Talk:Light brown apple moth

message: The line "The moth is native to Australia,[6] and its natural predators keep the population in check." Implies that is not an agricultural problem, which is not the case and the use of various pesticides are used by vineyards to control the species. Without control the moth can decimate a crop regardless of natural enemies Hypo Mix (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Control simplification

message: Anyone have a picture of a light brown apple moth to embed in the text?
:Zven 01:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done Goldfinger820 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adult Picture

message: Isn't the common name lightbrown (one word) rather than light brown? DiggerBob 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Light brown apple moth" beats "lightbrown apple moth" 3:2 on a web search, but, more importantly, avoids the ugly non-word "lightbrown". --Stemonitis 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Name

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

message: The James Carey quote feels sort of -- stuck in there.  Should it be moved to the controversy article (which doesn't even mention him, although the issue of the moth's possible decades-long presence in California could make a very good section for that article)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does feel stuck in there but it is relevant because there is dispute about how long the moth has been in the state. The first sentence of the paragraph suggests the date as fact, as though the moth only just arrived, so therefore supports the idea that it is new and full of unknown potential.  He could be added to the first sentence to illustrate the dispute, or removed, but the basic point that the arrival date is in dispute, should remain. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that the idea deserves fuller treatment in the other article?  Or any treatment at all, since it's not even mentioned there?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, but I don't have the time at the moment to add it. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've moved his name to the controversy article.  When you have time, you can expand it into an entire section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance

message: Before reading today's new source, I'd hoped that we could substantiate the end of the sentence, not the start.  That is, exactly what kinds of rules were actually being bypassed under the emergency?  However, this source indicates that the answer is all state laws and regulations (making you wonder why anyone's trying to change any of the state laws, since they don't seem to be the problem here), which is probably too much detail for this section.  Presumably the controversy article will want to cover all the details about what those bypassed requirements are.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergency

message: There is no evidence that six hundred unique humans reported health problems.  The evidence is that 300 phone calls and e-mail messages were made to the government hotline (of which, about half apparently refused to give their names or contact information).  These complaints include all complaints, including noise, and are not specific to health effects.  
Furthermore, 300 reports are claimed by opposition groups.  These have all been characterized recently as health complaints, even though the individual even though some of them are clearly noise complaints, like "the sounds of the planes is horrible."  Another 'complaint' (#29) on that page is about a documented outbreak of the highly contagious norovirus ("cruise ship virus") in a resort.  Another thinks that a normal red tide was caused by the spraying.  These complaints, BTW, were collected from a newspaper's chat board, and could have come from anywhere in the world.  Even the activists freely admit that nobody knows how many actual unique individuals are represented by those 600 reports.  
What's important for this article is this:  six hundred reports is not the same as 600 people, especially when the opposition groups were clearly encouraging multiple reports.   I'm not sure how else you can interpret statements like "We still need a copy of all reports of reactions" except "It is our goal to duplicate as many reports as possible."  We can say that we have 300 complaints to the government, or 300 complaints to the government plus 300 complaints collected by opposition groups, but we do not have 600 people claiming adverse health effects.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 600 reports or 600 people, either is okay with me -- they both are shameful.  The courts will be sorting it out in the end, but the "over 600" is now widely cited. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know what you think of this version.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you aware that there's an entire article at Light brown apple moth controversy specifically on that point?  (Fair warning:  it was written by an anti-spraying activist, so caveat lector.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 600 reports or 600 people?

message: This line (which like the whole paragraph it is in is not sourced) makes me wonder if the insect can survive freezing temperatures.  If so, has it spread to other places with freezing winters?  If not, how harmful ("noxious") is it in Canada? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a noxious insect in ... Canada" 

message: Substituted at 22:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment