| Revision as of 23:11, 19 July 2007 edit209.170.129.106 (talk) →Proposed Content: DDT← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:21, 16 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm →top: -dup blp params; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
| (301 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=yes|listas=Milloy, Steven|1= | |||
| {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} | |||
| {{off topic warning}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Journalism|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Image requested|people of the United States}} | |||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}} | |||
| {{ |
{{Archives| | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== globalwarming.org == | ||
| ] ] | |||
| I propose the new opening sentence: | |||
| ::Milloy has lots of opponents because he is not afraid to attack ]. He has lots of supporters because of the consistent rigor of his analysis. | |||
| <blockquote>'''Steven J. Milloy''' is the "]" commentator for ] and runs the Web sites and , which are dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis."</blockquote> | |||
| ::He has an annoying habit of standing his ground in the face of withering criticism, and then being vindicated in the end, as in the case of the now discredited 1993 EPA report on secondhand tobacco smoke. ] 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not 100% sure that it's correct to say that Milloy "runs" this site as well. It's run by ], of which Milloy is a staff member, although ] is supposed to be their "climate change" guy. Either way, Milloy has lots of stuff on globalwarming.org and sure seems to be the primary actor. Please post opinions. ] (]) 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm pretty sure globalwarming.org was a CEI property before Milloy got the push from Cato. By contrast, junkscience.com is definitely his baby, and I think the same is true for demanddebate.org] (]) 10:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Vindicated" is a little misleading; every major medical organization, including the U.S. Surgeon General and the World Health Organization, as well as many ''tobacco companies'' themselves, now recognize that secondhand smoke is undoubtedly a cause of lung cancer and other health problems. If anything, the ''EPA'' has been vindicated. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Steven Milloy == | |||
| ::::"Vindicated" is not misleading at all. Milloy's criticism of the 1993 EPA report was for ''junk science:'' they manipulated the data most egregiously to get the result they wanted to get -- but what they actually got (eventually) was a big black eye. Milloy was vindicated. | |||
| ::::That does not mean that SHS doesn't cause cancer; common sense suggests that it probably does, at least occasionally, and most observers (including me) believe that it probably does, at least occasionally. It just means that the scientific studies haven't ''proven'' that it causes cancer. | |||
| ::::It doesn't take much thought to realize that there are surely indirect mechanisms through which SHS can cause cancer, too. One that I can think of is the effect that it has on former smokers, luring them back to the smoking habit. Many smokers return to smoking because of the enticement of SHS. Those people are at increased risk of cancer, without question, because they resume smoking. That, by itself, is a good public health justification for trying to reduce public exposure to SHS. But that is not what the bogus 1993 EPA report claimed. If the EPA had stuck to reporting what the science proved, rather than what they ''wanted'' it to prove, they'd not have that big black eye, and they'd not have run afoul of Steven Milloy. | |||
| ::::However, I have a questoin for you, MastCell. You said that even many tobacco comapies recognize that SHS causes lung cancer. But that is news to me. Are you sure? Can you document that? ] 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "Milloy has labeled specific studies junk science, such as two papers published in '']'' that were later retracted" | |||
| No problem: (from Philip Morris) and Can you please comment at the bottom of the talk page, instead of adding your ] responses to 4-month-old threads? It makes the discussion hard to follow. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The problem with this is that it implies they were retracted due to Milloy or the reasons he gave. And Fox is hardly the most reliable of sources. Have Nature talked about this incident? | |||
| :To clarify, one should know that the tobacco firms making statements like those above are the U.S. manufacturers that participated in the "Master Settlement Agreement" in the late 1990's. I believe it was part of the deal.] 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "but more generally he applies the term to climate change and certain health controversies including those detailed in the sections below" | |||
| ::I'd also like to add (after reading more) that the EPA has never been vindicated. I am glad that you (MastCell) added the caveat "if anything" to the statement above, which would leave the possibility of noone being vindicated. Just because others have arrived at similar conclusions does not excuse the reprehensible misconduct, dishonesty and bad science they engaged in and promoted. To my knowledge, they haven't even tried to further defend it. Remember, the end does not justify the means.] 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't like the wording of this part, it's slightly too verbose. It's pretty obvious that the controversies below are his. This sounds like an undergraduate trying to fill a certain number of essay pages... I don't think we really need it. | |||
| :::Other than having the Osteen decision overturned and their conclusions supported by reams of subsequent data and every major medical organization in the world, you're right, the EPA hasn't been vindicated. But maybe you're right - if someone (say) defends the use of DDT using suspect methods, and subsequently and independently the WHO agrees that limited use of DDT is a temporary, necessary evil, I wouldn't regard that as a "vindication" for the DDT advocate. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::But your sarcastic premise -- that the reversal of the Osteen verdict vindicated the EPA in any way -- is a classic example of why some people are so passionate about the issue. There's too much spin, and not enough straight talk. I agree with you about the DDT advocate in this case (no vindication); the EPA, likewise, was not vindicated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.] 01:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And is it fair to say "Junk Science" was popularised by Milloy? Reading the ], he isn't really a center figure. ] 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough, and sorry about the sarcasm - that was a moment of weakness. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm 100% fine removing any reference to the Science papers that were retracted. As I recall, someone long ago edit warred over including a reference to that Foxnews article, but I've never been convinced it was pertinent. And I don't think Milloy called them junk science before they were retracted, and we certainly shouldn't imply that he did. He's just flaming Donald Kennedy (who he mistakenly calls David Kennedy) in that FoxNews.com article presumably b/c Kennedy, ''Science'', and AAAS had been highly critical of the Bush admin, OMB, and climate change denialists. So I think he's trying to make Kennedy look bad by publicizing some retractions in his journal. | |||
| == NPOV tag == | |||
| :I do think, however, that before the paragraph criticizing Milloy's use of the term, there needs to be an NPOV description of how Milloy uses the term--we can't just jump right in with criticism. I freely admit that what I wrote is not the best, and if you or someone else can do a better job, please do. And I do think it's fair to say he popularized, or at least helped popularize, the term in the American media. I don't have references off hand, but later tonight I can try to find one. Actually the C&EN editorial hints at this, calling junkscience the "best known" example of the right-wing antiscience movement. ] ] 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. ] 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just excised the ''Science'' bit and some excess verbosity, and the result isn't as non-NPOV as I thought it might be. Still, I think it probably needs work. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with... ] ] 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've made some edits to describe the money from Philip Morris as "budgeted", not "received", by Milloy to address ] criticism. Can you cite other instances where you believe ] or ] have been violated (or better yet, propose alternative wording)? I note that, although you listed this site on the ] 10 days ago, no one's chimed in yet. Which is too bad; I'd like some outside input. ] 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Having heard nothing, I am going to remove the POV tag. When reinstating it, please list specific areas of the article which you feel violate ] and we can attempt to address them. ] 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've reinstated it. This entire article is a vicious anti-Milloy hit piece, as many comments here have adequately documented. ] 08:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The article records lots of facts discreditable to Milloy. If you can find some facts creditable to him, feel free to add them. Otherwise don't complain that the truth hurts. ] 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding his education: It is not possible to get a masters in biostatistics from Johns Hopkins. They only offer a "generic" masters in public health. This should be edited since it is misleading to label him as having expertise in biostatistics when he clearly does not have any. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::The article contains numerous misrepresentations. I've corrected a couple of them, but I don't have time to go over the entire article right now. The article is still a horribly dishonest anti-Milloy hit-piece. | |||
| ::::The WTC piece grossly misrepresented what his 9/14/2001 article actually said about asbestos and the WTC, and instead of citing the actual article (so that readers could see what he ''really'' said), it cited a vicious anti-Milloy attack piece. Then the same attack piece was quoted AGAIN, at painful length, down in the criticism section. I corrected the text to accurately characterize his article, moved the criticism to another paragraph, and deleted the duplicate criticism with its lengthy quoted anti-Milloy editorial comment. | |||
| ::::Also, how can anyone justify citing an article which falsely accuses Milloy of believing that "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution harmless?" Not only is that lie-filled article cited, the reference was right at the top, with the definition of "junk science," and it was wrongly attributed to a web site that just copied it from elsewhere. I've left that reference in the article, though I really should have deleted it altogether. But I moved it down to the criticism section, and I corrected the attribution to reference the original source (CLEAR). | |||
| ::::When this article is truly NPOV, the warning can go. Until then it stays. ] 10:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The asbestos section gave a fair summary of Milloy's claims, apart from trivial errors irrelevant to his appalling behaviour in this case (asbestos being removed, rather than not installed, for example). And the criticism you object to is obviously intended as a hyperbolic statement of the factual claim that Milloy invariably sides with polluters. If you think it's genuinely unfair, why don't you point to some examples of Milloy campaigning for tighter restrictions on pollution?] 11:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Blatantly false claims, like the claim that Milloy thinks "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution harmless" are not "trivial." They are defamatory. | |||
| ::::::What's more, one need not "campaign for tighter restrictions" to be against pollution. More government control is not the answer to every problem. In some cases, government restrictions increase pollution. But, since you asked, here is an article from Milloy's web site (reprinted from elsewhere) which makes the case for one effective way to reduce some types of pollition: . ] 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, we can write ""Junkscience considers pollution harmless, with the exception of "hot air generated by environmentalists"". That would be fine by me] 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::John, your POV is showing. You know perfectly well that this article is misrepresenting Milloy's views, but you joke about it? Sorry, I don't think such defamation is funny. | |||
| :::::::::I was responding to your joke, so I think you should get off your high horse. And, if you think Milloy is really being represented, why don't you take my challenge seriously and find an instance where he proposes taking stronger action against pollution. Note that it isn't just government policy that's at issue here. Milloy is equally, or even more, critical of corporations that voluntarily pursue socially responsible policies, since they make life harder for his client companies, who want to keep polluting.] 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Joke? I made no joke. Misrepresentations of someone's opinions, to support ''ad hominem'' attacks on that person, are not funny. ] 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Every time I look up a cited source to verify some criticism of Milloy in the article, I find that the criticism is exaggerated. For example, the article claims that the "junkscience.com website was receiving editorial oversight and content directly from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company." But the cited source gives no evidence that RJR had editorial oversight of junkscience.com, it simply documents that RJR provided information to Milloy. ] 10:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure how much you knew about Milloy's record on asbestos and tobacco before coming to this article. But you must have worked out by now that his behavior in both cases is indefensible, and that his status as a paid shill for Big Tobacco demolishes his credibility ( Cato worked this out in the end, even though they kept him on after the deplorable Rall business). Feel free to correct errors and improve the article in other ways. But don't imagine that such minor changes are going to alter the facts.] 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, the fact is that Milloy is a careful scientist, who is appalled by bogus scientific studies and and incorrect statistical analysis used to mislead people into believing that things are proven which actually are unproven and quite possibly untrue. ] 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::''I tried to post something like the following earlier today, but somehow it got lost...'' | |||
| ::::::::I checked another cited source today, the one that supposedly proved that Milloy was on Philip Morris' payroll. That turns out to be untrue, too. If you read the source, it documents that Milloy received payments for consulting services, not employment. | |||
| ::::::::Every time I look up a cited source to verify criticism of Milloy, I find that the criticism is exaggerated. That is not hyperbole. Truly, so far, ''every time'' I've looked up a source that was cited to prove an attack on Milloy, either the source was, itself, an editorial attacking Milloy, or else the information in the source does not come close to justifying the criticism. | |||
| ::::::::Checking this particular source was very time-consuming, because it was a very large document, and not searchable. But I found the two references to Milloy, on pages 13 and 66. Once again, the source didn't support the criticism. Milloy wasn't "on the payroll," after all. Like any good consultant, it turns out that Milloy was simply paid to provide information to his client. The report indicates that he was paid for "monitoring and reporting on scientific studies concerning tobacco, food and beer." (p.66) | |||
| ::::::::The difference between being a consultant and being "on the payroll" is very significant. It is the difference between a vendor and being an employee. Being "on payroll" means being an employee, and having a boss in the company. It means working for the interests of the employer, and it means that the employee is not independent. But an independent consultant has no boss. Milloy was was simply paid for the information he provided to PM. | |||
| ::::::::So, the charge that Milloy was "on the payroll" of PM was false. I corrected the article. | |||
