Jump to content

Talk:DDT/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Older references

In the section of DDT and cancer, I've removed this study:

  • A study from 1967 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.[1]

since it's a very old study, it's a very small sample size, and it's contradicted by newer studies (see the second bullet point in § 4.2). I also think that whenever possible we should use reviews as sources rather listing every single study (or worse: cherrypicking a few old studies) and a recent review is available and used in the article. However, maybe there is good reason to include it--perspective? I don't know.... If anyone feels strongly that it should stay, then go ahead and put it back in, but please provide justification here. THanks. Yilloslime 09:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

no anecdotal evidence

This is intended to be a scientific article. As such, "Gordon Edwards' daily consumption of DDT" belongs in the Gordon Edwards article, not in the DDT article. Unless you would also like to

  1. provide some evidence that Edwards did consume DDT every day, rather than some third hand reference to somebody who saw him consume a spoonful of something he claimed was DDT, which he claimed to do every day
  2. list all the people who were exposed to DDT and did die,
  3. list everybody who smoked and didn't get cancer in the smoking article

etc.
etc.
etc. Gzuckier 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The second time you removed this it was from the "criticism" section. Edwards was a noted critic of restrictions on DDT use, and the material I added here need not be in the form of a peer-reviewed study; it cogently expresses the views of a well-known critic. --Don't lose that number 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If this anecdote belongs anywhere, it's in the article on J Gordon Edwards, not an encyclopedia entry on DDT. Yilloslime 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What you said. As I stated in my edit summary removing that material, the source you provided seems in no way reliable; the author is not a chemist or any kind of scientist for that matter, and the mention of the alleged anecdote is only in passing, with no sources given. It might belong in the article on Edwards, but definitely not here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he was a scientist -- Professor of Entomology at San Jose State. However, one not need have particular credentials to be a notable critic. Other critics mentioned in the criticism section include journalists, authors, public health officials, and lawyers. And then, one lady who is quoted to rebut the criticism is May Berenbaum, a professor of entomology. Edwards was famous as a critic of the DDT ban, and his DDT-eating stunt was widely discussed. --Don't lose that number 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
describing it as a "stunt" (though not in those words) isn't the problem, it's describing in terms fitting to some kind of definitive well documented experiment. "According to one rightwing blog, Professor of Entomology J. Gordon Edwards claimed to swallow a spoonful of what he claimed to be DDT every day. He died of heart failure blah blah." would be an accurate statement without interpretation, if you want to go that route, or modify it to reflect several rightwingblogs or the Larouche organization or whatever (I know I'm being a little sarcastic with that wording, but hopefully you get my point). If you can find a reliable source that what he drank was DDT other than his sayso that would be great, but I don't believe that exists anywhere, or even evidence other than his sayso that he actually did it every day. Heck, most people don't even manage to take their prescription medications every single day. But in general, this article creeps towards too many individual opinions, when definitive well-documented well-regarded sources are available, e.g. the EPA. Including a bunch of folks who don't believe the EPA doesn't generate a "fair and balanced" article, it injects bias. Gzuckier 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think you are missing the fact that this is part of the "criticism" section. We don't describe in detail the research methodology used by the various journalists and public health officials who say the restrictions on DDT have cause thousands, millions, etc. deaths from Malaria, because it is not being presented as scientific data, it is being presented as criticism. On the other hand, Edwards deserves a certain amount of respect by virtue of being a credentialed expert on entomology, so I think that it is unreasonable to suggest that he was really eating Ovaltine and claiming that it was DDT, or whatever. --Don't lose that number 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yilloslime, your compromise edit is fine with me. Let me add that I congratulate you on being able to compromise -- some of the other editors I've encountered seem utterly incapable. --Don't lose that number 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it's OK with everybody else, I certainly won't be the skunk at the garden party. compromise is the name of the game! (PS he annually took the spoonful of DDT? For some reason, mostly my own confusion, I was reading it as daily. D'oh!)Gzuckier 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Annoying edits over "old" and "improper" name

Currently the article starts with:

DDT or Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane ...

Some editor has persistently and annoyingly put in an editorial comment after this to the effect that this is an old and antiquated term for the chemical. I'd like to address that. It is plainly not the name currently used for the chemical, which is given in the infobox. But it is the name from which "DDT" (which, after all, is the title of the article) is derived. Therefore, it should stand. Those who are interested and knowledgable enough to care what the actual, current name for this chemical is will consult the infobox, where the full name (4,4'-(2,2,2-trichloroethane- 1,1-diyl)bis(chlorobenzene)) is given. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree it shoulnd say only the name is obsolete, but also why. The name is not incorrect, is obsolete. If you say somebody Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane will obviously understand. Nevertheless, science should use always the most accurate languaje (in my modes opinion) since IUPAC exist, and created much better nomenclature system, i think we could take adavantage on it. Especially where obvious polimer names may collide with the substance we speak of. I didnt put the new name, because it's on the left hand, in the abstract box.
Hope you have the same willing to better the wikipedia each day as I do. Sorry the misunderstanding.
I still would like it to be said in the main article, as I had some problems in my class about namings.
Regards.
P.S. I'm also little new to this and didnt realize of the discution forum... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.114.88 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2007

DDT Ban and the Farm Labor Movement

This article entirely credits the US restriction on DDT use to Rachel Carson and "the environmental movement." It completely overlooks over a decade of hard fought battles by the farm labor movement, lead by Cesar Chavez. No mention is made of the 1960's grape boycott and subsequent and historic contracts signed by Delano growers that specifically -- and for the first time -- restricted the use of DDT. No mention is made of the UFW march to DC and Chavez's testimony before congress. This testimony contributed to a more comprehensive nationwide ban on DDT in 1972.

