![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EDF's headquarters are in New York, unlike the image caption claims. (See http://www.linkedin.com/companies/environmental-defense.) I am deleting image and caption. It doesn't make sense to keep the image, even if it does show EDF's Washington office building, since EDF's office occupies only a small fraction of the building. Dan kirshner ( talk) 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the preprint of their annual report [ [1]], they will be changing their name back to "Environmental Defense Fund" "early in 2008". So in, perhaps, a few days, someone should alter the lede paragraph of this article. S. Ugarte ( talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The organization advocates using sound science, good economics and good law to find solutions that work.
It's a good thing 'law' and 'science' are hyperlinked, so I can look those up, but what are "good law", "sound science", and "solutions that work"? 216.145.54.158 ( talk) 08:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
To what does that quote refer to? Who are the "them"? Mosquitos, or people living in regions with high incidences of malaria? I find the latter unlikely. S. Ugarte ( talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What I can see of Horner's book in the Amazon preview makes me even more suspicious of this quote. Please either substantiate or remove it! -- Lindakp ( talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Wurster quote. It is questionable/poorly sourced (from a partisan secondary source) and in clear violation of WP guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations), since Wurster is still living. -- EAHull 10:47, 18 May 2011
Repeated attempts to re-insert this quotation are questionable. The DeGregori book cites another book called Toxic Terror (Elizabeth Whelan) for the quote, who cites yet another source, "Remarks made by J. Gordon Edwards Before International Meeting on Pesticides, Pakistan, August 1980," which cannot be verified. There is no neutral corroboration or a reliable original source for this quotation, and Wurster himself denies saying it. Including it in the article is in clear violation of WP guidelines: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." -- EAHull 11:50, 18 May 2011
I'm writing this because I think there are a couple of places in this article that convey a bias against Environmental Defense Fund. I want to highlight some examples and see if others agree so that a couple of minor edits can take place.
First, the History section. Saying that EDF “claims” to advocate using sound science, economics, and law to find environmental solutions is both prejudicial and incorrect. This is what EDF advocates. You can argue that the science, economics, and law they cite is inaccurate, but it cannot be argued that they don’t advocate using these tools. I hope we can change this sentence accordingly.
The History section also states, “Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business.” Isn't this a biased characterization?
As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website [1], I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
I will stop and get feedback for these changes before I add a few more. Thanks!
Lguite ( talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those resources! I will make those changes.
I also have concerns about the sources cited in the "Critiques" section. Any resources that you know of to help me with that would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks for the warm welcome! Lguite ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
References
Isn't even placing a criticism section on a Wikipedia article a violation of providing a neutral point of view [1]?
I'm a little puzzled that there is a “Criticism” section on this Wikipedia page, since many of EDF's sister environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council [2], Conservation International [3], the World Wildlife [4], and the National Wildlife Federation [5] have no such section on their pages. But if this page must feature a “criticism” section, the criticisms should be accurate.
– The Criticism section has Dr. Charles Wurster saying of the potential malaria epidemic that a DDT ban might cause, “Probably - so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”
If such an outrageous quote resides on a Wikipedia page, it should have a credible source, like a mainstream newspaper or magazine. (The source cited is conservative author and global warming denier Chris Horner, under the imprint of right-wing publisher Regnery. He is simply repeating what he read elsewhere.) If there is no credible original source, I would like that reference to be dropped.
– Regarding the criticism on fisheries, the piece in Fisherman’s News was an op-ed – it was not written by a reporter. Small local operators in the Pacific Northwest don’t trawl. Big boats also have an interest in protecting fisheries – a powerful economic interest. The other concerns cited here are all true, but EDF is openly dealing with them through an approach called catch-shares [6].
– Finally, John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks, argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration, due to an “earth-worshiping mentality,” interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement that led to Katrinagate shortly after Hurricane Katrina. Berlau sees “contempt for human life and safety, all for the sake of a few fish and mosquitoes.”
Berlau’s claim that, if built, the project would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is not accurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse. [7]
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.” [8]
For these reasons, I support removing the "Criticism" section from this page. 69.140.37.132 ( talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
References
My name is Kent Strauss. I am part of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense Fund and am seeking help from the Wikipedia community in clarifying what our organization views as inaccuracies, biased claims and unsubstantiated criticism to the Environmental Defense Fund Wikipedia entry. While we find much of the discussion of catch shares in the EDF article to be questionable in terms of verifiability and neutral point of view, below are three particularly egregious statements we would like to request be revised or removed:
1. “The EDF has been accused of funding and disseminating studies [120] that utilize questionable science and economics [121] in their promotion of catch share fishery management.”
