Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Carson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Egg Shells

The fact that DDT contributed to thinning of the eggshells of raptors such as the bald eagle is well substantiated. -- Absolutely untrue. A quick literature search yields a number of articles showing some effect, and others showing none. --Logos

A quick literature search, as summarised by you, is not evidence. This finding is well-established and reflected in public policy. Check US EPA etc. Other edits by you give obvious evidence of POV bias (eg your suggestion that Carson failed to complete her doctorate when the next sentence indicates financial reasons for this) and have been reverted JQ 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a direct cite from the EPA itself. A direct causal link to eggshell thinning in raptor species via DDT to DDE breakdown is beyond dispute. A simple look at the DDT entry on wikipedia itself provides more than enough cites and evidence on that particular point. --Dh100 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I distinctly remember seeing a article about this error. At the time of the research the analytical equipment available could not properly differentiate between DDT and PCB. The actual villain in the story being PCB.91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Introductory quote removed

Not appropriate for lead section--Schmidtr1 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

I don't necessarilly disagree, make an arguement or explanation beyond 'not appropriate for lead section'. Cronos1 20:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the comment I originally placed into the introductory paragraph -- I'm not sure one way or another if this is the "introductory quote removed" reference above -- as it is more balanced and objective to provide both positive and negative aspects about controversal historical figures, including Carson. If someone wants to mention a positive (for example, "She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom," that is fine by me. But a crucial negative -- "Carson has been criticized by some conservatives and Objectivists, who argue that her influence led to restrictions placed on DDT that have caused millions of needless human deaths from malaria." -- should not be omitted. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A book named "Spring Time"?

I removed an edit stating that Carson's first book was named "Spring Time". I cannot find a reference for this and suspect it is an erroneous reference to "Silent Spring". If I'm wrong, please accept my apology and add the edit back with a citation. Jeendan 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection from anon vandals

It seems to me that this article is vandalized often enough that it should be protected from editing by anonymous IPs. Has this been discussed before?--Hjal 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of luck you will have, but I would support such a protection.Cronos1 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, requests for page protection should go to WP:RfPP. However, in this case, I'm not sure semiprotection would be appropriate yet - the amount of vandalism doesn't seem to justify any protection at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservative criticism of Carson in Legacy section

Earlier, the article simply mentioned that Human Events Magazine called her book dangerous with no background as to why. I added links to CDC malaria statistics and Forbes magazine that explain conservative objections to Carson.A.V. 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Several users have removed linked information relevant to Human Events Magazine and conservative criticism of Rachel Carson. I'm agreeable to changes in wording, however, it makes no sense to reference conservative objection to Carson's work without explaining why. Should this article be protected until a moderator can be brought in? A.V. 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edit by Yilloslime is reasonable and ends my objections in this section.

Carson has been criticized by some conservatives, who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused needless malaria deaths.[7] For example, the conservative magazine Human Events gave Silent Spring an honorable mention for Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. [8]

A.V. 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, too. On the other hand, the CDC did not say that "800,000 child deaths a year could be avoided if not for the ban on DDT" on the page cited or anywhere else, so I'll chop that out, then we can all be happy. Gzuckier 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to calling these so-called critics 'conservative'. There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about limiting the public's ability to regulate a dangerous chemical. I don't know that this issue differs greatly from, say, the rejection of evolution, certainly some would identify themselves as Conservative, but not all, and there are definately conservatives who would be offended if one assumed that 'Conservative' means they don't believe in evolution. I strongly recommend a different term, one that implies the primacy of economic capitol in public policy. Cronos1 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of the people (actually all of the people i can think of) who propagate variations on the "rachel carson killed more people than hilter" line are either self described conservatives, affiliated with conservative or libertarian think tanks, or are primarily published in conservative forums. see for example Michael Fumento, Steven Milloy, Paul Driessen, Alan Caruba, Roger Bate, etc... While you no doubt may be able to dig up a few liberals (self described or otherwise) that might also buy into this line of thought, the majority of those who repeat this (and certainly the loudest voices) are conservatives, thus it is fair and appropriate to described them as such. Yilloslime 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I would sumbit that similar logic applies to a number of other issues, that people wishing to radicalize conservatism would like to identify as "conservative". I am pretty sure that one could find surveys of self-identified conservatives where the majority believe in taking care of the environment and believe policy should be grounded in scientific data as opposed to private sector profits. I have not found a single non-policy affilated source for these smears on Carson, to call them conservative is simply not accurate.Cronos1 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that not all critics are conservative. Some of them are libertarian (and distinctly not conservative), and some of them are just--well--free thinkers. To label those who criticize "conservative" is to use an NPOV ad hominem attack. The assignment of the pejorative use of the term "conservative" should be removed. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside your other debatable claims, the statement doesn't say 'all of the critics are conservative', it says 'some conservatives'Cronos1 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
By starting the section with the words "some conservatives," it makes it look like each is a conservative. That's clearly not the case. I will once again work on the wording in a different way so that it satisfies your apparent interest to make sure people know that some of them are conservative, although it's clear by context that some of them are conservative without your wording that makes it look like each is. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What you claim, that the article said that only conservatives critiize her, is not what the article said. Driessen's book isn't relevant to Rachel Carson.Cronos1 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The article below is rendered silly by the citation of the contributors. None, if you follow the links, have any competency in the field (other than a "conservative opinion"). The exception, perhaps, being Air Vice Marshall Robert George whose qualification must be that he is dead. --70.101.16.107 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

<==It is a problematic term, as is "liberal." Perhaps it should be "self-described conservatives." However, Human Events introduces the list of harmful books as follows:

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

The "15 scholars and public policy leaders [who] served as judges" were:

Note that Silent Spring was 25th on the list, with 9 points out of a possible 150, and may have been listed by only two judges or as many as nine. It was behind such "harmful" works as The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan (at No. 7!); On Liberty by John Stuart Mill; The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin; Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead; Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader; and Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

I'll check the redlinks later. --Hjal 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just call a spade a spade: The people leveling the criticism are conservatives--why should we hide this? The article doesn't say "all conservatives" feel this way, it only says that "Carson has been criticized by some conservatives, who argue..." Yilloslime 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
HJal is correct, it is a problematic term. Conservatism is much broader term than that used as a marketing tool by the extreme right. If one were to take a conservative paper, say the Wall Street Journal, and give it a new slogan, The Nation's Liberal Daily, and publish Larouche essays on the grounds that LaRouche has identified himself as a Democrat and everyone knows that Democrats like Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Joe Lieberman as well as LaRouche are all Liberals, and otherwise publish the journal as it exists today, many Liberals would not be amused, though they would probably be powerless to stop the New Wall Street Journal from identifying itself as such. At some point you can make an arguement that that a certain belief is a Core belief of 'conservatives' or central to conservatism, but smearing Rachel Carson or advocating for spoiling the environment is not such a belief. Environmentalism is a Big Tent issue with broad appeal throughout the spectrum. 'Most of the people ...who propagate variations on the "rachel carson killed more people than hilter" line are either self described conservatives, affiliated with conservative or libertarian think tanks, or are primarily published in conservative forums. see for example Michael Fumento, Steven Milloy, Paul Driessen, Alan Caruba, Roger Bate, etc.' Libertarianism is not Conservativism. It is an extreme Right Wing idealogy. Every name on your list (that I recognize) poses as an Libertarian or an objective expert and not as a Conservative...though their views are frequently promoted in so-called 'Conservative' media. I would suggest 'Industry advocate' or 'Deregulation proponent' to be vastly more accurate and appropriate.Cronos1 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum & Fred Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute call themselves conservatives but spend much of their time advocating minority positions for Conservatives. Just because you want limited Government doesn't mean you want Government eliminated except to hand out taxpayer money to corporations, etc,.