Both the farm labor movement AND the environmental movement lead to the ban of this pesticide. Almost any Chavez biography or historical text on the farm labor movement will support these facts. Try, for example:

Susan Ferriss and Ricardo Sandoval, The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers Movement, 1998

71.202.121.218 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Somebody with some knowledge would be good to write it... like you......?Gzuckier 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

don't let the bedbugs bite.

would'nt the rise of bedbugs have something to do with increased travel? Exactly who is suggesting that the banning of DDT 30 years ago is a factor in the rise of bedbugs in the past few years? I didn't just delete the statement from the article, I actually did a bit of Googling for some such statement, and didn't find any. Now, I did see people suggest that DDT had been of use to eradicate bedbugs, but even that's up against some serious evidence, which I guess I might as well put into the article now that I dug it all up. Anyway, if you get a reference to somebody of some degree of note, either scientific or a rightwing shill regarding the lack of DDT leading to bedbuggery, then please return the statement with citation, but don't feel that I arbitrarily deleted it just because of some kind of partisanship without an attempt to verify. Gzuckier 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, As far as I can tell, a big pest control trade group (perhaps the National Pest Control Association though off I the top of my head I don't remember for sure) has been issuing press releases about bedbugs saying, among other things, that DDT helped eradicate bedbugs in the US. Newspaper articles derived from the press release are the only sources I've ever seen that claim such a thing--I've yet to come across any mention of bedbugs in the medical or scientific literature on DDT, or in EPA/WHO documents about DDT. I don't think DDT was ever even registered for structural pest control in the US--though I haven't looked into that specifically, so I may be wrong. [At any rate, googling DDT bedbugs site:epa.gov yeilds zero hits.] I could believe that chlordane--which is a now banned organochlorine pesticide that was once used in structural pest control--could have played a role in bedbug elimination, but the DDT claim is pretty shaky and is going to need some serious sourcing. Yilloslime 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My pooter had it's weekly unscheduled crash, thus eliminating all traces of the sites I had laboriously googled up so I'll have to dig them out again. Stay tuned. Gzuckier 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok i dun it. Gzuckier 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... there seem to have been a few spurious suggestions at the Stockholm Convention conference this August too, see [1]. Davy p 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh?

The court cases were decided in EPA's favor, and appeals got no traction, suggesting that Ruckelshaus's actions were solidly based on science.

I'm confused. Is someone attempting to claim that an action is scientifically valid as a result of being legally vindicated? That's a really, really stupid line of reasoning. --75.58.54.17 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph, starting "The ban and Carson's book ..." seems rather confused to me. Perhaps someone who knows how these events unfolded can re-write it. Davy p 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to just jump in and "be bold" on this article, just yet. But there are several things about this article that need to get sorted out. The first is that the chemistry, toxicity, and wildlife toxicology can be described without social controversy. The social controversy about public policy is an important part of the history of DDT, and the role of DDT and Rachel Carson as iconic symbols in the culture wars continues even on this page. Like global warming and evolution, the science is really not in debate here. But the debate is a valid subject of interest in the continuing history of DDT. One technical item that I did not see in the article is the role of DDT in discovering the principles in wildlife toxicology of bioaccumulation and biomagnification, and the use of the octanol-water partition coefficient to determine the likelihood of persistant xenobiotics to reside and move through the fatty tissues of the biosphere.Michael J Swassing 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Agent Orange here.

Under the 'See Also' section, Agent Orange is listed. Agent Orange is a herbicide, and DDT is a pesticide. I suppose the argument could be made that controversy surrounds both DDT and Agent Orange, but perhaps there are better uses for the 'See Also' section than a herbicide.

Perhaps a link to 'Organochloride' would be better?

The active ingredient in "Agent Orange" was 2,4-D, a synthetic plant growth regulator used as a defoliant in warfare. During the era of the Vietnam War the industrial production of 2,4-D was contaminated with Dioxin. It is controversial for a variety of reasons, as is DDT, but I agree that it does not belong in the See Also section of an article about DDT. The two articles could belong to similar categories of articles, in a number of different ways, including that both insecticides and herbicides are pesticides, as are miticides, avicides, rodenticides and fungicides.Michael J Swassing 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. (2,4-D is still widely used even today.) We don't need to put to Organochloride in the See Also section since it's already wikilinked in the body of the article itself. Come to think of it, Pesticides is also already wikilinked, so it doesn't need to be in the See Also section either. I do like having Agent Orange in the See Also section, since like DDT it is an iconic pesticide. However, upon search the article for the term, I see it too is already mentioned in the article, so doesn't need to be in the See Also section, per WP:SEEALSO#See_also. I'll just remove the whole section. Yilloslime (t) 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Science and advocacy

I would like to see a clear distinction between two things - or maybe three things:

  1. The latest "consensus" (?) of scientists about the benefits and dangers of using DDT as a pesticide.
  2. A completely neutral and well-balanced (?) section on advocacy for and against DDT use.

If I recall the history of this topic correctly, there was a time before 2006 when DDT was much more unpopular than it is now. I think Scientific American changed its mind (or reported a general scientific or political turnabout) on the issue.

The biggest issue of concern to human rights activists and advocates for the poor in third world countries is malaria eradication. Their concern sometimes goes up against environmentalist concerns that DDT will hurt fish or birds, or even promote the evolution of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.

Is it possible to write the article so that there is an initial section which is completely uncontroversial? And then can we have another section on advocacy? (Or do we need a DDT advocacy article for the pro and con?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns to ban DDT

Sorry to cross post (see also talk:Rachel Carson) but I'm trying to track down rumors of a DDT ban and this (supposed) ban's effect on the malaria malaria epidemic in the Third World.

  • Dr. Pierre Guillet, a medical entomologist who coordinates the WHO Vector Control and Prevention Team, [said] that DDT had been out of the picture for many years, under pressure from environmentalists, who wanted an end to all pesticides. [2]

Now is this just disinformation from LaRouche? Or did he really say this?

If he did really say this, what did he mean by "out of the picture"? Did some countries restrict the use of DDT for vector control, as some advocates claim? --Uncle Ed 18:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently the UN's World Health Organization opposed DDT for 30 years. I "conclude" this from headlines like "WHO backs DDT for malaria control - The World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed a 30-year policy by endorsing the use of DDT for malaria control." (BBC)

Was I just having trouble with the distinction between a "ban" (with legal and economic consequences for evading the ban) and the mere "lack of endorsement" of a scientific agency of no consequence? --Uncle Ed 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding so much information, that I'd like to have an article on DDT and vector control as a separate article, rather than stuffed into DDT as a section. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity about the "ban"

The Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the EPA, have managed both to confirm and to deny the idea that the US "banned" DDT.

