my experience tracking down such examples puts low prior that there was such a plant at all
Sigh. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Hindustan Insecticides Limited (HIL) is a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. It was incorporated in March 1954 in order to start production of DDT for the National Malaria Eradication Programme. … HIL is the world’s largest producer of DDT. The company has three manufacturing units, located at Udyogamandal, near Cochin (Southern India) and Rasayani near Mumbai(Western India) and Bathinda in Punjab (Northern India).
And here’s Greenpeace expressing a profound dislike of this particular factory.
As to Mexican DDT, more from Wikipedia:
...Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production due to lack of demand
Your new quote about Mexican DDT is exactly the opposite of your prior quote. Did the factory close because of falling Mexican demand (because of cheaper alternatives, to supply the context of your quote), or because of pressure from America? Again, why do I find it so easy to find Mexican DDT today in America?
Maybe the abandonment of DDT by rich Mexicans has destroyed economies of scale and thus raised the price to Belize. But that is a completely different matter.
Your new quote about Mexican DDT is exactly the opposite of your prior quote.
No, I don’t think so. “Lack of demand” is a nice non-committal phrase. Similarly you can say that a guy driven out of business because he wouldn’t pay the mafia “closed because he didn’t buy fire insurance”. I don’t know what happened to that factory, but closing due to lack of demand is consistent with US pressure to not use DDT.
Again, why do I find it so easy to find Mexican DDT today in America?
I have no idea. Wikipedia says “India is the only country still manufacturing DDT”, but that piece of data seems to be dating back to 2009. Maybe Mexico started again—it’s not a difficult chemical to manufacture.
Yes, that short phrase is non-committal, but it is you who cut it out from the very clear context, once from wikipedia, and once after I explicitly restored it. I’m done.
Wikipedia often doesn’t have context where normal text would, since individual sentences or even words could be edited by different people than other sentences or words.
Sure, multiple authors means that it’s more likely to be incoherent or false, but there’s still context. Lumifer cut out the context and then complained that about the vagueness that he created.
In fact, the whole sentence comes from the cited source, as I checked before I restored the context.
Sigh. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
And here’s Greenpeace expressing a profound dislike of this particular factory.
As to Mexican DDT, more from Wikipedia:
Your new quote about Mexican DDT is exactly the opposite of your prior quote. Did the factory close because of falling Mexican demand (because of cheaper alternatives, to supply the context of your quote), or because of pressure from America? Again, why do I find it so easy to find Mexican DDT today in America?
Maybe the abandonment of DDT by rich Mexicans has destroyed economies of scale and thus raised the price to Belize. But that is a completely different matter.
No, I don’t think so. “Lack of demand” is a nice non-committal phrase. Similarly you can say that a guy driven out of business because he wouldn’t pay the mafia “closed because he didn’t buy fire insurance”. I don’t know what happened to that factory, but closing due to lack of demand is consistent with US pressure to not use DDT.
I have no idea. Wikipedia says “India is the only country still manufacturing DDT”, but that piece of data seems to be dating back to 2009. Maybe Mexico started again—it’s not a difficult chemical to manufacture.
Yes, that short phrase is non-committal, but it is you who cut it out from the very clear context, once from wikipedia, and once after I explicitly restored it. I’m done.
Wikipedia often doesn’t have context where normal text would, since individual sentences or even words could be edited by different people than other sentences or words.
Sure, multiple authors means that it’s more likely to be incoherent or false, but there’s still context. Lumifer cut out the context and then complained that about the vagueness that he created.
In fact, the whole sentence comes from the cited source, as I checked before I restored the context.
Oh, good.