Talk:Silent Spring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSilent Spring was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Support and Criticism[edit]

Perhaps we should merge some of the content from Rachel Carson#Silent Spring over here. It's quite clearly better presented than this article and it does a much better job of detailing the supporters and critics of the book. Thoughts? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticisms"?[edit]

The section titled "criticism" spends more time defending her claims than it does actually citing the criticisms themselves. Until I added it, it didn't even mention the eggshell issue (which was mentioned in the opening blurb without noting the fact that it's been pretty much debunked), and makes some interesting claims about how "it's never been banned for anti-mosquito use", which is specious at best, a lie by ommission, as many, if not most developed nations have banned its use for all purposes, not just "mosquito based" uses.
Biased, much? This is the sort of thing which gives Wiki a bad rep, as the article is anything but balanced or neutral on the topic. --OBloodyHell (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eggshell issue is a non-issue: that DDT thins eggshells is a well established scientific fact. Despite what you may occationally read in Spiked Online, 21st Century Science and Technology, Reason (magazine), and other right-wing sources, DDT does cause eggshell thinning. See DDT for more info. Yilloslime TC 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Wiki article does not even MENTION eggshell thinning...let alone the clinical experimentation that suggest it does not cause thinning. There is no reference to Carson's claims that DDT is carcinogenic. After TWO YEARS of discussion, I had to follow the link to the Reason (magazine) article cited to find out what the criticisms of Silent Spring even ARE. There is no mention of the EPA judge's ruling in 1972 that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Nor is there any reference to Carson's use of absurd anecdotal evidence to supposedly prove that DDT was harmful to humans, such as a woman using DDT to spray for spiders and dying of leukemia a month later. I agree that this is the problem with Wikipedia. The "true-believers" have sufficient impetus to want to control what people see on a subject. People who are merely looking for information and want to record what they have found, eventually give up. Why bother? They know there are better places to get the information ....such as the Reason Magazine article.(Manawyddan (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"This Wiki article does not even MENTION eggshell thinning..."BUT two years ago, it did. The appropriate place to talk about such matters is in the DDT article.Cronos1 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. The "criticism" section is more of an "attacking the critics" section. This whole screed is way beyond NPOV. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I checked the footnote for the "never been banned for anti-mosquito use," and the reference is some sort of general page that says no such thing. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have hit the nail on the head ... another article that causes critical thinkers to NOT use wikipedia. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:6D88:1E54:EC03:ACB1 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the comments above. The critics should be able to stand on their own. The editorializing and qualifications are out of place in this section and display an obvious and unnecessary bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.229.129 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the link to the "general page that says no such thing" and changed it to the closest thing on that site I could find. Clearly, the citer was reading between the lines.--Auric (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the "never been banned for anti-mosquito use," is sourced to footnote [20], which says no such thing. This phrase should be removed completely.192.206.187.60 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. I wrote about it down here, too (didn't see it was already discussed). Now we hope the changes will be left untouched, because there is no reason to keep it. 119.31.121.91 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific line, "never been banned for anti-malarial use" has been removed as per consensus. The source did not support the statement and it is factually untrue, especially as the Stockholm Convention has already planned to completely ban manufacturing and usage of DDT worldwide by 2017. MrDestructo (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following countries have an outright ban on DDT, which includes anti-malarial applications: Canada, Chile, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Korea, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland Source: Pesticides News No.40, June 1998, p18-20MrDestructo (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source may be found here:http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm ...I think some further work needs to be done on this as the current wording does not show that the claims of "deaths" caused by a DDT ban do not pertain to Canada, Chile, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Korea, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland.Cronos1 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (lots of misleading info being paraded around)The Stockholm Convention's "already planned to completely ban manufacturing and usage of DDT worldwide by 2017" has three phases. "The three phases are: 1) Preparation of a global business plan and partnership on developing alternatives to DDT and establishing the national capacities to deploy these alternatives (2007-2010); 2) Deployment of selected alternatives to DDT, resulting in a termination of DDT production (2009 – 2017); and 3) Destruction of all remaining stocks and stockpiles of DDT by

the year 2020." http://www.ciel.org/Publications/IPEN_QuickViewsCOP4_18Apr09.pdf Cronos1 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV of this article is very weak in general; the criticism section is especially troubled. Clearly contains an environmentalist slant. 132.38.190.22 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following quote, taken from the criticism section, is an absolute joke: "Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring. In a 2005 essay, "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson." You have got to be kidding me. A politician makes a well-reasoned criticism of Silent Spring therefore it is self-evident he is a shill for "industry and agribusiness"(the term industry advocate is so ridiculously overbroad it is absolutely worthless as a descriptor)? The attempt to portray Taverne's criticism, and pretty much every other criticism, as being somehow bought and paid for by agribusiness paymasters is absolutely pathetic. And of course, when discussing such biases in the talk section, those defending the absurdly blatant bias trot out the ole reliable "right wing" charge, as if merely calling someone "right wing" is some sort of trump card when discussing issues relating to the negative effects of junk science and over-zealous environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem here, as the criticisms section should be views critical of something, and then maybe with some limited qualifications, so something needs changing. The problem is that nearly all of the criticisms are obviously misrepresentative, misleading and easily disproved, so letting them stand on their own would be a bad idea. The book has provoked a lot of criticism (even if most of it is undue) so cutting most of it wouldn't be appropriate. Not sure there is a good solution here, maybe change the section name to "Reaction" or "Reception" and broaden out the content in it would help. --86.162.173.115 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to have a section called "Response to Criticism" where very specific rebuttal of the listed criticisms are addressed. Ad hominem responses (such as are implied in the current "Criticism" section) would be out of bounds. Nor would responses be permitted to expand the argument to include new facts not detailed previously. Should the Silent Spring article only permit criticisms to be listed that some editors consider unfair or untrue? How does that allow people to find out anything about the criticism? Why not allow the criticism to be listed and then others --in the following section-- can add responses. That way the neutrality of the "Criticisms" section will not be called into question and it will be obvious which criticisms are disputed and which aren't.(Manawyddan (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