If conservative is a problematic term, "right wing" is an even more problematic one. "Industry advocate" and "Deregulation proponent" are similarly problematic, as I am sure that Human Events' and others would object to this characterization of itself, and then we'd be reduced to scouring the internet looking for articles to quote and cite to support our characterization of them as such, ortherwise we'd be accused of WP:OR.... Anyway, I do not contend, not does the article in its current state contend that conservatives, as a general rule, hate or criticize Carson, or that anti-environmentalism or pro-DDT-ism is a "core belief" of conservatism. Nor does the article imply that environmentalism is the sole purview of liberals--I agree that environmentalism is a big tent that can does include many conservatives. But at the same time, criticism of Carson on these grounds has come entirely from the right, and we should not pretend that it hasn't. (a related note: every congressman who recently voted against naming a post office after Carson, just happened to be a Republican [1]) If you want to change "Carson has been criticized by some conservatives" to "Carson has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians" or "Carson has been criticized by certain conservatives (and libertarians)" I won't fight you. But I don't think we should shy away from calling a spade a spade and noting that this line of criticism comes from the right side of political spectrum. Yilloslime 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Industry advocate" and "Deregulation proponent" are similarly problematic.' No, they are not. To be an industry advocate is to advocate for industry. To say that we need less regulation is to be a deregulation proponent. To call those slandering Carson Conservatives is not accurate, calling them Right Wing as you and I have done on several occassions in the Talk section is (imo) accurate AND may get an NPOV flag that Wiki will probably sustain. You keep saying that you are calling a Spade a Spade and you are mistaken; you use the term Conservative like I did in my hypothetical example of the Wall Street Journal, without due regard for the meaning of the word, and incidentally, exactly like someone on the Right Wing would prefer that you do. The purpose of "Conservative" media is to attach the Conservative label to any number of ideas and issues that are not Conservative - labelling "this line of criticism comes from the right side of political spectrum" is fine as far as you can get Wiki to allow it, but being 'from the right side of political spectrum' is not the same as being 'conservative' there are people on the left that are conservative!!(this mistake is what right wingers would like others to make, THIS IS THE USE OF LANGUAGE AS A WEAPON IN PROPAGANDA/MARKETING! - if I wanted to wreck social security, and get some popular support, i'd say it was apple pie and conservative...the subtext being: keep what you have/what you know, no matter what the reality of wrecking the program might be). To be accurate and not weasil-worded, I believe you need to come up with something that is both accurate and NPOV...as I have already said, Conservative does not fit the accuracy part.Cronos1 03:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant that "conservative" is a problematic term in general; to have a general split of Americans into "conservatives" and "liberals" causes all kinds of problems, since, in most regards, from an American perspective, the majority are "moderates," IMNSHO. As discussed above, extremists, both "radicals" and "reactionaries," seem to try to convince people who self-identify as conservative or liberal that they have to accept all of their extreme positions in order to qualify. In the 50s, and later, that seems to have meant trying to convince New Deal Democrats that they had to support Stalinism (or, at least, American Stalinists). Ever since the Reagan Revolution, it has meant that various factions on the right have demanded that everybody on their side accept that theirs is a big enough tent for the heirs of Lincoln in the GOP and white racists, theocrats, anti-semites and the Israel lobby, and God-knows-what else. However, Human Affairs and the judges mostly identify as "conservative," so I think that we are stuck with the term.--Hjal 04:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Skeptical that New Deal Democrats felt any obligation to 'support Stalinism' or CPUSA (?). But yes, you are correct that radical policies identified/branded as Conservative in modern sence began with Reagan. Conservatives oppose radical change from status quo. To the extent that they want massive changes the label is inappropriate, yet the media mis-used it at the time and continues to do so. Look, if we were talking about wanting lower taxes, I believe that is a Core belief among Conservatives, it would be an appropriate label. As I said before, many of the people on Yilloslime's fairly comprehensive list do not identify themselves as conservative and while many of the channels of message have been called reactionary and sometimes inappropriately, Conservative, they tend to self-identify as 'non-partisan' and 'scientifically objective' in hopes that this posture will get the message passed off as such in the mainstream media (and all too often, they are, sadly, sucessful). That's all I have to say on the subject. I understand your POV, but I object to it for the reasons stated above. Please reconsider your position and edit accordingly.Cronos1 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote that the conservative label stays. The criticism listed in the article is from two conservative magazines, Human Events and Forbes. The paragraph in question regarding criticism of Carson’s work would not make as much sense if we didn’t get to know who is doing the criticizing. As a conservative myself, I'm not ashamed of being on the side of preventing malaria deaths with the reasonable use of DDT.A.V. 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem with the use of "conservatives" in this article, looking at it from the perspective of the project rather than politics, is that the Conservatism article doesn't clearly address how and why the lunatic fringe of the right was incorporated into and mobilized by the Republican Party and the American conservative movement as a means to power, despite the opposition by (what I would consider) respectable elements of the Old Right. As a Moonbat myself, I'm glad to see the Wingnuts draggging the right into the dirt--it now seems to be moving the electoral balance a little closer to a reasonable center, if that makes sense. OTOH, it's part of what's tearing our polity apart. The Conservatism article has had problems with the inclusion of a "criticism" section--perhaps it needs one. Or perhaps it needs something else to indicate that bloggers who equate Carson to Hitler and Pol Pot are at least slightly outside the mainstream of conservative thought.--Hjal 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Forbes and Human Events Magazine are solidly in the center of conservative thought - they are not fringe publications, unless you are so far left you can't tell the difference. Also, I resent your use of the term "wingnut" and disagree with your opinions about the "conservative movement being dragged into the dirt". Your discourse would be more at home on the Daily Kos, than on an encyclopedia entry about the life of Rachel Carson.A.V. 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill to Honor Rachel Carson on Hold http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201574.html Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has effectively blocked a resolution to honor environmental author Rachel Carson on the 100th anniversary of her birth, saying that her warnings about environmental damage have put a stigma on potentially lifesaving pesticides, congressional staffers said yesterday.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) had intended to submit a resolution celebrating Carson, author of the 1962 book "Silent Spring," for her "legacy of scientific rigor coupled with poetic sensibility." Carson, a longtime resident of Silver Spring who died in 1964, would have turned 100 this Sunday.

snip

In a statement on his Web site yesterday, Coburn (R) confirmed that he is holding up the bill. In the statement, he blames Carson for using "junk science" to turn public opinion against chemicals, including DDT, that could prevent the spread of insect-borne diseases such as malaria, which is spread by mosquitoes.

snip

"Carson was the author of the now-debunked 'The Silent Spring,' " Coburn's statement reads. "This book was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT."

The controversy over Cardin's resolution -- which Sullam said was to be co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) -- is the second spat over Carson's legacy on Capitol Hill this year. MajorRogers 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page, in part to remove somebody's comment calling criticism of Carson's viewpoints and legacy "unfounded." Folks are welcome to have this opinion, but it is merely an opinion, and one which several folks disagree (including me). Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the recent criticism of Carson is notable and should be included in the article. But I think that devoting 31 out the 116 words in the intro to it gives it undue weight. In other words: yes it's important, but is it important enough to highlight so strongly in the intro? I think not. That's why I removed it the first time, and that's why I'm removing it again. I might be able to live with a sentence in the intro about how she was fiercely attacked in her day and continues to be even now, and leave the details of the attacks in the article. Yilloslime 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Given Carson's negative influence, if anything, 31 words out of 116 in the introduction understates these negatives. That said, if someone can find a way to re-word that 31-word sentence to make it shorter, but still keep its point intact (that point being not that "she was fiercely attacked;" but rather, that the policies she advocated arguably led to millions of preventable human deaths) I would have no problem with that. However, outright removal of all 31 words -- and replaced by nothing -- doesn't seem to be a balanced or objective approach. I've replaced the 31 words, but will be satisfied if a shorter sentence is inserted in its place, so long as the key point remains. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh boy. This article had something that many wikipedia articles lack--a concise, to the point, whet-your-appetite intro. If you stick the criticism in, then we might as well stick in the response to the criticism, then we end up with an intro that's no longer concise, but instead one POV vs another POV. Now how does that improve the article? BTW what you take for granted as "Carson's negative influence" is definitely not the mainstream view, ergo, shouldn't be in the intro.Yilloslime 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
After noticing that Hjal had previously reverted 96.224.2.238's edits of the introductory paragraph, I have decided revert them again as well. So right now it's two (Hjal & I) against one (96.224.2.238) if anyone is keeping track. I've also reverted his/her edits to this sentence Carson and the environmental movement have been criticized by some conservatives, who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused millions of needless human deaths from malaria since that's what we all agreed we could live with after some discussion, and i don't think the article is improved by splitting hairs between conservatives and Objectivists. (Yes, narrowly defined that are not exactly the same, but broadly defined, objectivism can be considered within the realm of conservative ideology. And I pray to God that I am not initiating a debate on the taxonomy of the political spectrum....)Yilloslime 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the introduction lacked even the barest mention of an important part of Rachel Carson, her viewpoints, and her legacy. It's like briefly introducing Napoleon without mentioning Waterloo. A concise introduction that completely omits one big side of the story is not nearly as objective and balanced as a slightly longer introduction that briefly mentions that her actions arguably led to important adverse consequences. An introduction without even the slightest criticism is therefore misleading. One need not agree with the criticisms to acknowledge that some folks -- typically, conservatives and Objectivists; and conservatives are part of the mainstream, just as liberals are -- have made a case that Carson's legacy is a strongly negative one. That part of Carson's story merits a brief mention in the introduction, just as her positives merit mention in the introduction. Again, if someone can edit the criticism into less than 31 words, and still keep intact the main point of the criticism, I would encourage such an approach. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatelu you are wrong. Suppose, hypothetically, the boy scouts started a big PR campaign, saying that Hillary Clinton had been caught smuggling cocaine across the border into Nevada. Suppose some newspapers even printed OpEds by the scouts that argued she should be jailed for this. But let's also suppose it's totally false, and verifiable so. Would the controversy merit inclusion in the intro section to the article about her? I'd say "no," it's a footnote in the long history of her. The "Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of malaria death" mumbo jumbo is the same thing: it's the view of a very small but vocal minority (CEI, AEI, Cato Institute, Ayn Rand Institute, and spin-off groups, and their few supporters on capitol hill, and it's verifiably false (see the section in the Rachel Carson article that quotes from her book, in which she basically supports DDT use in malaria control.) The point is not that we should pretend the criticism isn't out there, the point is that we should give it more weight than it deserves, and it's not notable or significant enough to warrant inclusion in the appropriately concise intro of the article, especially when it's given plenty of space in the body of the article itself. Yilloslime 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, in many ways, and for many reasons. For example, it is not just so-called fringe publications in which articles critical of Carson have appeared. Multiple articles published by widely-read, mainstream conservative media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and National Review have been critical of Carson. The viewpoint that Carson's legacy is a harmful one is much more widespread than "a very small... minority." I (and many others) also disagree most strenuously with the assertion that the criticisms of Carson are "verifiably false." See the quotes from her book that have not been proven true (e.g., "DDT [has] the definite rating of a chemical carcinogen") -- please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Cancer for additional information. If the criticisms are to have the weight they deserve, then the introduction should not omit all criticisms. After all, her viewpoints arguably contributed to the preventable deaths of millions of human beings. I'd call that kind of adverse consequence notable and significant. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<---You have violated WP:3R, but i haven't reported you, since you may not be aware that you have. But now you do. (I also left a message for you on your talk page. So anyways, in light of this, the gentlemanly thing for you to do is to revert your reversions to the last revision of the intro by Ragesoss, or risk being reported for violating WP:3R. (I'm about to step on a plane, so fortunately or not I'm bowing out of this dispute for now. Good day!) Yilloslime 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not previously aware of any such rule, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Thank you for informing me about that rule; and I apologize that I have inadvertently violated it. Nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that it would be gentlemanly for me to omit a key part of Carson's legacy from the introduction. I also disagree with the ad populem argument. Safe travels. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The so-called balanced approach is not appropriate. The so-called criticisms of Carson are baseless and rely upon distortion of positions she advocated, as well as dubious causal chain of events. The criticisms are far to vague in what specific things Carson wrote or said that led to specific legislation/policy that supposedly caused anyone to get malaria. I have not seen a single credible charge about the accuracy of her statements; 'she says that one expert “now gives DDT the definite rating of a chemical carcinogen.”' from the Competitive Enterprise Institute does not challenge whether this statement was false, it just quotes it. Mr. Smith should know (as he linked to the DDT article) that the chemical is still (45 years after Silent Spring) classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen by the EPA, it is simply irresponsible to act as if DDT is harmless and that Rachel Carson is somehow culpable in a single death from malaria, let alone insist that presenting this dubious charge is somehow balanced.Cronos1 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I completely disagree. Perhaps you "have not seen a single credible charge about the accuracy of her statements;" I have. For example, she terms DDT a "definite... chemical carcinogen." However, one need link only to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Cancer to find statements including "A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed" and "Some direct studies have not found a link between DDT and breast cancer in humans." (Incidentally, those statements were not added by me; in fact I have not edited DDT at all.) It is fair to say that the alleged carcinogenic properties of DDT are a matter of debate. Some folks -- including the EPA -- say it is, or it probably is. Other folks say it is not, or it is likely not. Both sides include reputable scientists. Carson's statement that DDT is a "definite... chemical carcinogen" has not been proven, and multiple scientific studies have actually come to the opposite conclusion (that conclusion being that DDT is not carcinogenic). I have said -- and continue to say -- that Carson's positives should be amply recounted in the article. But to completely omit her negatives from the introduction, and to sideline them by making them only two sentences out of 14 paragraphs in the Legacy section, is to render the article exceedingly biased, even if inadvertently so. As such, a much more balanced approach is appropriate. And, incidentally, I would appreciate it if folks would stop deleting the comments I am adding in good faith to this talk page. It has happened twice so far. Let there not be a third time. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.2.238 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The carcinogen quote passage is as follows:

