This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The line "The moth is native to Australia,[6] and its natural predators keep the population in check." Implies that is not an agricultural problem, which is not the case and the use of various pesticides are used by vineyards to control the species. Without control the moth can decimate a crop regardless of natural enemies Hypo Mix ( talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
ah found it: "When left uncontrolled,larval damage to fruit crops in Australia and New Zealand during years of high population densities reached 70% (with a range of 5–70%)on crops such as apple,citrus,and grape" - Brown, J, Epstein, M, Gilligan, T, Passoa, S & Powell, J 2010, 'Biology, Identification, and History of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in California: An Example of the Importance of Local Faunal Surveys to Document the Establishment of Exotic Insects', American Entomologist, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 34-43. Hypo Mix ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have a picture of a light brown apple moth to embed in the text?
Isn't the common name lightbrown (one word) rather than light brown? DiggerBob 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
these links are to website explaining the controversial nature of the spray program in California. Before putting them in the exterbal refs section, we should write a coherent and NPOV discussion of the controversy surrounding the spraying (i.e- weight-up both side of the story). Goldfinger820 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the light brown apple moth. External links that do not enlighten the reader about the insect do not belong here. By the same argument, much of the text of the section Eradication measures in California does not belong here either—that section is beginning to dominate the article. There are many articles about pest eradication, etc., where this material might belong, but not here. You might also wish to start a new article about the current event. Note, for example, the following two articles: snail darter and snail darter controversy.
As for reasoning like that above: These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. Uh, how is that relevant? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. — johndburger 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability and appropriateness for this article are two different issues. Dunno what a paid editor is, but I'm not one. I started the new article—it took five minutes. — johndburger 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I pulled that "fact" because I couldn't find a reliable source to support it. I have no opinion on the truth or falsity of the statement: I just couldn't find a reliable source that asserted it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Quarantine measures are things like "local nurseries aren't allowed to ship plants out of the area unless they've been inspected." [1] Aerial spraying is not a kind of quarantine. This is the second time I've fixed that error. Please quit re-introducing it.
Furthermore, the proprietary mix of chemicals is the pheromone. It's not a pheromone plus a bunch of chemicals: the pheromone is a bunch of chemicals. If you find this confusing, let's talk about it here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still considering the most recent changes. I don't think it's accurate to say that reports of adverse health effects sparked a public outcry: Wasn't there a significant public outcry before the spraying started? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) So here's my thinking: I've rephrased a few bits into Wikipedia "summary style" and tried to tighten up the prose. Overall, this should be short enough that the interested reader has a good incentive to click the link to the controversy, but just long enough that the reader has an idea of what's in the other article. We would benefit from a link to something that explains what the usual rules are and/or how the emergency rules differ. I removed the bit about "public notice" because the public was notified: by news stories, by meetings, and by letters to every resident. I suspect (but don't know) that there was less public notice than in a non-emergency case, but we really can't claim in one sentence nobody found out about this, and in the next that everyone somehow still managed to find out enough about it to be upset. I made the post hoc nature of public outcry seem appropriately ambiguous: it doesn't take an opinion on the causality, just the timing of the increased level of public noise.
I tried to come up with a concise way to say that some of the outcry is due to the trade-secret status of the Checkmate pheromone product. I didn't just want to call it "a secret synthetic pheromone" because that could be misinterpreted as meaning no one knows which pheromone is being used. It doesn't deserve its own sentence here. Ultimately, I decided to leave that explanation to the controversy article.
Finally, I removed the bit about media attention because it seems silly. People are loudly upset: therefore there is media attention and political attention. Of course there is media attention and political attention. Media and political attention to public opinion are, in themselves, no less redundant than saying "It's hot today, and the thermometer registers a high number." We document the media attention in our footnotes, and if the legislature ever does more than issue press releases, then we'll document the new laws. I suspect that "we got a lot of press coverage" is only of interest to a person who is trying to figure out how well the campaign is working. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The James Carey quote feels sort of -- stuck in there. Should it be moved to the controversy article (which doesn't even mention him, although the issue of the moth's possible decades-long presence in California could make a very good section for that article)? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Before reading today's new source, I'd hoped that we could substantiate the end of the sentence, not the start. That is, exactly what kinds of rules were actually being bypassed under the emergency? However, this source indicates that the answer is all state laws and regulations (making you wonder why anyone's trying to change any of the state laws, since they don't seem to be the problem here), which is probably too much detail for this section. Presumably the controversy article will want to cover all the details about what those bypassed requirements are. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that six hundred unique humans reported health problems. The evidence is that 300 phone calls and e-mail messages were made to the government hotline (of which, about half apparently refused to give their names or contact information). These complaints include all complaints, including noise, and are not specific to health effects.