  • affirmation: DDT Ban Takes Effect [EPA press release - December 31, 1972]
    The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today ... [3]
  • denial: Common Myths About Rachel Carson and DDT: [that] DDT Has Been Banned in United States. [4]

Is this a semantic issue, or what? --Uncle Ed 04:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The very link you provided explains that "Only the GENERAL use of the pesticide has been banned in the United States. The EPA’s order did not affect public health and quarantine uses, or exports of DDT. In addition, the EPA maintains the ability to allow any Federal or State agency to use DDT if emergency conditions exist, including economic emergencies." --Itub 10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Major split into separate articles

See Talk:DDT#Consensus on article split for voting on a split.

I have split the article into History of DDT, Environmental impact of DDT, Effects of DDT on human health and DDT use against malaria. I hope all there articles still flow after the changes. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally find that sets of related articles are easier to maintain than big long, catchalls. Besides, This page is 86 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In order to not let it appear as POV Content forking to remove controversial topics out of sight, please add short overview sections for the removed content. Add a "Main article: Forked article" (use the template {{main}}) on top of those sections. Сасусlе 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The DDT article lent itself nicely in being split into the four separate topics. I feel it does not create POV issues since the POV's on the topics are contained within the new articles rather than being separated out into the two POV camps. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Cacycle, are you talking to me or to Alan? I'm not sure I'm the best person to write an overview of the controversy. I "have a dog" (if that's the right metaphor), because I think DDT has gotten a bad rap. Perhaps someone who hasn't taken sides in the controversy over using DDT in anti-malaria campaigns should write the overview. Meanwhile, I might prefer to write something like DDT and malaria. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that is was a strait split out of the DDT article. I did not change any content. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arghh... Major changes (such as these) to somewhat controversial articles (such as this one) really ought to be discussed on the talk page before implementing. I've revertd back to this version. While I think that Alan Liefting had the best intentions in splitting it up, and I respect that the amount of work that went into it, I think it was a bad idea.

While I'll be the first to admit that the article had it's share of problems—including that it was too long—I think splitting it up as such just creates more problems:

  1. The WP:LEAD of the split up article is way too short. (I acutally think the original lead was really good). The new articles need leads, too.
  2. I worry that the new articles, especially DDT use against malaria, will become POV magnets.
  3. Burrying the health effects of chemicals on subpages downplays their risks.
  4. We'd now need to write short summary sections of the split-out sections for the main article, a potentially contentious processess.
  5. A discussion on eggshell thinning is sorely lacking, and it's not entirely obvious where it should go within the suite of new articles.

Yes the article is long, perhaps too long, but DDT is a unique chemical, with a long, unique, and controversial history, and it surely deserves a main entry that discribes more than just its discovery and physical and chemical properties, only hinting at its controversial history and its effects on human health and the environment. In short, I think wikipedia was better off with what we had before, so I've restored that. Sorry. I hope I'm not being a dick—I'm not try to be—but as a regularly editor of this page, I think I'm right in this case. If consensus goes against me, so be it, I can live with that. But let's try to get consensus for these sweeping changes before making them. Yilloslime (t) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not feel that it needed a discussion. It was not even a case of being bold. The article was too long and lended itself quite nicely to being split into the four separate articles. Whether it is a controversial subject or not is not a reason to NOT split the article. Admittedly the DDT article after my splitting could have done with summaries of the articles split out. With respect to the points you made above:
  1. I agree but this is not a reason to NOT split the article. The new articles simply needed refining.
  2. Any article can become POV regardless of where it is. Are you worried about the titles of the new articles?
  3. WP is not a forum for establishing level of risk. That is up to others. WP simply has to put the facts forward in an accessible manner. If there was a summary with a link to the main article a reader can still get all the information.
  4. Regardless of the "potentially contentious " editing it will still be a better outcome and needs to be done at some point.
  5. lack of info on egg shell thinning is not a reason to not split the article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is huge and is a perfect example of a topic that should be covered in summary style. Perhaps the split was not perfect and could be improved (for example, the lead and the summaries of the spin-off articles), but it is still necessary IMO. --Itub (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the fact it's controversial means it should NOT be split up, only that it DOES mean it should be discussed first. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And at first was I was going to let the division stand, while we discussed the pros and cons here, but then I figured it would be best to bring it back to its original undivided state, so as to avoid people putting a lot of work into the split up version only to see it lost if consensus favors the merged article.
I do agree with your points 1-5 above—none of my points, alone, are reason to NOT split—but at the same time, I haven't seen any compelling reason TO split. The question is which is better: one long article or 4 shorter articles. I'd rather continue refining one long article rather than 4 short articles, especially in light of the POV issues created by the split.
WIth regard to #3, "WP is not a forum for establishing level of risk," I agree, but it is within the purview of WP to discuss the known health effects of a chemical, and whether these effects are discussed in the main entry for a chemical or on a subpage is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. I'd argue that burying discussion in a subpage doesn't give them enough weight.
What are these POV isssuesI alluded to above? In a nut shell, editors regularly come to this page as well as Rachel Carson and Silent Spring asserting that DDT is non-toxic and is the greatest thing since sliced bread for malaria control, and that a worldwide ban imposed by heartless environmentalists is killing millions of African babies every year. This is simply not true for the reasons enumerated on this talk page and the main page, but people continue to assert it, especially at the Carson/SS pages. We see less of that here at DDT because, I think, there is a section on health effects and environmental effects, so it's hard to come here and argue DDT is harmless. Likewise, with it's history spelled out here, its hard to put an argument in the malaria section that it was "banned worldwide" or that the restrictions that have been placed on its use were imposed at the whim of environmental extremists. If we seperate these sections we'll see an increase in uninformed edits, and that just spells more work down the line. Yilloslime (t) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly there are POV issues, but these were not created or hidden by the split.
I recognize that you disagree with the assertions made by some editors: (1) non-toxic, (2) controls malaria, (3) ban kills babies. Perhaps you will permit Wikipedia to be neutral on the controversy about these assertions.
Would you be willing to allow one article (or an article series) to remain neutral on some or all of the above points? If so, we could have a section or article for one or all of these controversies.
  • Surely there are sources which disagree on DDT's toxicity - both to wildlife like birds whose eggshells it reportedly thins, and to human beings.
  • Its effectiveness in malaria control has been debated; there are advocates for and against.
  • The inflammatory charge that "DDT has been banned, and that ban is killing babies" has been made, as well as rebutted. Perhaps a summary of the charge and its refutation is in order.
To avoid extra work, should one (and only one) of the spin off article be about the DDT controversy? If you agree to that, I would be happy to join you in reverting any editorial attempts to insert controversial POV statements in the other spinoff articles. I would be glad to move them where they would do the most good, and create the minimum of extra work. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ed, all I want is for wikipedia to remain neutral on this topic. I think spin-off controversy pages are almost always bad ideas and POV-forks as I recently argued in the AfDs for Controversies of Rudy Giuliani and Al Gore controversies and on Talk:Rachel Carson. My experience editing and watching this page as well as Rachel Carson and Silent Spring for almost a year leads me to strongly believe that a spin-off controversy page (and also the new DDT use against malaria page) will invariably devolve into a lengthy POV-ridden "some people say... while others counter that..." type of article that WP could do without. Yes, the article in it's current form has problems, but I think splitting it up only creates bigger ones. Yilloslime (t) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I don't like the idea of a DDT controversies article. It will become a POV magnet as YS maintains. The controversies should be kept within the appropriate article that I had split off. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
YS, I feel that the names of the spin off articles will not be POV magnets. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I take it that your main objection is to a lengthy "he said ... she said" thing. Sort of a debate page with no substance, is that it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I decline rank my objections, but it's definitely near the top. ;). I think the article in its current state already suffers from a little of the "he said...she said" thing, and in splitting it up it'll only get worse, not better. I agree with Alan that the current title of "DDT use against malaria" is much better than say "DDT ban" or DDT controversy" but I don't think that a relatively non-POV title will prevent a POV content from creeping in. Yilloslime (t) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to get more input into this matter, I've left messages with the editors who've made multiple contributions to this talk page in the last 6 months or so. See User:Yilloslime/Can for documentation. Hopefully, some of them will weigh in. I certainly don't WP:OWN this page, and I'm happy to let it be split up if consensus goes that way.... Yilloslime (t) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I will put it up on Portal:Environment/Things you can do and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Probably could listed elsewhere as well. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a notice at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Chemicals. --Itub (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Having just looked over the article, I don't think that splitting it up is the required solution here. My feeling is that a better approach would be to edit it back into shape and trim its size that way. The sections on health effects, for instance, document a number of largely overly-detailed studies. It would be better if this material could be summarised more succinctly (e.g. just note that there is conflicting evidence). Another approach which might improve the article while reducing word count would be to reorganise it somewhat. It's gotten a bit flabby and there's a whiff of repetition about it. Finally, while some might see it as adding balance to the article, to my mind there's too much made of material from a relatively small number of obvious (and vocal) pro-DDT lobbyists. Meanwhile, guidance on DDT from larger organisations is given fairly short shrift, despite often being based on much larger studies or meta-analyses. Anyway, while I would agree with Alan Liefting that something needs doing (and am grateful that my attention's been drawn back here), I just don't think dividing the article up is the way to do it. I'll try to chop away when I've the time (possibly over the Christmas break). Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate the reasoning behind the split, but I share the concerns of Plumbago and others. I'd support an effort to trim the article down to a manageable size, before we think about splitting it. One important development in articles with this kind of POV problem has been more rigorous application of WP:WEIGHT. That's clearly needed here in relation to lobby group efforts.JQ (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to separate the disputes over health and environment into (1) lobbyists and other advocates and (2) peer-reviewed scientific studies? I think our readers would like to know who's for and against it from both categories. John, you mentioned weight. Do you know what the preponderance of scientific studies is on human toxicity, effects on wildlife, overuse in agriculture, and/or effectiveness in malaria prevention?