DDT Ban[edit]

I removed the sentence + ref which said DDT was never banned for use against moscitoues, because the ref didn't support it. My changes was deleted without good reason. The ref really don't say DDT was *never* banned of that reason. 119.31.121.91 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of some very strange reason, editors here don't want to discuss this thing, and still only undo this change. This is not a proper behavior and cannot be accepted. Look further in the section "Personal opinion and not a scientific fact" belov. Yes, I am frustrated and probably sound like that, but of good reason. This behavior is not serious - and certainly not academic. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiessen quote[edit]

Not sure why you think its necessary. Its cited in note 17: Matthiessen, Peter (March 29, 1999), "Environmentalist RACHEL CARSON", Time Magazine 153 (12): 3 of 4, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990622-3,00.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit incorrectly infers that Time made a neutral journalistic finding. This is not supported by the byline that Time itself affixed to the opinion piece.{1}
Your version:
Even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962, there was strong opposition to it. According to Time in 1999:
My edit:
It was the opinion of noted environmental activist Peter Matthiessen[PM 1] writing in Time in 1999 that even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962 that there was strong opposition to it.
Like night and day. .99.142.6.159 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction, this was not 'my' edit, the existing version was fine the way it was without the unecessary redundancy implying that Matthiessen's POV is out of the mainstream. Your assertion that Time didn't make a neutral journalistic finding is rather strange, a by-line does not imply that the publication takes no responsibility for the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about why the "activist" label has been added. The Time article did not use that label. Moreover the online edition of the 100 Most Important People Of The Century does not include the modifier in it's by-line. If I look at the Wikipedia entry for Philo Farnsworth it does not say named as one of the most important people of the twentieth century by Neil Postman, Professor of Media Ecology .

It seems like a pretty weak arguement that Time Inc was using a by-line to distance itself from its selection of these individuals.Cronos1 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the online edition of 'The 1oo greatest': “One century, 100 remarkable people. Time has profiled those individuals who – for better or worse – most influenced the last 100 years”. That sounds to me like Time Inc is claiming ownership of the profiles, they hired experts within the fields to write the profiles, but it's Time's list.--Cronos1 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiessen's wiki bio lists him as an environmental activist - hence the conforming and consistent listing here within the project (See WP:MOS for more). It is also proper to attribute, as per "Key Wikipedia Guidlines" - "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." Note too that it was Matthiessen's quote alone that was the only unattributed one in the article. Not terribly contentious stuff really. .99.142.6.159 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about the attribution. The contentious stuff comes from your use of a contentious label "WP:WORDS". Nice use of an example from Times 100 list. only difference is a partial quote. I'll have a go at rewriting when I've given the matter some thought.--Cronos1 (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the consensus of Matthiessen's Wikipedia biographers, a neutral descriptive. . 99.142.6.159 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to believe such a neutral descriptive doesn't rate a wikipedia entry. I'm pretty familiar with Matthiessen, it's rather improbable that the priority description of the man would be "environmental activist". I'll have to loook into whether his bio requires editing after I've thought about the best way to bring this entry up to wiki standards. If you think of something in the mean time, let me know.--Cronos1 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check shows the precise descriptive used by Bryn Mawr, PBS, NBC, and well, hundreds more.12345 .99.142.6.159 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The precise description used by Bryn Mawr, for example, is "Celebrated Writer, Naturalist, and Environmental Activist". TimLambert (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've just cherry-picked a single sentence from the 4 refs cited and hundreds introduced - and then used that to call me a liar. Why? It was perfectly reasonable to use his Wiki bio descriptive here, in an article about environmental activism. Showing that even his hagiographers use the term routinely strongly supports the term as an accurate descriptive. Why the cherry picking though? Why not use PBS's sentence, "best known as both a novelist and non-fiction writer, but he's also an environmental activist, American Indian rights advocate and former C.I.A. recruit." 99.142.6.159 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the first one you gave for my example, but the PBS one makes my point just as well. The PBS description is not precisely "environmental activist", but includes several other words as well. Why not use all those words to describe Mattheissen? I'm not interested in an edit war, so I haven't reverted your edit, but I'm inviting others to do so if they agree with me. TimLambert (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Environmentalist" is not the same as "Environmental activist". And i fail to see why we are attributing the Time article, as if it was an opinion article, since it isn't. Thus i reverted.[1] I see that i should've checked talk first... Hmmm. Environmental writer would be accurate - but still there seems to be a problem with why it should be specifically attributed to Matthiessen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. Perhaps that's why both the neutral wiki bio and neutral secondary sources - as well as the hagiographers - have all chosen the latter in droves as the more accurate.99.142.6.159 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on the "byline", which doesn't say activist, i have no idea who Matthiessen is. The major problem here is that you are assuming that a description of the author ("byline") implies that it is an opinion article - this is not correct. Opinion articles would be marked as such in front of the article, not at the end. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, lots of comments. Before I came back here and read the comments, I checked into the usage as described by our anonymous editor (99.142.6.159) and found pretty much what he/she has shown. I don't much care for the term for a couple of reasons; firstly, its kind of vague. It's not clear to me what the difference is between an environmentalist and an environmental activist is, for example. Secondly 'Activist' is frequently used by people who are definately not NPOV. That said, it is used often enough by neutral sources and the subject himself that I'm OK with the tag. The thing that's missing from the original edit (replacing 'Time' with Peter Matthiessen - Environmental Activist) is the context that defines the story as Time's reporting of the 100 most important people, that its not just an oped opinion.--Cronos1 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990622-4,00.html