2. “Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying [122] [123] to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets [124] , while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities. [125]”
"In a study of all major United States federal catch share fisheries and associated shared stock fisheries in British Columbia, catch shares result in environmental improvements, economic improvements, and a mixture of changes in social performance, relative to the race for fish under traditional management. Environmentally, compliance with total allowable catch increases and discards decrease. Economically, vessel yields rise, total revenues grow, and longterm stock increases are encouraged. Socially, safety increases, some port areas modestly consolidate, needed processing capacity often reduces, and labor markets shift from part time jobs to full time jobs with similar total employment. Newer catch shares address many social concerns through careful design."
3. “Recent studies [131] [132] [133] show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not end overfishing and typically result in no long term environmental gains.”
There are two problems with this statement. First, the only direct citation (131) to a study is Essington et al. (2012). The others are reviews and interpretations of the results of academic literature. Second, the sentence wrongly interprets the results (Altogether, there are three academic papers referred to directly or indirectly in the edit). The paper directly cited, Essington et al., 2012 (here as 131), contains this sentence, “There is growing evidence that catch shares have detectable impacts on marine living resources and ecosystems.”
The studies directly and indirectly cited in the above sentence find that catch shares tend to,
I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request for an opinion made there has been removed because there has not been any recent discussion of this matter and also because the IP editor has not edited Wikipedia in several weeks and it's no longer clear whether or not there is an actual dispute here. If Kent Strauss ( talk · contribs) still wishes certain edits to be made then he should post the {{ request edit}} template just below and state the particular edits he still wishes to be made. (Just referring to the foregoing requests might be enough.) While it may take awhile, an editor should respond and there is at least a fairly good chance that they will be both experienced and neutral (which is not to imply anything about the IP editor). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
My name is Kent Strauss and I work for the Environmental Defense Fund. Given conflict of interest, I am requesting edits to areas of the Environmental Defense Fund entry to correct what we view as biased and unsubstantiated criticism. A discussion is available in the talk section above. Here are the proposed edits:
Replace: “Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying [122] [123] to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets [124] , while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities.”
With: "Additionally, they have employed political lobbying (EDF, 2012; Gloucester Time, 2011 – currently [122] [123]) to promote fisheries policies associated with consolidation and concentration of fishing fleets (Brewer, 2011; currently [124])."
Replace: “Recent studies [131] [132] [133] show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not end overfishing and typically result in no long term environmental gains.”
With: “While EDF claims that catch shares can end overfishing, recent studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) provide examples where overfishing has continued. However, these same studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) found that across a number of fisheries catch shares resulted in a lower likelihood of overfishing as well as additional environmental outcomes such as compliance with catch limits, lower discards and more stable landings and exploitation rates.”
I would appreciate any feedback or help. Thank you, Kent 20:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Strauss ( talk • contribs)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website, I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
Lguite ( talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Removed sentence from intro: “The Wall Street Journal referred to EDF as a 'business-friendly, market-loving strain of environmentalism.'" Sentence is confusingly worded. Author did not cite Wall Street Journal article, but a secondary source. EDF's work with big business is already addressed (and the same article cited) in the Criticisms section (see Talk above). -- EAHull ( talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like the original author to make the following change: The "criticisms" section includes the statement, "But with many reports suggesting that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades," however only one citation, not "many", is given and that citation is for a BBC article on a 2008 report on the economic inefficiencies in fishery management not on the likelihood of widespread fishery collapse. There are no citations for reports indicating that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades. Please provide multiple legitimate citations to back this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 ( talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the following section entirely. The book is listed but not the pages and I have no idea what it is all about. We do know for a fact that the Army Corps of Engineers eventually admitted that the numerous studies were correct in naming them at fault for building an extremely inadequate levee system. That is well-covered in our article, which incidentally has no mention of Berlau's claim. Thoughts?
John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health! argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement before Hurricane Katrina.[116]
However, Berlau’s claim that, if built, the levee reinforcement system would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is inaccurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse.[117]
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.”[118] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we update the "more than 700,000 members" to 1 million? It is referenced in the bottom right box on EDF's "About" page: http://www.edf.org/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lguite ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)-- Lguite ( talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) -- Lguite ( talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental Defense Fund. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x46885704/Distorting-catch-share-criticismWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environmental Defense Fund. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://apps.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7656When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environmental Defense Fund. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Key accomplishments has WAY to many sources, and so does the last bullet of areas of work. Areas of work also uses almost only edf published citations for all but the last bullet. Toad02 ( talk) 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EDF's headquarters are in New York, unlike the image caption claims. (See http://www.linkedin.com/companies/environmental-defense.) I am deleting image and caption. It doesn't make sense to keep the image, even if it does show EDF's Washington office building, since EDF's office occupies only a small fraction of the building. Dan kirshner ( talk) 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the preprint of their annual report [ [1]], they will be changing their name back to "Environmental Defense Fund" "early in 2008". So in, perhaps, a few days, someone should alter the lede paragraph of this article. S. Ugarte ( talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The organization advocates using sound science, good economics and good law to find solutions that work.
