environmentalist if such a label is appropriate to the particular individual. If it is all right to try and imply that the scientific opinions of various individuals are less than valid because of they are too influenced by a person's political beliefs, then it is all right to claim that those who support Silent Spring only do so because of their environmental or political beliefs. If it's good for the goose that is protected at the expense of people's lives, it's good for the gander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. I care about the merits of scientific arguments. If you go to any reputable reference work, like a dictionary of scientific biography or similar, and read the entry on Rachel Carson, you will not find any of the so-called flaws. The reason isn't that the editors are politically biased, its because there is not any noteworthy research that supports the views you agree with.Cronos1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

If I can determine which side of a debate a person is taking by simply reading two small paragraphs of a particular section in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic, it is obvious the "author" of that particular entry is being entirely too biased. And the term author is to be used very loosely in regards to the entry on Silent Spring. The bias of the Criticism section(the most obviously biased, but just barely, section of this entry) starts in the very first sentence. A supporter of Silent Spring is identified as being celebrated, when merely listing what he does would be suitable. No such superlative is used to describe anyone who opposes Silent Spring, even when it would be applicable, such as with Ronald Bailey. Bailey has won numerous awards and has been praised and cited by numerous groups and individuals for his expertise in the field of biotechnology. Yet he is not described as "celebrated". Instead the "author" goes out of his way to describe his political affiliations. Only those who are opposed to Silent Spring are described in such a fashion which is evidence, in and of itself, of bias. I see no description of political affiliation attached to Tim Lambert, John Quigglin, Merrill Goozner or Monica Moore. And the assertion or implication that libertarians are unable to speak honestly about the scientific merits, or lack thereof, of a particular book because of their political philosophy is absolutely ludicrous. This labelling is also extended to the periodicals or organizations that publish the writings of those who criticize Silent Spring("conservative Human Events", for example) Liberal or left-wing periodicals or organizations are not similarly labelled. Again, it simply cannot be argued that such is not an example of bias. And any claim that Slate or Salon or the Pesticide Action Networkare not liberal or left-wing is as laughable as the claim that the Silent Spring entry is not biased. And when it comes to the subject of environmental regulations(or any class of regulation for that matter) it simply cannot be argued that libertarians are predisposed to oppose regulations, regardless of their merits, whereas liberals aren't predisposed to support particular regulations regardless of effectiveness or cost. To claim, as the "author" of this entry has, that only one side of the political spectrum views this issue through the lens of politics is absurd. The "author" even goes so far as to imply (or outright state) that certain individuals are basing their criticism of Silent Spring SOLELY on political beliefs, using such claims to keep up the charade that it is not biased to label such critics as "agribusiness advocates". Also, the criticism section makes no mention of authors who have directly challenged the misleading writings of some of Silent Spring's defenders with Tim Lambert being an obvious example. But by far the most ridiculous example of bias is contained in this sentence:

"This latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT has been identified as an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement.".