Personal opinion and not a scientific fact[edit]

I changed this:

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields made some populaions of mosquitos DDT-resistant. The etymologist May Berenbaum has argued this threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.[MB 1]

To this:

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields made some populaions of mosquitos DDT-resistant. The etymologist May Berenbaum has argued this threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.[MB 2]

It is obvious that this is not a scientific fact, only a personal opinion in a newspaper column. 119.31.126.81 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you made no change whatsoever? Riiiiiiiight.... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You undestand perfectly well it was a mistake over here. I changed this text:
The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields contributed to the selection of DDT-resistant mosquito populations. This threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.[MB 3]
When you look at the source, this is obviously only a personal opinion and not a scientific fact. It is no research, only a personal newspaper column. You deleted my changes, but now I undo them. If you of some reason not agree, we discuss it, before you make further changes. 119.31.121.72 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw now that you even deleted my revision of the claims about DDT ban (se discussion above). If you cannot discuss this, then you should not edit it either. 119.31.121.72 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author of what you call a personal opinion is head of the department of entomology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. --Cronos1 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as you see yourself, it is not research and not a scientific fact, it is an opinion. And there before we describe it as that. Right? Or else, you or someone else give a source who really tell us this is a scientific fact. Right again? 119.31.121.91 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scientific fact and the wikipedia page should say so. Is there any source at all that you would accept for that? TimLambert (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not a scientific fact, because it is a speculation in a newspaper column. Not research. This is not hard to understand at all. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying you are right and I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand what you are objecting to...it almost sounds like you are saying that only peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals are acceptable. I appreciate your posting in discussion. I really do. If I could offer a little advise it would be that you should find the specific Wiki policy or guideline you think is violated and cite it, we can decide if we think the edit appropriate or not. Thank You--Cronos1 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is proper to formulate this as what it is: An opinion from an etymologist. I am sure you understant this very, very well, because it is very simple. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, I saw you deleted my edit about the DDT-Moscuito-ban. It is very simple here too: The ref don't support that DDT was never banned for mosquito use. If you have a source which say this, give us that; but as it is now, it is not proper. 119.31.121.73 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your reason for deleting is that it is an opinion and not a fact as you describe it, that reason is inadequate. And therefore the sentences will be reinstated. In addition, I will provide a source for the banning when I reinstate later today- even though I do not think it is entirely accurate. Thank you--Cronos1 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably understand too, I did not delete the text about Berenbaums personal opinion, I only rewrote it so it not was expressed as a scientific fact. About the banning: Good. This two very simple things should never be such a big problem as this. 119.31.121.70 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your edit is that it makes it sound like Berenbaum's "opinion" is not one shared by other scientists...who have done studies that support that conclusion. I will not revert, but work to make this section NPOV remains.--Cronos1 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "sounding" is in your head only; I only wanted this to be correct. A lot of editors act as they have paranoia regarding environmental issues, and the following discussions turn into a mess. The changes now are very good, and I appreciate it. 119.31.121.88 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only a rookie would mistake this as something in "my head only": but thanks for your ernestness.--Cronos1 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ May Berenbaum, "If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer", Washington Post, June 5, 2005. Accessed April 23, 2009
  2. ^ May Berenbaum, "If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer", Washington Post, June 5, 2005. Accessed April 23, 2009
  3. ^ May Berenbaum, "If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer", Washington Post, June 5, 2005. Accessed April 23, 2009

Notabilty[edit]

Once again, we have edits being made without any attempt to build consensus. I reverted appealing to the editor to build consensus on the talk page, but was counter-reverted with the reason provided provided by the editor for the deletion of the material being 'The comments of Moore, of PAN are not in the least notable when a non-neutral source such as PAN self-servingly writes and publishes the article in it's in-house organ PAN magazine - as is done here.' I'm not convinced this is a NPOV edit, and thought I would offer the other editors a chance to share your opinions on the appropriateness of the reason provided. I would question whether the Facts of Publication should be characterized in the manner chosen. For example, Reason Magazine is published by the Reason Foundation, I'm not convinced that it makes all the comments of Reason's editors "self-serving" or "not notable". I'd be interested in the thoughts of the other editors.--Cronos1 (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author quotation[edit]

The Wik article spells "programme" this British way, but the author of SS was American, and SS was published by an American publisher. I find it unlikely that the author would use this spelling. Could some-one check? 211.225.34.177 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: see [2]. Somebody must have been using a UK edition. I'll change that now.—Chowbok ☠ 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Industry and agribusiness advocates"[edit]