Furthermore, 300 reports are claimed by opposition groups. These have all been characterized recently as health complaints, even though the individual even though some of them are clearly noise complaints, like "the sounds of the planes is horrible." [3] Another 'complaint' (#29) on that page is about a documented [4] outbreak of the highly contagious norovirus ("cruise ship virus") in a resort. Another thinks that a normal [5] red tide was caused by the spraying. These complaints, BTW, were collected from a newspaper's chat board, and could have come from anywhere in the world. Even the activists freely admit that nobody knows how many actual unique individuals are represented by those 600 reports. [6]
What's important for this article is this: six hundred reports is not the same as 600 people, especially when the opposition groups were clearly [7] encouraging [8] multiple [9] reports. [10] I'm not sure how else you can interpret statements like "We still need a copy of all reports of reactions" [11] except "It is our goal to duplicate as many reports as possible." We can say that we have 300 complaints to the government, or 300 complaints to the government plus 300 complaints collected by opposition groups, but we do not have 600 people claiming adverse health effects. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I came to this wiki page for more information about the spraying and ties controversy (I live in Sonoma and there are people here also opposed to the use of the ties). I appreciate that the site is about the moth but wanted to put in 2 cents to ask that you please include as much clear information about the synthetic pheromone controversy as possible. Or at least a wiki link to a discussion of the controversy. Thanks for your good work here supporting wikipedia. 98.207.230.186 ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I pulled this:
because it belongs on the controversy article. A non-binding statement made by a low-level politician is not especially important to this article. Why mention this here, and not resolutions passed by city councils? Why mention this here, but not statements by the governor? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
References
This line (which like the whole paragraph it is in is not sourced) makes me wonder if the insect can survive freezing temperatures. If so, has it spread to other places with freezing winters? If not, how harmful ("noxious") is it in Canada? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Light brown apple moth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
few more in-text citations needed. pictures of damage to pome/stone fruit would be helpful. Goldfinger820 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The line "The moth is native to Australia,[6] and its natural predators keep the population in check." Implies that is not an agricultural problem, which is not the case and the use of various pesticides are used by vineyards to control the species. Without control the moth can decimate a crop regardless of natural enemies Hypo Mix ( talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
ah found it: "When left uncontrolled,larval damage to fruit crops in Australia and New Zealand during years of high population densities reached 70% (with a range of 5–70%)on crops such as apple,citrus,and grape" - Brown, J, Epstein, M, Gilligan, T, Passoa, S & Powell, J 2010, 'Biology, Identification, and History of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in California: An Example of the Importance of Local Faunal Surveys to Document the Establishment of Exotic Insects', American Entomologist, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 34-43. Hypo Mix ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have a picture of a light brown apple moth to embed in the text?
Isn't the common name lightbrown (one word) rather than light brown? DiggerBob 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
these links are to website explaining the controversial nature of the spray program in California. Before putting them in the exterbal refs section, we should write a coherent and NPOV discussion of the controversy surrounding the spraying (i.e- weight-up both side of the story). Goldfinger820 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the light brown apple moth. External links that do not enlighten the reader about the insect do not belong here. By the same argument, much of the text of the section Eradication measures in California does not belong here either—that section is beginning to dominate the article. There are many articles about pest eradication, etc., where this material might belong, but not here. You might also wish to start a new article about the current event. Note, for example, the following two articles: snail darter and snail darter controversy.
As for reasoning like that above: These links are the same ones being presented in the newspapers. Uh, how is that relevant? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. — johndburger 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability and appropriateness for this article are two different issues. Dunno what a paid editor is, but I'm not one. I started the new article—it took five minutes. — johndburger 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I pulled that "fact" because I couldn't find a reliable source to support it. I have no opinion on the truth or falsity of the statement: I just couldn't find a reliable source that asserted it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Quarantine measures are things like "local nurseries aren't allowed to ship plants out of the area unless they've been inspected." [1] Aerial spraying is not a kind of quarantine. This is the second time I've fixed that error. Please quit re-introducing it.