It's a good thing 'law' and 'science' are hyperlinked, so I can look those up, but what are "good law", "sound science", and "solutions that work"? 216.145.54.158 ( talk) 08:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
To what does that quote refer to? Who are the "them"? Mosquitos, or people living in regions with high incidences of malaria? I find the latter unlikely. S. Ugarte ( talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What I can see of Horner's book in the Amazon preview makes me even more suspicious of this quote. Please either substantiate or remove it! -- Lindakp ( talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Wurster quote. It is questionable/poorly sourced (from a partisan secondary source) and in clear violation of WP guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations), since Wurster is still living. -- EAHull 10:47, 18 May 2011
Repeated attempts to re-insert this quotation are questionable. The DeGregori book cites another book called Toxic Terror (Elizabeth Whelan) for the quote, who cites yet another source, "Remarks made by J. Gordon Edwards Before International Meeting on Pesticides, Pakistan, August 1980," which cannot be verified. There is no neutral corroboration or a reliable original source for this quotation, and Wurster himself denies saying it. Including it in the article is in clear violation of WP guidelines: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." -- EAHull 11:50, 18 May 2011
I'm writing this because I think there are a couple of places in this article that convey a bias against Environmental Defense Fund. I want to highlight some examples and see if others agree so that a couple of minor edits can take place.
First, the History section. Saying that EDF “claims” to advocate using sound science, economics, and law to find environmental solutions is both prejudicial and incorrect. This is what EDF advocates. You can argue that the science, economics, and law they cite is inaccurate, but it cannot be argued that they don’t advocate using these tools. I hope we can change this sentence accordingly.
The History section also states, “Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business.” Isn't this a biased characterization?
As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website [1], I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
I will stop and get feedback for these changes before I add a few more. Thanks!
Lguite ( talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those resources! I will make those changes.
I also have concerns about the sources cited in the "Critiques" section. Any resources that you know of to help me with that would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks for the warm welcome! Lguite ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
References
Isn't even placing a criticism section on a Wikipedia article a violation of providing a neutral point of view [1]?
I'm a little puzzled that there is a “Criticism” section on this Wikipedia page, since many of EDF's sister environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council [2], Conservation International [3], the World Wildlife [4], and the National Wildlife Federation [5] have no such section on their pages. But if this page must feature a “criticism” section, the criticisms should be accurate.
– The Criticism section has Dr. Charles Wurster saying of the potential malaria epidemic that a DDT ban might cause, “Probably - so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”
If such an outrageous quote resides on a Wikipedia page, it should have a credible source, like a mainstream newspaper or magazine. (The source cited is conservative author and global warming denier Chris Horner, under the imprint of right-wing publisher Regnery. He is simply repeating what he read elsewhere.) If there is no credible original source, I would like that reference to be dropped.
– Regarding the criticism on fisheries, the piece in Fisherman’s News was an op-ed – it was not written by a reporter. Small local operators in the Pacific Northwest don’t trawl. Big boats also have an interest in protecting fisheries – a powerful economic interest. The other concerns cited here are all true, but EDF is openly dealing with them through an approach called catch-shares [6].
– Finally, John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks, argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration, due to an “earth-worshiping mentality,” interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement that led to Katrinagate shortly after Hurricane Katrina. Berlau sees “contempt for human life and safety, all for the sake of a few fish and mosquitoes.”
Berlau’s claim that, if built, the project would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is not accurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse. [7]
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.” [8]
For these reasons, I support removing the "Criticism" section from this page. 69.140.37.132 ( talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
References
My name is Kent Strauss. I am part of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense Fund and am seeking help from the Wikipedia community in clarifying what our organization views as inaccuracies, biased claims and unsubstantiated criticism to the Environmental Defense Fund Wikipedia entry. While we find much of the discussion of catch shares in the EDF article to be questionable in terms of verifiability and neutral point of view, below are three particularly egregious statements we would like to request be revised or removed:
1. “The EDF has been accused of funding and disseminating studies [120] that utilize questionable science and economics [121] in their promotion of catch share fishery management.”