This biased bit keeps getting added: "Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring". This suggests that the only people who criticize it do so because they're paid shills (also, "industry and agribusiness advocates" is basically the equivalent of calling someone a "black-hearted scoundrel" for progressives). It's just as biased as when someone was called an "environmental activist" earlier, only in the other direction. Many people have honestly and sincerely criticized Silent Spring, not just evil corporate lobbyists.—Chowbok ☠ 06:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a lot of non-NPOV editorial into the NPOV statement. If, as you claim, there are "many people have honestly and sincerely criticized Silent Spring" that aren't Industry and agribusiness advocates, please cite them, it could be that they have been unfairly overlooked and should be included.Cronos1 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, "environmental activist" was not removed from the article...Cronos1 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This entry is another perfect example of why so many people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously. The following sentence is so bad, it has absolutely no place, at all, in an encyclopedia: "This latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT has been identified as an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement." So all of the complaints concerning Silent Spring are all "industry sponsored"? Give me a fucking break. So those who cite the well-supported statistics indicating a frightening increase of mosquito-borne diseases in Africa? Why they are all being paid for by the chemical industry? What a joke. And the sources cited for this insane level of bias? Left wing activists and opinion sites. Such a claim is the equivalent of me going to the Planned Parenthood entry and inserting this sentence "Liberal support of Roe v. Wade has been identified not as support for so-called 'reproductive rights' rather that support is being coordinated by Planned Parenthood to increase its bottom line". And I guarantee I could find multiple sources for such a claim if I searched the internet. Moreover, I can't recall the last time I saw an entry that had a section labelled "Support" then one labelled "Criticism" and then one labelled "Defense". The fact that the author attempts to rebut the criticisms of the work is biased in and of itself. The support and criticism sections need to stand on their own. It is not the job of the author or this entry to try and rebut the criticisms, particular in fashion that is so far beyond biased that it is laughable.
You have to love the response from Cronos1. The author of this entry, by using weaselly language such as "those who want to discredit the environmental movement", can claim any conservative or libertarian criticism of Silent Spring is really just " an attempt to discredit the environmental movement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.247 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Both of these parts are problematic. I've added a POV tag to the section.—Chowbok ☠ 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to cite criticisms by non-agribusiness and industry advocates, you are free to so.Cronos1 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty already in the article. Ronald Bailey is an economist and journalist; Dick Taverne is a politician; Human Events is a general political magazine. It's unlikely that unnamed New York Times columnist is either one, also. So, clearly, the issue here is not that.—Chowbok ☠ 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty difficult to believe that you've given much thought to a claim that the people and publications listed aren't industry or agribusiness advocates. For example, it is well known that Lord Taverne is a self-described 'bio-tech expert' who promotes GM crops and denounces anyone opposed to GM foods; he was reprimanded by the House of Lords for calling on Prince Charles to be made to relinquish the throne if he made any more statements critical of GM crops(!). If you can make a detailed and well-reasoned arguement, that any of the others aren't industry/agribusiness advocates I will be glad to review and debate if necessary.Cronos1 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the "logic" being employed by Cronos is stupid. According to him, anyone with scientific expertise in the field of GM crops or the effects of pesticides is an industry advocate if he condemns the slipshod science of Silent Spring in a publication that isn't left wing in nature. He couldn't care less about the merits of any of the scientific arguments because he is too preoccupied in pointing out the political affiliations of those who point to the flaws in Carson's work. If he persists in adding the descriptor back into the article, I am going to label every person defending Silent Spring as a liberal or a rabid environmentalist if such a label is appropriate to the particular individual. If it is all right to try and imply that the scientific opinions of various individuals are less than valid because of they are too influenced by a person's political beliefs, then it is all right to claim that those who support Silent Spring only do so because of their environmental or political beliefs. If it's good for the goose that is protected at the expense of people's lives, it's good for the gander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking nonsense. I care about the merits of scientific arguments. If you go to any reputable reference work, like a dictionary of scientific biography or similar, and read the entry on Rachel Carson, you will not find any of the so-called flaws. The reason isn't that the editors are politically biased, its because there is not any noteworthy research that supports the views you agree with.Cronos1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If I can determine which side of a debate a person is taking by simply reading two small paragraphs of a particular section in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic, it is obvious the "author" of that particular entry is being entirely too biased. And the term author is to be used very loosely in regards to the entry on Silent Spring. The bias of the Criticism section(the most obviously biased, but just barely, section of this entry) starts in the very first sentence. A supporter of Silent Spring is identified as being celebrated, when merely listing what he does would be suitable. No such superlative is used to describe anyone who opposes Silent Spring, even when it would be applicable, such as with Ronald Bailey. Bailey has won numerous awards and has been praised and cited by numerous groups and individuals for his expertise in the field of biotechnology. Yet he is not described as "celebrated". Instead the "author" goes out of his way to describe his political affiliations. Only those who are opposed to Silent Spring are described in such a fashion which is evidence, in and of itself, of bias. I see no description of political affiliation attached to Tim Lambert, John Quigglin, Merrill Goozner or Monica Moore. And the assertion or implication that libertarians are unable to speak honestly about the scientific merits, or lack thereof, of a particular book because of their political philosophy is absolutely ludicrous. This labelling is also extended to the periodicals or organizations that publish the writings of those who criticize Silent Spring("conservative Human Events", for example) Liberal or left-wing periodicals or organizations are not similarly labelled. Again, it simply cannot be argued that such is not an example of bias. And any claim that Slate or Salon or the Pesticide Action Networkare not liberal or left-wing is as laughable as the claim that the Silent Spring entry is not biased. And when it comes to the subject of environmental regulations(or any class of regulation for that matter) it simply cannot be argued that libertarians are predisposed to oppose regulations, regardless of their merits, whereas liberals aren't predisposed to support particular regulations regardless of effectiveness or cost. To claim, as the "author" of this entry has, that only one side of the political spectrum views this issue through the lens of politics is absurd. The "author" even goes so far as to imply (or outright state) that certain individuals are basing their criticism of Silent Spring SOLELY on political beliefs, using such claims to keep up the charade that it is not biased to label such critics as "agribusiness advocates". Also, the criticism section makes no mention of authors who have directly challenged the misleading writings of some of Silent Spring's defenders with Tim Lambert being an obvious example. But by far the most ridiculous example of bias is contained in this sentence:
"This latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT has been identified as an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement.".