In laboratory tests on animal subjects, DDT has produced suspicious liver tumors. Scientists of the Food and Drug Administration who reported the discovery of these tumors were uncertain how to classify them, but felt there was some "justification for considering them low grade hepatic cell carcinomas." Dr. Hueper [author of Occupational Tumors and Allied Diseases, regarded as an authoritative text as the time, regardless of the more accurate picture provided by later research] now gives DDT the definite rating of a "chemical carcinogen."

This is hardly the same as the out-of-context claim you attribute to her, saying she herself terms DDT a "definite...chemical carcinogen." Again, taking one out-of-context line from her book and blowing it up into a charge that she caused millions of malaria deaths is simply ludicrous. The debate over the carcinogenicity of DDT has no place in this article, as Carson simply and accurately described the views of scientists at the time rather than make novel claims about DDT.--ragesoss 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps you "have not seen a single credible charge about the accuracy of her statements;" I have. For example..." You then go on to cite a non-credible example as Ragesoss has demonstrated, moreover, as I stated in my original comment, the source of you cite does not dispute the RCs statement's accuracy. To merit significance worthy of inclusion as a fact, there needs to be a specific charge like when RC said thus and such it was untrue AND here is the proof that it was untrue when she said it. I have read nothing approaching that. The "criticisms" I have read are not documented with any such proof. "The debate over the carcinogenicity of DDT has no place in this article." I agree, however, I do think that by showing that a regulating body still (45 years and many many tests later) considers the chemical a probable carcinogen (not a possible, there is a significant difference), that a reasonable person would have to reconsider whether their statements implying that RC was lying are fair and/or significant. Cronos1 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"It is fair to say that the alleged carcinogenic properties of DDT are a matter of debate." Well, at some level everything is a matter of debate, but not to a degree that's worthy of mention. "Some folks -- including the EPA -- say it is, or it probably is. Other folks say it is not, or it is likely not. Both sides include reputable scientists." Again, not necessarily to a degree worthy of mention here, (anonymous "reputable" scientists vs. the EPA) because: "Carson's statement that DDT is a 'definite... chemical carcinogen' has not been proven, and multiple scientific studies have actually come to the opposite conclusion (that conclusion being that DDT is not carcinogenic)." is a misunderstanding of the axiom that you cannot prove that something is NOT a carcinogen; you can only prove that it doesn't cause a statisticaly significant increase in cancer in the number of subjects tested at the dose tested. Which is all that has been proved, in humans.
In other mammals, however, higher doses of DDT are seen to be carcinogenic; and, since there is no known or postulated mechanism for why humans would be immune (like a human-specific enzyme for detoxifying DDT and its metabolic products, for instance); and, since current well-supported theory regarding carcinogens is that, although the total danger declines with total dosage as would be expected, at no level are they absolutely harmless (similar to the case with bullets aimed at one's head, for instance); therefore DDT is in all probability a carcinogen in humans. The fact that we don't have sufficient good enough data on sufficient people exposed to sufficiently high levels to provide a statistically significant estimate of the risk does nothing to prove it's not a carcinogen, it merely establishes that the level of toxicity DDT could possibly have is not above whatever was tested. This will remain the case until large numbers of humans are fed larger quantities of DDT, and since WWII and the Nuremberg Trials, these types of human tests for substances which are most likely toxic just aren't done; so citing the lack of such data as evidence that DDT is not carcinogenic is misunderstanding and/or misleading.
Take for example, the case of AF-2 (2-(2-furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl) acrylamide), used as a food preservative in Japan since the early 1960s, withdrawn from the market in 1974 when observed to be mutagenic in bacteria, confirmed when some (but not all) tests on rats linked it to benign and malignant tumors; still "no observed carcinogenicity in humans", but listed as probably carcinogen anyway. If this kind of evidence for carcinogenicity is not good enough, and you are reluctant to feed large doses of probable carcinogens to large numbers of people to see what happens, then you will have to delete most of the list of probable human carcinogens. Which, of course, would delight many industries, and that brings us back to "Rachel Carson, the biggest mass murderer ever", etc. etc. etc. But none of that really belongs in this article, does it?Gzuckier 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, I may behoove me or someone else to create a separate page that provides the arguments for the negative aspects of Carson's legacy. (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight). Nevertheless, I still argue that the current status of the main article on Rachel Carson significantly underweights the criticisms of her and her legacy that have been published multiple times in widely-read conservative mainstream publications including but not limited to The Wall Street Journal and National Review. As stated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable.' All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Perhaps some folks who are biased against media publications like The Wall Street Journal and National Review -- or who for whatever reason want to ignore scientific sources such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6061300 -- disagree that sources like these are "reliable." Yet I don't see folks like this arguing against the reliability of left-wing media publications cited in the Rachel Carson article, such as Time magazine and The Washington Post. Not quite the intellectual consistency one would hope to find in an encyclopedia article... Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "the arguments for the negative aspects of Carson's legacy" Sorry, but there are no negative aspects. There is some minor (and quite silly) rightwing hysterics propping up strawmen to squeal about, nothing more. TJ aka Teej 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The article aleady discusses her alledged negative aspects. (and IMHO it gives her critics more attention than is warranted.) NPOV is respected. Yilloslime 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Just a note that creating a separate article to push your own POV is a very bad idea. Articles of this kind (POV forks) are routinely deleted. As regards conservative criticism, I disagree somewhat with Yilloslime. There's plenty more to be said about the way the tobacco lobby and its creatures like Milloy and Bate, along with the LaRouche movement have slandered Carson's memory, and how people who should know better have been sucked in. JQ 08:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"some folks who are biased against media publications like The Wall Street Journal and National Review -- or who for whatever reason want to ignore scientific sources such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6061300 -- disagree that sources like these are "reliable." Please provide an example where a fellow editor reverted one of your edits due to the facts of publication as opposed to the use of flawed/undocumented/unsupported material contained in an article whoever published it. What is in the 1967 article 'Men with intensive occupational exposure to DDT. A clinical and chemical study', something relevant to Rachel Carson? If so and it is documented, it may be appropriate for inclusion in the article, I can promise you it won't be ignored.Cronos1 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"Sorry, but there are no negative aspects." With all due respect, this is a completely biased, unserious response. The subsequent phrase "rightwing hysterics" further documents this particular viewpoint's left-wing bias. "NPOV is respected." Easy for someone involved in the dispute to say, when that person's viewpoint is already amply represented. "Just a note that creating a separate article to push your own POV is a very bad idea." It may very well be. It is a suggestion from Wikipedia. I would prefer to see a more balanced and objective approach to the Rachel Carson main article. However, it has become clear to me that multiple folks with left-wing political biases remain determined to whitewash her viewpoints and legacy. I have returned the POV tag. Is there anyone out there without a pre-determined political agenda that is available to review this? And, incidentally, more of my comments continue to be removed from this edit page without my permission. I take it as a sign of the fundamental biases inherent in some folks that they seek to censor me. Initiation -- initiation -- of censorship is utterly reprehensible. I see now that some folks believe otherwise. How cowardly of them. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Men with intensive occupational exposure to DDT. A clinical and chemical study." is an unlikely title for an article that could be used to support "criticisms of her and her legacy". Citing one study consisting of 59 men who did not have cancer (although they had a significantly higher risk of diabetes) would only be valid if Carson had stated that 59 men exposed to DDT would have cancer. (Or that they would not have a higher risk of diabetes). On a related note, I object to the slanted depiction of Russian roulette as dangerous, as the article clearly lists several people who claim to have played it and survived.Gzuckier 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Citing one study..." But it is not merely one study being cited. "On a related note, I object to the slanted depiction of Russian roulette..." If that's the best you can do, you might want to stick to your day job. Once again, unserious criticisms, no response as to why multiple comments of mine on the talk page have been censored, and now the removal of both my request for comment and the POV tag. If this is standard operating procedure for Wikipedia, I can only enjoy a hearty laugh. That said, I am optimistic for fair treatment. Let us see if such optimism proves warranted. I have re-posted the request for comment, and look forward to a serious response from an administrator, as I have yet to receive one. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
... and incidentally, I would hardly consider "the LaRouche movement" as part of any mainstream conservative group. Conservative criticism in places such as The Wall Street Journal and National Review is a part of the mainstream, however, and as such deserves a reasonable amount of representation in the main article. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (not a matter for administrator action, unless there is violation of rules going on), and most of the editors agree that the criticisms are sufficiently covered. The article mentions them briefly, and to emphasize them more would be to give the matter undue weight. Also, please do not post non-article material in the article; that is not the place for it. The proper venue for a request for comment is Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--ragesoss 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see zero evidence to support 96.224.3.71's claim that his comments have been deleted from this talk page. I've checked the page history, and no one has ever deleted anyone's comments. 96.224.3.71, are you sure you properly saving your posts? You realize that if you don't leave an edit summary you'll be prompted to click "save page" a second time...Yilloslime 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune uses this article