| ::::::::To save the next reader a boatload of time, I also added the relevant page numbers (13 & 66) to the reference. ] 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The anon above was wrong, you can get a masters in biostats from JH ] (]) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The cited source, regarding PM's input on Milloy's website, says Philip Morris "Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy... and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website." And, PM held "discussions with Steve Milloy regarding Junk Scient Website content for 1997." So Philip Morris "reviewed and revised" Milloy's website. This sounds like editorial oversight to me, though I'm open to different phrasing so long as it doesn't whitewash the facts documented in the source. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, thanks for nailing this down.] (]) 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :No, MastCell. You didn't read it carefully. '''The cited source says ''no such thing.''''' It is an "activity report" on the work of a PR firm called "Powell Tate." It is a memo ''to'' (not from!) RJR (not PM), reporting (boasting) of Powell Tate's accomplishments. The memo indicates that someone at Powell Tate (not PM or RJR!) reviewed Milloy's web site, spoke with him several times on the phone, and gave him material for use on the web site. | |||
| :The paragraph in the activity report which begins with a boast of having "reviewed and revised junk science website" is followed by a list of the ways in which that was accomplished: by speaking to Milloy on the phone, by "researching and compiling website visitor comments," and by "reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on website." | |||
| :That means is that the PR firm was simply providing information to Milloy. One may safely assume that at least some of the information that the PR firm gave Milloy originated with RJR, but '''there is no indication in that memo that anyone at RJR, PM, or any other tobacco company ever had editorial control/oversight of Milloy's web site.''' ] 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. Would you prefer the article state that Milloy's site received content and editorial oversight from a Philip Morris-hired PR firm? I'm happy to include the additional degree of separation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the use of the word "oversight" makes the accusation untrue. the Milloy received content from the PR firm for use on his web site, but there is no reason to suppose that anyone other than Milloy ever controlled the content of the site. ] 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is it worth mentioning that Milloy has never published any peer-reviewed papers on any of the scientific matters he criticizes. I worry that people see him as an "expert", when he really has no expertise or academic training in any of the fields he writes about. ] (]) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You mean, other than the statement that the PR firm "reviewed and revised" Milloy's website? Those are editorial functions, are they not? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, not in this case. That is a summary phrase, which is followed by a description of the ways in which it was accomplished, and none of those ways imply editorial oversight. Editorial oversight means control, but I think it must be obvious to you as well as to me that Powell Tate did not control Milloy's web site. | |||
| :::::PR people are in the business of spinning things, and it is obvious that "reviewed and revised" is an example of that. Someone at Powell Tate was maximizing their accomplishments in his memo to their client. The description was arguably not quite inaccurate, because it was surely true that they "reviewed" the web site, and providing material that Milloy used on the site ''does'' constitute a revision to the site. But, as the list of what they actually did shows, it is obviously incorrect to take that phrase out of the context of the rest of the sentence to justify a conclusion that Powell Tate had any control over the web site. | |||
| :::::In fact, even if the writer of that memo at Powell Tate ''had'' claimed to control the web site, it would still be a very dubious claim. Remember, at that time the site was hosted by Cato. Why on earth would either Cato or Milloy give a PR firm control of their web site?? I'm sure you know they did not. ] 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, I just read one of Steven Milloy's opinion articles originating from the junkscience web site (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/models_not_climate_are_hypersensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html) and apart from not appreciating the lawyerly Latin inserts found much to criticise about the content. It appears he like Myron Ebel and others using the cover of exclusively right-wing think tanks and propoganda outlets gets a lot of respect from certain readers, who then themselves blog online to amplify incorrect and misleading conclusions. How is it that someone like this can end up quoted in the congressional record? As Runjmb notes above Myron Ebel and Steven Milloy and others that have been employed to spread doubts about sound science underpinning some of the greatest issues of this century have no training, experience or credentials in the fields they are constantly criticising as "junk science." Steven Milloy specifically states on the World Wide Web that he (junkscience.com) has done research that contradicts and refutes the findings of at least 97% of the world's actual climate scientists. Such false claims are an abuse of the medium and in my opinion must be called out as such. Because my views conform to the majority of people who have weighed in on climate change and Steven Milloy's clearly do not, in no way would I dare edit this article. But for the confusing mention of 2 withdrawn Nature articles (Steven Milloy has published none) it seems to fairly portray the living entity, thanks to the authors. Misplaced Pages is where I turned today when I wanted to know more about Steven Milloy from a less biased and more concise source than his own bio. --] (]) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Your argument seems to rely on divining the intent and motivations of the people at Powell Tate and Cato, while mine is based on the words actually printed in the source available to us. I'm happy to change "editorial oversight" to "reviewed and revised", though, which should put this particular semantic exercise to bed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, my argument is based on the fact, which you surely know, yet stubbornly refuse to admit, that nobody at Powell Tate or any tobacco company had editorial control over Milloy's web site. | |||
| :The problem with the "reviewed and revised" phrase is that (as you have amply demonstrated!) it is ambiguous, and easily misunderstood to mean that someone at Powell Tate was claiming that he had control of the web site. That was obviously not the case. It is obvious both from facts of the situation (Cato owned the site), and from the rest of the sentence from which you plucked that out-of-context phrase. All Powell Tate had was the ability to provide information to Milloy for use on his web site, which is the same ability that you and I have. ] 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == rv: Why == | |||
| ::It's not "out of context": the entire sentence says "Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy, researching and compiling Website visitor comments, and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website." Context is further provided by the numerous ] which have been cited. You seem to be trying to generate a context in which these fairly unequivocal items seem less damaging, by inferring all sorts of things about the mindset of Powell Tate, Cato, etc. Your belief that Powell Tate was likely to exaggerate their influence does not qualify as a ] here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's becoming clear that ] will not allow any material that presents Mr. Milloy in a less than glowing light, no matter how well-sourced or faithful to the original wording of sources. Since ] does not allow us to turn the article into a hagiography, continued discussion here is unlikely to serve any purpose. More at ] and ]. ] 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| See: http://www.unep.org/civil_society/Registration/index2.asp?idno=1345, as well as the publication record of the author: . Btinternet is a webhosting service, and the original site for IBAS (but anyways the ref can also be found on the new site, here: http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka_science_not_as_we_know.php --] (]) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's clear is that certain editors care more about bashing Milloy than about the truth. The fact is that the source you cited used that phrase to summarize what was described in more detail immediately following that phrase, and the details do not support your interpretation. All Powell Tate did was provide information to Milloy. What's more, nobody at Powell Tate even had the means to alter Milloy's site. Cato had the means (because they hosted it), but not Powell Tate. | |||
| :Cool, it looked to me like it had been copied and pasted from here, you know what with all the ref`s still in there, are you sure about this? ] (]) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps an example will illustrate the absurdity of this accusation against Milloy. I noticed an error on someone else's web site, so I sent an email to the site's owner: | |||
| ::O and the link you posted is broken kim ] (]) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Dear Rick & Linda, | |||
| ::::: I noticed a 1-character typographical error at http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/byronislam.htm | |||
| ::::: "How the guidelines are implemented in the classroom is largely up to the teacher and critics say that in may classrooms," | |||
| ::::: should be: | |||
| ::::: "How the guidelines are implemented in the classroom is largely up to the teacher and critics say that in maNy classrooms," | |||
| ::::: ("may" should be "many") | |||
| ::::: Thank you for the great work you do... | |||
| ::::They replied, saying "Thanks so much!" And they fixed the error. By the standards that some editors here apply to the Steven Milloy article, you could say that I reviewed and revised the www.truthorfiction.com web site, so I have "editorial oversight" of it. Now, if I were to brag that I have "editorial oversight" of the www.truthorfiction.com web site, what would you call that? '''You would call it a lie.''' So how about deleting this false, controversial, poorly sourced attack on Mr. Milloy from his Misplaced Pages biography? ] 17:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It takes around 1 minute to verify. You shouldn't remove references, when you do not know what it is, and aren't going actually check it. --] (]) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is by far your weakest argument yet. The "editorial oversight" has been removed and replaced with a ''direct quote'' from the source in question, which is supported by several secondary sources. You complained about the "editorial oversight" thing, so it was changed to directly mirror the source. Now you're claiming that a direct quote from a reliable source is unacceptable and needs to be spun based on what you did at truthorfiction.com? No. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kim i did, i followed the link and saw a copy and paste from this article being used as the source to cite that section, if you have a decent link then fine, but what i removed was not reliable was it ] (]) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What you removed ''was'' reliable - and it was not a "copy and paste from this article" (i have no idea where you get that one from) - check it again - this time try to more than glance --] (]) 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot == | |||
| :::::::Selectively editing a quote, taking a part of a sentence out of its context to give an intentionally inaccurate impression, which is what the Milloy-bashers have done with this one, is no better than any other form of deception. The ''fact'' is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that someone other than Milloy (or Milloy and Cato) had any control over his web site. The false suggestion should be removed from the article. ] 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This page appears to have been edited line by line by detractors. As near as I can tell, nobody has anything to say about him that is even remotely positive or even mildly neutral.] (]) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| "No evidence"? You mean except for the primary and secondary sources cited in the article, right? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps that's because there is precious little positive to say about someone who claims to point out "junk science" but fails to adhere to even the most rudimentary standards of disclosure of conflict of interest and of scientific evidence? Milloy chose his battlefield himself, no one forced it on him. If he wants to fight outside his league, that's his own, personal problem. --] (]) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Your inability to point out any error or missing positive content speaks for itself. The article is full of facts. Facts in and of themselves are neutral. It's interesting that you consider these facts to be negative. ] (]) 20:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Science qualifications == | |||
| :Did I miss the discussion about the dates? ''While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer. During the time that Milloy was criticizing claims of a link between secondhand smoke and cancer, his junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.'' | |||
| Steven Milloy seems to be promoting himself as a science expert. This article should include a list of his science qualifications (or a statement about the lack of such, if none). ] (]) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The sourced memo is from Dec 1996, yet I find no secondhand smoke articles referenced from that time. There is one from 1997 (not dated more specifically than that- if this is the content they discussed, they certainly didn't get their money's worth) but that is after the memo states the website was reviewed and revised. I believe the phrase, "During the time" is imprecise, may be inaccurate and might be OR. How about we just specifically put a Dec date on the memo and a direct quote? Just being picky, but the memo also doesn't mention junkscience.com as the website they discussed, although it probably was. --] 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I know, he has an <s>MD</s>M.Sc., and no further scientific qualifications. However, it's usually hard to find reliable sources about the lack of formal qualifications. --] (]) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Editorial comments in wikivoice are against policy. A reliable source commenting on his expertise or lack of it could be included. ] (]) 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == PR watch? == | |||
| MN has stripped out a pile of refs , characteristically without troubling to discuss on talk. It is not clear that his judgemetn on refs is 100% reliable ] (]) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Attributing criticism == | |||
| == Letter from Margery Kraus == | |||
| Hello - I understand the need to attribute criticism, and the criticism is fully attributed throughout the body of the article. However, in the lead I tried to summarize criticisms that have been raised. I'm not sure how, or whether, they should be attributed in the lead, since Milloy has been criticized by a wide variety of sources (PRWatch, American Chemical Society journal, TNR, The Guardian, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, etc). Suggestions? In general I've seen articles in which criticisms are mentioned in generality in the lead, and then specifics are given in the body of the article (including attribution) - this is what I'd prefer here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| What's wrong with this primary source? ] (]) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not a very wide variety. Except for the journal, those are all liberal sources. Shouldn't we also mention what conservative sources say? After all, liberals and conservatives are split 50-50 on most environmental issues. For example, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says only 23% of registered Republicans accept the ] hypothesis, while 75% of registered Democrats do. (According to my math, that means 75% of Republicans oppose AGW and 75% of Democrats support it - just about the most even split I can think of, except for the debate this week in New York's liberal haven, a neighborhood notable enough to have its own article: the ]. Dr. Connolley gave me the link to the transcript. --] 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact that it`s a primary source ] (]) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == rv Why == | |||
| ::Well, I glanced at ONE of those sources: the ''New Rebublic'' - pretty much the mirror image of Bill Buckley's ''National Review''. They said that "he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke" (but without giving any details). I guess it's simply common knowledge that ] causes cancer. | |||
| I had remove a bunch of unreliable sources, Bigk seems to think reverting them back in is suitable so i have reverted him again, BK please explain your actions ] (]) 19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to study the ] article now, but it's not heartening to see that the first "scientific" footnote is actually a reference to a United Nations agency with the words "Parties recognize . . .". That is a political statement '''about''' the science, not a scientific statement. | |||