That sentence is written as if it is an objective fact(the use of the word identified can lead to no other conclusion) that the voluminous criticism of Silent Spring is all bought and paid for by various, always unnamed companies who have colluded to come up with a strategy to discredit the environmental industry. Not a shred of real evidence is provided to support such a ridiculous claim in the sources provided. In fact, one of the cited sources details an emphatic denial, issued by the main subject of the piece, that he ever received any money from the tobacco, pharmaceutical or chemical industries. The only source that seems to address the topic can only engage in flimsy guilt by association attacks. The following sentence, taken directly from the citation section, perfectly sums it up: "In this context, some draw attention to the fact that both the Reason Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, both critical of Silent Spring, have received substantial funding from corporations in regulated industries." So the "author" uses the fact that some companies have provided funding to the the Reason Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute(are we to believe all critics are affiliated with those institutions) to make the claim that all of the VERY numerous critics who have criticized the flaws of Silent Spring are in the backpocket of chemical companies that have sat down together to devise a "strategy" to discredit the environmental movement. To state that the sources provided to back up that claim are completely inadequate to support such a baseless charge is an understatement of epic proportion. The author doesn't state "Some environmentalists have claimed CERTAIN Silent Spring critics are bought and paid for by companies trying to discredit the environmental movement" rather he presents an unsupported assertion regarding the motives of Silent Springs's critics as an objective, undisputed fact. And while I am on the topic of citations, Citation #36 is only a half page long and consists of not much more than a declaration that the Bush administration is trying to dismantle the environmental movement with absolutely NO EVIDENCE provided directly in that citation concerning the supposed motivations of various pro-DDT individuals. Monica Moore, the author of Citation #36, seems to simply take it for granted that she can speak to the motives of those who have criticized Silent Spring and wish to resume a more widespread use of DDT. To use such flimsy "evidence" in order to make a definitive statement of fact regarding the motives of individuals criticizing Silent Spring is completely unacceptable, period. With the one sentence I quote above, the "author" has completely impugned the integrity of legitimate critics(something he seems unwilling to concede exists) of Silent Spring by stating they are paid shills for "industry". And when I use the phrase "one sentence", I only mean that one particular sentence in which the author has made such an explicit statement regarding motives, because the entire criticism section is nothing but one implied claim after another that people like Ronald Bailey only take the positions they do on the science of Silent Spring because someone is paying them to do so. Given the entire tone of the Defense and Criticism sections, the defense proferred by Cronos as to why he continues to use such blatant bias is wholly insufficient, and that is being really fuc*ing charitable. Defending the GM crops on their scientific merits, forcefully criticizing an ignorant Luddite like Prince Charles and/or adhering to a philosophy that espouses "economic freedom" doesn't make one a paid shill of chemical companies, nor does it make you an "advocate" for a particular business or group of businesses and if you are unable to make such distinctions, you have absolutely no business writing what is supposed to be an unbiased entry for an encyclopedia. I will continue to remove the farcically overt instances of bias from this entry, no matter how often a particular "author" tries to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at Cronos's responses to the charges of bias, the more I get a laugh at how pathetic they are. One has to read through them one time to see how his overt bias, as displayed on the talk page, has bled over into an entry that is supposed to be unbiased. The assertion that a defense of GM crops is also advocacy on behalf of agribusiness is a joke. One can support crops that are resistant to disease or increase yields without being an advocate of the business model that currently produces the majority of them. One could go so far as to support them in principle while completely opposing the businesses that produce them. Stating something along the lines of "well he criticized Prince Charles and supports GM crops, thus he must be a advocate(and not merely a supporter) of 'agribusiness'" is an absolute farce barely worthy of a reasoned response. Moreover, the definition of agribusiness being used by Cronos is so ambiguous and undefined as to be worthless. Does going to the local store and purchasing a plow make me a supporter of "agribusiness"? Does buying a GM vegetable at the supermarket make me a "supporter of agribusiness". One would suspect that, according to Cronos, such would be the case, if only so he could label me as an agribusiness supporter before addressing my criticisms of Silent Spring. Perhaps I support the production of GM crops by producer-owned co ops. The assertion that one is advocating on behalf of agribusiness and thus his criticisms of Silent Spring are suspect simply because he supports GM crops is hilarious for the sheer transparency of the bias involved. Subscribing to a libertarian philosophy doesn't make one an agribusiness advocate either. One can completely disapprove of the methods and actions of agribusiness companies, yet oppose passing onerous regulations against them. That doesn't make one an agribusiness advocate. And once again, we get back to a definition of agribusiness that is insanely overbroad. But that is deliberate because a particular author wants to be able to call into question the motives of anyone who criticizes Silent Spring. To claim otherwise is a blatant lie. It is hard to say exactly which is more comical: the claims that using the term "agribusiness advocate" to describe the critics of Silent Spring aren't biased or the seeming belief that we can't determine the motivations and see through the lies and justifications for using such blatant bias. It is simply not possible to read the last portion of the Silent Spring entry, including the wholly unsupporterd charges concerning some grand conspiracy to undermine the environmental movement, without seeing the bias. As I mention in the above post, I am going to start removing the biased parts of this entry and I will continue to do so if the entry is reverted back to it current, ridiculous state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you spend less time ridiculing my position and more time formulating a coherent thought, we would all be better served. You are quite correct that someone who purchases a GM food product when they have a non-GM product of similar price available could be said to have advocated in an economic sense for GM foods. It would also be correct that a historian of science writing in a fully annotated peer-reviewed article making some charge or another about Rachel Carson labelled as an agribusiness advocate because he made such a purchase would be a great example of bias. That is not the case here. You will need to put together a slightly more coherent case as to why you believe Lord Traverne can't be considered an agribusiness advocate; if we played by the logic you appear to use above, I don't think one could call Henry Ford an industrialist.Cronos1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Obviously, it has been awhile since I visited this talk page, but after reading the patently ridiculous response from Cronos directly above, I felt compelled to respond. First things first: it's Lord Taverne, not Traverne. The statement about Henry Ford is the PERFECT illustration as to why Cronos has absolutely no business, at all, editing this page. Henry Ford pioneered the large-scale use of the assembly line and interchangeable parts. He later started one of the largest industrial concerns in the world. The notion that one can use some sort of silly analogy between him and a member of Parliament, who has defended the safety of GM foods, in regards to business is a demonstration of just how completely asinine Cronos is. As I stated before, Cronos needs to explain how lauding the benefits of GM crops somehow means one is bought and paid for by Monsanto or how pushing for the use of DDT means one is somehow on the payroll of DOW Chemical. And lest anyone thinks I am exaggerating, all one needs to do is reread the bullshit accusations he has thrown around about the integrity of the critics of Silent Spring, or peruse the "sources" he provides. After reading those sources, it becomes crystal clear that the phrase "agribusiness advocate" is used to mean "someone bought and paid for by [insert corporation name]" rather than "someone who defends the science behind[product X]". Furthermore, as I discussed before, the uneven use of various descriptors is biased in and of itself. I am sure Monica Moore has talked about the need to use recycled products. Why not call her an "envirobusiness advocate"? The obvious answer is because the use of the terms "business" and industry" is meant to be perjorative; this constitutes blatant bias. Cronos's use of the term "business advocate" is so broad(this is done deliberately so those who criticize Silent Spring can be more easily impugned as paid shills),it would lead to labeling anyone who disputes the non-existent link between vaccines and autism as an "advocate for the pharmaceutical companies". Most sane individuals understand that disputing the anti-scientific bullshit spouted by Prince Charles or Jenny McCarthy, for example, doesn't mean one is an "industry advocate", rather one is arguing for sound science and against fear-mongering quackery. According to Cronos, and the pathetic sources he cites, those who defend Silent Spring are on the side of the angels, whereas those who criticize it, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have been bought and paid for by various monocled fat cats who, when they aren't busy abusing orphans, are releasing toxic chemicals into the sea. After reading the loony conspiracy-mongering at the Pesticide Action Network site, I was surprised I didn't also find articles detailing how "fire can't melt steel" or debating just how many gunmen were on the Grassy Knoll on November 22. 1963.74.138.40.147 (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three aspects[edit]