Was Rachel Carson wrong? was in the Chicago Tribute editorial page on May 27, 2007. It clearly used Wikipedia's Rachel Carson article. MichaelSH 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

how so? Yilloslime 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rachel and Dorothy

I just happened to be monitoring changes by anonymous editors, and saw one blank out the section on Carson's relationship with Dorothy Freeman, along with the comment "unfounded." Knowing little about Carson, I spent the next hour or so reading letters which they wrote to each other. If you have not read any, and are interested in this aspect of Carson's life, I urge you to do so -- critics called them "frankly romantic," but to my eye many of them are flat-out love letters. You can see a sample at: http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/carson.htm

In any event, I'm reverting the change. It looks to me like they were head over heels in love for 10 years, and that is not insignificant, nor is it unsourced. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Posthumous criticism

Yilloslime, you reverted my edits that contained two changes. The first was a change to remove a reference to a blog maintained by Eli Rabbet. The second was a reference to an article published in the WSJ with criticism from the Ugandan health services director.

While the rule against using self-published blogs as sources does allow an exception for experts in the field, a casual reading of the citation hardly sounds like it was meant to be objective. For instance, "It is truly difficult to understand someone as evil as Roger Bate", "Roger Bate's existence is a strong argument against the existence of a just God", etc. I seriously doubt this material would ever be published by an independent source with a rigorous editorial policy. I think you should find another reference for this statement.

Regarding the WSJ reference, can you explain why this was removed. It sounds like valid criticism published in a reliable source, no? Ronnotel 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The blog cites the actual tobacco documents, so it is well sourced. There are several other blogs that go into this too, so we could cite those as well to indicate that this not just one blog's opinion. Alternatively, we could cite that actual documenst, summarize what they say, and leave out the blog links. One way or another, the info is relevant and well sourced and should stay.
As for my removal of the WSJ piece: this wiki article already discusses the critisicism of Carson by conservatives like those writing in WSJ, and links to many such articles. The WSJ piece doesn't say anything that's not already in this article, and therefore including this new one doesn't improve the article. I don't see much point in including links to every editorial that comes out attacking Carson, after all wikipedia is not a directory of links--we've got a few representive articles links already, including more doesn't make this entry any better. If you want to remove one link and replace it with the WSJ one I won't object, but as I said, i don't see how the article is improved by adding yet another anti-Carson editorial.
Sorry for removing your edits without more explaination. This entry gets vandalized so often that I'm used to simply reverting things without much discussion. Yilloslime 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Silly me - I was looking in the section labeled 'Criticism' for actual criticism. I found the material I think you are referring to in the Legacy article. Fair enough - although I think there is a room to move some of the material to the Criticism section so it is easier to find. However, I do strongly disagree with the suggestion to summarize the original documents on our own. That's WP:OR. I really think a reliable source needs to be identified for the material or it should be dropped. Ronnotel 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been intending to rearrange the article so that all the postumous criticism is in the same section, but I haven't gotton around to it. If you want to take a stab it, please do. I see your point about WP:OR, but i think we could avoid WP:OR and avoid citing the blog (if that's desirable) by simply linking to the tobacco documents directly, and then summarizing them. Something like Roger Bate solicited funds from XYZ to set up AFM, in effort to "drive a stake throw the environemental movement [or whatever the actual quote is]" I don't think that would qualify as WP:OR since it's just paraphrasing the document and quoting from it. Having said that, I prefer it the way it is--linked to blog. But adding links to other the blogs that have similar posts and linking the primary resources might also be an improvement.Yilloslime 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am for removing the WSJ reference (as Yilloslime has done). The statement says RC made mistakes in her research. No such sentence exists in the WSJ article. Dr.Zaramba's charges are the usual generic and unsourced that industry has thrown about for years...For those of you without access, here are the relevant sentences: "The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring.” Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented." "Environmental leaders must join the 21st century, acknowledge the mistakes Carson made, and balance the hypothetical risks of DDT with the real and devastating consequences of malaria." In other words RC's "mistakes" were in not recognizing DDT was "harmless" and in not balancing "the hypothetical risks of DDT with the real and devastating consequences of malaria." If someone desperately wants this included, there ought to be a statement to the effect that RC has been accussed of not recognizing ddt is harmless and not caring about how bad malaria is by...followed by a list of the accussers.Cronos1 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cronos1, and I would add the this statement is the WSJ is 100% wrong: "But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented." I direct interested readers to DDT for a sampling of some of the research demonstrating DDT's harmful effects on the environment and human health, and to Malaria for a discussion of various malaria control stategies.Yilloslime 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In the line: "It has been claimed that the recent criticism of Carson was funded by the tobacco industry, seeking to divert the attention of bodies such as the World Health Organization from campaigns against smoking.[28][29] " Can we not name those people making the claim? Right now, the sentence uses weasel words.A.V. 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tobacco claim is weird, as is the decision to only quote "conservative magazine" Human Events and discount anything from the Wall Street Journal as just being another conservative viewpoint, and the decision to end the section with a quote from an environmentalist saying that the attempts are conservatives trying to discredit Carson. Many criticisms like this have been made by many newspapers, not just "conservative magazines"; one notable example I've seen is The Economist and it's in no way conservative. It's liberal if anything. I also find the fact that no mention is made of Africa is weird. Africa is why this controversy even exists, with huge numbers of cases of malaria and many countries still afraid to use DDT to combat the problem. The section needs a rewrite to a more neutral point of view. Again, it is NOT just conservatives making this point. Here are some sources:

This was written by the Director of Health Services for Uganda; whether Wikipedia editors personally disagree with one of his assertions in the article is irrelevant. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source for Wikipedia, is one of the most respected newspapers in the world, and this man is a high official in Uganda with a valid viewpoint.

Reading this article, one would not know that the WHO recently said that malaria should be used to combat malaria in Africa; it certainly needs to be updated. To somehow imply that the WHO is being "bought" by Philip Morris to say that DDT should be used against malaria in Africa is quite a serious charge and if it is included, it should not be at the expense of expanding on what the WHO itself has said on the matter. This would also require some counterpoint evidence that DDT should NOT be used to fight malaria in Africa and the only reason the WHO is doing this is because it is receiving money from Philip Morris or Altria in order for it to be a valid point for inclusion.--Gloriamarie 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, so please read through all the comments above. But in a nutshell, the vast majority of the recent anti-Carson rhetoric has come from conservatives, therefore it only makes sense to point that out. Those leading the charge in Congress against Carson are all Republicans (see links above), and the overwhelming majority of those writing anti-Carson OpEds in the print media are conservatives, even when these OpEd are printed in "liberal" newspapers. I'm not saying that you can't find a few anti-Carson pieces written by liberals--I'm sure you can, only that most are written by conservatives (liberatarians in particular), and it's appropriate that the article point this out. I don't think we should quote from or even link to or reference every anti-carson OpEd that's come out recently, afterall wikipedia is not a directory of links. If you think that there are better or more representative examples to use than ones currently in the article, then by all means, please swap them in. (BTW, the BBC article you cite makes no mentin of Carson and is hardly an endorsement of DDT, and it's also wrong in claiming that DDT was "banned". The Wall Street Journal is solidly conservative and the IHT does't criticize Carson either. The Seattle Post article is interesting, and may represent a rare example of a liberal criticizing Carson. Although it does end with "The irony is that Carson did not call for DDT to be banned, only for its indiscriminate use to be curbed. But that was not the message that campaigners took from her messianic book," which is hardly a scathing criticism.)
The WHO's position on DDT is not as clear cut as you make it seem. There is reference to this in DDT and much discussion of this on the talk page for Steven Milloy. In another nut shell, despite the strong rhetoric of the press release, there has not been a sea change in the WHO's position on DDT. The WHO has always supported IRS with DDT and continues to. They have always been against broadcasting DDT widely into the environment, and continue to be. They goal has been--and remains--to simultaneous elimate both malaria and DDT. See the more recent statements by the Director of the World Health Organization Office on Public Health and Environment Dr Maria Neira [2] and former head of Malaria control at WHO, Dr. Allen Schapira [3].
Also, no one is saying that PM bought the WHO--as you correctly point out, we'd need evidence that PM is paying the WHO and this had an effect on the WHO's policy. All the article says is the some of those who are outspoken in their criticism of Carson have ties to PM, and that their motives for advocating DDT (and disparaging Carson) are more complicated than simply compasion for dying African children. Yilloslime 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As I posted elsewhere, from the WHO reports on their emergency disease remediation work after the 2004 tsunami "Endemic sporadic malaria close to the affected areas transm­itted by An.culicifacies, which has been considered DDT-resistant for­ many years" [4].
For those who need to be spoon fed their "understanding" daily by the AEI et al, this means
  1. The WHO never "banned" DDT for malaria fighting
  2. where it is effective
  3. which is not everywhere.
Gzuckier 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article succeeds as an enthralling narrative of Carson's life, but needs to say more about her work, in particular the main findings of Silent Spring. I would suggest a new sub-section in the "Silent Spring" section, after "Research and writing" and before "Promotion and reception". This section would clearly spell out Carson's main research findings, and would include some quotes from "Silent Spring" to illustrate these. The section would go beyond general mention of "environmental concerns" and "environmental damage" and get down to the specifics. This section would provide a firm foundation for the discussion to follow.

