Talk:Light brown apple moth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of butterflies and moths. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

few more in-text citations needed. pictures of damage to pome/stone fruit would be helpful. Goldfinger820 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adult Picture

Anyone have a picture of a light brown apple moth to embed in the text?

Zven 01:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
done Goldfinger820 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Name

Isn't the common name lightbrown (one word) rather than light brown? DiggerBob 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"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)


[edit] External links

these links are to website explaining the controversial nature of the spray program in California. Before putting them in the exterbal refs section, we should write a coherent and NPOV discussion of the controversy surrounding the spraying (i.e- weight-up both side of the story). Goldfinger820 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Numerous activist organizations have now formed around the issue of the LBAM and are not "spam" sites, but often are hosting calendars being referenced by local newspapers and documentation of court challenges, public letters, etc. I have reposted the links. Please do not remove them without discussion. bov (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, have you actually read the external links policies? Aside from the general rules that "Links should be kept to a minimum" and "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified," I particularly recommend the "Advertising and conflicts of interest" and the "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" sections to you.
Here's my take on these specific links:
  • lbamspray.com appears to contain no information about the LBAM. It prominently displays (red text) two requests for donations, and it is clearly involved in orchestrating a letter-writing campaign, but if you wanted to know something about the moth, you won't find it there.
  • stopthespray.org says "Sign the petition, Spread the word, Contact your representative in the Bay Area, Santa Cruz, or Monterey" Visible information about the moth? I sure didn't see any.
  • eastbaypesticidealert.org has a page that claims to be about LBAM, but first of all that's not the page that the link takes you to, and secondly when you do get there, the only information about the LBAM that it gives you is its name.
  • cassonline.org doesn't have any information about LBAM, although it has a very pretty website.
  • hopefortruth.com takes you to the large headline "An Untested Biochemical is Being Sprayed on California Residents Who Are Now Unwilling Participants in an Illegal Human Pesticide Experiment." If this link took you to their page on LBAM (which at least has some accurate information), then we could consider it.
I don't know if it occurred to you, but the article, taken as a whole, is supposed to be about the moth itself, and not so much about a single political controversy. This is not WikiNews: breaking news, current calendars, latest updates, and so forth don't belong here. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, and external links are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature." Websites whose purpose is to promote immediate political action are not generally considered encyclopedic.
I recommend that you read the external links policy; it may help you understand the perspective of the editors who keep removing your advertising. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"and not so much about a single political controversy"
The moth, like a public figure, is now at the center of a growing public controversy in one the most politically active areas in the US. Much as you disagree with the websites expressing citizen opposition, that outcry from the public is huge and notable, as shown by the sudden legislation efforts by state officials and city council resolutions. The links are the documentation of the public response to the moth eradication efforts. Whether the links are correct or not, or provide the info you would like, is not the issue. The header describes what they are about. These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. bov (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually say that I "agree" or "disagree" with any of these websites. What I do disagree with is the value to Wikipedia in including them. I have assumed that the primary reason you want to include them is for promotional purposes -- so that people who are interested in the local political dispute can find a way to get connected to the critics of the spraying program, and perhaps write a letter or attend a meeting about the program.
If, however, these links are actually supposed to be "the documentation of the public response", then they need to be listed as references, not as external links. The external links section is for stuff that is not already in the article. See, for example this rule: Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.
I want to be clear: I'm not the person who created this policy. If you don't like the policy, then go to WP:EL and convince them to change it. But so long as this policy is in place, we all should make a reasonable effort to follow it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that there are even more groups than listed here already, it sounds like the policy is being adhered to. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the light brown apple moth. External links that do not enlighten the reader about the insect do not belong here. By the same argument, much of the text of the section Eradication measures in California does not belong here either—that section is beginning to dominate the article. There are many articles about pest eradication, etc., where this material might belong, but not here. You might also wish to start a new article about the current event. Note, for example, the following two articles: snail darter and snail darter controversy.