We need to clarify the opposing views on:

  1. Whether DDT is a useful pesticide for killing mosquitoes that spread malaria
    • For example, number of cases prevented or lives saved (per country, per year)
  2. To what extent DDT has been "banned" (its use curtailed via political or economic pressure)
    • The measures taken to discourage its use don't amount to a "ban", or at least not where it's really needed
    • The measures taken to discourage its use have largely succeeded, particularly where it's needed the most
  3. Whether Carson's arguments against using pesticides are scientifically sound or have merely been propagandized
    • dismissed without actual study by pro-pesticide groups
    • accepted without proof for ideological or other reasons

I don't want the article to make it seem like she's a saint (if opposition to this idea is more than marginal). Nor do I want to make it seem like she's nothing but a hoaxer (if support for her views is also more than marginal). What's wrong with simply being neutral on all aspects of her book? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Ed, Thank You for formulating a coherent statement on what you would like to see done. Much of what you wish to discuss/explore belongs in the article on DDT, not in the article on Silent Spring. I disagree with your understanding of what neutrality is and how it applies to wikipedia.Cronos1 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

50 years later[edit]

Human Events Criticism...No Good[edit]

Does the Human Events website example even belong on here? Gonna be honest, never posted one of these things before or done anything but read wikipedia and revert vandalized pages (I dont even have one of your fancy account doo-dads) but it may be time for me to be more actively involved. Umm...if this is too long just read the few words in caps and the title to get the point.