My other main suggestion is that the lead should have inline citations which support what is being said. The quote at the end of the lead should be incorporated into the text.

And there was one sentence which didn't make sense to me: "From he spoke as much as she was physically able, however, including a notable appearance on The Today Show and speeches at several dinners held in her honor."

I've decided to put this article on hold as the article has the potential for GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reticent to include too much of what would more properly be included in Silent Spring. However, I'll add a little bit about the text itself, as you suggest. The lead just summarizes what's in the body of the article; that's where the relevant citations are. I also disagree about incorporating the quote into the text; I prefer it set apart, but I'll wait until some of the other editors of this article have a chance to weigh in. That sentence you point out didn't make any sense to me, either; I've fixed it.--ragesoss 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
SILENT SPRING:If you reference the Silent Spring article, you will not see a real good summary of the type I believe Johnfos is requesting. Whatever is written here will attract POV, here is a stab at something I think might work: The book examined the effects of pesticides usage on the environment. “Carson argues that DDT not only indiscriminately kills insects, including beneficial species like bees, but also accumulates in the fat of birds and mammals high on the food chain, thinning eggshells and causing reproductive problems(http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/25-greatest-science-books/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=).” I believe the "results" of the publication, birth of environmental movement, partial ban of DDT in US, are covered in the article. THE QUOTE: I really like it as is. A brief review of other wiki biographies, however, shows that it is somewhat unusual. Quite a lot have a quotes section.Cronos1 03:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed all the issues brought up except for the quote, which I would rather leave in (and the citations in the lead, which are unnecessary).--ragesoss 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia hands out gold stars, you've earned one, ragesoss. Thank You for you exemplary editorship!Cronos1 04:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm impressed too. Thanks for that... The quote is a small point and I won't mention it again. However, the lead does need references in order for it to comply with WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:When to cite. As was mentioned, these references will of course come from those already used in the body of the article. -- Johnfos 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What within the lead do you think is controversial and/or likely to be challenged? I think everything in the lead would be agreed upon even by critics of Carson; it's all basically common knowledge.--ragesoss 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ragesoss that there's nothing in the lead needing a cite. awesome job btw, ragesoss. Yilloslime 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the two main parts of the lead that need citations:

"Silent Spring had an immense effect in the United States, where it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy. mainly due to the "immense effects" and "spurred a reversal" parts.
"Her widely-praised 1951 bestseller The Sea Around Us won her financial security and recognition as an extremely gifted writer." mainly due to the "widely-praised" part.

I've added {fact} tags in the text. -- Johnfos 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I strongly disagree that those passages should be cited and will hopefully deal with that in the future as I push this toward FA level, but I've added them for now.--ragesoss 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations, this article now meets all of the GA criteria! Johnfos 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco paragraph

I've removed the paragraph on the tobacco industry, reproduced here:

Some have claimed that recent criticism of Carson was funded by the tobacco industry, seeking to divert the attention of bodies such as the World Health Organization from campaigns against smoking.[1][2] Documents in the Legacy Tobacco Document Archive show that Africa Fighting Malaria—one the most vocal critics of Carson and advocates of DDT—originally sought the support of the tobacco industry to divert resources away from efforts by the World Health Organization to reduce smoking.[3]. Another vocal critic, Steven Milloy, established The Advancement of Sound Science Center with support from Philip Morris.[4] Although funding from Philip Morris appears to have ceased, TASSC and the associated www.junkscience.com site continue to criticise Rachel Carson.

  1. ^ Eili Rabett, Original Sin, Rabett Run, May 27th, 2007.
  2. ^ Tim Lambert, Taking Aim at Rachel Carson, Deltoid, May 30th, 2007.
  3. ^ (a) Legacy Tobacco Document Archive: Roger Bate's proposal to set-up Africa Fighting Malaria
    (b) Legacy Tobacco Document Archive:Letter from Roger Bate to Phillip Morris
  4. ^ Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Budget Presentation, 1994, from the Philip Morris Document Archive. Accessed 5 Oct 2006.

It is sourced from blogs and primary sources, and brushes up too closely to against the no original research policy and the reliable sources guideline. It seems reasonable from the primary documents that Africa Fighting Malaria, etc. were part of a strategy to mitigate the effects of the anti-smoking campaigns, but it would be original research to present such an argument without secondary sources, and I don't think the blogs (particularly Rabett's pseudonymous blog) are appropriate for the article. Until this issue gets coverage in other media, I don't think it should be included.--ragesoss 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also another possible explanation for the tobacco funding, which has less to do with anti-environmentalism and more to do with good old-fashioned cut-throat competition: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uganda/Story/0,,1920580,00.html . Other tobacco companies who get their crops from Africa would suffer if DDT is found in their product. Here's a choice quote from that article:
  • "Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, called BAT 'hypocritical and callous' for its stand in Uganda. 'It is unbelievable that a company like BAT, which sells products known to cause cancer, would oppose DDT. Decades of evidence have proved it can save millions of lives. That BAT would oppose DDT in this way is not only foolish, it is deadly and represents a truly shameful episode in the company's history.'"
--ragesoss 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments

I just wanted to list a few sentences that need fixing here rather than cluttering up the FAC with them:

  • Using her research and consultations with marine biologists as a jumping off point, she also wrote a steady stream of articles for the Baltimore Sun and other newspapers. - I feel that "jumping off point" is colloquial and vague.
  • DDT was but one of Carson's many writing projects at the time - "writing projects" doesn't sound quite right - "topics of investigation" or something like that maybe?
  • Oxford University Press expressed interest in the project, spurring Carson to complete the manuscript of what would become The Sea Around Us by early 1950. - As this is at the beginning of a paragraph, it is not entirely clear what "the project" is - I had to go back and check.
  • Washington, D.C. Audubon Society also actively opposed such spraying programs, and recruited Carson to help make public the government's exact spraying practices and the related research. - The Washington D.C. branch perhaps? This reads awkwardly.
  • to Carson, as well as the principal researchers in the field, the evidence for the toxicity of a wide array of synthetic pesticides was clear-cut - This seems to imply that the evidence was not so clear-cut to others - is that the case? If so, I would briefly mention it here.
  • In addition to the thorough literature search, she had investigated hundreds of individual pesticide exposure incidents and resulting human sickness or ecological damage. - awkwardly worded sentence
  • Silent Spring would be a metaphorical title for the entire book, rather than a literal chapter title - This does not really make sense to me yet.

Awadewit | talk 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've fixed all these problems.--ragesoss 03:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Monica Moore

Why is the Monica Moore quote worth including? It is presented as a single example of how "some environmentalist" view current attacks on DDT, but in the article it is basically a bald assertion without any evidence. Are there better sources we can use to make this point? What other environmentalists have claimed that recent attacks on Carson are industry-sponsored? Is there something more useful than the PAN Magazine article that we can use as a source and point readers to?--ragesoss 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ragesoss. We already have a quote that says "A lot of people have used Carson to push their own agendas," and the entire section starts out by saying "some conservatives ... argue that restrictions placed on pesticides have caused needless deaths and hampered agriculture, and more generally that environmental regulation unnecessarily restricts economic freedom." I think it'd be okay to include a sentence that there's lobbying involving industrial firms, as long as it's from a neutral source. But do we need to include a lengthy paragraph from an obviously biased source about speculative claims of the connection between industry and the anti-environment lobby in an already long article? I think we can do this more neutrally and more concisely as I think Ragesoss is suggesting. --JayHenry 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I was the one who put that paragraph in the article in the first place, and I did so to counter ati-Carson pro-DDT POV that various editors insisted on inserting at the time. And while at the time I agreed—and still do—that the conservative perspective on Carson does deserve mention in the article, at that time it was being over represented (IMHO), so I added this paragraph this paragraph for balance. Now that the Carson-bashing has been toned down, I agree that we probably could lose that paragraph, though don't think we need to. I think if we are going to cite a single environmentalist, then Monica Moore is good choice, as she is a founder and the ED of Pesticide Action Network, perhaps the biggest enviro directly carrying on Carson's message about pesticides. But there are others we could quote instead or in addition to: [5] or [6].
P.S. Great work with the article, Ragesoss! Yilloslime (t) 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to quibble, but the stated reason was for redundancy; I see no other example of what Monica Moore expressed stated elsewhere in the article. If the reason it is a 'bald assertion without any evidence', this standard is fine so long as it remains in place and equitably applied to the baseless claims which frequently appear in our print and electronic media attacking the subject of the article. If subsequent edits are permitted that violate this standard and are upheld for some reason, I think this 'opinion' of significant and directly impacted group is relevant and the quote should be reinserted. I will not object to the removal based on the terms above.Cronos1 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I explained my thinking a little more at the Featured Article Candidate page, but I saw it as redundant in the sense that Moore claimed (without going into any detail) that attacks on Carson were motivated by a general anti-environmental agenda rather than something specific to Carson or DDT in particular, which is basically the case with not just the very recent stuff but most of it since the 1980s (as the beginning of the section suggests). The specific claim of industry sponsorship is not redundant, but it is also not elaborated upon. I don't mean to suggest that the notion is baseless, just that the Moore article doesn't provide any base for it (and hence isn't too useful for readers). The sources Yilloslime provided are considerably better in that regard. I'm going to re-remove that paragraph for now; if it gets replaced, I think it should use the other articles rather than Moore's, but I also think that it's pretty well balanced at this point and as long as we are careful about not letting crap build up over time, it won't be necessary.--ragesoss 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this piece by Aaron Swartz is more on point [7].JQ 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DDT and cancer

I'm interested in what Rachel Carson said about DDT and cancer, for two reasons. First, if she revealed anything which 21st century scientists still agree with, then she deserves credit as a scientific pioneer. Second, if she made any claims which have turned out to be exaggerated or false, this could be a good addition to our politicization of science article.