| ::A scientific statement would say how much smoke, how many people, what incidence of cancer compared to the control group, etc. Like "passive smoking has been found to increase the incidence of cancer from 1 in 10,000 to 16 in 10,000 - roughly the same as active smoking, which raises it to 24 in 10,000." Now that would be a ] - no pun intended! | |||
| ::I don't want to see us quoting the '''*UN*''' as asserting that the scientific evidence is unequivocal - they're a bunch of governments each voting their national interest, not an objective source of info at all. I'd rather see a ref to a scientific paper. Better yet, a '''summary''' of what's in the paper. --] 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I read a few ref's and adding the most damning evidence I could find. I like to think that was in the spirit of ]. But then I found this: | |||
| *"Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS was a Group A carcinogen... In this case, '''EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun'''; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme... and to influence public opinion... While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer." (emphasized added for Misplaced Pages discussion) | |||
| This wouldn't be the first time EPA ignored scientific evidence. Remember the ]? Anyway, the point is not to "take sides" and make the '''article''' assert that EPA let political or ideological motives steer it into junk science. We should merely quote opposing sides. If there's a majority and minority involved, we should try to identify that. Politically, I guess that would run 50-50 but I'd sure like to know more. | |||
| Scientifically, it's hard to tell. The ] article only quoted the "bad" side - I didn't see anything "not so bad" or "benign" in my rapid overview. | |||
| Politically, of course, the position of U.S. Liberals on nearly all scientific questions relating to environmental politics is that the science is unequivocal, unanimous, or that there is a "consensus" favoring (surprise!) the Liberal position. It would be nice if Misplaced Pages could shed some light on this, by suppling scientific information on all sides of the question. | |||
| Of course, if there really *IS* a scientific majority vs. a scientific minority, then we should say so. It's just difficult to determine this sometimes. Who can tell us? --] 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's not get into a liberal/conservative argument about the EPA, the environment, or passive smoking here. Who can tell us if a scientific majority thinks ] is harmful? How about the ], the U.S. Surgeon General (a G.W. Bush appointee, by the way), the ], the ], etc? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The argument is not over whether secondhand smoke is bad. The argument is over whether science has established that SHS causes cancer. The answer is that it has not. It is certainly plausible that SHS might cause cancer. Common sense, and extrapolation of dose-response data for smokers, suggests that SHS probably causes cancer, at least occasionally. But, so far, that hypothesis has not been scientifically proven. Milloy rightly objects to false claims that science has proven what it has not. His passion is not smoking, it is scientific integrity. ] 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No - ''your'' answer, and Milloy's, is that science hasn't proven the link adequately. However, since this is Misplaced Pages and subjects are generally presented ], the conclusions of the WHO, Surgeon General, EPA, and the admissions of the tobacco companies themselves - namely, that the link has been adequately and convincingly proven - hold more weight, and ignoring those conclusions would, in fact, violate ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, as Milloy has pointed out, <u>most</u> scientific studies have found no statistically significant link between secondhand smoke and cancer. I speak as someone who ''hates'' smoking, but the simple fact is that the bulk of the scientific evidence supports Milloy. ] 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I feel like a broken record, but then ]. Re-read my previous post. Your opinion and mine of the state of evidence are unimportant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. I'm not going to debate you on the specifics of individual studies. I'm sorry, but ]. The opinion of experts in the field is what matters, and what should be reflected (see U.S. Surgeon General, IARC, WHO, etc). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == secondhand smoke == | |||
| ] keeps removing the last paragraph of the '''Secondhand smoke''' section ("On June 27, 2006, summarizing over 10 years of scientific research, the United States Surgeon General issued a comprehensive scientific report concluding that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen with no risk-free level of exposure, refuting Milloy's claims. The Surgeon General's report also stated that secondhand smoke exposure is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children."). S/he thinks that since Milloy is not named directly in the report this means it's not relevant. I don't see how this matters, since its obvious that the citing the report shows how Milloy's position contradicts the known science, and this seems highly relevant. Plus, there is no wikipolicy to support ]'s position. ] 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed it again (sorry). This ia a '''biography'''. Without a doubt, its purpose is to document the life and views of Steven Milloy (no matter how unconventional they may be). The purpose of this article is not to debunk him; of course, some of his views are controversial, and any citation that references him and meets Misplaced Pages's standards would be appropriate. The Surgeon General's report was not written in response to Mr. Milloy; it does not mention him, nor does it refer to him in any way. It simply has no place in this article. This is not your soapbox. Furthermore, the information you site is readily available in the preceding paragraph under the "secondhand smoke" link, which was left intact. ] 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noted a direct link. While shilling for PM, Milloy called for the abolition of the Surgeon-General position, consistent with his general attacks on honest science, particularly as regards smoking. As a meta-observation on this article, every time a defender of Milloy comes along, the upshot is that yet more discreditable information on him turns up. So, ], thanks for helping .] 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==3RR violation== | |||
| ] you've violated ]. As I assume you're new to Misplaced Pages, I suggest you read the policy and revert your own edit. Otherwise you are liable to be blocked from editing.] 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not that new... this IP has been active at ] for a while now. Three guesses as to their POV there. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::just left a 3RR warning on his ], so if he reverts again i think we should go ahead and report him--something which I have no experience with, but i can give it my best shot.] 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've already done so (reported to ]). I chose not to block him myself since I'm involved here. This is not a new user, has been editing from this IP and POV for awhile, and should know better than to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::... and the report has been declined due to lack of warning. Well, now he's been warned, so hopefully we can get a little more discussion here and less edit-warring. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The report was properly declined. I do, in sincerity, apologize for violation of the 3RR (for which I was unaware). In good faith, I documented reasons for the revert when I did do, and finally did so here as well. Before the section is again deleted, please explain in detail how the commercial for the SG relates to the biography of Mr. Milloy. To the best of my knowledge, the article is not a forum to debunk him. If there is evidence that report was written to refute him (most likely by the mention of his name), then it is proper. If it not, then it doesn't belong here. This would conform with Misplaced Pages standards on the biography of living persons. There is plenty of information here already that could be taken negatively about him, as well as the link to the secondhand smoke article. And I don't need three guesses for your POV, MastCell. ] 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with your suggestion on a new section and have followed it. The facts (Milloy attacks SG, SG refutes Milloy) are mutually relevant. Of course, the obvious inference, and the reason the two are connected, is that Milloy's attack was designed to keep scientific information adverse to his paymasters from the public, but drawing that conclusion in the article would be OR. ] 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My POV is, simply, that Misplaced Pages should accurately represent ]. That said, I actually agree that the Surgeon General paragraph is a little awkward. Perhaps it should be cut down to a sentence or so on the end of the secondhand smoke paragraph? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The section is misleading still, and the issue needs further attention. The call for abolition of the SG office was made when the office was vacant and had been vacant for three years; the issue at hand was excessive government spending (not a quarrel between Mr. Milloy and the SG, per se). It was not a call for the removal of a particular individual. The statement was issued more than 8 years before the SG report on secondhand smoke, so there is not a real connection between the two events. I'm open to suggestions, but it looks like I might have to add information from the source itself. ] 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"the issue at hand was excessive government spending" Give me a break! You surely don't believe this. ] 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't suppose that the cited article being titled in the "Federal Budget and Spending" section, and the discussion of the need for 6,300 government employees that (in his opinion) weren't productive had anything to do with it. This whole thing is becoming comical for me. ] 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) I do agree that the Surgeon General paragraph, as currently existing, is a little awkward and perhaps borders on ]. I've taken a shot at fixing this; I've removed the SG paragraph, and instead of the previous paragraph on passive smoking, appended one sentence describing scientific/medical opinion on secondhand smoke, for context. Thoughts? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's good, but it's not '''just''' the SG that think ETS/passive smoking causes cancer and other maladies. Perhaps we should say something like ''Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the ], the AMA, the XYZ, etc.'' It's not simply Milloy vs the SG, but Milloy vs the scientific establishment. ] 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would be fine (something like "Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the medical and scientific community as a cause of ...") I was just too lazy to dig up the refs for the IARC, WHO, etc, but they're in the ] article. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think - if you must - a general statement that goes something like this would work great: "Mr. Milloy's views on the dangers of secondhand smoke are at odds with leading health and medical authorities." (cite reference). That is pretty neutral and factual. Misplaced Pages at its finest.] 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that is a pretty good suggestion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't agree with removal of the SG section. I think this is an interesting example of Milloy's work in itself. I'd be happy to include the purported rationale of reducing govt spending.] 05:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::JQ, perhaps his stance on the SG office (recommending its abolition) could be worked in elsewhere, but without commentary. I'll work on the above item tomorrow night (I'm out of town for the weekend). Or if anyone else wants to give it a shot, please feel free. ] 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Every single edit 71.72.217.102 has made reeks of POV in favor of information beneficial to the smoking industry, and if I didn't know better I'd go as far to think that he's a lobbyist working for the Philip Morris. Seriously though, not just on this page but all across the site, 71.72.217.102 seems to have actively set out on a mission to put out a smear campaign on anti smoking movements, and he's clearly got an agenda and I'd suggest he be blocked, as he's more than abused his privileges. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{Time|{{{2|}}}}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> | |||
| :True, it's a clear ] dedicated to minimizing the risks of smoking, and a ] is not out of the question - but none of those things are blockable offenses. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == biostatistician == | |||
| This article says, in the "background" section, that Milloy has a "Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health." So why did you guys insert a citation-needed tag next to "biostatistician?" ] 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having a degree in biostatistics does not make one a biostatistician. One is a credential, and one is a profession. Let's say I have a degree in computer science, but work as a physician. I wouldn't describe myself as a "computer scientist and physician". The article mentions his degree; let's leave it there. Unless he's published in the biostatistics literature, or held a position as a biostatistician, in which case I'm willing to be corrected. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course having a Masters degree in biostatistics makes one a biostatistician. If you have an MD, but work as a computer scientist, then you are, indeed, both a medical doctor and a computer scientist. | |||
| ::What's more, Milloy does, indeed, practice in his field. His expertise in statistics, and especially biostatistics, is central (and essential) to his analysis and criticism of junk science. There are hundreds of references to statistical analysis and statistical significance (or statistical insignificance) in the articles on his web site. For example, consider excerpt from one of his articles on DDT: | |||
| :::Before going into their specific results, it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of the sort of statistical analysis they undertook. | |||
| :::The researchers conducted a so-called “regression analysis” to evaluate the nature of any statistical relationships between blood levels of DDT and various characteristics of the men’s semen/sperm. The key result in this type of analysis is called the “beta.” | |||
| :::In the context of these analyses, a non-zero beta (either positive or negative) means that a statistical relationship between DDT levels and sperm characteristics was observed, while a beta of zero means no relationship was observed. | |||
| :::The greater the beta is (either positive or negative), the stronger the statistical association; the closer to zero, the weaker the statistical relationship. | |||
| :::The sign (positive or negative) of the beta indicates the direction of the relationship: A negative beta indicates decreasing semen/sperm quality with increasing blood DDT while a positive sign indicates the opposite. Keep in mind that statistical relationships do not necessarily represent actual biological or cause-and-effect relationships. | |||
| :::For semen volume and blood DDT, the researchers reported a beta of -0.0005, meaning that they measured a very slight decline in semen volume with increasing blood DDT levels. But this beta result is so close to zero — and statistically insignificant, to boot — that it cannot constitute evidence of a relationship between semen volume and DDT exposure. | |||
| :::Though the researchers reported a beta of -27.63 for DDT and sperm motility, this result was also not statistically significant, meaning it could have occurred simply by chance. The likelihood that this beta is a spurious result is strengthened by the fact that the average sperm motility of the study subjects was within the standards of normalcy as determined by the World Health Organization. | |||
| :::In terms of sperm count, the results were, if anything, self-contradictory. While the beta for the DDT metabolite known as DDE was a statistically insignificant -0.0003, the beta for DDT was 0.0022 — meaning that sperm counts slightly increased with greater levels of blood DDT. Both betas, however, are so close to zero that, once again, they are probably meaningless. | |||
| :::For the final sperm endpoint mentioned in The Mercury article, sperm viability, the researchers reported betas of -0.6571 and -1.7258 for DDE and DDT, respectively. But neither result was statistically significant. | |||
| :::Not only have these researchers failed to statistically link DDT with harm to semen/sperm — let alone have they linked the two biologically — their study flies in the face of a couple of key touch points with reality. | |||
| ::Another example was the 1993 EPA report on secondhand tobacco smoke. | |||