A hasty glance at the article (and others in the series) gives me the impression that scientists decided it was too dangerous to have around humans, or that it had adverse effects on wildlife, or that there were much better alternatives to indoor spraying. Is this actually what the science says? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend against splitting. The article holds together reasonably well in my view because the toxicology and the environmental themes are intimately connected to the chemistry. But I would not be strongly opposed to splitting. The article suffers from an undisciplined or semi-random referencing. Even experienced editors are reluctant to remove references lest they be accused of vandalism or restricting points of view. The problem of accumulated hyperspecialized and marginally relevant references highlights one of the unresolved design flaws in the Wikipedia concept, at this point in its evolution.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In looking over the article I also see places to trim, especially the last two section. They could be made into more of a summary rather than a full blown dialog. I do not see the split being productive. It will only increase total storage requirements, does not make it more readable or useful and sets up a tendency towards POV forking, although this was clearly not intended or realized in the recent split. I would second the idea of separating the advocacy and peer reviewed scientific work into more clearly distinguishable sections. Of course the citation of scientific studies is a primary tool of advocates but we as editors need to present the scientific evidence in a clear objective manner without advocacy dialog. It just seems that the two are mixed up too much and each scientific study is followed by a statement that extrapolates and often stretches the scientific result into public policy actions needed. There should be sections where the scientific evidence is presented and stands on its own.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the separating out or at least clearly labeling the science from the advocacy would be best. The Health Effects section appears free of advocacy--all the sources are scientific journals or monographs from WHO, EPA, etc--though it's long could use trimming. The malaria section, on the other hand, seems both long and a mixture of science and advocacy.Yilloslime (t) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

US ban

I'd like to see a chronological rewrite of the US ban section. It doesn't make sense to have the "view" that Sweeney was overruled by Ruckelhaus tacked on to the end. If Sweeney held hearings, that fact should come before the ban. If Ruckelhaus gave reasons for his decisions (or chose not to), those reasons or that decision should come next. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Need to avoid systemic bias. There is already some stuff about DDT in Environmental movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the US ban section needs a rewrite, especially the last paragraph. We could definitely do better with sourcing and chronology. I'm not what Alan means about systemic bias. Could you explain a little? Yilloslime (t) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We must make sure that the page is edited with appropriate weighting to all of the countries involved. The US was a major player in the DDT ban but other countries must also be mentioned if appropriate. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Although the US was not very first country to ban non-public health uses of DDT, it was the US ban that set the precident, and therefore I believe the focus is appropriate. Yilloslime (t) 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While you're waiting for his reply, I stumbled upon this bit of info. I followed a link on your user page:

