Talk:Silent Spring

message: 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)
thread_title:  Support and Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 TC 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You have hit the nail on the head ... another article that causes critical thinkers to NOT use wikipedia. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:6D88:1E54:EC03:ACB1 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Criticisms"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DDT Ban 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notabilty 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct: see . Somebody must have been using a UK edition. I'll change that now.—Chowbok ☠ 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Author quotation

message: We need to clarify the opposing views on:
#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)
#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
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Three aspects

message: * 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)
thread_title:  50 years later 

message: Does the Human Events website example even belong on here? Gonna be honest, never posted one of these things before or done anything but read wikipedia and revert vandalized pages (I dont even have one of your fancy account doo-dads) but it may be time for me to be more actively involved. Umm...if this is too long just read the few words in caps and the title to get the point.
That list has things like The Feminine Mystique, The Origin of Species (it and Descent of Man are in the honorable mentions), and the Kinsey Reports in it and is blatantly slanted to christian (The bible isnt on the list but darwin is) conservatism, even noting that the panel they used was a conservative panel. While it is honorable of them not to pretend to be politically neutral, Wikipedia should be...at least...thats the impression I got as a reader these past years. 
Even if someone here thinks the page on Silent Spring is too left leaning and needs balance, I dont see how putting in a far right radical source in actually solves the problem (just makes the page feel inconsistent). Indeed, since the Honorable Mentions of that book list get no elaboration, including Human Events in the Silent Spring page DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE ANY MEANINGFUL INFORMATION to use to expand the criticism section. 
I think something else about malaria or maybe the possible profit loss of chemical companies would serve better to actually be informative and neutral.
69.62.187.148 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankyou. Your honest common sense is very welcome. You are right that we try to achieve balance and to avoid point-of-view writing. This is not surprisingly especially tricky in a Criticism section where it is necessary to explain opposing points of view without siding with any of them. For what it's worth, I think the Human Events mention is a notable and relevant fact, and it's only mentioned suitably briefly. The Dick Taverne mention may in contrast be overemphasised, and the Cato Institute paragraph looks like too much also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Also removed some of the non-reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Events Criticism...No Good 

message: The article needed serious trimming of its terrible sources. It relied too heavily on blogs, environmentalist websites, right wing sites, etc. Many still needs many to be replaced. 
First Criticism sections are to be avoided. See: WP:CSECTION. Instead of a "Debate" or "Criticism" section, it should focus on the main effects of the books, which seem to be:
* Helping to grow the environmentalist movement
* Improving regulations on pesticide usage, and specifically DDT. 
The Debate section focuses on the issue of DDT and falls into the fallacy of simply presenting opposing viewpoints. Views of those of critics vs. supporters. Who cares what a bunch of environmentalists and anti-environmentalists think? This is a direct scientific and historical claim. Where are the scientific studies supporting this? Those are the sorts of sources that would be needed. If this was a bunch of scientists debating an issue in scientific journals then the debate should be covered in full. The claim that DDT led to the deaths of many appears to be completely wrong, not published in scientific journals. It therefore is WP:UNDUE to give them too much space or credence. It would also appear to be a WP:FRINGE claim, since it is not something held by scientists, but rather in the public. And it relies on incorrect information in regards to DDT. 
Just because a viewpoint exists, does not mean Wikipedia should document it. The sections can be expanded but they must adhere to Wikipedia policies and not give too much credence to discredited claims made by non-scientists. A rebuilt section needs to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, {[WP:FRINGE]] and WP:UNDUE. 
Many of the sources simply fail WP:RS. 
*Ronald Bailey - Reason Magazine
Economist. Not within his academic expertise to be discussing the issue of the effect of DDT banning. I'm not sure if an advocacy magazine like Reason would pass WP:RS. 
*Human Events 
Not WP:RS.
*British politician Dick Taverne 
Not a scientist. Remember that all sorts of elected officials say stupid or uninformed things. I also don't see the point of having a long quote. 
* Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Not a reliable source. 
*  Roger E. Meiners, Pierre Desrochers, and Andrew P. Morriss edited Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson (published by the Cato Institute)
Definitely not a reliable source.
*  Spiked magazine, Pierre Desrochers
Maybe, I don't know. 
* John Tierney
The article does not cite him directly. Instead it cites: 1. A blog. 2. The book Merchants of Doubt. This is the reason why I removed it. Going to the original article. Is it an opinion piece? I'm reading it and certainly feels like a personal opinion piece. I don't know. 
* Merchants of Doubt - Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M
Is this a reliable source? Needs investigating. 
* Peter Matthiessen
All he's used is for a long quote to say that there was opposition to the book. So I removed the quote and just used him for a citation for that claim. 
* the Cato Institute
Not a reliable source by a longshot. 
Long Quotes. A lot of the article relied on simply quoting sources at length. I don't see what these really add. You can just summarize their arguments and cite them. 
This is just a start. A trimming to remove the bad sources so that the article can then be built up with better sources. Simply citing primary sources of anti- and pro-environmentalists doesn't really add anything to the article. The article still relies on many questionable sources. Mostly environmentalist websites. It needs a lot of work. This article could become one day a WP:FA, but it needs better sources. 
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reorganization and sources

message: The summary from her biography page which I added to this article is a good start. But it can be expanded greatly. If sources are found of course. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book content 

message: The lead sentence states the title, author, publisher and date. The second sentence states one of the consequences of its publication.  That's the end of the paragraph.  You haven't told me what the book is about yet, and I'm left to imagine how or why it could have started an environmental movement.  Rather than the publisher and date (which are not highly relevant), there should be some statement of the book's content in the opening sentence, or at least opening paragraph.  50 years after reading it, I don't remember the publisher or date, or even exactly, the author's name, but I definitely remember what the book was about.
I'm not going to be bold, and rewrite that paragraph myself, when another editor has asked for first dibs on this article.  Y'all may not agree, anyway.  But if you do, I'll give it a shot.Sbalfour (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead sentence - what's this book about? 