| ::Misuse of statistics is the probably the most common type of junk science. Milloy could not do his work without his expertise in statistics. ] 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's fine. I don't think anyone argues that he's had training, and presumably has some expertise, in biostastitics. But I don't see that he's a "biostatistician", as he seems never to have worked in that capacity. Having a degree in economics doesn't make you an economist, etc etc. And you don't need to bash the 1993 EPA report in every comment; given that most major medical organizations (Surgeon General, WHO, etc) as well as many tobacco companies now recognize secondhand smoke as undeniably harmful, the EPA's conclusions have been pretty resoundingly vindicated. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue isn't whether or not secondhand smoke is bad. Milloy doesn't argue that it is harmless, and I certainly do not. '''In my opinion, smoking cigarettes is equivalent to wearing a sign that says, "I'm stupid and I smell bad, too."''' | |||
| ::::Nor does anyone that I know of deny that SHS aggravates some health conditions, such as allergies and emphysema. | |||
| ::::Many years ago I took a bus tour of Europe with my wife. One of the other passengers had had a cornea transplant, with the result that her eyes were especially prone to irritation by SHS. Unfortunately, the bus driver was a smoking addict. He kept sneaking cigarettes, despite the sign above his head on the bus that said, "no smoking." He'd take a quick puff, and then hold the lit cigarette out the window, and hope nobody would notice. Well, we noticed. The lady with the cornea transplant sat in the back, but it still bothered her. So every time my wife or I would catch the driver smoking, I'd march to the front and make him discard his cigarette. | |||
| ::::But the issue isn't whether SHS is bad. The issue is over whether science has ''shown'' that it causes various diseases, especially cancer. Since SHS is the same as firsthand smoke, in lower doses and at room temperature, common sense suggests that if smoking causes cancer then SHS probably also causes cancer, though less frequently. Yet, numerous attempts to prove that premise through statistical studies have failed to find a statistically significant link. | |||
| ::::And that's where we get to Milloy. He is a stickler for truth and accuracy. He doesn't argue that SHS is harmless. He simply objects to the misrepresentation of scientific evidence to support claims that science proves what it has not (yet) proven. In other words, he objects to junk science. ] 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I disagree with your concluding paragraph or two; but since neither of our personal opinions are particularly relevant here, and both have been expressed, let's let it drop. I do think he should not be described as a "biostatistician" unless he's actually worked in said capacity; if it's based on the degree alone, then the preferred wording would be that he has a degree in biostatistics (which is what the article currently says). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree with ] that having a degree in biostatistics doesn't make one a biostatistician. Milloy doesn't even call himself a biostatistician so why are we even having this conversation?] 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sure he does. For example, here's an article by Milloy, and reprinted with his permission, which has a little biographical description of him. It says, '''"Steven Milloy is a <u>biostatistician</u>, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com where the motto is: 'All the junk that’s fit to debunk,' as well as CSRWatch.com."''' ] 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===digression about DDT statistics=== | |||
| An aside: In support of his claim that Milloy is a biostatistician, ] quotes of that documented impaired semen quality among men living in DDT treated homes in South Africa. A close reading of Milloy's "criticism" and the paper in question reveals more about Milloy's PR skills than his knowledge of statistics. Milloy's "debunking" works like this: He cherry-picks numbers out of a huge table and notes that they are not statisically significant, while completely ignoring the statistically significant findings in the rest of the paper. The semen parameters that Milloy highlights in his critique are not discussed by the authors in the body of the paper, presumably because they aren't statisically significant. The authors instead focus their discussion on their significant results, the one's Milloy has conveniently ignored. Of course most readers of Milloy's column, will simply take him at his word, and won't bother (or even know how) to look up and read the original article. And even if they did, most wouldn't understand it. Of Milloy knows this, and is happy to exploit this fact, misrepresenting the article's findings to push his agenda. ] 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], you have made a very serious charge against Milloy. Now the question is, can you support it? If you have, in fact, given both and a "close reading," you won't mind being specific with your criticism: | |||
| : * You say that "the semen parameters that Milloy highlights in his critique are not discussed by the authors in the body of the paper, presumably because they aren't statisically significant." Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring, and locate where in the paper the authors noted that those parameters were showed no statistically significant correlation with DDT exposure? | |||
| : * You say that "the authors instead focus their discussion on their significant results, the one's Milloy has conveniently ignored." Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring in that sentence, as well? | |||
| : * You also accused Milloy of "misrepresenting the article's findings." Will you please be specific about which of the article's findings you believe were misrepresented by Milloy? | |||
| :Lastly, I am curious about you. Who are you, what is your expertise in statistics, and what connection (if any) do you have to this dispute? You need not answer those questions, of course, if you are uncomfortable doing so, and you need not even tell us the reason for your discomfort. But you are criticizing the statistical claims of a masters level biostatistician, which is a bold endeavor. What's more, your User page on Misplaced Pages does not identify who you are, and you must surely understand that anonymous accusations cannot carry the weight of accusations made by someone who has the confidence to put his name to them. ] 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::True enough - that's why all of the criticism in the article is sourced to ], and not anonymous Misplaced Pages editors. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::True enough indeed. I'm not suggesting that my critique of Milloy's critique be included in the entry. I am a Master's level chemist, and I don't have a degree in stats. Do you? That hardly matters though. My point was not that Milloy's statistical analysis is flawed. The results he says are not statistically significant are, in fact, not statistically significant. My point was that he ignores the results which are statistically significant--as though they weren't even there--and instead discusses results that the authors (presumably would) agree are not significant. Since you are apparently too lazy to look it up yourself, here goes: | |||
| :::*] ask: ''Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring, and locate where in the paper the authors noted that those parameters were showed no statistically significant correlation with DDT exposure?'' From the (I've put the put relevant paramaters in '''bold''' for easy reference): ''The multivariate linear regression analyses indicated that '''mean CASA motility''' was lower with a higher p,p'-DDE concentration (ß = -0.02, P = .001) and the '''CASA parameter beat cross-frequency (BCF)''' was higher with a higher p,p'-DDT concentration (ß = 0.01, P = .000). There was also a statistically significant positive association between '''percent sperm with cytoplasmic droplets''' and p,p'-DDT concentration (ß = 0.0014, P = .014). The '''ejaculate volume''' (mean 1.9 ± 1.33 mL) was lower than the normal range (2.0 mL) according to WHO, and a significant decrease with increasing p,p'-DDE values was seen for both square root–transformed '''volume''' (ß = -0.0003; P = .024) and '''count''' (ß = -0.003; P = .04). Although there were no associations between either p,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE concentrations and the rest of the seminal parameters, the incidence of teratozoospermia (99%; normal sperm <15%) was high. Twenty-eight percent of the study group presented with '''oligozoospermia''' (<20 x 106 sperm/mL), which had a significant positive association with p,p'-DDE (odds ratio = 1.001, P = .03). There was a significant positive association between participants with '''asthenozoospermia''' (32%) and p,p'-DDT (OR 1.003, P = .006) and p,p'-DDE (OR 1.001, P = .02).'' Note that a P-value less then 0.05 is generally used the threshold of statistical significance. | |||
| :::*Meanwhile, the parameters that are pulled from the table 2 on page 36 of . Milloy discusses '''semen volume and blood DDT''' which according to the table has a beta of -0.0005 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.00004). As Milloy points out, this is not significant--the CI includes 0. But as I point out, this isn't one the paramaters mentioned by the authors in the abstract quoted above, or in the body of the article itself. Next on Milloy's list: '''sperm motility''' with a beta of -27.63 (95% CI -155.8 to 100.5). Again, the CI includes 0, so it's not statistically significant, as Milloy correctly points out. But again, this isn't one of the parameters the authors highlight. You can go through and look up the rest of Milloy's results in Table 2 yourself. You'll see that in everycase, the CI includes zero, and the result is not highlighted by the authors as significant. | |||
| :::*If you care to, you can also look up the '''bolded''' parameters from the abstract in Table 2, and you'll find that for these, the CI never includes 0, so they are significant. That's probably why the authors calculated p-values for them and why those p-values are less than 0.05. That's also probably why they thought those results were important enought to mention in the abstract, and it's probably why the Journal of Andrology thought the paper was important enough to publish. | |||
| :::In think I've proved my point: Milloy ignores the statisically significant results highlighted by the authors, and instead sets up and then attacks a strawman by cherrypicking non-significant results from Table 2. To answer your question '' Will you please be specific about which of the article's findings you believe were misrepresented by Milloy'': Milloy is misreprenting the article by implying it contained no statistically significant findings. He writes: "these researchers failed to statistically link DDT with harm to semen/sperm" and "The only thing that actually appears “impaired,” as far as I can tell, is the researchers’ willingness to communicate what they actually found — precisely nothing." | |||
| :::I'm happy to answer more questions if they are in good faith. But if you are simply too lazy to do the legwork yourself, then you'll be out of luck. Afterall, ] ] 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I'm not a statistician, nor a urologist, so I'm a bit out of my depth here, which I hope you'll forgive. So I've attempted to contact Mr. Milloy, to ask him for his side of this argument; if I get it, I'll report it here. (I also have a friend who, like Milloy, is a masters level biostatistician; if necessary, I'll seek her expert opinion.) But, though I'm no statistician, I believe that betas of 0.01, 0.003 & 0.0003, and odds ratios of 1.001 & 1.003, when one of the two populations compared was just 48 individuals, means that there was essentially no difference between the two populations. Do you disagree? Also, though I'm no urologist, I believe that "semen volume" and "ejaculate volume" are synonyms, yet you simultaneously agreed with Milloy that the difference in semen volume was not significant, and with Aneck-Hahn, ''et al,'' that that the difference in ejaculate volume ''is'' significant. How can that be? ] 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm waiting with ] breath for Milloy's reply. I'm not a urologist either, but if you spend a few minutes reading the paper, you'll have the answer to your question about semen vs ejaculate volume. But I'll be a good sport and spare you the trouble: they are the same thing. However, the authors note that mean semen volume is lower than normal and that there is a statistically significant correlation between square-root transformed semen volume and serum lipid '''DDE''' levels. Milloy points out that square-root transformed semen volume and serum lipid '''DDT''' levels are not significantly correlated. This is a great example of Milloy ignoring a significant result that's ''literally right next to'' an insignificant result that he choses to highlight. You are also wrong about the 48 individuals. Sample sizes were between 239 and 303 and for all the correlations that they calculated betas and ORs for (see tables 2 and 3, pp. 36-38). And if you aren't comfortable thinking about statistical significance in terms of p-values and CIs, then just check out the graph on the of the manuscript, that graphically shows the strong relationship between lipid DDE concentrationsand % deformed sperm. Now I've ''really'' got to ]. And this is supposed to be about whether Milloy is a biostatician, and I think the fact that he doesn't call himself a biostatistician on , nor do the folks that pay him (Foxnews.com, CEI) call him one--these facts ought to put this discussion to bed. ] 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not wrong about the sample size. I read the paper (thank you for the link, BTW). Quoting from the paper, the study was a comparison "between participants whose houses were sprayed with DDT (n = 249) (i.e. mud and thatch roof dwellings) when compared to those whose houses weren’t sprayed (n = 48)" (page 13). That means that one cohort was 249 individuals, and the other was just 48 individuals. Those are ''very'' small sample sizes. | |||
| ::::::As for the DDT v. DDE argument w/r/t semen volume, it seems specious, since ''both'' DDT and DDE levels were elevated in the 249-member cohort, as compared to the 48-member cohort, because the 249-member cohort were the individuals whose homes had been sprayed. DDE is simply a breakdown product of DDT, and the levels of both are simply markers of DDT exposure. The issue is whether that ''exposure'' was associated with reduced sperm quantity or quality. Either the 249-member cohort's semen was worse, to a significant degree, and with statistically significant consistency, than that of the 48-member cohort, or it wasn't. That is the question that the study ''should'' have been trying to answer. If they found an inverse correlation between semen volume and DDE, but not DDT, then something was seriously wrong with the study. What's more, the DDT levels were ''better'' indicators of exposure than the DDE levels (3.3x higher for DDT v. 2.4x higher for DDE). | |||
| ::::::Also, I'm no statistician, but my guess is that when one of the populations compared was just 48 individuals, betas of -0.003 and less are probably not significant. What's more, to get better numbers for the semen volume correlation, the study's authors found it necessary to exclude one individual who "consistently and considerably altered the statistical significance." ("Altered" means worsened, of course.) By excluding him, the study authors changed their "count" (sperm count) p value from 0.1 to 0.04, a most dramatic "improvement" -- if the goal of the study was to ''find'' the correlation, rather than to determine ''whether'' such a correlation actually exists at all. ] 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], you are comparing apples to oranges. The regressions data are tablulated in Table 2. The n associated with each beta is, as I said above, between 239 and 303. The n=48 is for something else. With all due respect, you don't seem to be reading the paper carefully, or understanding what it says. At anyrate, to get back to Milloy, I think I've proved my point the he hasn't "debunked" the paper in any way, shape, or form. Setting up a ] by ] insignificant results out of paper full of significant results does not a debunking make. It's certainly deceptive, and it's probably effective in advancing Milloy's views, but it falls apart upon examination. Anyhoo, still no evidence for Milloy ever having been a practicing biostatistician. '''There's also isn't any evidence that he's ever practiced law''', so I'm starting to think that we shouldn't describe him a lawyer either. Is her on the the ] anywhere? Journalist, fine; former lobbyist, fine; and I'd even be OK with "junkscience expert"; but not biostatician, and probably not lawyer, either. | |||
| :::::::'''Please let us know if you get a reply from Milloy or biostatistician buddy.''' ] 02:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Actually, he never worked as a lobbyist, and has no particular degree, certification or training as a lobbyist, so he's not a lobbyist. But he has a Master's degree in Biostatistics, and a JD, so he is obviously both a and . | |||
