From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Statement about Bald Eagles & DDT[edit]

The statement "[A]long with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the United States ban on DDT is a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extinction in the contiguous United States" has no sources or references to back it up. There are two citations listed after the sentence, but they are both about endangered species and say nothing of DDT, so I have removed it from the main article.

If someone really thinks this should go back in, perhaps they can use references instead of conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Restored. Sentence is supported directly by "Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery" source, which states that "Habitat protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act, the federal government’s banning of DDT, and conservation actions taken by the American public have helped bald eagles make a remarkable recovery." Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Calling something a "major factor" and saying it "helped" are 2 very different assertions. A more objective way to state that sentence would be something along of lines of "Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and conservation efforts by the public, the banning of DDT for agricultural use in 1972 helped Bald Eagles, and other birds of prey, to recover from near extinction." This comes off much more neutral in tone and specifies which ESA it is alluding to. (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Insect vectors are the number one killer of birds in the wild. -Reticuli 2605:A000:1301:A37F:E939:1003:B591:65B8 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone is lying[edit]

The US Department of Transportation and Transport Canada in the Emergency Response Guidebook that it is mentioned in the references [[1]] does not contain any reference to DDT or Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. Who wrote that the DDT is "highly toxic, may be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through skin. Avoid any skin contact. Effects of contact or inhalation may be delayed." is dispersing propaganda and fake news. -- (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I can't find that quote or any reference to DDT in that source either, so I've removed the paragraph. So thanks for the heads up. (Maybe next time you find something amiss on Wikipedia you could alert others to it without all the hyperbole (i.e. words like "lying", "propaganda", etc.), or better yet: simply make the fix yourself.) Yilloslime (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Straw Man Claims[edit]

You can't put up straw man claims as replacements for the actual disagreements on DDT's ban. If you're going to say the main opponents of DDT's ban claim Carson was pushing for DDT's ban, then you need to provide evidence for that. Instead you're citing works that make such a straw man claim. Big no no. That has to be preceded with citations that back up what you are claiming they are toppling. The main opponents of DDT's ban I've seen have never made such a claim, but rather that Carson's book was utilized for that purpose by others, and, indeed, have even cited her work as a moment in literary history of note. The methodology for that section is biased and sleazy, and does not represent objectively the actual opposition to DDT's ban. And that's not even getting into Judge Edmund Sweeney, the EPA, or the use of USAID and various potential denial from certain loan programs that were utilized to compel countries to not accept DDT use in spite of the exception for vectors control. The current counter opinion section is cherry picked, not to mention the straw man problem you're not even attempting to provide evidence it's not. -Reticuli 2605:A000:1301:A37F:E939:1003:B591:65B8 (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Who is 'you' here? If you believe the arguments and edits your suggest are justifiable and you can support them with adequate references, then just go ahead and make the changes Fortnum (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of restrictions[edit]

This section needs to be more clear who is criticizing DDT ban. I wonder if the book The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History could be used here? Probably not. Dog Ear Publishing seems like a possible WP:SPS, and its authors include from the controversial Africa Fighting Malaria. But the article should make it more clear who is criticizing the ban, the current wording 'some people and groups' is not very helpful. PS. I did a bit more digging and the book is certainly not reliable, but the AFM could be given more coverage here; it is also not reliable, but if it is the best representation of the pro-DDT activism them the section should be more clear that said view is a fringe conspiracy theory and not lend any credence to it by being more clear about this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree. But let the {{Who}} stay there for a while, maybe someone will fix it. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reduction in penis size[edit]

I had included the following in the article. Another editor, citing a WP essay, not WP policy, decided to erase that. I am not going to waste time with that, thank you very much, I'm rather tired of that kind of attitude. Y'all see if you want to keep this in the article, or not. Four references, our friend didn't feel that was enough. Go figure.

Reduction in penis size[edit]

Lower plasma testosterone concentrations and smaller phalli were measured in juvenile alligators living in the contaminated environment of Lake Apopka, in Florida. The dimensions of the male reproductive organ were on average 24% smaller than those from a non-contaminated lake. [1][2] A study by Kelse in 1995 indicates that that a persistent metabolite of DDT, p,p'-DDE, is a relatively potent antiandrogen. Subsequent studies would point to other deleterious effects in Florida wildlife[3][4]. YamaPlos talk 21:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was removed because it's policy that we prefer secondary sources (even moreso on scientific topics) and are extremely cautious about primary studies lacking secondary sources (WP:SCIRS was linked because it explains what secondary sources are in science topics). That means reviews, meta-analyses, or major agencies citing the study in proper context, etc. This isn't a subject lacking in such secondary sources either. WP:PSTS lays out the cautions with focusing too much on primary sources, which doesn't say we must use primary sources. In practice, that means a certain onus needs to be met to use them.
Your first link is to the primary source that's 25 years old, and the second is just a random blog. The third is to a newspaper, and the last is just WP:NOTCATALOGUE-type info from the funding agency. There isn't anything suggesting this particular study stands out amongst all the other DDT studies out there to warrant mention here. At the end of the day, if this was something WP:DUE, we'd have a lot more discussion in scientific sources by now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Yamaplos is correct that WP:SCIRS, cited in User:Kingofaces43's edit summary when reverting, is just an essay and not policy. Having said that, I agree with both him and User:JzG that the sources provided are poor and there's nothing to distinguish this particular study from the hundreds of the others on DDT. This material should stay out of the article unless and until it receives a lot more attention. Yilloslime (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)