Did Carson say that DDT causes cancer? And did this cause a public outcry against the use of DDT in anti-malaria campaigns?

  • Here is a non-technical quote about Carson: "Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day." [8]

Can someone help me research this? I'm looking for specific passages in her book, or in a magazine article or other source in which she asserts an important link between DDT used as a pesticide, and the causation of cancer in human beings.

I'm also looking for the trail of the DDT ban based on any such assertions.

Finally, what is the current state of the science regarding DDT? (This is a cross-cutting issue, so I'm asking the question here first before jumping over to talk:DDT.) I can think of three possibilities, and I'm wondering whether Wikipedia can determine which is true:

  1. DDT is dangerous to human life, and so it was banned (science drives policy)
  2. DDT may or may not be dangerous, but it was banned "just in case"; see precautionary principle
  3. DDT is not dangerous to human life when used for malaria eradication, but it was banned anyway (policy ignores science)

Since this is still a hot political issue, Wikipedia might not be able to settle it, but I'm still looking for what is known about it. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm about to sign off from wiki for several days, so this will be brief but:
See DDT for a discussion of some of DDT's effects on human and animal health. The page is not complete (I'm working on it, very very slowly), but contains a lot. Briefly, chronic DDT exposure is linked to breast cancer, male reproductive harm, and neutoxicity. In utero exposure is associatated with developmental delays and female reproductive harm (e.g. women exposed as fetuses have a harder time getting pregnant and breast feeding as adults.) Despite it's well documented chronic toxicity, DDT is not very acutely toxic to humans. See also my user page, where I'm compiling several (potentially) useful links to studies on its toxicity, and its use in Malaria control. The page is kind of a hodge podge, but there's some good stuff there.
I'm on the road, and thus don't have my copy of SS handy, but I recall that she discusses the issue of cancer about 2/3 of the way through. Here's a paraphrase of what I recall she says: Many pesticides have already been shown to cause cancer, so it's not safe to assume that DDT--which is chemical similar to these known carcinogens--is not a cancinogen. There is some anecdotal evidence suggesting it might be problem, and in fact there is a least one doctor who considers DDT to be a definite carcinogen. She then quotes this guy, or discusses his work. Note, she never says, "I, Rachel Carson, hereby claim that DDT causes cancer."
Hope this is helpful. Yilloslime (t) 16:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Then it's those lying bastards at NRDC who perpetrated that hoax! ;-)

*Silent Spring took Carson four years to complete. It meticulously described how DDT entered the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage [9]

Serves me right for placing faith in an enviornmentalist website instead of going out and buying a copy of the book. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DDT ban

Even though this article has a gold star, it's biased. It portrays Carson as a well-meaning and laudatory contributor to environmental science. It makes her out as a secular saint who revealed the truth of the dangers of pesticides such as DDT. It's little more than a puff piece for the poster child of environmentalism. It's not neutral at all.

It downplays the scientific controversy (and possible even the findings of modern science) in favor of the environmentalist POV that her "legacy" was the DDT ban. I think the word legacy implies approval.

The article would be neutral if it took no sides on whether the DDT ban was a good thing or not. It would be even better if it touched on the scientific and political arguments concerning the DDT ban. (We also need a separate article - not a section of the DDT article - for the ban.)

The article presents Carson as revealing the dangers of pesticides. I don't want any of that removed; some pesticides are indeed dangerous. However, it downplays all her exaggeration of those dangers; or should we say, charges from her political opponents that she exaggerated those dangers. In any case, we should not uncritically approve her position about pesticide dangers. Rather, we should say that she called X dangerous because of finding Y. That should be balanced with any peer-reviewed research which contradicts her. Perhaps she didn't know about the other research, or it was conducted after her death.

Above all, the article should not make any such argument as "Carson showed that DDT was too dangerous to use in anti-malaria campaigns". We should comb through the article together and scrub it of any such Wikipedia:Original research-type claims. Just show her as asserting that DDT is dangerous, and reporting any reasons she may have given.

Then, along with her viewpoint, give any other political or scientific viewpoints which assert the opposite.

Of course, we must do so in a way that does not mislead the reader. The amount of space given to pro-DDT or anti-DDT views should not be used to trick the reader into thinking there is a consensus, if there is not one. And if there is not a consensus, then we must ensure that the amount of space given to each side does not give the impression that one side is "right" - unless we know for a fact one way or another. --Uncle Ed 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to all the above points right now, but I will say: I think a DDT ban page is a bad idea. It's an obvious POV-fork, never mind the fact that DDT has never been banned for use in vector control, and was only recently banned for Ag use. See DDT for more details. Yilloslime (t) 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
One final thing: I don't see where the article argues that "Carson showed that DDT was too dangerous to use in anti-malaria campaigns," and I know for a fact that she never claimed that. Yilloslime (t) 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for raising these points, Uncle Ed. I'm not one of the main author's here, but I reviewed it awhile back and have the page watchlisted. To share my thoughts on a few points. I must say, I do agree with Ylloslime that modern controversy over the DDT ban doesn't belong in the second sentence of the article. But I definitely support including the most recent peer-reviewed scientific research on DDT in the article, if it is, indeed, omitted. To me the word legacy means nothing beyond "Continuing influence of life's work" and that seems to be its standard usage across thousands of bios here on WP. Specifically, what do you feel is missing from Rachel_Carson#Reactions_to_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions? (This is the section that does contain the rebuttal about malaria.) Or do you feel this information should be in a different section of the article? --JayHenry 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay. Agree with your thoughts, but would recommend a review of an article which summarizes the peer-reviewed scientific research as of the publication date and consider whether an article on Rachel Carson is the appropriate place for this info (its cited in the DDT article, note 41) Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT). The Lancet (27 August 2005). Retrieved on July 7, 2007. Available online here after registering (for free) at www.thelancet.com. Cronos1 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that their were campaigns which advocated a DDT ban. But I don't know how to account for claims that "a DDT ban" is responsible for over 1,000,000 human deaths per year - blaming these deaths on a DDT ban which UNEP and other sources say never occurred. Were these figures intended as projections of what might happen, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
They are intended to defame Rachel Carson and environmentalists in general. Check Steven Milloy who is the chief propagator of this stuff. He has a record of dishonesty and nastiness that is pretty well unmatched.JQ 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
John, since you aren't answering my question, let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
  • Restrictions on DDT use for vector control were imposed by various national governments, donor countries and international aid agencies, in response to pressure from environmentalists. (copied from DDT#Criticism_of_restrictions_on_DDT_use)
Is it then the word "ban" which is a problem? Perhaps that connotes a law or treaty which makes its use or manufacture illegal. A "restriction" may not have the force of law. --Uncle Ed 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is unsupported by a source. The footnote which follows next does not make the case stated in the sentence-all the pressure from environmental groups that I have seen documented are not to restrict Vector control. Maybe some enterprising editor will correct it.Cronos1 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
'It portrays Carson as a well-meaning and laudatory contributor to environmental science. It makes her out as a secular saint who revealed the truth of the dangers of pesticides such as DDT. It's little more than a puff piece for the poster child of environmentalism. It's not neutral at all.' In point of fact, Ed, it's a great deal more neutral than in April of 2006 when you tried to put in some dubious comments. If, you have documented evidence, produce it. If it is credible, no one will prevent appropriate material from getting into the article.Cronos1 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what dubious comments you're referring to, but my African friends have been shaking my hand profusely ever since then. They seem to think that my edits to the DDT article at Wikipedia prompted the WHO to reverse its 30-year opposition to DDT, thus saving hundreds of thousands of black babies overseas. Kinda makes me want to go see Schindler's List again, instead of beating myself up for being a white male oppressor.

But seriously, I'd like to track down the real history of who said what about the "dangers" of DDT.