That list has things like The Feminine Mystique, The Origin of Species (it and Descent of Man are in the honorable mentions), and the Kinsey Reports in it and is blatantly slanted to christian (The bible isnt on the list but darwin is) conservatism, even noting that the panel they used was a conservative panel. While it is honorable of them not to pretend to be politically neutral, Wikipedia should be...at least...thats the impression I got as a reader these past years.

Even if someone here thinks the page on Silent Spring is too left leaning and needs balance, I dont see how putting in a far right radical source in actually solves the problem (just makes the page feel inconsistent). Indeed, since the Honorable Mentions of that book list get no elaboration, including Human Events in the Silent Spring page DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE ANY MEANINGFUL INFORMATION to use to expand the criticism section.

I think something else about malaria or maybe the possible profit loss of chemical companies would serve better to actually be informative and neutral.


69.62.187.148 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Your honest common sense is very welcome. You are right that we try to achieve balance and to avoid point-of-view writing. This is not surprisingly especially tricky in a Criticism section where it is necessary to explain opposing points of view without siding with any of them. For what it's worth, I think the Human Events mention is a notable and relevant fact, and it's only mentioned suitably briefly. The Dick Taverne mention may in contrast be overemphasised, and the Cato Institute paragraph looks like too much also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. Also removed some of the non-reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness, but I think you have cut far too much, and I considered a straight rollback to restore all the deleted material. However, there seems no good reason to remove the discussion of e.g. John Tierney, Dick Taverne, the Cato Institute, Peter Matthiessen and probably others. These are intelligent, quiet, useful reflections on the book and its impact, and they need to be re-incorporated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply was too long so I wrote something below. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article reorganization and sources[edit]

The article needed serious trimming of its terrible sources. It relied too heavily on blogs, environmentalist websites, right wing sites, etc. Many still needs many to be replaced.

First Criticism sections are to be avoided. See: WP:CSECTION. Instead of a "Debate" or "Criticism" section, it should focus on the main effects of the books, which seem to be:

  • Helping to grow the environmentalist movement
  • Improving regulations on pesticide usage, and specifically DDT.

The Debate section focuses on the issue of DDT and falls into the fallacy of simply presenting opposing viewpoints. Views of those of critics vs. supporters. Who cares what a bunch of environmentalists and anti-environmentalists think? This is a direct scientific and historical claim. Where are the scientific studies supporting this? Those are the sorts of sources that would be needed. If this was a bunch of scientists debating an issue in scientific journals then the debate should be covered in full. The claim that DDT led to the deaths of many appears to be completely wrong, not published in scientific journals. It therefore is WP:UNDUE to give them too much space or credence. It would also appear to be a WP:FRINGE claim, since it is not something held by scientists, but rather in the public. And it relies on incorrect information in regards to DDT.

Just because a viewpoint exists, does not mean Wikipedia should document it. The sections can be expanded but they must adhere to Wikipedia policies and not give too much credence to discredited claims made by non-scientists. A rebuilt section needs to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, {[WP:FRINGE]] and WP:UNDUE.

Many of the sources simply fail WP:RS.

  • Ronald Bailey - Reason Magazine

Economist. Not within his academic expertise to be discussing the issue of the effect of DDT banning. I'm not sure if an advocacy magazine like Reason would pass WP:RS.

  • Human Events

Not WP:RS.

  • British politician Dick Taverne

Not a scientist. Remember that all sorts of elected officials say stupid or uninformed things. I also don't see the point of having a long quote.

  • Competitive Enterprise Institute,

Not a reliable source.

  • Roger E. Meiners, Pierre Desrochers, and Andrew P. Morriss edited Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson (published by the Cato Institute)

Definitely not a reliable source.

  • Spiked magazine, Pierre Desrochers

Maybe, I don't know.

  • John Tierney

The article does not cite him directly. Instead it cites: 1. A blog. 2. The book Merchants of Doubt. This is the reason why I removed it. Going to the original article. Is it an opinion piece? I'm reading it and certainly feels like a personal opinion piece. I don't know.

  • Merchants of Doubt - Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M

Is this a reliable source? Needs investigating.

  • Peter Matthiessen

All he's used is for a long quote to say that there was opposition to the book. So I removed the quote and just used him for a citation for that claim.

  • the Cato Institute

Not a reliable source by a longshot.

Long Quotes. A lot of the article relied on simply quoting sources at length. I don't see what these really add. You can just summarize their arguments and cite them.

This is just a start. A trimming to remove the bad sources so that the article can then be built up with better sources. Simply citing primary sources of anti- and pro-environmentalists doesn't really add anything to the article. The article still relies on many questionable sources. Mostly environmentalist websites. It needs a lot of work. This article could become one day a WP:FA, but it needs better sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this book and its impact have been discussed in high quality peer reviewed scientific or historical literature correct? It has to have been. So I am proposing to remove these low quality sources, and replace them with high quality sources. That is the only way the article can improve. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also come across this:

Just the sort of thing I was talking about. This was posted to reddit before I made my edits. Someone read this article, and took the claims stated at face value. Remember that not everyone reads the entire Wikipedia page. Many people scan them, and in this case it looks like the person only read the Criticism section. This is why WP:UNDUE is so important. Readers can become misinformed if undue weight is given to certain positions which are in fact minority or fringe positions among experts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this article relies on too many poor sources, and is not that well written, I've found that the main article for Rarchel Carson is in fact very well written (it has featured Article status). I'll incorporate text from Rachel_Carson#Silent_Spring into this article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book content[edit]

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

lead sentence - what's this book about?[edit]

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

The leed is poorly written. I was going to address it last. You can take a crack at it if you want to.