Furthermore, the proprietary mix of chemicals is the pheromone. It's not a pheromone plus a bunch of chemicals: the pheromone is a bunch of chemicals. If you find this confusing, let's talk about it here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still considering the most recent changes. I don't think it's accurate to say that reports of adverse health effects sparked a public outcry: Wasn't there a significant public outcry before the spraying started? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) So here's my thinking: I've rephrased a few bits into Wikipedia "summary style" and tried to tighten up the prose. Overall, this should be short enough that the interested reader has a good incentive to click the link to the controversy, but just long enough that the reader has an idea of what's in the other article. We would benefit from a link to something that explains what the usual rules are and/or how the emergency rules differ. I removed the bit about "public notice" because the public was notified: by news stories, by meetings, and by letters to every resident. I suspect (but don't know) that there was less public notice than in a non-emergency case, but we really can't claim in one sentence nobody found out about this, and in the next that everyone somehow still managed to find out enough about it to be upset. I made the post hoc nature of public outcry seem appropriately ambiguous: it doesn't take an opinion on the causality, just the timing of the increased level of public noise.
I tried to come up with a concise way to say that some of the outcry is due to the trade-secret status of the Checkmate pheromone product. I didn't just want to call it "a secret synthetic pheromone" because that could be misinterpreted as meaning no one knows which pheromone is being used. It doesn't deserve its own sentence here. Ultimately, I decided to leave that explanation to the controversy article.
Finally, I removed the bit about media attention because it seems silly. People are loudly upset: therefore there is media attention and political attention. Of course there is media attention and political attention. Media and political attention to public opinion are, in themselves, no less redundant than saying "It's hot today, and the thermometer registers a high number." We document the media attention in our footnotes, and if the legislature ever does more than issue press releases, then we'll document the new laws. I suspect that "we got a lot of press coverage" is only of interest to a person who is trying to figure out how well the campaign is working. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The James Carey quote feels sort of -- stuck in there. Should it be moved to the controversy article (which doesn't even mention him, although the issue of the moth's possible decades-long presence in California could make a very good section for that article)? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Before reading today's new source, I'd hoped that we could substantiate the end of the sentence, not the start. That is, exactly what kinds of rules were actually being bypassed under the emergency? However, this source indicates that the answer is all state laws and regulations (making you wonder why anyone's trying to change any of the state laws, since they don't seem to be the problem here), which is probably too much detail for this section. Presumably the controversy article will want to cover all the details about what those bypassed requirements are. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that six hundred unique humans reported health problems. The evidence is that 300 phone calls and e-mail messages were made to the government hotline (of which, about half apparently refused to give their names or contact information). These complaints include all complaints, including noise, and are not specific to health effects.
Furthermore, 300 reports are claimed by opposition groups. These have all been characterized recently as health complaints, even though the individual even though some of them are clearly noise complaints, like "the sounds of the planes is horrible." [3] Another 'complaint' (#29) on that page is about a documented [4] outbreak of the highly contagious norovirus ("cruise ship virus") in a resort. Another thinks that a normal [5] red tide was caused by the spraying. These complaints, BTW, were collected from a newspaper's chat board, and could have come from anywhere in the world. Even the activists freely admit that nobody knows how many actual unique individuals are represented by those 600 reports. [6]
What's important for this article is this: six hundred reports is not the same as 600 people, especially when the opposition groups were clearly [7] encouraging [8] multiple [9] reports. [10] I'm not sure how else you can interpret statements like "We still need a copy of all reports of reactions" [11] except "It is our goal to duplicate as many reports as possible." We can say that we have 300 complaints to the government, or 300 complaints to the government plus 300 complaints collected by opposition groups, but we do not have 600 people claiming adverse health effects. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I came to this wiki page for more information about the spraying and ties controversy (I live in Sonoma and there are people here also opposed to the use of the ties). I appreciate that the site is about the moth but wanted to put in 2 cents to ask that you please include as much clear information about the synthetic pheromone controversy as possible. Or at least a wiki link to a discussion of the controversy. Thanks for your good work here supporting wikipedia. 98.207.230.186 ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I pulled this:
because it belongs on the controversy article. A non-binding statement made by a low-level politician is not especially important to this article. Why mention this here, and not resolutions passed by city councils? Why mention this here, but not statements by the governor? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
References
This line (which like the whole paragraph it is in is not sourced) makes me wonder if the insect can survive freezing temperatures. If so, has it spread to other places with freezing winters? If not, how harmful ("noxious") is it in Canada? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Light brown apple moth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
few more in-text citations needed. pictures of damage to pome/stone fruit would be helpful. Goldfinger820 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)