  • in more recent years, a conglomeration of critics from organizations as diverse as the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the civil rights group Congress of Racial Equality have charged that Carson overstated the dangers of DDT, that it is not a carcinogen, and that at moderate doses, it is not even harmful to birds. [5]
There's no gap between the American Enterprise Institute and Congress of Racial Equality. The latter hasn't been a genuine civil rights organization for about 40 years, and is now just a conservative front group, controlled by a single family.JQ (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I was aware of that (if only vaguely); perhaps they are motivated by "compassionate conservatism", eh? I just watched Amazing Grace (movie) this week, and it's all about wealthy white (!) Britishers abolishing the slave trade 200 years ago. Someone's always trying to do their bit for Africa.
That's just my own perspective, and perhaps a bit of a distraction. We've got a difficult article to write, what with an ongoing dispute over DDT's supposedly wonderful marvels or diabolical dangers. I'm hoping we can bring some science into it, as a refreshing contrast to the dreary mudslinging. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have yet see any articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals (other than some Lancet editorials by Donald Roberts of Africa Fighting Malaria) that argue that restrictions on DDT are unjustified, or that DDT restrictions are leading to otherwise preventable deaths, or that DDT is harmless to humans, or that X number of deaths have been caused by a ban on DDT, or that Rachel Carson was way off base. The forums in which I do see these arguments made include: publications and websites connected conservative thinktanks, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Foxnews, the blogosphere, and, increasing, popular science magazines like Discover, National Geographic, etc. Yilloslime (t) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Now of course Discover magazine is not a primary source, but I expect it to be a bit more carefully edited than some small city newspaper.

I hope to find out a bit more about whether (1) Rachel Carson ever linked DDT and cancer or (2) if she did, whether contemporary science agrees now with what she said then. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In Silent Spring Carson quotes a Dr W.C. Haeper of the National Cancer Institute as rating DDT as a "chemical carcinogen". (P183, London: Hamish Hamilton. 1963) -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict...]
I think there are two issues here that tend to get conflated:
  1. The health and environmental effects of and Rachel Carson's views on DDT's use in agriculture.
  2. The health and environmental effects of, Rachel Carsons views on, and the overall effectiveness of DDT's use in malaria control.
I know this statement is a bit of non sequitor, but I thought it would be useful to throw it out there. Anyways, to answer your questions:
  1. Discover magazine is correct: AEI and CORE (as well as just about every other conservative/libertarian think tank you can name including CEI, the Cato Institute, and the Ayn Rand Institute) do charge that Carson did those things. Note that the Discover article doesn't claim that these folks are correct in their intrepretation of history.
  2. Carson presented what was known about DDT and cancer at the time. She didn't say it was definitely a carcinogen, though she did say that at least one doctor (who she names and quotes) thinks it is. She definitely left open the possibility that it was not carcinogenic, but did strongly advocate for (pre)caution in the face of this uncertainty.
  3. The EPA lists DDT as a "probable" human carcinogen, it's Prop 65 chemical, and the IARC calls is "possible", but these rating have not been updated or reevaluated since the 80s. At the time these ratings were given, there was ample evidence that rats fed large amounts of DDT got cancer. Data from humans was sparce and inconclusive, which is why the rating of "known carcinogen" was not given. Note that this is a common situation, since we are not going to intentionally dose humans with a chemical to find out whether it definitely causes cancer in people or not. Chemicals that achieve the rating of "known" carcinogen are usually ones in which a well defined population have been exposed to well defined levels of the chemical over a well defined period of time in the absence of exposure to other known or potential carcinogens. Such situations are rare (they are often cases of occupational exposure) and thus the list of "known" human chemical carcinogens is short. Since the 80s new epidemiology has found associations between DDT and breast, liver, and pancreatic cancer. EPA and IARC haven't yet weighed in on this new evidence, and these studies--as well as studies finding no such link--continue to be a subject of debate. Long story short: The carcinogen is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect EPA was correct in declaring DDT a probable carcinogen, but I know others would disagree. Also note that in addition to DDT, we have to consider its breakdown products DDE and DDD. Certain helath effects are associated with DDE but not DDT and vice versa, but of course DDT is the chemical that is regulated. Yilloslime (t) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on article split

Perhaps we should put the splitting to the vote now that it has been thrashed about a bit.
Proposal': Split out the four topics and have summaries in the DDT article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I would prefer that information be merged. The controversy over indoor, anti-malarial spraying of DDT (to kill mosquitoes) is controversial. We should not censor the existence of the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than some minor formatting, the articles i've proposed deleting are exactly the same as sections already in DDT and are therefore redundant. If new info was or is added to them, then by all means, let's merge that new content into DDT, but as far as I know, there is no new content.Yilloslime (t) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The new article Indoor residual spraying, created by Ed, contains some stuff from Paul Driessen of the kind that has been excluded here on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. I restate my view that this article should be deleted. I tend to agree that the controversy over DDT is noteworthy, for reasons entirely separate from the actual merits and otherwise of DDT, but I don't think forks are the way to handle it. I think this article probably needs a "controversy" section, so people can get some idea of why this issue has come to have the symbolic importance it does. I'll have a go at drafting something if I get a moment.JQ (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I will abide by consensus here, although I don't understand how WP:WEIGHT requires any viewpoint to be excluded entirely. Perhaps Driessen's argument should be condensed.
I also don't understand the word "fork" in this context. I don't want to have a spin-off which disagrees with the main article; I want to either (a) merge all the info back in, once it's stable enough; or (b) let the main article have a summary and the spin-off provide extra detail - with the summary and spin-off saying the same thing, only that one is in more detail. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
JQ, Ed, I think Indoor residual spraying is also problematic, and I'll try to comment on why I feel that way later, perhaps over at Talk:Indoor residual spraying, or at this thread. Meanwhile, does anyone have a problem with deleting History of DDT, Environmental impact of DDT, Effects of DDT on human health and DDT use against malaria, since these articles are entirely redundant and unnecessary since DDT is not being split? Yilloslime (t) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed {{prod}} templates on History of DDT, Environmental impact of DDT, Effects of DDT on human health and DDT use against malaria since consensus is against splitting and no one has raised objections to deleting these specific articles.Yilloslime (t) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I redirected those articles, since the history should be kept for GFDL compliance and redirects are good things. --NE2 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DDT was so safe you could eat it.