As for reasoning like that above: These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. Uh, how is that relevant? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. —johndburger 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"that section is beginning to dominate the article"
Gee, so you're saying that the social and political relevance of the presence of the moth in California and the Federal/state efforts to eradicate it which have sparked both a massive and unprecedented public outcry, as well as a sudden public education about the moth, is not notable on an article about the moth? I have to disagree. The phrase that people will look up around this issue is not "pest eradication" but the one that has something about "the moth". The info belongs both here and on pages devoted to pesticides. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would start a new article if I had the time. I'm not a paid editor on here like others. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and appropriateness for this article are two different issues. Dunno what a paid editor is, but I'm not one. I started the new article—it took five minutes. —johndburger 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I think that letting the moth and the controversy be separate articles will improve both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

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)

[edit] Hey

Quarantine measures are things like "local nurseries aren't allowed to ship plants out of the area unless they've been inspected."[1] Aerial spraying is not a kind of quarantine. This is the second time I've fixed that error. Please quit re-introducing it.

Furthermore, the proprietary mix of chemicals is the pheromone. It's not a pheromone plus a bunch of chemicals: the pheromone is a bunch of chemicals. If you find this confusing, let's talk about it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So which pheromone does the moth produce with the name "Checkmate"? Describing it as a pheromone alone is just a way to make people think it is completely natural, which it is not. This is bias, regardless of if you can argue it on technicalities. Pesticide would be the better term to use. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I support specifically calling it a synthetic pheromone: it's perfectly clear about its non-natural state, it's entirely accurate, and we don't have to deal with people's different definitions of pesticide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Entirely accurate"? Except that it's missing the key details. The issue is not just about it being "non-natural", it's about the fact that unknown ingredients are included which are designed to cope with the administration and persistence of the agent, i.e., the time release, the microcapsules, the suficant, etc. And the label on the Checkmate container itself includes the word "pesticide", as do the media articles, so I'm not sure what basis there is not to call it what it's described as on its own label. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I made no claims about "synthetic pheromone" being a complete description of every issue: only that it is, itself, a completely accurate statement (as far as it goes). "A pheromone plus a bunch of chemicals" is not as accurate a statement. I do not object to adding a sentence about the formula being hidden from the public (but not the government agencies) under trade secret rules.
As for the pesticide label: some people have objected to calling the Checkmate products a pesticide because they don't kill anything. (You know: suicide is when you kill your self, homicide when you kill another person, fratricide when you kill your brother -- and pesticide when you kill a pest. I believe that it comes from Latin for cutting or killing.) It's certainly regulated as a pesticide in the US, but that doesn't mean it meets the common definition of killing pests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There are loads of accurate statements one can make that ignore the controversy. Those could go someplace other than the section about the controversy. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

I'm still considering the most recent changes. I don't think it's accurate to say that reports of adverse health effects sparked a public outcry: Wasn't there a significant public outcry before the spraying started? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There were objections to being sprayed but they were limited by the limited public awareness -- no one outside the area knew much about it. But the outcry increased dramatically with the adverse health effects reports when the plans to spray spread from the Monterey Bay area north to the Bay Area. No one wants to be sprayed with something that has been reported to make some have 'shortness of breath', among the other adverse events which are nothing like cold symptoms. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had my eye on this for while now, and there was definitely a "large public outcry" against the planned spraying, well before the spraying began and adverse health effects were reported. So I don't think it's accurate to say the health reports sparked the outcry, though perhaps the opposition grew in response to the reports. Anyways, given the political climate immediate prior to the spraying, I'd have been shocked if reports of adverse effects had not followed the spraying. Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Either sparked or 'opposition grew in response to the reports' is fine with me. The point is that they played a role in public response. But few outside of the local area in Monterey Bay were aware of the public outcry down there before the spraying. After the spraying, everything snowballed. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a reliable source that clearly says that the public outcry grew in response to adverse health effect reports? We need a newspaper article (even from the opinion section), or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I essentially with WAID on this. Yilloslime (t) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wed to "sparked". However you want to describe it, public outcry occurred. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this new article has some interesting details:
"The $497,000 contract was awarded last November to Porter Novelli, a leading international public relations firm with an office in the state capital, after hundreds of residents complained about breathing problems and other health effects from the spraying."
So a relevant detail may be that the outcry following the spraying (regardless of the actual cause) resulted in a no-bid contract of a PR firm for "a highly coordinated public relations push by the Department of Food and Agriculture . . . using focus groups to test potential public messages and media ads . . . intended to counter the concerns raised by local environmentalists and residents, who complained of breathing problems and other ill health effects after the spraying."[2]
The contract was cancelled following AP's investigation, but they already had spent about $90k.152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's interesting, but, again, it's a detail about the controversy, not the moth, and therefore belongs in the controversy article. I really don't think that the moth article needs any specific details about the political mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) So here's my thinking: I've rephrased a few bits into Wikipedia "summary style" and tried to tighten up the prose. Overall, this should be short enough that the interested reader has a good incentive to click the link to the controversy, but just long enough that the reader has an idea of what's in the other article. We would benefit from a link to something that explains what the usual rules are and/or how the emergency rules differ. I removed the bit about "public notice" because the public was notified: by news stories, by meetings, and by letters to every resident. I suspect (but don't know) that there was less public notice than in a non-emergency case, but we really can't claim in one sentence nobody found out about this, and in the next that everyone somehow still managed to find out enough about it to be upset. I made the post hoc nature of public outcry seem appropriately ambiguous: it doesn't take an opinion on the causality, just the timing of the increased level of public noise.