| ::::::::I got a call from my biostatistician buddy yesterday. She's a newlywed, and she is teaching a course on biostatistics at UNC, so she has a pretty full plate right now. So I'd rather not bother her with this stuff if I can get the info elsewhere. But I asked and she gave me her permission to email her my questions, if necessary. ] 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Interesting - we have independent, ] documenting he's a registered lobbyist. Hence it's in the article. We have no such sources to back up the claim that he's a biostatistician. He is notable as a "junk science" commentator - this is neutral, factual, and what should be in the lead (in fact, it's what ''was'' in the lead before we started this mess). We mention his degrees as well. If you want to start listing numerous professions in the lead, "lobbyist" should be in there, since we have reliable sources documenting that he's a registered lobbyist. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not true. We have no evidence that he ever did any lobbying. He provided consulting services to a firm that routinely registered all its employees and consultants as lobbyists, as a legal precaution. That is undisputed. But there is no evidence that he ever actually lobbied any government officials, for that client or anyone else. He's never called himself a lobbyist, he has no special training/credentials/expertise in lobbying, and he's never done any lobbying, so he's not a lobbyist. | |||
| :As for the fact that he is a biostatistician, it is undisputed that he has a Masters degree in the field, and that he routinely uses that training in , and if you'd clicked on you'd have seen that the Chicago Sun-Times called him a biostatistician back in 2000. (Google will find other examples, as well.) Q.E.D. ] 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, he's notable (in the Misplaced Pages sense) as a "junk science" commentator. That's how the lead should describe him. If we're including a laundry list of every profession he's ever been associated with or laid claim to, then "lobbyist" should be prominently featured: regardless of his self-description, he is listed as a registered lobbyist by independent, reliable sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Rubbish. I think you are being deliberately obstreperous. Stop it! Since he's never worked as a lobbyist, never been trained as a lobbyist, and never called himself a lobbyist, he's not a lobbyist. He's a biostatistician, a lawyer, a journalist, and a scholar. He is not a lobbyist. ] 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you consider inserting ] material that's actually ] to be obstreperous, then guilty as charged. The idea that we should list every profession Milloy has laid claim to in the lead ignores the fact that he's ] only as a junk-science commentator, not as a lawyer, biostatistician, etc. The idea that we should suppress the documented fact that Milloy was a registered lobbyist is a violation of ], and actually of ], which states that information "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources... belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." But I get the sense that your arguments are not grounded in policy here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I should also point out, as the person who inserted the material about being a registered lobbyist, that I attempted to be very circumspect. I carefully specified which sourced list him as a registered lobbyist, and included Milloy's denial, though the sourcing is only so-so, in the interest of fairness. I don't feel the need to call him a "registered lobbyist" in the lead, unless we decide that we're going to include a laundry list of professions there. My preference is to call him a junk-science commentator in the lead, and leave it at that, since that's what he's notable for (not law, biostats, or lobbying). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Citing a source that you know to be in error is no excuse for including the error in the article. We know that Milloy has never worked as a lobbyist, has never been trained as a lobbyist, and has never claimed to be a lobbyist. We know why he is erroneously included on the list of registered lobbyists, and we know that he has asked to be removed from it. To tell readers of Misplaced Pages that he is a lobbyist would be to deliberately mislead them. I don't have a problem with including in the article the fact that he is listed as a registered lobbyist, along with what he says about that. But it would not be truthful to list "lobbyist" as one of his professions. Being a "registered lobbyist" is not like being a "registered professional engineer." There are no qualifications. It just means that somebody (in Milloy's case, one of his consulting clients) filed a form, without even Milloy's knowledge or permission. If your boss were to file that form and list you as a registered lobbyist, perhaps without even telling you, it would not make you a lobbyist. Neither is Milloy a lobbyist. So ''please'' stop this obstreperous nonsense. ] 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It is not "false" to claim that Milloy is a registered lobbyist; it's a ] fact, so please stop with the accusations. The question is whether the fact that he's a registered lobbyist should go in the lead. Let's focus. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it is false to claim that he is a lobbyist, when we know that he was not. The article claimed, incorrectly, that the Senate database listed him as a lobbyist for the API. I checked. It doesn't. It lists him only as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, and only for 1998-2000, and we know how that erroneous listing came to be. There is no evidence from any source to indicate that he has ever actually done any lobbying. So please stop pushing the POV-laden lobbyist nonsense. I've corrected the article (and corrected the incorrect Senate database link in the article). ] 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you; I think your corrections look good, other than an overly leading opening phrase which I've removed. I have no interest in presenting misleading information; however, as some primary sources do list Milloy as a lobbyist, and this status has been discussed extensively by reliable secondary sources, it would be unacceptable to fail to mention it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is important for the sake of honesty that the article not leave anyone thinking that Milloy might ever have worked as a lobbyist. We all know that he never worked as a lobbyist. We have a perfectly reasonable explanation, from a primary source, of how he got to be registered as a lobbyist, and that explanation has not been anywhere disputed. His ''only'' registration as a lobbyist was by a company to which he sold consulting services, which routinely registered all their employees and consultants as lobbyists, regardless of whether or not they ever did any lobbying. Nobody has cited a source which disputes that explanation. | |||
| :::So, seeking consensus, I tried a different (shorter) wording, which I hoped might meet your approval, and for my trouble John Quiggin '''immediately reverted''' it. People, this is <u>wrong!</u> We ''all'' know the truth, why can't we agree to just put the truth in the article? Why do some editors insist that the article be made misleading, to make Milloy look bad?? ] 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, we do all know the truth. Milloy was registered as a lobbyist. He denies ever lobbying and attributes the registration to a technicality. Those truths are reflected in the article. Why you feel the need to spin it, though, is still a mystery. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Recently added 'Praise' section == | |||
| The newly added section for 'praise' contained this single mention: | |||
| {{quotation|According to the junkscience.com site, Dr. Philip Abelson, the longtime editor of Science, wrote that, "Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of the truth of science."}} | |||
| I've removed it because junkscience.com is Milloy's own site, and I didn't think a reworded, neutral and accurate passage saying "According to Milloy on his own website..." would be a meaningful addition to the article. ] 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I take your point, and of course Abelson died before Milloy's tobacco and oil funding became widely known. On the other hand, there is so little good about the guy that even this somewhat dubiously-sourced praise is noteworthy. Its inclusion might help to assure readers that we are taking an NPOV approach, and that the prevalence of discreditable material is due to the the facts about him being discreditable, and not to the suppression of favourable material.] 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The original quote is not from Milloy's site, it is simply reproduced there. It is not a case of Milloy tooting his own horn, it is a case of Dr. Philip Abelson tooting Milloy's horn. | |||
| ::Moreover, the accuracy of the quote is not in doubt. That "according to the junkscience.com site" prefix that someone added is a transparently POV attempt to cast doubt on the accuracy of the quote, when, in truth, there is no doubt. | |||
| ::But it would take more than the inclusion of this quote to convince an informed reader that this atrocious hit piece is NPOV. A heavy dose of narcotics, perhaps? (There you go, John, that was a joke.) ] 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The accuracy of other material on that very page (the AAAS judging thing) has been questioned; hence the attribution. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding the AAAS judging thing, it turns out that the accusation against him is false, and he really was a judge. See below for proof. ] 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've reincluded the section, with attribution to the blurbs of Milloy's books. I think it's reasonably safe to assume these are genuine. Milloy was quite well-regarded until a few years ago, when the information about TASSC came out, and his behavior in the Rall case became more widely known. I think it's likely that Abelson and Henderson would have taken him at face value. Conversely, I doubt that the publishers would have included unchecked quotes on their blurbs. ] 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He is still well-respected, except by those whose oxen he has gored. ] 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, speaking personally NCdave, which do you respect most? His comments on Rall's death, his response to 9/11 or his work for the tobacco companies, while also acting as an independent commentator?] 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Enough with the sarcasm, John. '''You are playing fast and loose with a man's reputation.''' No matter how much you hate him, that is wrong. | |||
| ::::::: Mr. Milloy's livelihood comes, in part, from his consulting business: | |||
| ::::::::'''''Mr. Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to food, beverage, and other consumer product businesses and organizations.''''' | |||
| :::::::That's what he ''says'' he does for a living, and it is entirely consistent with all the available evidence. But you persist, without proof, in your uncharitable belief that he is ''really'' paid to shill for companies like RJR/Nabisco and Exxon. There is nothing in the available evidence to support that unkind view. Rather, examination of his copious opinions leads to the opposite conclusion: the payments he receives from his consulting clients are for consulting services, and the opinions he expresses are simply his honest, professional opinions. | |||
| :::::::His analyses and editorials, expressed in , cover a very large number of topics, most of which have no connection to his consulting clients' interests. In none of them is there to be found any reason to believe that his expressed opinions are not honestly held. If Milloy were really a paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc., as you apparently believe, then why do you suppose he has devoted so much time to topic in which they have no business interest? Why, for instance, do you suppose he has exerted such extraordinary effort fighting the ban on DDT? Can't you even admit to the ''possibility'' that he just ''might'' care about the millions of lives that he says hang in the balance? | |||
| :::::::More importantly, '''do you care about those lives?''' What if Milloy is right about DDT? After all, he can cite an awful lot of scientific evidence that supports his view. If he is right, then trashing him and his reputation means, effectively, that you are working to thwart his efforts to save ''millions'' of lives. That is a ''weighty'' matter. '''Are you ''that'' sure that he can't possibly be right''' about DDT? ] 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've followed the DDT issue very closely, and Milloy's representation of it is false in a vast number of respects, as you can check at ]. As regards you question, "If Milloy were really a paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc., as you apparently believe, then why do you suppose he has devoted so much time to topic in which they have no business interest? Why, for instance, do you suppose he has exerted such extraordinary effort fighting the ban on DDT? ", the article on ] gives a likely explanation.] 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There is no explanation in the Misplaced Pages article on ] for why a supposed paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc. would campaign for an end to the ban on DDT, and, as you surely must know, Misplaced Pages articles (like this one!) on controversial subjects are notoriously unreliable. The fact is that Milloy is plainly vindicated about DDT: | |||
| ::::::::::“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” | |||
| :::::::::...and... | |||
| ::::::::::"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.” | |||
| :::::::::...and... | |||
| ::::::::::“I anticipate that all 15 of the country programs of President Bush’s $1.2 billion commitment to cut malaria deaths in half will include substantial indoor residual spraying activities, including many that will use DDT,” said Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, Coordinator of the President’s Malaria Initiative. “Because it is relatively inexpensive and very effective, USAID supports the spraying of homes with insecticides as a part of a balanced, comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment program.” | |||
| :::::::::...and... | |||
| ::::::::::“All development agencies and endemic countries need to act in accordance with WHO’s position on the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying,” said Richard Tren, Director of Africa Fighting Malaria. “Donors in particular need to help WHO provide technical and programmatic support to ensure these interventions are used properly.” | |||
| :::::::::] 04:02, 20 June 2007 | |||
| <---You can cite the all you want, but it doesn't represent the ] 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Untrue, Yilloslime. The press release I cited ''is'' the WHO's current position. I cite , from just this last September. You cite only the anti-DDT spin found in a called "The Pesticide Action Network" (PAN) which claims its purpose is to "eliminate the dangers of toxic pesticides." The PAN press release was reproduced on another environmentalist web site (dedicated to "reducing pollution in the health care industry"), but ''not'' on the WHO web site. The quotes in the PAN press release are not to be found on the WHO web site, nor were they independently reported in any general news publication that I've been able to locate. | |||
| ::The WHO press release says: | |||
| :::“Programmatic evidence shows that correct and timely use of indoor residual spraying can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90 percent. In the past, India was able to use DDT effectively in indoor residual spraying to cut dramatically the number of malaria cases and fatalities. South Africa has again re-introduced DDT for indoor residual spraying to keep malaria case and fatality numbers at all-time low levels and move towards malaria elimination.” | |||
| ::If you check the you will find that what you called the "old press release" that I cited is the actually the most recent press release listed there on the topic of either DDT or malaria. The fact is that the WHO turnabout plainly vindicated Milloy about DDT. ] 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And your ], independent secondary source calling this a "vindication" or "triumph" is where? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I find it ironic that you, MastCell, are demanding that a ] source be found for this obviously accurate characterization, but you seem to have no problem with Yilloslime '''using hearsay found in spin from a reprinted copy of to refute the -- about what WHO's own position is!''' | |||