After an 80-day hearing in 1972 on the potential for carcinogenicity, the EPA concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard for man.” Nevertheless, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT two months later, stating that “DDT poses a carcinogenic risk” to humans. The primary evidence used to support his assertion was two animal studies. The first was challenged because it was not replicated by other workers using similar dosages and because the findings might have resulted from food contaminated with aflatoxin. The second study, which used a nearly lethal dose, reported hepatomas in 32 percent of the experimental group compared to 4 percent of the control group. However, the tumors were not shown to be malignant, and the litters were not distributed randomly. (J. Gordon Edwards)

Is Edwards simply making this up, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The dubious material was the dissertation on egg shell thinning inserted into an article about Rachel Carson. J. Gordon Edwards made numerous charges that had no documentation, as you have observed, OR doesn't belong in wiki. Rachel Carson, the subject of this article, had been dead eight years when these hearings were held. While its true that they wouldn't have happened without Silent Spring, the specific evidence presented is hardly relevant to an article on Carson. You are curious about who said what, read the article for a start, it contains information on the work of the National Cancer Institute regarding what public health experts of the relevant time thought about the whether DDT was a carcinogen. I have also mentioned a review article that discusses current research (although, this would not be appropriate to an article on Carson). Since the EPA and other public health authorities still consider DDT a probable human carcinogen 35 years after the Ruckleshaus decision, I would think that would have at least as much bearing on your assessment as the unsurported opinion of J. Gordon Edwards.Cronos1 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if Edwards is making it up, but I do know that everyone who claims that the commission concluded one thing and that Ruckelshaus contradicted it—everyone who makes that claim (that I'm aware of) uses Edwards as their source. (Or they cite someone who cites Edwards, etc.) Given the fact that Edwards published a lot (maybe all?) of his thoughts on this issue in 21st Century Science and Technology and JPandS rather than in reputable, widely read, scientific journals, I'm not sure I'd consider him a reliable source. One way or another, the EPA's ban on non-public health uses of DDT was not based on its cancer risk alone as Edwards contends, but rather on both its ecotoxicity and its risks to human health in general.[10] Yilloslime (t) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: For an alternative to Edwards' intrepretation of events, check out:
Both are blog posts, and thus cannot be used as sources in WP, but they are informative, and do point to the primary documents which could be cited. Yilloslime (t) 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum II: A pubmed.org search for "Edwards J DDT" reveals that his sole contribution to the scientific literature on the topic of DDT is this 1973 letter to Science regarding DDT levels in rainwater. In the very next letter in the issue Edwards is rebutted, with the authors commenting, in part, that "Edwards' purpose leaves us puzzled." Yilloslime (t) 18:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the criticism section of the article, what troubles me is that nearly half of the section is devoted to refuting the criticism. This indicates bias to me. The section should outline the criticism and discussion, not seem to be aimed at refuting it. Johnduns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.197 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro paragraph claiming she kickstarted the 'environmental movement'

Citation needed - there are countless champions of environmental causes through history, and plenty before her time. John Muir is a notable example, but I could cite others all day. Sensationalist sentiments such as those, without citation, have no place in Wikipedia. An over-enthusiastic, but well meaning fan needs to have a reality check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.245 (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. "

The "it's a lead" argument is null and void. The fact is that the statement implying she kickstarted the entire world into caring for the environment is sensationalist and patently false. Per Wikipedia's own guidelines on citations in leads, I am INSISTING on a citation. Do not remove the citation required link I added, without adding a citation or convincing the community that this woman really was *the* pioneer. I see no other references, other than this article, that claim she was the first to move the world toward environmentalism. As I said, there are many people before her (including many in wikipedia itself) who did a lot for publicising environmental causes.

I'm not sure where you're getting the authority to order people not to edit the article as they interpret the lead guidelines. Discussions about citations in leads are ongoing not only at WP:LEAD but at WP:GA and WP:FAC. The lead passed FAC, and it doesn't state Carson's influence was any more significant than John Muir's, Marjory Stoneman Douglas' (whose article I brought to GA), or anyone else who came before her. Carson's book had a poignant impact, the details of which are explained in the article quite well. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok so perhaps the wording should be changed to "...whose writings are credited by some with launching..." Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.245 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that her book is credited in that sentence with launching a global environmental movement, as opposed to regional efforts per Muir or Douglas. I think this is accurate, since Carson's book came at the beginning of a media and technology boom that helped the aforementioned launching. "Some" would also be accurate, however. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the first sentence. The claim that her "writings are often credited with launching the global environmental movement" is not a controversial one, and is supported by sources in the Legacy section. Just look to the title of one of the sources: The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement. The lead does not claim that her writing did, in fact, launch the global environmental movement, just that that it is "often credited" with doing so.--ragesoss (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference? It is controversial as more than a few editors have pointed out. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That she is often credited with kickstarting the modern environmental movement is not controversial, and is fully sourced and reference in the body of the article.Yilloslime (t) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now its the modern environmental movement? Before it was the global movement.--72.209.11.186 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Is that really the best we can do? Should the first sentence contain an assertion of her importance to the environmental movement? --Michael WhiteT·C 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version of the first sentence.--ragesoss (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Stories

Out of curoisity, what were the stories like. Does anyone have a link or copy of one of themTailsfan2 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

wrer did he go to school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.147.2 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of criticisms section

The criticisms section of the article is not entirely neutral in its treatment of the "Reagan administration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerScotWilliams (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 March 2009

How so? It accurately reflects the two cited sources; one is a book about Carson and her legacy and the other is an edited volume of academic history about the Reagan administration. I am not aware of reliable sources that contradicted those ones. I am removing the neutrality tag, unless and until evidence can be provided that there are other significant viewpoints that should be included in the characterization of the Reagan administration's relationship to Carson's legacy.--ragesoss (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I should have cited the line specifically; my apologies. If you take a look, the line mentions that the Reagan Administration "sought to undo as much of the environmental legacy of the 1960s and 1970s as possible, and Carson and her work were obvious targets". The language portrays the Reagan Administration as anti-environmental, and it cites Carson and her work as targets as opposed to the policies proposed in response to her and her work. The use of the word "target" probably is not helpful in encouraging a neutral point of view. Perhaps the line "In the 1980s, the policies of the Ronald Reagan Administration often ran contrary to the policies adopted in response to Carson and her work." Perhaps this should be discussed? Meanwhile I will encourage its addition by making the change.TylerScotWilliams (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded it a little bit, but I think the language of "target" was perhaps inappropriate. I say "perhaps" because, if I recall correctly, the book by Lyttle details some of direct attitudes of people in the Reagan Administration to Carson in particular, and "target" is I think a fair characterization of at least how Lyttle describes things. But all I have on hand is the Brownlee and Graham volume on Reagan, which deals with the Reagan administration's environmental policy in general but not Carson specifically. I do think "anti-environmentalist" is a fair description of at least the first two years of the Reagan administration (if not necessarily Reagan himself), but of course it would be inappropriate to put that term in the article unless it was a direct quote.--ragesoss (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are scientists relegated to last place in the list of DDT critics when it was the scientific criticism that led to political debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.248.163 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Editorial

As Silent Spring was serialized in The New Yorker, one of its most important readers was the Editor-in-Chief of "Chemical Engineering" magazine, also editor of "The Chemical Engineers Handbook", both works publications of the McGraw-Hill company. His career included ten years of chemical plant management with DuPont. Due to international readership, the reputation of Cecil H. Chilton was then literally world wide.

Chilton, a chemical industry insider, came to the support of Rachel Carson in the following short editorial, reproduced here verbatim.

Chemical Engineering October 1962

LET'S NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF WOMEN

The writings and actions of two women are of great concern right now to the chemical industry. In different ways, Frances Kelsey and Rachel Carson have both focused public attention on some of the less pleasant aspects of the chemical business.

For her role in keeping the chemical thalidomide from reaching commercial channels of drug distribution in the U.S., Dr. Kelsey has been acclaimed as a national heroine. Any attempt by chemical industry spokesmen to publicly criticize Dr. Kelsey would be sheer folly; you don't have to be a public-relations expert to realize this.

Miss Carson won't get off so lightly. Chemical industry propaganda mills are already grinding out rebuttals to her "Silent Spring" series of articles in The New Yorker - articles that imply the industry has been irresponsible in the marketing of poisonous materials for use as pesticides. At least one company - there are no doubt others - is talking of a "get Rachel Carson" campaign.

We would commend, not castigate, Miss Carson. Her articles are not the work of a crank or cultist. They simply and calmly ask some questions, in a voice loud enough to be heard, about a field that - considering its vulnerable position - has singularly gone unquestioned. Her tone is reasonable, rather than hysterical, when she points out that the public has unquestioningly accepted chemical pesticides as a commonplace of daily life. These chemicals are associated in the public mind with Helena Rubenstein rather than with Lucretia Borgia. Against this background, not of her own making, her observations on the self-evident assume the shock of revelation: pesticides are, after all, poisons.

Rather than protesting too much, might not we take the questions Miss Carson raises as a helpful reminder of the questions we must constantly be asking ourselves? Is it best for the industry - and for the public - that pesticides be looked upon, anywhere, as friendly household commodities rather than as poisons? As engineers and chemists, we can take pride in the fact that good safety practices have practically eliminated toxicological risks from our plants and laboratories. Let's show the same concern for public welfare.

30 30 30

The above editorial appeared simultaneously with the arrival of Silent Spring in book stores. Within one month, the chemical industry began to withdraw advertising from the publication, to the eventual sum of more than one million dollars. Magazine advertising revenue was a contractual part of his income, hence Chilton was punished for expressing his opinion. He died at age 54 of cardiac disease, ten years after this public support of Rachel Carson.

This material is placed in the TALK section because it DISPROVES the article information concerning July, August, and September 1962. There WERE some chemical professionals who supported Rachel Carson, and they deserve NOT to be forgotten.

A note regarding copyright. As the son of Cecil Chilton, I am his heir. The editorial page was found as a tear sheet among his personal papers. The material above is a transcription of one of those personal papers. Ed Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.49.241 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Earth biologist?

