Talk:Environmental Defense Fund

message: EDF's headquarters are in New York, unlike the image caption claims. (See http://www.linkedin.com/companies/environmental-defense.) I am deleting image and caption. It doesn't make sense to keep the image, even if it does show EDF's Washington office building, since EDF's office occupies only a small fraction of the building. Dan kirshner (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: According to the preprint of their annual report [], they will be changing their name back to "Environmental Defense Fund" "early in 2008". So in, perhaps, a few days, someone should alter the lede paragraph of this article. S. Ugarte (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: The organization advocates using sound science, good economics and good law to find solutions that work.
It's a good thing 'law' and 'science' are hyperlinked, so I can look those up,
but what are "good law", "sound science", and "solutions that work"?
216.145.54.158 (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what can we get for good hair and visual arts? 

message: To what does that quote refer to? Who are the "them"? Mosquitos, or people living in regions with high incidences of malaria? I find the latter unlikely. S. Ugarte (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your criticism. I removed the quotation. It's not corroborated anywhere, nor is a page number even given. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Darkwind has now given Horner's book's page for the quotation, but not for Horner's argument re: EDF. If it's not substantiated, it could be the original article editor editorializing, so it should be removed if that's the case. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: To my understanding, that’s not how WP:RS works. We don’t have to verify citations in books. If the source is a WP:RS, and the three cited references certainly are, that’s the bar for inclusion. If you have an issue with this, please take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN for an outside opinion. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is as sure a way to get rid of them as any." 

message: I'm writing this because I think there are a couple of places in this article that convey a bias against Environmental Defense Fund. I want to highlight some examples and see if others agree so that a couple of minor edits can take place.
First, the History section. Saying that EDF “claims” to advocate using sound science, economics, and law to find environmental solutions is both prejudicial and incorrect. This is what EDF advocates. You can argue that the science, economics, and law they cite is inaccurate, but it cannot be argued that they don’t advocate using these tools. I hope we can change this sentence accordingly.
The History section also states, “Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business.” Isn't this a biased characterization?
As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website http://www.edf.org/home.cfm?, I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
I will stop and get feedback for these changes before I add a few more. Thanks!
Lguite (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia! As for "claim", see WP:CLAIM, and from what you have presented here, it does sound like those segments could be copy-edited to be more WP:NPOV. Just be bold and update the article! Siawase (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about neutrality on this page 

message: Isn't even placing a criticism section on a Wikipedia article a violation of providing a neutral point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV?
I'm a little puzzled that there is a “Criticism” section on this Wikipedia page, since many of EDF's sister environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council, Conservation International http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_International, the World Wildlife Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wildlife_Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wildlife_Federation have no such section on their pages. But if this page must feature a “criticism” section, the criticisms should be accurate.
– The Criticism section has Dr. Charles Wurster saying of the potential malaria epidemic that a DDT ban might cause, “Probably - so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”
If such an outrageous quote resides on a Wikipedia page, it should have a credible source, like a mainstream newspaper or magazine. (The source cited is conservative author and global warming denier Chris Horner, under the imprint of right-wing publisher Regnery. He is simply repeating what he read elsewhere.) If there is no credible original source, I would like that reference to be dropped.
– Regarding the criticism on fisheries, the piece in Fisherman’s News was an op-ed – it was not written by a reporter. Small local operators in the Pacific Northwest don’t trawl. Big boats also have an interest in protecting fisheries – a powerful economic interest. The other concerns cited here are all true, but EDF is openly dealing with them through an approach called catch-shares http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_share.
– Finally, John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks, argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration, due to an “earth-worshiping mentality,” interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement that led to Katrinagate shortly after Hurricane Katrina. Berlau sees “contempt for human life and safety, all for the sake of a few fish and mosquitoes.”
Berlau’s claim that, if built, the project would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is not accurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse. General Accountability Office, Army Corps of Engineers: Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, GAO-05-1050T, September 28, 2005
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.” Louisiana Department of Transportation, “The Failure of the New Orleans Levee System during Hurricane Katrina,” p. v.
For these reasons, I support removing the "Criticism" section from this page.
69.140.37.132 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it with certain modifications. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "Criticism" section 

message: As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website, I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
Lguite (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved section about EDF's connections to big business to Criticisms section and reworded/expanded to more accurately summarize the two articles cited; at no point do articles point to concern that EDF is "controlled" by big business.--EAHull (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business. 

message: I'd like the original author to make the following change:  The "criticisms" section includes the statement, "But with many reports suggesting that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades," however only one citation, not "many", is given and that citation is for a BBC article on a 2008 report on the economic inefficiencies in fishery management not on the likelihood of widespread fishery collapse.  There are no citations for reports indicating that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades.  Please provide multiple legitimate citations to back this claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Defense Problem 

message: I'd like to remove the following section entirely.  The book is listed but not the pages and I have no idea what it is all about.  We do know for a fact that the Army Corps of Engineers eventually admitted that the numerous studies were correct in naming them at fault for building an extremely inadequate levee system. That is well-covered in our article, which incidentally has no mention of Berlau's claim.  Thoughts? 
John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health! argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement before Hurricane Katrina.[116]
However, Berlau’s claim that, if built, the levee reinforcement system would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is inaccurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse.[117]
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.”[118]  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree that this section should be removed, and will do so. It's confusing and unnecessary, as Berlau's claims have been solidly disproven. --EAHull (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section? 

message: Can we update the "more than 700,000 members" to 1 million? It is referenced in the bottom right box on EDF's "About" page: http://www.edf.org/about  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lguite (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit made. --EAHull (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDF now has 1 million members 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Environmental Defense Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111031808/http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org:80/grantees/environmental-defense-fund to http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/grantees/environmental-defense-fund
*Added  tag to http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x46885704/Distorting-catch-share-criticism
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531182601/http://foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/catch-shares-ideology-is-a-one-way-street-in-the-wrong-direction/ to http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/catch-shares-ideology-is-a-one-way-street-in-the-wrong-direction/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317233112/http://www.fishsec.org/downloads/1237996663_49692.pdf to http://www.fishsec.org/downloads/1237996663_49692.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environmental Defense Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930055152/http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/sdwa/07.htm to http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/sdwa/07.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923004109/http://epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/basicinformation.html to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/basicinformation.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215011807/http://epa.gov/history/topics/lead/01.htm to http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lead/01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418094210/http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/02.htm to http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831195326/http://www.edf.org/transportation/diesel to http://www.edf.org/transportation/diesel
*Added  tag to http://apps.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7656
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713142344/http://www.pcffa.org/fn-aug09.htm to http://www.pcffa.org/fn-aug09.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environmental Defense Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109052409/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-22/national/39441658_1_oil-companies-energy-companies-kennedy-jr to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-22/national/39441658_1_oil-companies-energy-companies-kennedy-jr
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Key accomplishments has WAY to many sources, and so does the last bullet of areas of work. Areas of work also uses almost only edf published citations for all but the last bullet. Toad02 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many sources and NPOV