Dr. Wayland Hayes performed tests for the U.S. Public Health Service, feeding human volunteers up to 35 milligrams of DDT in their food every day for 18 months. (The average human intake of DDT in the United States at that time was about 0.03 mgs per day, or 0.36 mgs per year.) No adverse effects resulted, either at the time of the study, or during the next 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.1.237 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

35 mg for an average person is about 0.5 mg/kg. There aren't a lot of things poisonous at that level. Calcium arsenate isn't poisonous at that level. Calcium cyanide isn't poisonous at that level. The most severe WHO classification, Ia "Extremely Hazardous", begins at 20 mg/kg and below for LD50 for rats; and hardly anything even in that classification is poisonous at 0.5 mg/kg. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf DDT is rated as "Moderately hazardous", 200-2,000 mg/kg. The fact that the average intake of DDT was far lower than any reasonably hazardous level isn't closely related to the question of whether it's dangerous for the people who have a much larger than average exposure, like workers in the manufacturing plant or agricultural workers. Nobody was arguing that the average American had a 50% risk of dying from DDT exposure; if there was that level of toxicity, people would probably have noticed. If you want a valid test to prove how safe DDT is, take 35 grams of DDT per day (a little more than an ounce) and get back to us how you're doing. and btw, wikipedia generally does not rely on fictional novels as sources for article content when there are numerous scientific sources available, even if the author is Michael Crichton.Gzuckier (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What Gzuckier said: Michael Crichton is not a reliable source here, and State of Fear is a fictional book. We don't cite fictional books in encyclopedia articles about anything other than fictional books. Also note that the 35mg/day study is already mentined in article, and despite your claims of no adverse effects, the authers did note "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects". I'm also not sure the subjects were followed for very long (if it all) after the dosing stopped. Gzuckier makes a great case for why this study is not even relevant to the article, and I would add that it is perhaps even misleading to include it. Yilloslime (t) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
alternately, in the article on drowning, we could add some balance by referencing a study that shows that 53 people bathed daily without adverse effects. Gzuckier (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
come to think of it, how would you even get/dispense 35 mg of DDT? it's not like it comes in capsules, like 35 mg of vitamin C. 35 mg would be approximately one "average" size drop of DDT, as a test as to whether the guy who sprays it on the crops for 8 hours a day is at risk. good one. Gzuckier (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dispensing it is no problem at all. Analytical balances have a precision of 0.1 mg. Or you could dilute it and measure the volume of the solution. For example, dissolve 1 g of DDT in 100 mL ethanol and then measure 3.5 mL. --Itub (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you're going to that trouble, wouldn't you dispense a dose in the general order of magnitude of biologically significant, rather than 1000X too low? Why go to all the trouble of sapping your experiment of any possibility of results? My take on it, which I freely admit I have no other reason to think is accurate, was this guy just dripping out the smallest drop of DDT he could manage and going, "here, try it, you'll be OK". because frankly and unfortunately, any other scenario makes even less sense as a planned experiment.Gzuckier (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense because it was a study of the long term effect of low doses. The LD50 is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) there are many things that can go significantly wrong with your health over the long term other than dying, but the LD50 is measured for shorter-term/higher dose exposure and only considers death or alive as outcomes; 2) there could be cumulative effects, for example if the substance is not excreted or metabolized. Hence 35 mg/day could be a large dose if you take it for 18 months. Also, seen from the other side, this dose was 1000 times larger than the estimated average exposure (if the numbers given above are correct; I haven't verified), so it was actually erring in the side of caution. Finally, pure DDT is a solid. If you are measuring drops you are already dealing with a dilute solution. For example, the bottle pictured in the article has a 5% solution. That means that, if you were using such a solution, to measure 35 mg of DDT you would need 0.7 mL, which is easy to measure using a pipette or syringe. --Itub (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add that when you are experimenting with humans you usually don't want 50% of the subjects to die! Hence it makes more sense to start with very low doses and increase them only until you start seeing a significant effect. --Itub (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm... yeah, that makes some sense. I can't believe I missed the part about DDT being a solid at room temp. But good long-term effect studies on humans typically need huge numbers of people for long periods of time, due to not being able to pump toxic doses into them, as you point out. Thus the vast expense of huge Phase III clinical trials, for which drug companies have to mortgage their whole company in order to provide the power required by the FDA. As a result, long term safety studies of most pesticides are pretty sketchy. And so, epidemiological studies following vast populations for 50 years are always popping up new findings, whether true or spurious. Which merely emphasizes the basic point regarding this study that "you can't prove a negative"; i.e., even at face value the study in question merely demonstrates that the risk is low enough that in a limited number of (i'll look it up next time i'm near the library) subjects over a couple of months exposure to 10X the average population dose, over a couple of years of followup nothing significant was found except for some liver anomalies. Quite different from saying "it's safe and harmless", period. Nowadays you would be strongly encouraged to provide a power analysis of your study in the publication, estimating the minimum effect which it would be able to detect. Gzuckier (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Talk:Pesticide has a bit of pov pushing on the safety of DDT by unsigned IP users as well. aliasd·U·T 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New split proposal