That sentence is written as if it is an objective fact(the use of the word identified can lead to no other conclusion) that the voluminous criticism of Silent Spring is all bought and paid for by various, always unnamed companies who have colluded to come up with a strategy to discredit the environmental industry. Not a shred of real evidence is provided to support such a ridiculous claim in the sources provided. In fact, one of the cited sources details an emphatic denial, issued by the main subject of the piece, that he ever received any money from the tobacco, pharmaceutical or chemical industries. The only source that seems to address the topic can only engage in flimsy guilt by association attacks. The following sentence, taken directly from the citation section, perfectly sums it up: "In this context, some draw attention to the fact that both the Reason Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, both critical of Silent Spring, have received substantial funding from corporations in regulated industries." So the "author" uses the fact that some companies have provided funding to the the Reason Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute(are we to believe all critics are affiliated with those institutions) to make the claim that all of the VERY numerous critics who have criticized the flaws of Silent Spring are in the backpocket of chemical companies that have sat down together to devise a "strategy" to discredit the environmental movement. To state that the sources provided to back up that claim are completely inadequate to support such a baseless charge is an understatement of epic proportion. The author doesn't state "Some environmentalists have claimed CERTAIN Silent Spring critics are bought and paid for by companies trying to discredit the environmental movement" rather he presents an unsupported assertion regarding the motives of Silent Springs's critics as an objective, undisputed fact. And while I am on the topic of citations, Citation #36 is only a half page long and consists of not much more than a declaration that the Bush administration is trying to dismantle the environmental movement with absolutely NO EVIDENCE provided directly in that citation concerning the supposed motivations of various pro-DDT individuals. Monica Moore, the author of Citation #36, seems to simply take it for granted that she can speak to the motives of those who have criticized Silent Spring and wish to resume a more widespread use of DDT. To use such flimsy "evidence" in order to make a definitive statement of fact regarding the motives of individuals criticizing Silent Spring is completely unacceptable, period. With the one sentence I quote above, the "author" has completely impugned the integrity of legitimate critics(something he seems unwilling to concede exists) of Silent Spring by stating they are paid shills for "industry". And when I use the phrase "one sentence", I only mean that one particular sentence in which the author has made such an explicit statement regarding motives, because the entire criticism section is nothing but one implied claim after another that people like Ronald Bailey only take the positions they do on the science of Silent Spring because someone is paying them to do so. Given the entire tone of the Defense and Criticism sections, the defense proferred by Cronos as to why he continues to use such blatant bias is wholly insufficient, and that is being really fuc*ing charitable. Defending the GM crops on their scientific merits, forcefully criticizing an ignorant Luddite like Prince Charles and/or adhering to a philosophy that espouses "economic freedom" doesn't make one a paid shill of chemical companies, nor does it make you an "advocate" for a particular business or group of businesses and if you are unable to make such distinctions, you have absolutely no business writing what is supposed to be an unbiased entry for an encyclopedia. I will continue to remove the farcically overt instances of bias from this entry, no matter how often a particular "author" tries to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at Cronos's responses to the charges of bias, the more I get a laugh at how pathetic they are. One has to read through them one time to see how his overt bias, as displayed on the talk page, has bled over into an entry that is supposed to be unbiased. The assertion that a defense of GM crops is also advocacy on behalf of agribusiness is a joke. One can support crops that are resistant to disease or increase yields without being an advocate of the business model that currently produces the majority of them. One could go so far as to support them in principle while completely opposing the businesses that produce them. Stating something along the lines of "well he criticized Prince Charles and supports GM crops, thus he must be a advocate(and not merely a supporter) of 'agribusiness'" is an absolute farce barely worthy of a reasoned response. Moreover, the definition of agribusiness being used by Cronos is so ambiguous and undefined as to be worthless. Does going to the local store and purchasing a plow make me a supporter of "agribusiness"? Does buying a GM vegetable at the supermarket make me a "supporter of agribusiness". One would suspect that, according to Cronos, such would be the case, if only so he could label me as an agribusiness supporter before addressing my criticisms of Silent Spring. Perhaps I support the production of GM crops by producer-owned co ops. The assertion that one is advocating on behalf of agribusiness and thus his criticisms of Silent Spring are suspect simply because he supports GM crops is hilarious for the sheer transparency of the bias involved. Subscribing to a libertarian philosophy doesn't make one an agribusiness advocate either. One can completely disapprove of the methods and actions of agribusiness companies, yet oppose passing onerous regulations against them. That doesn't make one an agribusiness advocate. And once again, we get back to a definition of agribusiness that is insanely overbroad. But that is deliberate because a particular author wants to be able to call into question the motives of anyone who criticizes Silent Spring. To claim otherwise is a blatant lie. It is hard to say exactly which is more comical: the claims that using the term "agribusiness advocate" to describe the critics of Silent Spring aren't biased or the seeming belief that we can't determine the motivations and see through the lies and justifications for using such blatant bias. It is simply not possible to read the last portion of the Silent Spring entry, including the wholly unsupporterd charges concerning some grand conspiracy to undermine the environmental movement, without seeing the bias. As I mention in the above post, I am going to start removing the biased parts of this entry and I will continue to do so if the entry is reverted back to it current, ridiculous state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you spend less time ridiculing my position and more time formulating a coherent thought, we would all be better served. You are quite correct that someone who purchases a GM food product when they have a non-GM product of similar price available could be said to have advocated in an economic sense for GM foods. It would also be correct that a historian of science writing in a fully annotated peer-reviewed article making some charge or another about Rachel Carson labelled as an agribusiness advocate because he made such a purchase would be a great example of bias. That is not the case here. You will need to put together a slightly more coherent case as to why you believe Lord Traverne can't be considered an agribusiness advocate; if we played by the logic you appear to use above, I don't think one could call Henry Ford an industrialist.Cronos1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Three aspects

We need to clarify the opposing views on:

1. Whether DDT is a useful pesticide for killing mosquitoes that spread malaria
   • For example, number of cases prevented or lives saved (per country, per year)
2. To what extent DDT has been "banned" (its use curtailed via political or economic pressure)
   • The measures taken to discourage its use don't amount to a "ban", or at least not where it's really needed
   • The measures taken to discourage its use have largely succeeded, particularly where it's needed the most
3. Whether Carson's arguments against using pesticides are scientifically sound or have merely been propagandized
   • dismissed without actual study by pro-pesticide groups
   • accepted without proof for ideological or other reasons

I don't want the article to make it seem like she's a saint (if opposition to this idea is more than marginal). Nor do I want to make it seem like she's nothing but a hoaxer (if support for her views is also more than marginal). What's wrong with simply being neutral on all aspects of her book? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Ed, Thank You for formulating a coherent statement on what you would like to see done. Much of what you wish to discuss/explore belongs in the article on DDT, not in the article on Silent Spring. I disagree with your understanding of what neutrality is and how it applies to wikipedia.Cronos1 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

50 years later

• Rachel Carson Didn’t Kill Millions of Africans - How the 50-year-old campaign against Silent Spring still distorts environmental debates.. 91.39.94.74 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)