I tried to come up with a concise way to say that some of the outcry is due to the trade-secret status of the Checkmate pheromone product. I didn't just want to call it "a secret synthetic pheromone" because that could be misinterpreted as meaning no one knows which pheromone is being used. It doesn't deserve its own sentence here. Ultimately, I decided to leave that explanation to the controversy article.

Finally, I removed the bit about media attention because it seems silly. People are loudly upset: therefore there is media attention and political attention. Of course there is media attention and political attention. Media and political attention to public opinion are, in themselves, no less redundant than saying "It's hot today, and the thermometer registers a high number." We document the media attention in our footnotes, and if the legislature ever does more than issue press releases, then we'll document the new laws. I suspect that "we got a lot of press coverage" is only of interest to a person who is trying to figure out how well the campaign is working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Emergency

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)

[edit] 600 reports or 600 people?

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."[3] Another 'complaint' (#29) on that page is about a documented[4] outbreak of the highly contagious norovirus ("cruise ship virus") in a resort. Another thinks that a normal[5] 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.[6]

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[7] encouraging[8] multiple[9] reports.[10] I'm not sure how else you can interpret statements like "We still need a copy of all reports of reactions"[11] 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)

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)
Let me know what you think of this version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to controversy

I pulled this:

And in March of 2008, the Mayor of Albany, California, Robert Lieber, called for the resignation of CDFA Secretary Kawamura.[1]

because it belongs on the controversy article. A non-binding statement made by a low-level politician is not especially important to this article. Why mention this here, and not resolutions passed by city councils? Why mention this here, but not statements by the governor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this was restored with no explanation. Does anyone except the semi-anon think that a routine press release by a city mayor is important to include in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree with you. I removed it. —johndburger 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
One could argue that every sentence of the controversy description "belongs in the controversy section." The statement was neither routine nor a press-release nor does it need to be "binding" to be relevant -- it illustrates the meaning of the controversy when an elected official is directly calling for the secretary to step down. thisiswhatIamdoing
Do you think one-time statement by the current holder of a rotating mayorship is really that illustrative? Perhaps a better question would be: Do you think that it's more illustrative than, say, the resolution that was actually formally passed by the Albany city council? This is in California: someone's calling for the someone else's resignation every week of the year -- especially when the speaker in question is up for re-election this fall.[12] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This section should simply be a very short summary of the main article on the controversy. I don't think any of these details about city resolutions is appropriate. As I said above, I think snail darter and snail darter controversy is an analogous pair of articles, and the former has no summary at all, just a pointer to the latter. —johndburger 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And here is the other model, that is seen on most pages -- South Park and South Park controversies. 76.103.153.118 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Two editors have consistently opposed your inclusion of the mayor's statement. You are the only person who wants to include that detail. Please quit inserting it over and over. We don't need an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)