I have added a {{split}} tag to the article. Note that there has been prior discussions as seen in previous sections. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As discussed previously at Talk:DDT#Major_split_into_separate_articles and Talk:DDT#Consensus_on_article_split, I think this is a bad idea. I would strongly favor an effort to pare the article while maintaining (or improving) NPOV. I've tried to do a little of this, but I haven't done much. I would welcome the help of interested editors.
Paring down an article, unless it is to remove unencyclopedic material, goes against the philosophy of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. I think there is certainly material we could lose while preserving NPOV, particularly in the DDT and malaria section. Yilloslime (t) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My main objection to splitting, as described in greater detail in the above sections, is that I think the "DDT and malaria" and to a lesser extent the "Health of effects of DDT" daughter articles will become troll magnets and it will be very hard to remain NPOV. "Controversies of Living Person X" articles are strongly discouraged for this very reason, and while I realize that the words "controversy" and "criticism" are not in any of the proposed page names, I think the argument still applies here. Yilloslime (t) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether content is on this page or elsewhere there is always a chance of vandalism. I would imaging that "Controversies of Living Person X" would attract more attention than the DDT article. Besides with tools such as watchlists rollbacks, undo's, page protection and the promise of "stable versions", there is no need to hind the progress of WP for a fear of vandalism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about vandalism but of POV-pushing. It's actually been pretty quiet recently, but what I'm worried about is the "Rachel Carson killed more people than Hilter", "DDT is harmless", "The DDT 'ban' is killing African babies" type of POV that gets pushed on this article from time to time. And yes, it's a real POV that deserves its fair share of space in the article (or sub-article, if it's split), but I'd argue that we already have too much devoted to it, and it's only going to creep in more if we split the article up.
OK, so let me rephrase my first comment. Regardless of whether content is on this page or elsewhere there is always a chance of vandalism and POV pushing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but my point was (and still is) that having everything together on one page makes is easier to fight POV-pushing. A common misconception in the certain corners of media is that "DDT is harmless". It's hard to make to make that argument on the merged page when there is an extensive section on "Health Effects of DDT." Likewise, I read constantly about how "DDT is banned" or how "The EPA banned DDT use against malaria." It'll be easier for these canards to be incorporated into a subpage on "Malaria and DDT" than it is to incorporate them into the merged page, because in the merged page the actual history of restrictions on DDT is right there. Now, sure, it's easy enough to revert the work of misinformed or mischievous editors, and if all you're doing is reverting, it doesn't matter whether it's on one merged page or across several. What I'm worried about are the tendentious talk page threads that I'm almost positive will arise on subpages. Yilloslime (t) 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree on you about you methods of preventing POV pushing. Have a peruse of the climate change articles, the List of environmental issues and everything at Category:Environmental issues to see if it is of concern elsewhere on WP. I don't see any, arhhh, issue with unmanageable POV pushing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need to expand these topics; if anything, we need to reduce them. we don't need to repeat every study and every pundit's opinion, when we have reviews and authoritative sources to quote. Gzuckier (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Paring down an article, unless it is to remove unencyclopedic material, goes against the philosophy of WP. We certainly do not need to cite every study. but the article should be an overall synthesis of all of the notable studies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the comments above. The article is not excessively long or broad in scope, but could do with some paring. Part of the reason it appears as 93K is the unusually large number of references, most of which are not actually discussed, merely quoted from. Physchim62 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether a study is discussed or quoted from a reference must be given. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I still think that it would be better to split it and write it in summary style. The DDT article is a troll magnet with or without the splitting, and none of the proposed subarticles is intrinsically POV. The article is a bit long, although near what I'd consider borderline, so if it can really be pared down without losing content, I suppose that would be OK too. --Itub (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope to splitting: this article really needs editing to trim its claims and counter-claims down to something more sensible. Emphasis should be placed on up-to-date assessments of DDT's toxicity from major health and environment agencies. While one of WP's aims is to represent the sum of human knowledge, key to a successful encyclopaedia is its summarising of knowledge. Otherwise, we're not a whole lot better than a trawl of the primary literature. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia is not paper, and summary style brings the best of all worlds. The "general reader" only reads the well-summarized main article. More interested readers can go to more detailed articles on say, DDT and malaria. And then, even more interested readers could go to "DDT and malaria in Oklahoma" (assuming anyone wanted to write it!) Many books have been written on DDT. You cannot have a 10-page summary that will satisfy every reader. --Itub (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. I see article in WP as having a hierarchy. For example, it is conceivable that the following articles could be written and should be seen in a hierarchy from the most important at the top to the least important at the bottom:
DDT

Environmental impact of DDT, History of DDT, Effects of DDT on human health
Env issues with DDT in the United States, Env issues with DDT in NZ, History of DDT in the US, History of DDT related laws in the US, DDT use against malaria

With such a hierarchy we can edit pages with very specific info without the danger of getting unwieldy sized pages. It also makes linking and categorisation a little easier. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. While I certainly accept that Wikipedia is not paper, only a relatively small number of chemicals get anything approaching the diversity of spin-off articles itemised above (ozone provides a good counter-example). That DDT is edging close to requiring this because of its length is due to it being the "poster child" of synthetic pesticides, and the resulting misinformation that is bandied about by advocacy groups (both promoting and opposing its use). Looking at the articles for other pesticides (e.g. dieldrin, lindane, malathion) suggests that this may not need to be the case here. While, ultimately, it may be that DDT becomes a sprawling multi-article topic (the history and malaria sections are most promising on this count), it still seems more sensible to me to try to hack it back here first. For example, the toxicity section needs paring down to advice from the WHO, etc., plus smattering of the best recent studies - it's too point/counterpoint at the moment. Either way, I'm pretty sure we don't need the majority of the 9 articles indicated above. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Since DDT is an important, notable and controversial chemical it deserves sibling articles to cover the topic comprehensively and without making the DDT page excessively long. WP is trying to create the sum of all human knowledge so therefore paring down this article is against the aim of WP. I am pretty sure that at some stage in the future we may well have the nine articles I mention. We can quite easily create most of them from the DDT article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm again - the balkanisation of "env issues of DDT" into separate articles for different countries is simply absurd. Exactly where is the cut-off there? And how can one conceivably justify three articles about DDT and the US? If you really think these articles are necessary, please create them in your sandbox area first to show us. Then we can hack the DDT article (which I do agree is bloated) down to size. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There really is no cutoff unless a topic would remain a stub article. I can justify three articles about about DDT in the US because there is a lot about the topic (and many US WP editors adding info). I created Pesticide use in the United States since it gave a US skew to Pesticide. I have created 1080 usage in New Zealand because it is important in lil' ol' NZ and it was a major part of sodium fluoroacetate. The same situation exists here on the DDT page. It is a page about a chemical that has a huge amount of other info. We MUST have pages on the history, controversy, usage etc. If we don't the topic area will not get its due coverage - unless we have a REALLY long DDT page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. In passing, I note that articles like Mosquito control already cover some of the territory that "splitter" articles might cover. There may be others. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And if there are not any other such articles they should be created by splitting the DDT article. If a Mosquito control article exists there is no reason that we cannot have a DDT use against malaria article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong way around. What I meant was that some of the articles that you're proposing already exist. Before the DDT article is carved up it's probably worth checking what's already here. The Mosquito control article would either nullify the need for a DDT use against malaria or be a good place to put cut material from DDT. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
None of the articles I listed exist (I take it that you realise the links redir to DDT). The Mosquito control has a section on DDT use but it does not do the subject area an justice given the degree of controversy over it. If the articles on the associated topics you claim already exist out there why does the DDT article not link to them? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. I'll make a more substantive comment later when I have more time, but for now I'll just say that per WP:Splitting, only articles with >60 kB of readable prose should "probably " be divided. The readable prose size of this article is only 43kB. As someone has already pointed out, one of the reasons why the page size appears to be so big (95kB) is that it is extensively referenced. Yilloslime (t) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons for limiting page size is to give acceptable download time for those who have slow internet connections. Another reason can be the limited attention span of readers. We would do the users of WP a service if we summarise information that can be quickly digested in a world that is already awash with information. See Environmental issues in the United States as an example of a summary style. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that those are generally great reasons to split up a page, I just don't agree that this page has grown so large as to actually suffer from these problems. The applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Article size, says pages with >30 kBof readable prose may need to be split, and >60kB probably should be split. We're only at 42kB of readable prose here, so the length argument, by itself, is not very strong. Yilloslime (t) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
All the reasons listed at Wikipedia:Article size are reasons to split the article. You would have to agree that the shorter a page is then the better it is for those with slow connection regardless of amount of readable prose. You cannot say that "at 93kb (or 43kb of readable prose) I don't think it suffers form size problems" because incremental increases in size create incremental increases in problems. It is not a case of "at this size it is ok and at that it is not". Also, don't forget that the recommended size of articles is only rule of thumb. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Amount of prose vs amount of references