One September 23, 2009, an IP made an edit[11] that made two changes in the infobox and one to the lead; it changed Carson's nationality to Australian and changed one of her occupations and subjects from marine biology to [[earth biologist]] or [[earth biology|eartg biologist]](sic). The next edit[12], by another IP, corected the spelling error. These are the only edits made to date by either IP. In the blur of vandalism that this page is subject to, these seemed to go unnoticed. Another IP just corrected her nationality back to American, and when I went looking for the origin of that vandalism, I found the "earth biologist" change. At the times of these edits, both Earth biologist and Earth biology were redlinks. A few hours later, Uruiamme created new redirects[13][14] to Conservation biology. Neither of these pages link to any other pages. A quick search suggests that neither term is in use, except in science fiction and on WP mirrors. "Conservation biology" seems like a good description of Carson's work, but, according the the article, the term wasn't used until 1978. Her name does not appear in that article. I plan to go back and clean this up tomorrow unless somebody supports leaving it as is. That edit will orphan the two redirects. I still think that this page should be semi-protected forever. The vast majority of the IP edits here are vandalism--in fact, the majority of all edits are IP vandalism and the reverts to clean them up. --Hjal (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. She was a writer and marine biologist. "Earth biologist" isn't a real thing. Yilloslime TC 18:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for noticing the Australian/Earth Biologist thing. I thought I'd cleaned up all that nonsense, but somehow I missed it. Yilloslime TC 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

New book discusses Carson

Interesting chapter on RC in John Bellamy Foster (2009). The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet, Monthly Review Press, New York, pages 67-84. Johnfos (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Filtering or using ad hominem attacks of critical contributions

Some editors appear to be a editing with the intent to filter out criticism or at least frame discussion of criticism with ad hominem attacks. This repeated emphasis systematically destroys NPOV. Not all criticism is from people of specific groups, no matter how some editors want to make it appear that way. Further, not all references must be slobbering praise for Rachel Carson; some of them can contain specific criticisms of her works and activities of others she has encouraged. In short, there can be no NPOV when balancing edits are repeatedly removed with little if any reflective comment. There is no singular view—scientific or sentimental. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside: Referring to Driessen's publisher as "vanity press" is yet another ad hominem attack. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"not all references must be slobbering praise for Rachel Carson" What are you talking about: The article devotes lots of space to criticisms of Carson. Noting that modern day criticism of her comes mostly from the right isn't POV, it's simply noting a fact. Pretending that the criticism is bipartisan would be inaccurate. (And it's only an ad hominem if you think conservatism is bad a thing.) Yilloslime TC 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about removing references that are not praise for Carson. I'm talking about labeling critics "conservative." They simply are not all conservative. The claims didn't even say "mostly from the right." They implied they were entirely from the right. The term "bipartisan" is itself not NPOV, because it implies that there is only left and right. Libertarians, for one, are radically centrist, not right, not conservative. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ya I know, libertarians hate being lumped in with conservatives. But they sure aren't liberals and they tend vote Republican (in the US), so if you're going to dichotomize the political spectrum--which for all weaknesses is the predominant way the spectrum is dissected--then libertarians get lumped in with conservative. But--to the point--I think this edit will allay your concerns. Yilloslime TC 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'm fine with the current wording, but I thought it would be worth noting that this is a featured article, and it was featured on the main page on February 22, 2008, as it says on the top of this talk page. The article, as it appeared that morning used the wording "Carson and the environmental movement were—and continue to be—criticized by some conservatives, who argue that...". By the end of the day, the sentence was exactly the same. And the sentence was not an issue during the article's featured article review. So, my point is that no one seems to think that this is an issue besides you... But I'm fine with wording as it is now.Yilloslime TC 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
In short, you seem to be saying "it's not an issue." Obviously, it's an issue, or their wouldn't have been voluminous comments to the contrary, before my contributions. You could come right out and say "the majority is always right" (argumentum ad populum), but it wouldn't be any more correct. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, this is conflating people on the right with libertarians (there is a very real problem of the right taking over the Libertarian party, for example.) Most libertarians don't even vote. In actuality, true libertarians are liberals, and those called liberals are no longer liberal. If you look beyond the opaque borders of the US, you'll see that in most of Europe, people who are libertarian in the US would be called liberal there. It goes way beyond the scope of this, but if they were conservative, they'd be for the death penalty, the drug war, various foreign wars, marginalization of homosexuals, ad nauseam—and they're not. The "spectrum" is not a one-dimensional line. Consider looking at the Nolan Chart. Coming full circle, that's a big reason not to group them by calling them conservative, including implying that all the critics of Carson conservative. Thanks for discussing. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"Referring to Driessen's publisher as "vanity press" is yet another ad hominem attack." Where/who publishes is not "ad hominem", it is relevant to whethter the source can be considered reliable. Driessen did not publish with a University Press or some other reputable publisher.Cronos1 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Calling it "vanity press" is ad hominem, not saying who the publisher actually is. Again, words mean something, and "vanity press" means you pay to publish your work. I checked. The publisher does not solicit payment. This highlights your repeated attempts to marginalize by argumentum ad hominem. Once more, how have you determined the publisher is not "reputable?" They clearly have standards, as per their submission guidelines. This is not a "we publish you if you pay us" organization. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Merril Press appears to be the house press for Alan Gottlieb-associated free market and pro-gun associated organizations. One of those organizations is the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, which employs Paul Driessen, the author of the book in question. So to call it a vanity press is a bit over the top, but Driessen and Merril Press are hardly independent of each other, either. And there's certainly no parity between Merril Press and the publishers of the other books used as sources: University of Massachusetts Press, Oxford University Press, Pergamon Press, Henry Holt... Yilloslime TC 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they're a free market publisher, and no writer is "independent" of his publisher. It's fair to say that in a world of statists, there is a need for a free market publisher to occasionally publish truth, where in a polemic world, everyone else is drawn to one side or another. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologise, I've heard "vanity press" applied to these institutions that publish works of their own employees, etc., but that was editorial licence, I suppose. In any event, not an "ad hominem" attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for valid criticism of the publisher and the work that's somehow not worthy, but I'm getting the usual non-argument responses. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Compare and contrast to Reliable Sources, WP:V Cronos1 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, and you have evidence of such things. I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why you are taunting, I am not making fun of you? Perhaps you can tell me which of the following you think applies to Driessen's book? "The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Cronos1 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just keep moving the standard. You keep deciding what's "respected."  ;-) I've asked you the same question a half-dozen times, and it's taken you this long to respond. FWIW, I don't see your entry here: WP:RSN. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You have made a number of allegations about motivations of editing, etc. and I am trying to respond to your question so that you can understand. You do understand that I am not "moving any standards" don't you? I have quoted two parts of Wiki's standards/policies directly applicable to the situation we are discussing. If you think Driessen's book meets wiki's standards, please tell us why using the criteria wiki provides. I'll do it for those works already cited.

Hynes, H. Patricia. The Recurring Silent Spring. Pergamon Press (books published by respected publishing houses) Lear, Linda. Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature. Henry Holt (books published by respected publishing houses) Lytle, Mark Hamilton. The Gentle Subversive... Oxford University Press (books published by university presses) Murphy, Priscilla Coit. What a Book Can Do...University of Massachusetts Press (books published by university presses)

Not too difficult, right? Cronos1 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if Driessen's qualified as an appropriate source, that wouldn't mean we should automatically include it. First off, it certainly doesn't belong in the "References" section since it's not being used as a reference; putting it in the "Further Reading" section would make much more sense. But I don't think it belongs there either, per WP:FURTHER: "Contents: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of recommended publications that will guide the reader to the more important published sources." I wouldn't call Driessen's book an "important published source" on Carson. While Driessen discusses Carson, the book isn't actually about her, while all the other books in the section are. It clearly doesn't belong there. The one place I could see it fitting in the article is in the list of example criticisms of Carson, currently footnote #67. There's already a Driessen piece in that list, but I wouldn't object to replacing that one with Green Power Black Death. I certainly don't think it's a necessary change though. Yilloslime TC 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Even if Driessen's qualified as an appropriate source, that wouldn't mean we should automatically include it." Agreed, but I don't think it is an appropriate source, and as long as "206.124.6.222" wishes to discuss, I'm willing to try to build consensus one way or the other.Cronos1 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of criticism of Rachel Carson

The article "The Lies of Rachel Carson" by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html is a well-written and detailed criticism of Silent Spring, itemizing 'misstatements' made by Carson. It is essential reading for anyone wanting to evaluate her book (and its consequences for the banning of DDT). Editor TimLambert doesn't like this criticism and has twice deleted the link to Edwards' article. He gives as his reason that the article appeared in 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine, which he alleges is "published by LaRouche and is not an acceptable source". Surely what is relevant is the content of Edwards' article not its associations. And who is TimLambert to decide for Wikipedia what is "an acceptable source"? Has Wikipedia defined what is "an acceptable source"? If so, where? This deletion by TimLambert appears to be motivated by feeling hurt that his heroine's 'misstatements' have been exposed. TimLambert's hurt feelings are not a basis for decisions regarding Wikipedia content. Accordingly I shall revert his deletion, and if he wishes to delete the link a third time then he should first give his reasons here so that other editors can comment. Hung Mieu (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LaRouche is a notorious fringe politician & is not a RS. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Arbcomm ruling on Larouche as a source is here --TimLambert (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove, per WP:EL, WP:NPOV, et al.: The article already contains significant coverage of the criticism of Carson, with related criticism in the DDT article and in Silent Spring. The Edwards article at the external link added by Hung Mieu was published in 21st Century Science and Technology, which is a LaRouche publication and, therefore, WP:FRINGE--it should be removed. Edwards' criticism shows up in a Google search only in fringe and non-scientific sources (in the first few dozen hits, anyway). If he wrote an article related to Carson or DDT in his area of expertise, entomology, that was published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal, and which was the subject of discussion in the field, that would seem to worth citing in one of the articles.--Hjal (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Carson/Archive_2&oldid=1080142351"