| ::::Nevertheless, you have a point. But '''one thing at a time,''' please. Before I try to find a secondary source that actually says what seems so obvious, first, '''can we at least all agree''' that the WHO's new position, which they announced this last September, '''is''' a reversal of their policy of nearly 30 years (which is what they said in their press release), and that the new WHO position is a vindication of what Milloy has been saying for many years? That all seems indisputable (not that some here won't probably try to dispute it). ] 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps we're getting somewhere. For the record, the PAN press release is a ], though one that should carry attribution (e.g. "A press release from the enivronmental group Pesticide Action Network...") given their obvious advocacy role. I don't see anyone claiming that they fabricated the quotes from WHO officials. Yes, I would feel better about claiming the DDT thing as a "vindication" for Milloy if we could find some independent secondary source drawing that conclusion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree with ] that "the PAN press release is a ]." Neira's remarks were made at the Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the ] on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). I can't find a transcript of her talk, but the for the treaty has a summary of the meeting that corroborates the PAN press release: "Reference was made to the commitment of the World Health Organization to promote the reduction of reliance on DDT while strengthening malaria vector control." See the bottom of p5 of . Daily summaries of the conference provided by the also corroborate the press release: "Delegates...who scurried off to the WHO lunchtime side event on DDT, buzzed positively throughout the afternoon about WHO’s renewed commitment to the eventual elimination of DDT." and "Citing a national decree to discontinue DDT use, VENEZUELA expressed concern about the negative impact of World Health Organization (WHO) policy on DDT use, saying those countries that have banned DDT might resume using it...WHO clarified its position on DDT use, noting the organization’s commitment to reduction and eventual elimination of DDT while simultaneously minimizing the occurrence of vector-born diseases." . ] 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The PAN press release does not even slightly resemble a reliable source. They do not have a reliable publication process and there is no way to verify the information given, the author is anonymous, and they are not generally regarded as trustworthy. Their position is that, "Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity," a belief that is entirely without scientific support. Note that they do not qualify their outlandish claim. They do not say "many pesticides" are hazardous, nor even "most pesticides." They are opposed to ''all'' pesticides. (Do '''you''' believe that?) They are, in other words, an extreme fringe group. Contrary to PAN's claim, the that "DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings... its utility in malaria control... is undisputed." PAN is an advocacy organization with a disdain for science, and a political agenda that is contrary to the stated position of the WHO. There is no way to know whether the person at PAN who wrote their press release heard Niera's remarks himself, or heard of them second-hand. Nor is there any way to know whether he heard them correctly, or whether he honestly reported what he heard, in proper context. Nor is it even known whether Niera's ''actual'' remarks (if there were any, and whatever they really were) correctly reflected official WHO policy. | |||
| :::::::WHO's official policy is given . To the extent that PAN claims the WHO's position is different from that, PAN's claims are untrue. ] 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, this is interesting (from page 5 of the you found): | |||
| <blockquote>There was broad agreement, however, that efforts should be made to eliminate DDT use in the long term: among the widespread concerns about the dangers to human health and the environment was the fear that DDT, if used too liberally or for purposes unrelated to disease control, would lead to the resistance of vectors. Reference was made to the commitment of the World Health Organization to promote the reduction of reliance on DDT while strengthening malaria vector control.</blockquote> | |||
| And also: ''"several suggested that climate change could increase reliance on DDT by contributing to the spread of malaria."'' Anthropogenic climate change is worsening the problem of malaria. Should it be claimed in the article that Milloy's stance as an anti-malaria crusader is undercut by his defense of carbon emitters and global warming denialism? I'm not saying it should, but that's at least as strong of a claim as the "vindication" one. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good grief, MastCell. Please tell me you don't ''honestly'' believe that there is proof that "anthropogenic climate change is worsening the problem of malaria." No wonder you don't like JunkScience.com. Debunking junk science undermines the myths you hold dear. Perhals you should consider recusing yourself from commenting on this article due to your conflict of interest. ] 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? Conflict of interest indeed. I have no intention of debating the global warming/malaria issue here; I brought it up as an example of a conclusion inappropriate for inclusion here without a supporting secondary source, analagous to the DDT/Milloy-triumph thing. Now if you would be so kind as to ] Yilloslime very diligently dug up a variety of sources supporting the PAN press release. Care to comment on those, instead of focusing on my misguided worldview? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::], '''please append your new comments to the end of threads, not in the middle.''' It makes it easier for everyone to follow the discussion, and it's also a ]. And editing comments--even your own--after they've been posted is also frowned upon. I almost missed your reply to my corroboration of the PAN press release because your Anyway, that's a pretty serious charge you make about PAN. Now, can you back it up? You say, ''they are not generally regarded as trustworthy.'' Really? Can you provide a source for that? Or how about this one: ''They are opposed to ''all'' pesticides''? Can you show me where PAN says they oppose '''all''' pesticides? Or this one ''PAN is an advocacy organization with a disdain for science''? Or ''They are, in other words, an extreme fringe group.'' These serious charges you are making--you should back them up. Since this so far off topic, I suggest that if you want to continue this dscussion, we move it to ]. And what about that corroborating evidence I brought up? Your comments on that would be more valuable to this discussion on Milloy than your unsourced attacks on PAN. ] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::BTW, to address this comment of ] ''There is no way to know whether the person at PAN who wrote their press release heard Niera's remarks himself, or heard of them second-hand,'' I provide this evidence: The press release is authored by Linda Craig, Monica Moore and Meriel Watts and Moore and Watts attended the meeting at which Niera made her remarks.. Oh, and here's yet more corroboration of the PAN press release: ''''] 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, and there's this tidbit from today's '']'', which jumped out when I opened my mailbox today: ''"...although initially hailed as a panacea, spraying with DDT has not been effective at eradicating malaria worldwide. Well-publicized problems with environmental toxicity, the possibility of human carcinogenesis, and the development of resistance among insects have led to the withdrawal of DDT from widespread use."'' (). The picture NCdave is trying to paint here, of Milloy being vindicated by a sea change in our understanding of DDT's risks and toxicities, just isn't coming together. It seems to be based on a single WHO press release, which has since been "clarified"/disowned by senior WHO officials, and seems to ] the wealth of evidence that DDT is still regarded as undesirably toxic. The fascinating coda is that Milloy actually ''cites'' the NEJM editorial , though needless to say, he selectively quotes the part about the toll of parasitic disease and ignores the thrust of the editorial, which is that newer, more selective approaches will replace traditional insecticide spraying and such. And he doesn't mention the article's words about DDT, despite his demonstrated fascination with the subject. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yilloslime, that's a different PAN press release, and I thank you for finding it. But I'm surprised that you asked the questions you asked about PAN: | |||
| :::::::You say... ''They are opposed to ''all'' pesticides''? Can you show me where PAN says they oppose '''all''' pesticides? | |||
| ::::::That's a strange question since I quoted the statement from PAN and included the link to it: | |||
| :::::::Their position is that, '''"Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity,"'''... | |||
| ::::::That is the very first sentence on their "about us" page. It is the entire sentence, not a sentence fragment taken out of context. It is, in other words, who they say that they are: '''They are an organization which is opposed to pesticides, period. Not just to the misuse of pesticides. Not just to some pesticides. They oppose pesticides, in general.''' They go on, on their "about us" page to say that they "work to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives." '''I guess they think 70 million dead African children is an "ecologically sound and socially just alternative."''' Note that they say they want to replace pesticide use, ''in general.'' They don't want to replace bad pesticides with good ones. They oppose ''all'' pesticides. They do not encourage the use of ''any'' pesticide. They hate pesticides, period, even relatively innocuous insecticides like pyrethrum and rotenone, which plants produce. In other words, PAN are lunatic fringe. PAN's blanket claim that pesticides "are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity" proves their utter disdain for science. ] 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::MastCell, that aside in the NEJM that you quoted is an accurate statement of why DDT was widely banned in the 1970s. The problem is that the science didn't then and doesn't now support that widespread negative publicity which DDT received back then. The claims of human carcinogenicity were just plain wrong, and the worries about environmental toxicity were exaggerated. | |||
| ::::::What's more, the fact is that the WHO position of last September has not been reversed or "disowned." One WHO official is claimed by an extreme anti-pesticide group to have said what they wanted to hear, but there's nothing on the WHO web site to document their claim. I don't know the process which WHO uses to arrive at their positions, but it certainly does not consist of having one of their officials make extemporaneous comments at some other organization's event. The official WHO position is that DDT has a "clean bill of health" for anti-malarial indoor spraying, and its use for indoor spraying on walls should be encouraged, not discouraged, for malaria control. ] 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::MastCell says, "It seems to be based on a single WHO press release." I think he must know better. But in case I am mistaken... | |||
| ::::::'''"A triumph for common sense in the fight against malaria.''' | |||
| ::::::The tide may be turning once more in the fight against malaria. In what surely must a triumph of commonsense and science over reactionary knee jerk politics, the news that the WHO has decided to endorse the use of DDT in combating malaria is yet another bright spot in the resurgent commitment to defeating the scourge. The WHO is not known for taking controversial, radical positions, let alone for it’s pioneering spirit, but '''in the face of overwhelming evidence,''' the venerable organization '''finally recognized what everyone else knew, and what experts having been saying for a few years, DDT works.''' Though a reluctant convert to the cause, (the WHO needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light), it seems to be firmly on the side of the good and the many. Said Dr. Marugasampillay “… these successes have helped guide the new WHO policy, which is based on scientific studies and advice from government and health officials…” The victory is all the more important, because it puts the lives of humans alive today at the forefront of the public health battle, rather than the future as yet unborn generations, the poster children of environmentalists that have so vehemently opposed the re-introduction of DDT. '''Well heeled environmental groups, mainly based in the west, with access to funds and well organised media campaigns have fought a rear-guard action for years against DDT, based on spurious research.''' Better late than never I say." -''Midilinks Medlog'' editorial | |||
| ::::::'''"Swaziland and Madagascar each had malaria epidemics after suspending DDT spraying, the latter's outbreak killing more than 100,000 people from 1986 to 1988. Both epidemics were stopped when DDT spraying resumed."''' -''Washington Post'' | |||
| ::::::"We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane -- DDT. ...'''after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented.''' Nothing else at any price does everything it can do." -''Dr. Sam Zaramba,'' Director General of Health Services for the Republic of Uganda | |||
| ::::::Do you want more? ] 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], there is a difference between against pesticide use in general--which is PAN's position--and being catagorically against '''all''' pesticide use in every cases, which '''not''' PAN's position. For the record, PAN actually ''supports'' limited DDT use in malaria control: "We strongly support the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants’ call for the ultimate elimination of DDT, ''while allowing short term use of this persistent and bioaccumulative pesticide in countries that demonstrate an immediate need.'' | |||
| Have you head back from Milloy yet? ] 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, there's no difference between being against pesticide use in general and being categorically against all pesticides. PAN supports a proposed treaty which would phase out the use of certain pesticides because implementing that treaty would move matters in the direction they desire. But PAN's stated goal is the elimination of ''all'' pesticides, period. It's crazy, I know, but that's their position. ] 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been playing phone tag with his Milloy's assistant. She returned my call when I was on another call and couldn't speak with her. I called her back and left a voicemail message. ] 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding the "AAAS judging thing" (above), if you read the entire Thacker article that is cited to support he claim that Milloy wasn't really a judge, you'll find a link at the end, which points to an of the contest winner, and quotes several of the judges who sang the praises of the contest winner -- and Milloy is one of the judges they quoted. So plainly Milloy ''was'' a judge in the contest, after all, but someone at AAAS ''later'' wished he had not been one. But once the judging had already been done, and the winner announced, it is obviously too late to change who the judges were. So the accusation against Milloy, that he lied about being a judge, is untrue. He was a judge. '''The accusation should be removed from the article.''' Agreed? ] 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was not a judge. . --] 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Milloy's claims (i.e. that he was an AAAS judge, or that he was not a lobbyist) deserve mention in the article, but when they are contradicted by ] information, then that conflict should also be noted, particularly when reliable secondary sources have pointed it out as well. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''It is , by a reliable source, beyond any legitimate dispute, that Milloy <u>was</u> a judge when the judging was done.''' The AAAS has removed his name from their web site, after the fact, presumably for political reasons, but that is just evidence of the politicization of the AAAS, it doesn't change the proven fact that '''he was a judge.''' | |||
| ::::I am also getting very annoyed with MastCell's demands that the article contain the falsehood that Milloy was a lobbyist. Everyone here knows that there is not a speck of evidence that he ever worked as a lobbyist, or was ever trained as a lobbyist, or was ever hired as a lobbyist, or ever claimed to be a lobbyist. We all know exactly how his name got erroneously registered as a lobbyist, without his consent. '''So stop with this "lobbyist" nonsense, already!!''' ] 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry. We have a stating that Milloy was not a judge, based on interviews with AAAS personnel. The same AAAS personnel state that his opinion was not taken into account - ergo, not a judge. Your "reliable source" is an out-of-date web page (the current version is - note the absence of Milloy's name). The contention meets ]. Trying to spread doubt about a well-supported conclusion by cherry-picking an outdated version of the AAAS webpage, before their error was corrected, is not going to work in this case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As to lobbying, Milloy's name has been removed from the CRP database, so we should remove this when the article is unprotected. He remains listed in the U.S. Senate governmental database, and his status is discussed in a secondary source . ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Only for the years 1998-2000, and only for the EOP Group, not for the API. We know how he came to be listed for the EOP Group, despite NOT being a lobbyist. ] 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protected == | |||