2. “Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying [122] [123] to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets [124] , while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities. [125]”
"In a study of all major United States federal catch share fisheries and associated shared stock fisheries in British Columbia, catch shares result in environmental improvements, economic improvements, and a mixture of changes in social performance, relative to the race for fish under traditional management. Environmentally, compliance with total allowable catch increases and discards decrease. Economically, vessel yields rise, total revenues grow, and longterm stock increases are encouraged. Socially, safety increases, some port areas modestly consolidate, needed processing capacity often reduces, and labor markets shift from part time jobs to full time jobs with similar total employment. Newer catch shares address many social concerns through careful design."
3. “Recent studies [131] [132] [133] show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not end overfishing and typically result in no long term environmental gains.”
There are two problems with this statement. First, the only direct citation (131) to a study is Essington et al. (2012). The others are reviews and interpretations of the results of academic literature. Second, the sentence wrongly interprets the results (Altogether, there are three academic papers referred to directly or indirectly in the edit). The paper directly cited, Essington et al., 2012 (here as 131), contains this sentence, “There is growing evidence that catch shares have detectable impacts on marine living resources and ecosystems.”
The studies directly and indirectly cited in the above sentence find that catch shares tend to,
I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request for an opinion made there has been removed because there has not been any recent discussion of this matter and also because the IP editor has not edited Wikipedia in several weeks and it's no longer clear whether or not there is an actual dispute here. If Kent Strauss ( talk · contribs) still wishes certain edits to be made then he should post the {{ request edit}} template just below and state the particular edits he still wishes to be made. (Just referring to the foregoing requests might be enough.) While it may take awhile, an editor should respond and there is at least a fairly good chance that they will be both experienced and neutral (which is not to imply anything about the IP editor). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
My name is Kent Strauss and I work for the Environmental Defense Fund. Given conflict of interest, I am requesting edits to areas of the Environmental Defense Fund entry to correct what we view as biased and unsubstantiated criticism. A discussion is available in the talk section above. Here are the proposed edits:
Replace: “Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying [122] [123] to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets [124] , while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities.”
With: "Additionally, they have employed political lobbying (EDF, 2012; Gloucester Time, 2011 – currently [122] [123]) to promote fisheries policies associated with consolidation and concentration of fishing fleets (Brewer, 2011; currently [124])."
Replace: “Recent studies [131] [132] [133] show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not end overfishing and typically result in no long term environmental gains.”
With: “While EDF claims that catch shares can end overfishing, recent studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) provide examples where overfishing has continued. However, these same studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) found that across a number of fisheries catch shares resulted in a lower likelihood of overfishing as well as additional environmental outcomes such as compliance with catch limits, lower discards and more stable landings and exploitation rates.”
I would appreciate any feedback or help. Thank you, Kent 20:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Strauss ( talk • contribs)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:
“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”
If you read the Globe article cited ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.
Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website, I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.
Lguite ( talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Removed sentence from intro: “The Wall Street Journal referred to EDF as a 'business-friendly, market-loving strain of environmentalism.'" Sentence is confusingly worded. Author did not cite Wall Street Journal article, but a secondary source. EDF's work with big business is already addressed (and the same article cited) in the Criticisms section (see Talk above). -- EAHull ( talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like the original author to make the following change: The "criticisms" section includes the statement, "But with many reports suggesting that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades," however only one citation, not "many", is given and that citation is for a BBC article on a 2008 report on the economic inefficiencies in fishery management not on the likelihood of widespread fishery collapse. There are no citations for reports indicating that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades. Please provide multiple legitimate citations to back this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 ( talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the following section entirely. The book is listed but not the pages and I have no idea what it is all about. We do know for a fact that the Army Corps of Engineers eventually admitted that the numerous studies were correct in naming them at fault for building an extremely inadequate levee system. That is well-covered in our article, which incidentally has no mention of Berlau's claim. Thoughts?
John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health! argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement before Hurricane Katrina.[116]
However, Berlau’s claim that, if built, the levee reinforcement system would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is inaccurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse.[117]
According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.”[118] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we update the "more than 700,000 members" to 1 million? It is referenced in the bottom right box on EDF's "About" page: http://www.edf.org/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lguite ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)-- Lguite ( talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) -- Lguite ( talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental Defense Fund. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x46885704/Distorting-catch-share-criticismWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environmental Defense Fund. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://apps.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=7656When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environmental Defense Fund. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Key accomplishments has WAY to many sources, and so does the last bullet of areas of work. Areas of work also uses almost only edf published citations for all but the last bullet. Toad02 ( talk) 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)