Talk:Indoor residual spraying

Merger Proposal

Agree with merge.JQ (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never intended it to be a standalone article. I just didn't want to jump in and edit the target article directly, until this information got stable. Give it a couple of days? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with merging. The debate over DDT use in malaria control can be—and already is—covered in DDT, and as I've argued elsewhere, I think it should stay there. That doesn't mean I will necessary support inclusion of the Driessen quote, though I'm not categorically opposed it, especially if it's put in context. Likewise, I'm not sure the positions of EDF, PANNA, or Greenpeace need mentioning, but I think in the right context they might be informative.Yilloslime (t) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The DDT article is already quite large and this article lends itself to a seperate article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro and Con

Not sure what to do with this:

Environmentalist opposition to IRS in the past in part led to the WHO discouraging its use and forced some countries to abandon their IRS programs, costing lives among some of the world's most vulnerable communities. Unlike PANNA and Greenpeace, several respected environmentalist organizations, such as The Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust of Southern Africa support the WHO's position on IRS and DDT.

This relates to the so-called "DDT ban" which possibly was a code word (or sloppy English) for "discouraging its use". --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

As I've said above, I think the issue of DDT/IRS/malaria can and should be dealt with at DDT (and it currently is, albiet there is a lot of room for improvement). And as I and others have previously expressed here and here an article along these lines has a HUGE potential to devolve into a POV-fork of the he-said-she-said vein, and it appears it is well on its way. Additionally, I see the following problems:

The article is off to bad start with regard to WP:WEASEL
DDT is not the sole or even most used chemical for IRS as the article contends
There are several unsourced, unattibuted quotes
There are ton of redlinks, given the brevity of the article.
The title implies that it's an article about IRS, however it is clearly an article about the controversy around the use of DDT in malaria control.

In sum, I think any relavant material on DDT/malaria should be merged into DDT, and the page should be deleted, or totally revamped into something that's genuinely about IRS. Note however, that IRS is already discussed here. Yilloslime (t) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example image inconsistent with text?

I understand from the text, that "western style" walls are not suitable, and a wall with wallpaper seems to be one of these cases. But the example image of a bathroom wall with mosquitos on a wallpapered wall, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mosquitoes-Killedy-By-DDT-Lake-Victoria.JPG is inconsistent with that.