| The article is now protected and will remain so for one week. Please engage in discussion and try to find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing, or to contest the protection, place a request at ] ] <small>]</small> 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The protection has expired. It didn't seem to do much good. Despite strenuous efforts to achieve consensus on how to make this article truthful and NPOV, almost every constructive change gets instantly reverted by the Milloy-bashers here. ] 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it possible that your "strenuous efforts to achieve consensus" were undermined by your insistence on referring to every other editor on this page as a "Milloy-basher"? Or by insistently cross-posting your claims that a good-faith editor was committing "vandalism" because they disagree with you on content? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, == | |||
| It is hard to imagine more flagrant violations of Misplaced Pages policy regarding the biographies of living persons than those which permeate this article, full, as it is, of poorly sourced controversial material about a living person, and dubious ''ad hominem'' attacks. But when someone like me or Peroxisome tries to follow ] we are quickly reverted. | |||
| For example, right up at the top, in the section that is supposedly the definition of junk science, the article says, ''"Critics claim that, in practice, Milloy regularly criticises research suggesting that corporate activities harm the environment or public health as 'junk science,' while praising scientific analysis that supports his preferred positions."'' While it is certainly true that his critics say that, it is just as certainly true that the charge is without merit. There is no evidence at all (other than the histrionics of his critics) to support such a charge. On the contrary, '''Milloy consistently applies his expertise as a biostatistician to analyze and debunk faulty statistical conclusions and other bogus scientific claims. The charge that he, instead, characterizes science as "junk" based on whether or not he likes its conclusions, rather than based on its rigor, is an exact inversion of the truth.''' Like so many other attacks on Milloy in this article, that charge comes straight from the editorial comments of his most vehement critics. It is, in other words, both highly controversial and poorly sourced. '''According to Misplaced Pages rules, it "must be removed immediately."''' But when editors have tried here to either remove it or move it to the "criticism" section, we are promptly reverted by editors whose disdain for Misplaced Pages rules is exceeded only by their intense hatred of Mr. Milloy, a hatred they make no effort to conceal. That behavior, and this article, are shameful. ] 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a pretty harsh accusation. Let's start with "poorly sourced". The critical information here is sourced from a blend of primary and ]. This is actually the standard for Misplaced Pages articles. I fully agree that any contentious info which is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed; but you have to realize that the tobacco document archive, ''Mother Jones'', ''The New Republic'', the American Chemical Society, the ''Washington Post'', etc are ] by Misplaced Pages's standards. You're welcome to dismiss any secondary source critical of Milloy as "histrionic", but that does not a BLP violation make. Criticism in this article is carefully referenced and cited. | |||
| :Some useful points from ]: | |||
| :*Presumption in favor of privacy. BLP mandates that we respect a subject's privacy. It would be inappropriate to insert a bunch of claims about Milloy's private life into this article. However, well-sourced criticism of him as a public figure, in his public role, doesn't fall under this stricture. | |||
| :*''"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."'' Milloy's ties to tobacco and, to a lesser extent, oil companies are notable, relevant, and well-documented. | |||
| :*''"Material from primary sources should be used with great care... Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source."'' In this case, the primary-source material (tobacco-company documents, etc) have been presented repeatedly by the reliable secondary sources cited, to provide context and avoid undue weight. | |||
| :*''"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."'' Obviously, we can discuss whether the criticism is properly presented or given too much weight, but claiming that BLP means the criticism should be dismissed is erroneous. Personally, since many of ] secondary sources on Milloy are critical, I don't feel this is a case of undue weight; however, if you'd like to present some reliable secondary sources which could be added, then the article can be adjusted to reflect that. | |||
| :*Regarding citing Milloy's website as a source, please see the guidelines ], from the BLP policy. | |||
| :*''"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."'' The article presents reliable third-party sources for the statements made, and we've been willing to do so here on the talk page as well. | |||
| :I responded at length because you're making a pretty serious accusation, and one that I think is unfounded. If you'd like to get more eyes on the BLP issue, you can go to the ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed Content: DDT == | |||
| ===Proposed Content=== | |||
| Before realizing that the article had been "protected," I composed the following section, which I intended to add to this article. The junk science surrounding the ban of DDT was long Steven Milloy's signature issue, and it deserves much more than its current half sentence of coverage in the article. This is the section which I propose to add when the protection expires. I'm putting it here so that it doesn't get lost: | |||
| ] 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===DDT Triumph=== | |||
| Milloy has long campaigned for a reversal of the ban on DDT, the use of which he says could save millions of lives in the fight against malaria in Third World nations. In January 2000, he called the DDT ban ''"Junk Science of the Century"'' and ''"genocide by junk science."''<ref name="ddtban1"></ref> ''"Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT,"'' he says, is ''"the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time."''<ref>, October 27, 2005</ref> ], he wrote, ''"misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."''<ref>, July 28, 2000</ref><ref> Uncovering Silent Spring's Deadly Consequences (Competitive Enterprise Institute)</ref><ref>, May 23, 2007</ref> | |||
| Milloy's junkscience.com web site features ''The Malaria Clock''<ref name="malariaclock"></ref>, which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world, most of which he says could have been prevented by the use of DDT. As of June, 2007, the toll stands at more than 94 million dead, 90% of whom are said to have been expectant mothers and children under five years of age. ''"Infanticide on this scale appears without parallel in human history,"'' writes Milloy. ''"This is not ecology. This is not conservation. This is genocide."''<ref name="malariaclock"/> He cites a 1970 ] committee report that (before its use was discontinued) DDT ''"prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."''<ref>, retrieved 19 June, 2007</ref><ref name="bbcbattle">, 4 March, 2004</ref><ref>, 12 June 2007</ref> | |||
| He is strongly critical of EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus' decision to ban DDT in 1972, a decision which overturned the ruling of an EPA administrative law judge who had found that, ''"DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...'' ''not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."'' According to Milloy, the judge was right, and Ruckelshaus was wrong. In support of his conclusions, Milloy cites numerous studies which found that plausible levels of exposure to DDT have no serious adverse effects on Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcon, Brown Pelicans, or other birds.<ref name="ddtfaq">, retrieved 18 June, 2007</ref> | |||
| In September, 2006, Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition. The ] announced that, nearly thirty years after phasing it out, ''"the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT... will once again play a major role in'' ''efforts to fight... malaria."''<ref name="who4ddt">, 15 September, 1996</ref><ref>, September 16, 2006</ref> One of the reasons the WHO gave was that, as Milloy has long maintained, ''"Extensive research and testing has... demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans."'' | |||
| (successive versions written 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC), 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC), 02:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC), ] 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :I think it's appropriate to include Milloy's writing on DDT, with a balancing criticism section, drawing on the info in the ] and ] articles. There was some stuff about DDT and it got removed, I think because it tried to combine statement and refutation in a single section. Also, when protection is removed, I'd like to add Milloy's proposal to abolish the position of Surgeon-General. ] 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I'm curious to to see the reference for that one, but, like the creationism section, it really is outside Milloy's main focus, which is debunking faulty science. IMO, highest priority should be given to adding sections about the other areas he focuses on, such as dioxins, EMF health effects, etc. ] 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There already is a passing mention of Milloy's stance on DDT in ], and Milloy's views on DDT are also discussed in ]. Having noted that, I'm not opposed to including an expanded discussion of his views about DDT in this article. Note that Milloy's debunking of DDT has itself been throughly debunked. If give more weight to Milloy's DDT views, then giving some space to critics of Milloy's DDT views will be in order. So my point is, it's fine if you want to flesh out Milloy's views on DDT, but be prepared for others (i.e. ]) to include information that refutes of his views.] 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gee, using the word "Triumph" certainly tells us you're neutral, doesn't it? BTW editing Talk page comments is frowned upon, even when they're your own comments -- see ]. ] 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The WHO decision was unquestionably a triumph for Milloy. That's not POV, that's simple fact. Do you disagree? My first draft was simply entitled "DDT," but when I read the WHO press release I realized that it represented a complete triumph for Milloy. So I changed the title to reflect that fact. Really, the title could be "amazing triumph," considering the dominance of the anti-DDT conventional wisdom back when Milloy started his campaign to end the DDT ban. But Milloy's once-contrarian view is fast becoming the new conventional wisdom. If that doesn't represent a triumph (and a rare one at that) for a scientist, then what would? It isn't unheard of, of course. Ptolemaic cosmology reigned for 1400 years before Copernicus overturned it. But few people can claim to have had a key role in overturning generally accepted scientific wisdom of 30 years standing. | |||
| :::::As for editing my own draft of the proposed DDT section, I'd not be editing it here if I could edit it on the article page, where it belongs. Unfortunately, certain people took to instantly reverting most constructive corrections to the article, so now it is frozen. The obvious alternative to editing the proposed section in place on the Talk is to post a series of entire versions, which I doubt would be well-received. Would you prefer that? Do you have a better idea? ] 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're right, "amazing triumph" is too modest. Milloy == Copernicus is more objective. And both are ], right? To someone besides Steven Milloy? We're not just ], are we? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Now, MastCell, I'm sure that you can tell the difference between contrasting (which is what I did) and equating (which is what you insinuate that I did). Or do you think that 30 years and 1400 years are about the same? ] 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You're obviously right about the time line. Bringing it into contemporary times, surely no one can doubt Milloy == Einstein. You can even cite my Talk page comments if you want attribution. ] 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::'''Eighty million (80,000,000) children under 5 years old and pregnant women died''' because of the DDT scare, and you guys are cracking jokes, and ridiculing the fellow who fought so long and hard (and, in the end, so effectively) to end that carnage. '''''Unbelievable!''''' I'm old enough to remember "bleeding heart liberals." Where did they all go? Now the liberals seem to have no hearts at all. ] 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I left my heart in San Francisco. It was on a Wednesday, I think, during the 2004 Fall ] meeting. ] 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, it sure isn't in Africa. ] 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Your knowledge of geography is impressive! ] 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <--Arata Kochi's press release, which you call a triumph for Milloy, despite its rhetoric, and despite it's reverberation in the conservative echo chamber, did not actually herald a change of course in the WHO's strategy against malaria, nor was it a change in their position on DDT specifically. See the ] page and the of the WHO's Dr. Neira for more details. In a nutshell, the WHO always has been--and remains--committed to the dual goals of eliminating '''both''' malaria and DDT. ] 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) This is not a productive thread of conversation. Getting into general debates is one thing; the ] caution against it, but it happens. Accusing the other editors on the article (all "liberals", apparently) of a disdain for human life is just not going to be an effective ]. Let's drop the claim that Milloy single-handedly overturned the DDT "ban", or even that he had any impact on the scientific debate, unless you can provide a ], non-Milloy-authored source to that effect. It's fine to say that Milloy has long argued in favor of DDT use, and that the WHO is now approving its wider use as well. I've always claimed that ], despite its low price and lack of cachet, was the best vodka out there; recently a endorsed it as well. A triumph, perhaps. | |||
| :However, a heavy focus on DDT shouldn't distract from other issues on which Milloy has spent as much or more time (e.g. secondhand smoke and global warming), and on which his views have been criticized (by actual independent, ] secondary sources). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Aside from the "Triumph" part I think the section it is appropriate and even more could be detailed. If a bunch of space is devoted to him essentially being nothing more than rude (the criticism of the dead section and the WTC issue) then it seems a bit silly to limit something fairly major that he is somewhat vindicated on and involves more than people's feelings being hurt. --] 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This whole business of a "triumph" or "vindication" rests on few key assumptions that are, in fact, false. ], ], Milloy himself no doubt, and others seem to believe the following: | |||
| :::*DDT use in malaria control has been banned/restricted | |||
| :::*DDT is a silver bullet that can cure the scourge of malaria | |||
| :::*DDT is the only, or at least "best" or "cheapest" way to stop malaria | |||
| :::*the WHO has changed recently changed it's position on DDT use. | |||
| :::All the above does indeed add up to a "triumph for" and "vindication of" Milloy, unfortunately all of the above is also false. DDT use in vector control has never been banned or significantly restricted; DDT isn't the only or best or even cheapest method for malaria control; and the WHO has not significantly changed it's position on DDT recently. Most experts (with the usual exceptions of ], ], ], and other ]-related folks) agree that best approach to malaria control is a multi-pronged one that includes some combination of: improved sanitation, elimination of mosquito breeding areas, improved diagnosis of malaria cases and prompt treatment, improved access to drugs, widespread deployment of bednets, and indoor residual spraying with various insecticides which, yes, may include DDT in some cases. Malaria strategies need to be tailored to local conditions to work most effectively, meaning DDT may have role to play in certain situations. The reason malaria continues to take such a huge tole even today is not b/c of restrictions on DDT or lack of funds for DDT. It's due to a lack funds in general. Developed countries have turned their backs on malaria control in the global south in general. Until very recently, little funding went towards any anti-malaria control measures. This isn't the place for a review of the state of malaria control today, and I certainly don't have the time write one. But reading ] and ] ought to give some perspective. For the WHO's current position on DDT, see . Some non-Milloy authored reading is also worthwhile if you really want a balanced view on DDT/Malaria. If can get access, there is about malaria. And while not necessarily any more neutral than Milloy it's view on DDT, the DDT pages on the will provide some prespective and perhaps balance out Milloy's hardline views. ] 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I missed something in your argument, but exactly which part of the proposed DDT section is inaccurate? That is what we're discussing here, I could care less about using bed nets and what not, if one of the cited quotes is wrong and/or you have an article stating otherwise, then lets have it, until some other specific information is turned up, then I say its good. We can find articles and quotes saying someone's feelings were hurt because he was rude after someone died, surely there is an article saying his greatest "triumph" is a sham. --] 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yilloslime, you seem to believe that unverified hearsay from an obscure environmentalist organization's press release (not a reliable source) is a more reliable representation of current WHO policy than is the . It isn't. | |||