message: There is an acclaimed science fiction novel by Kate Wilhelm, Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang whose title is reminescent of the topic of this article. Here is part of a review of the book, confirming my association:
In this sense, "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" is the fictional culmination of a movement that began with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962 and whose title is recalled. In that book, we learned that in certain cases small levels of contaminants in the environment could have a devastating effect on wildlife. Specifically, the spraying of a little-known chemical, DDT, in order to kill mosquitos, resulted in a thinning of the eggs of birds. Unable to reproduce with their past effectiveness, the number of birds began to fall. In this effect, Carson foresaw a future in which no birds at all were able to reproduce leading to a "Silent Spring," free of birdsong.
You don't have to travel much ecological distance to imagine a similar effect on the reproduction of humans.
The theme of Wilhelm's book is 'if it happened to birds, it could happend to humans... what then?' 
Other articles have a Popular Culture section, in which adaptations of the article's topic are listed.  Maybe this book goes there?Sbalfour (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  An anecdote: Where Late The Sweet Bitrds Sang 

message: * 
So it seems people come away from this article thinking that there's validity to the claims that Silent Spring is to blame for tens of millions of deaths. Is there anything we can do from this? Are we giving them too much weight? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of a brain transplant, there's nothing that can be done for some people.  This article is excellent.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDT claims and Undue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Silent Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110710183807/http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12535&Itemid=47 to http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12535&Itemid=47
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive link was to a dead archive. Removed the dead archive link, leaving the previous link intact – it's from a newspaper, so should be verifiable in hard copy. Added a link (and archivelink) to another Obituary with similar content. Mojoworker (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The right link for note 25 is https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article-abstract/10/4/636/398991/The-Strange-Stillness-of-the-Past-Toward-an .  Iohana4 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved the ref.  Thanks for the tip! Dgorsline (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The right link for the note 25 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Silent Spring. 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/20071121013517/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhkYTlmYjljMmJlMzU5Y2IxOGM3ZWM3YzZkNzFiNGE to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhkYTlmYjljMmJlMzU5Y2IxOGM3ZWM3YzZkNzFiNGE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524144406/http://www.nrns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Abate-and-switch-how-a-free-market-magician-manipulated-two-decades-of-environmental-science- to http://www.nrns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Abate-and-switch-how-a-free-market-magician-manipulated-two-decades-of-environmental-science-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108233412/http://www.eac.int/health/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95%3Aclassification-system&catid=15%3Adiseases&Itemid=32 to http://www.eac.int/health/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95%3Aclassification-system&catid=15%3Adiseases&Itemid=32
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616234117/http://knowledgenetwork.alumni.msu.edu/msu-museum/silentspring.html to http://knowledgenetwork.alumni.msu.edu/msu-museum/silentspring.html
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) 07:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Silent Spring. 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/20080415165815/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/ to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803170226/http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Rachel-Carson-Silent-Spring.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Rachel-Carson-Silent-Spring.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) 03:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Silent Spring. 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/20130410003749/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72016262-BDB7-CEBA-FA60E922B18C2540 to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72016262-BDB7-CEBA-FA60E922B18C2540
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) 16:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: http://www.herseyhiroshima.com/hiro.php
Thought this might be relevant.
"One way to understand the impact of "Hiroshima" is to compare it to another work first published in The New Yorker: the environmental classic Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. Portions of Silent Spring were published serially in The New Yorker a decade and a half after "Hiroshima" and it also was quickly published in book form. Extensively researched yet written in a simple and clear style, Silent Spring told of the damage caused to the environment by the widespread use of modern pesticides and herbicides. In order to fully explain the causes of the crisis, Silent Spring explained concepts of ecology (such as the food chain) that were new to the public.
"Hiroshima" was written in a reporter's style. A reviewer of the day noted that that "there is no preaching in this book. Not a single sentence 'views with alarm. ' " [36] On the other hand, Silent Spring was certainly an explicit warning, full of (well-reasoned) advocacy and also what some might have considered sermonizing. Where Hersey was noted for his dry style, Carson's book was clearly impassioned.
The effects were different too. "Hiroshima" was not presented as a call to action; it was instead offered as a clear-eyed report about the reality of the atom bomb as seen through the eyes of the survivors...
However, Carson's Silent Spring was nothing else if not a 'call to action.' It described an environmental disaster in the making, it pointed a finger at wrongdoers, and it explained what sort of remedies would be required. Unlike "Hiroshima," large and powerful interest groups were greatly threatened by Silent Spring; the chemical and agricultural industries fought a bitter public relations and public policy war against Carson and her message.
The modern environmental crusade was probably initiated by Silent Spring. Citizen action and government policy can be traced directly to the book and to the storm of controversy that surrounded it."
In any event, I think, like the above editor that this article on Silent Spring, needs to be less defensively biased.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sermonizing"/comparison to [[Hiroshima (book)]], another ''The NY'' magazine article