What I was going to do was to take more from the Rachel Carson lede and from the Rachel_Carson#Silent_Spring section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out in general that this article for whatever reasons seems to have been neglected. The main biography article for Rachel Carson however has received a large amount of attention and has been brought up to FA status. I've attempted to fix that issue by first copying over sections from the much better written Rachel Carson article. I have not really touched the leed for this article however. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at re-writing the lede. I used some material from the Rachel Carson article and some from the previous lede. I described it as an "environmental science" book, and said that it "book documented the detrimental effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides on the environment, particularly on birds.". Made sure to add "indiscriminate" usage, since she does not call for the banning of pesticides, just documents some of the issues that results from their over use.

I still think it should be expanded. Thoughts? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote: Where Late The Sweet Bitrds Sang[edit]

There is an acclaimed science fiction novel by Kate Wilhelm, Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang whose title is reminescent of the topic of this article. Here is part of a review of the book, confirming my association:

In this sense, "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" is the fictional culmination of a movement that began with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962 and whose title is recalled. In that book, we learned that in certain cases small levels of contaminants in the environment could have a devastating effect on wildlife. Specifically, the spraying of a little-known chemical, DDT, in order to kill mosquitos, resulted in a thinning of the eggs of birds. Unable to reproduce with their past effectiveness, the number of birds began to fall. In this effect, Carson foresaw a future in which no birds at all were able to reproduce leading to a "Silent Spring," free of birdsong.

You don't have to travel much ecological distance to imagine a similar effect on the reproduction of humans.

The theme of Wilhelm's book is 'if it happened to birds, it could happend to humans... what then?'

Other articles have a Popular Culture section, in which adaptations of the article's topic are listed. Maybe this book goes there?Sbalfour (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DDT claims and Undue[edit]

So it seems people come away from this article thinking that there's validity to the claims that Silent Spring is to blame for tens of millions of deaths. Is there anything we can do from this? Are we giving them too much weight? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short of a brain transplant, there's nothing that can be done for some people. This article is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Silent Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive link was to a dead archive. Removed the dead archive link, leaving the previous link intact – it's from a newspaper, so should be verifiable in hard copy. Added a link (and archivelink) to another Obituary with similar content. Mojoworker (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The right link for the note 25[edit]

The right link for note 25 is https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article-abstract/10/4/636/398991/The-Strange-Stillness-of-the-Past-Toward-an . Iohana4 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the ref. Thanks for the tip! Dgorsline (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Silent Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silent Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silent Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Missing Criticism by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards (Apr. 2018)[edit]

I'm not a specific detractor of Ms. Carlson's work, but I was surprised by how biased this article is. Though favorable in general (taking time to debunk criticism - all examples listed - and avoiding criticism), I was surprised to not find "The Lies of Rachel Carlson"[1] by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.94.5 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed! Their absence has always felt concerning to me, being around as long as I have, 65.130.94.5, Gordon Edwards' criticism was in this article before but fans/those in the "church" of Carson have a policy of removing it, articles such as these are usually WP:PROMOTIONAL and written by fans. The nature of the beast.
"The latter of which describes the phenomenon as "Carson's Murderous church of environmental theology.". That magazine is not considered "mainstream"/liked by many though, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
"Her paradigm has been disastrous for rational political discourse. It is a template for bypassing debate and ignoring consequences. Here’s how it works..."
There is vast network of WP:RSMED criticism, that gets censored out of this article.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://21sci-tech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

"Sermonizing"/comparison to Hiroshima (book), another The NY magazine article[edit]

http://www.herseyhiroshima.com/hiro.php Thought this might be relevant.

"One way to understand the impact of "Hiroshima" is to compare it to another work first published in The New Yorker: the environmental classic Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. Portions of Silent Spring were published serially in The New Yorker a decade and a half after "Hiroshima" and it also was quickly published in book form. Extensively researched yet written in a simple and clear style, Silent Spring told of the damage caused to the environment by the widespread use of modern pesticides and herbicides. In order to fully explain the causes of the crisis, Silent Spring explained concepts of ecology (such as the food chain) that were new to the public.

"Hiroshima" was written in a reporter's style. A reviewer of the day noted that that "there is no preaching in this book. Not a single sentence 'views with alarm. ' " [36] On the other hand, Silent Spring was certainly an explicit warning, full of (well-reasoned) advocacy and also what some might have considered sermonizing. Where Hersey was noted for his dry style, Carson's book was clearly impassioned.

The effects were different too. "Hiroshima" was not presented as a call to action; it was instead offered as a clear-eyed report about the reality of the atom bomb as seen through the eyes of the survivors...

However, Carson's Silent Spring was nothing else if not a 'call to action.' It described an environmental disaster in the making, it pointed a finger at wrongdoers, and it explained what sort of remedies would be required. Unlike "Hiroshima," large and powerful interest groups were greatly threatened by Silent Spring; the chemical and agricultural industries fought a bitter public relations and public policy war against Carson and her message.

The modern environmental crusade was probably initiated by Silent Spring. Citizen action and government policy can be traced directly to the book and to the storm of controversy that surrounded it."

In any event, I think, like the above editor that this article on Silent Spring, needs to be less defensively biased. Boundarylayer (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silent_Spring&oldid=1213200582"