Apparent half the size of this article is given over to references (ie 42kb of refs in a 93kb sized article). This would suggest to me that there is insufficient prose or too many references. What should we do increase the amount of prose are cull the number of references? Just as WP is not a collection of external links WP should not be a collection of citations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is problem I noticed too. I think some of the references could be used more, and in place of other refs. In other words, lets say the article makes statements: A B C D E & F; and each is referenced to a different source: a b c d e & f. It might be the case, however, that f supports both F and, say, E, and b supports statement C in addition to B. Therefore we could lose sources e and b, and use cite f to support F and E and b to support C and B. (Maybe that we even more confusing) Anyways, I suspect a lot of this type of thing is going on in this article, and by sticking to a fewer but more comprehensive sources, we could reduce the page size. Yilloslime (t) 05:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
For example, this edit. Everything that should be referenced still is, but I made the page ~150b smaller and reduced the number of cited references by one. (And corrected the erroneous bp information to boot!) I imagine there are plenty of similar edits that could be made. Yilloslime (t) 05:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Split out Silent Spring and the U.S. ban

The amount of detail in this section is not really appropriate for an article about a chemical. It would be a good addition to Pesticide use in the United States or perhaps DDT in the United States .... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical, though open to the possibility that it could work. What would be left behind here? The reason I'm skeptical is that Silent Spring, the US ban, and egg shell thinning are central to the history of DDT and to the continued controversy surrounding DDT in the media today, and not just in the US. The section nicely covers all those bases, and I wouldn't want to lose that. But I'm open to suggestions. Yilloslime (t) 05:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you were rather quick in reverting my split. Egg shell thinning, bald eagles and all the US specific stuff deserves its own article. Should I add the DDT in New Zealand article to the main DDT article? No, I shouldn't because it will make a long article even longer and it is info only relevant to NZ. The same goes for the US stuff. Can you please let other editors work on this article. Your unilateral approach is preventing the article from being improved. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The US experience is central to understanding the history of DDT and the modern controversy around. The New Zealand experience is not. Anyone is free to work the article, but unilateral action against consensus is most unwelcome. Yilloslime (t) 22:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a chemical

The DDT article soulhd be about the chemical. The ecological aspects of the effect of DDT on an eagle in the US, issues with it in New Zealand and the US, how it became banned in the US, etc are all aspects that SHOULD be treated (pun??!!) elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. My guess is that people who come to wikipedia.org and type "DDT" into the search menu don't care much about the molecular weight and solubility properties of DDT or its synthesis. They care about bald eagles, Rachel Carson, whether or not it's banned for malaria control, etc. Yilloslime (t) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot make any assumption about what people do a search for on DDT. We have to assume that all manner of searches will be done. If some one does a search on "DDT" they should get a page that is a summary of everything about DDT. That is what I am trying to achieve with my suggestion to split out the sub articles. If someone is interested in "DDT in New Zealand" and enter that as a search string they will go to the DDT in New Zealand page. If they are are interested in the "Environmental impact of DDT" and enter that phrase as a search string they should go to Environmental impact of DDT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a thought; I'm not sure why it hasn't occurred to either of us before. Why don't we split out a DDT (molecule) page, not unlike the water (molecule) page. DDT would still point here, but there'd be a header at the top of page directing people to the molecule page for the physical and chemical properties.The molecule page could be the chembox, and Properties and chemistry section from this page, and could perhaps even be expanded to include the mechanism for the DDT-->DDE --> DDD breakdown pathway, as well as any other relevant chemical reactions. I don't think there's anything controversial about that material, nor does it provide context that's essential for understanding the rest of the material in this article. Unlike the other sections that have been proposed for spin-off article, I think this material could work on it's own. Yilloslime (t) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at creating DDT (molecule). I think material stands on it's own well, and removing it from this article would not adversely affect the remaining sections. Does anyone object to removal of sections 1.0-1.3? and the chembox from this article? Maybe not the whole chembox, I think it'd be nice keep the top section with the structures. I have proposed some additional ideas from improving DDT (molecule) (assuming this split proposal flies) at User_talk:Alan_Liefting#DDT_.28molecule.29. Yilloslime (t) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with splitting out DDT (molecule). I prefer the arrangement as at carbon dioxide. The basic chemical should be on the main page. Any lengthy information the starts taking over the main page should be split out as sibling article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with splitting DDT (molecule), and simplifying the chembox in the main article. For most readers, the detailed chemistry is marginal. The crucial fact about DDT is its use as a pesticide, and the consequences, good and bad.JQ (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the split was a good idea. DDT, like water, is a very "interdisciplinary" molecule, and chemistry is just a part of it. In cases like this one I think it is justifiable to make an exception and turn the summary style inside out, focusing the main article on a broad overview likely to interest a larger fraction of the readers, and putting the more technical chemical details in a subarticle. --Itub (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Laws ER Jr, Curley A, Biros FJ (1967). "Men with intensive occupational exposure to DDT. A clinical and chemical study". Archives of Environmental Health. 15 (6): 766–75. PMID 6061300.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DDT/Archive_4&oldid=1144392881"