| ::::You also say that it is untrue that the WHO have changed their position on the use of DDT. But WHO says: | |||
| :::::'''15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease.''' | |||
| ::::Obviously you were mistaken. Please, just admit it, and let's move on to other things. ] 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm inclined to agree that it was a triumph. Milloy, Bate and a handful of others managed to parlay a non-existent ban into a ''cause celebre'' on the political right, putting enough pressure on WHO that they had to instal a political operator like Kochi over the head, and over the objections, of the malaria professionals, then announce a marginal adjustment to their existing policy as if it was a big change. And it all helped to keep the heat off their clients in the tobacco industry, just as Bate promised it would. ] 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's the problem: we don't have any ] supporting a claim that a) Milloy had any impact on the scientific debate on DDT, and b) that the WHO's current stand is in any way a "triumph" or "vindication". We just have the assertions of an editor or two here, which falls under the policy against ]. Specifically, you're synthesizing the claims that Milloy was pro-DDT, and that the WHO approved the limited use of DDT, into a "triumph" for Milloy. Without a source, it doesn't fly. By way of contrast, look at the tobacco industry/secondhand smoke and Exxon/global warming issues (or even the "rudeness" issue). Both of these are supported by reliable secondary sources connecting the dots and synthesizing the primary sources. It's an important difference, for Misplaced Pages's purposes. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Also, I would like to ask certain editors here to please cease using ]''' such as: | |||
| * "Theblog, NCdave, Milloy... seem to believe... DDT is a silver bullet that can cure the scourge of malaria" (Yilloslime) | |||
| * "drop the claim that Milloy single-handedly overturned the DDT 'ban'" (MastCell) | |||
| * "surely no one can doubt Milloy == Einstein" (Raymond Arritt) | |||
| That behavior is not the way to build ]. ] 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Going back to ]'s comments, and amplifying on mine above, what's needed is some sort of reliable, independent secondary source drawing a connection between Milloy and the WHO's policies on DDT use. ]. So far I've not seen an independent, reliable source claiming that Milloy's stance on DDT had any impact on the scientific debate or WHO policy. Theblog is asking us to produce a source denying Milloy's role, when said role has not yet been verified to exist. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Maybe we can reach consensus on something along these lines:''' | |||
| ::*A section on his views on DDT called '''DDT''' (i.e. not something loaded like ''DDT Triumph'') | |||
| ::*Paraphrase, or better yet quote Milloys position on DDT/Malaria. I think ]'s suggested first paragraph is a good start, with following change (in '''bold'''): <blockquote>Milloy has long campaigned for a reversal of the '''alleged''' ban on DDT, the use of which he says could save millions of lives in the fight against malaria in Third World nations. In January 2000, he called the DDT ban ''"Junk Science of the Century"'' and ''"genocide by junk science."''<ref name="ddtban1"></ref> ''"Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT,"'' he says, is ''"the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time."''<ref>, October 27, 2005</ref> ], he wrote, ''"misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."''<ref>, July 28, 2000</ref><ref> Uncovering Silent Spring's Deadly Consequences (Competitive Enterprise Institute)</ref><ref>, May 23, 2007</ref></blockquote> This change--or something like it--is necessary since there is not a ban DDT use in malaria. We could maybe include more quotes by him, including somemore stuff that NCdave has already identified in his proposed content. | |||
| ::*A paragraph or two that reviews the arguements made my Milloy's critics. | |||
| ::*Since there is no citable evidence that Milloy's efforts have actually contributed to any real or perceived changes in WHO policy, I think we should leave out the statement ''In September, 2006, Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition,'' but we can note the Sept 06 press release: ''The World Health Organization announced that, <s>nearly thirty years after phasing it out,</s> "the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT... will once again play a major role in efforts to fight... malaria." One of the reasons the WHO gave was that, as Milloy has long maintained, "Extensive research and testing has... demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans."'' We should also point to Neira's comments--either the PAN press release or the corroborating documentation I cited above--and note that in the last year WHO officials have made conflicting statements about it's position on DDT use. | |||
| ::Do you all think we could start reaching some consensus along these lines perhaps?] 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that by juxtaposing Milloy's views with the WHO, this implies an unwarranted association. WHO's limited endorsement of indoor-only use of DDT is utterly irrelevant to Milloy's central argument, which is that concerns over the use of DDT are "junk science." ] 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding Yilloslime's proposal: | |||
| ::::1a) You don't know there's no citable evidence that Milloy contributed to the WHO's policy reversal. I've said, "one thing at a time." I asked can we first at least all acknowledge consensus that the WHO '''did''' change its policy? ''That'' fact is well-documented by reliable sources, including the WHO's own web site, the JunkScience.com web site, and news stories in publications like the Washington Post. | |||
| ::::1b) With regard to Milloy's influence on the WHO policy change, there is good reason to believe he had some effect. Note that: | |||
| :::: * Milloy has a very high profile and considerable influence on public opinion in the USA. I don't know whether he coined the term "junk science," but he practically owns the trademark on it. | |||
| :::: * One of the most prominent Americans in the fight to curb malaria in Africa is U.S. . | |||
| :::: * Sen. Coburn recently called Rachel Carson's work "junk science", and said that ''Silent Spring'' "was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT." | |||
| :::: * Sen. Coburn, himself, was prominently quoted in the WHO press release. | |||
| :::: * Sen. Coburn not only expressed views shared by Milloy, he used Milloy's own language to do so. '''Look what the WHO press release quoted Sen. Coburn as saying:''' | |||
| :::::“Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” '''said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts.''' “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, '''we can put to rest the junk science''' and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – '''which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”''' | |||
| ::::It would be a most remarkable coincidence if Milloy's long crusade had ''nothing'' to do with Coburn's views and phrasing, which the WHO quoted in their press release. | |||
| ::::2) Why do you want to delete the phrase "nearly thirty years after phasing it out"? That's straight from the WHO press release. Its from my memory, but if it isn't an exact quote it is at least a very close paraphrase. What's more, it, too, is reported in the that I cited -- in the headline, even! | |||
| ::::3) Unproven extemporaneous remarks allegedly made by one WHO official, which seem to contradict the official WHO position found on the WHO web site, are not from a reliable source, and do not belong in the article. We have an official statement of the WHO's position, from the WHO, itself. Unless you can find a WHO document that shows that the WHO has actually reversed itself again since last September, then that PAN press release is just obfuscation, and it certainly does not belong in the article. You are attempting to cast doubt upon that which is not in doubt. The WHO's position is what the WHO web site says it is. ] 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Raymond, regarding your observation about Milloy's main motivation, you appear to be correct that it is usually the science, except for this one issue: DDT and malaria. On that issue, which is Milloy's original signature issue, his passion seems fueled even more by the enormous human cost of the DDT ban than by the junk science that led to it. Take a look at his web page, and see whether you still doubt that is the case. ] 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK, but there are fundamental policies on ] and ]. All of your arguments here seem to revolve around circumstantial evidence which you've pieced together. You've got it backwards: you have to present sources that draw these conclusions, not claim that because ''we'' don't "know" that no such sources exist, it goes in the article. You claim that because Tom Coburn and Steven Milloy have used the same phrases, and Coburn was quoted in the WHO's press release, ergo Milloy had an influence; this is a textbook violation of ]. "I think it would be a most remarkable coincidence if X were not so, therefore we should include it" does not square with ]. These are basic, simple, uncomplicated policy issues. There's a lot of heat and remarkably little acceptable sourcing in your posts. Speculation about Milloy's motivation is not really germane to the content issues here, so I'm not going to respond to that. The PAN press release is a reliable source, provided its provenance to an activist group is made clear; if you are unable to accept the consensus on that here, go to the ] with it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK it seems the we can agree on the following, all of which conform to ] while avoiding ], including ]: | |||
| :*Milloy is a journalist and "junk science expert" | |||
| :: Agreed. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Milloy has degrees in law and biostatistics | |||
| ::*(Expect for ], we all agree that he doesn't claim to have ever practiced law or been a statistician, nor is there evidence to suggest he ever used these degrees in a professional capacity.) | |||
| :::*Yilloslime, do you bother to ever click on the links I post, or even take 30 seconds to do a simple google search? I've posted links refuting that nonsense about him never calling himself a biostatistician or lawyer, etc. If we can't at the very least all agree on the well-documented fact that he is a lawyer & biostatistician, but not a lobbyist, then there's truly no hope for consensus. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Milloy is listed in several sources as a registered lobbyist. | |||
| ::*Whether he actually lobbied (i.e. met with folks in gov't) is unclear. | |||
| :::*No, it is not unclear. We know that he has never been a lobbyist, period. We also know exactly ''why'' he is erroneously listed as a lobbyist. The statement that he is a lobbyist is false, plain and simple. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*We agree on his position on DDT | |||
| ::*I hope so. However, the current article falsely accuses Milloy of believing that "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution harmless." That's "reliably sourced" from a (now apparently defunct) extreme environmentalist group called CLEAR. Can well all agree that such misrepresentations of Milloy's beliefs needs to be removed from the article? ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*We agree that many people are critical of his position on DDT. | |||
| ::*And that many more agree with him, including (finally!) the WHO. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some things we don't agree on: | |||
| :*Whether he has had any effect on the decisions by the WHO or other officials regarding DDT. | |||
| ::*So far we've only seen ] to suggest that he has. If there is real 3rd party evidence out there, let's see it, otherwise lets drop the whole WHO thing. (If Milloy himself has claimed he had an effect, I suppose we could quote this.) | |||
| :::*I told you, "one thing at a time." We at least ought to agree that the WHO's position ''did'' change. PAN insists that the WHO is still against DDT, and Schapira says that the WHO hasn't actually been against DDT for years, but the W.H.O. says that they changed their position, and WHO's own official statements on their own web site are dispositive regarding the issue of what their own position is. | |||
| :::*However, since you insist on delving into the argument over whether Milloy actually had any effect on the WHO position, here's the proof. The fact is that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn played a major role in the WHO's change of position; for documentation, see this which called him a "hero" in that victory. Plus, on Coburn's senate.gov web site, to support his pro-DDT viewpoint he reprints (you guessed it!) a . Now that does not prove that Milloy helped Dr. Coburn form his opinion, but it ''does'' prove that Coburn found Milloy's information helpful when making the case for resuming the use of DDT. Q.E.D. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*The WHO's current position on DDT. | |||
| ::*If we end up mentioning the WHO's position, we should represent it accurately. I'd argue that this means including a disclaimer that the WHO has made conflicting statements in recent months, and citing both Kochi's Sept 2006 press release and Neira's remarks at the POPS conference. | |||
| :::Ridiculous! The WHO's position is spelled out fully on the WHO web site. There can be no question about it. The WHO has not made any conflicting statements. Unproven hearsay about the supposed extemporaneous remarks of a WHO official, as "spun" in the press release of an obscure extremist organization that is hostile to the WHO's official position, does NOT constitute "conflicting statements by the WHO." ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Also of relevance is Allan Schapira's stating that the WHO was just re-iterating WHO's endorsement of DDT. --] 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Schapira's letter is, indeed, informative, and I thank you for the link. He was associated with WHO's anti-malaria programs until late last year, and his remarks are not being filtered through some unreliable third party, so I have no objection to referencing his letter. (Note that he wrote his letter to refute the that he resigned because of disagreement with the new policy promoting DDT use -- do y'all ''still'' think PAN is a reliable source??) However, the WHO's position is what the WHO says it is. Schapira argues that the WHO has actually been supportive of DDT use for years, but, even if he is right, it just means that the WHO's shift in position was gradual, and it does not mean that the WHO's announcement of that change was incorrect. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, the WHO has not gradually shifted its position on DDT -- it always endorsed its use against malaria. But folks like Coburn and Milloy kept saying that WHO opposed its use. So the press release was misleading, but got Coburn off their backs, because whenever they tried to get US support for their Roll Back Malaria program, they'd get sidetracked by folks like Coburn wanting them to use DDT to solve the malaria problem. (Schapira called these people DDT fetishists.) --] 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find it humorous that PAN (and the editors here who think PAN is a reliable source) insist that the W.H.O. still wants to end the use of DDT, but Schapira claims just the opposite: that the W.H.O. has supported DDT use "For many years," and only stepped up the "promotion" of it last September. I say we just take the W.H.O. at their word. ] 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If we can all agree on this stuff, maybe we can hammer out some text that reflects it.] 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re the lobbying thing, the article doesn't claim he's done any actual lobbying - it hews very carefully to the ] available in stating exactly where he's registered as a lobbyist (which can be ] by anyone), and even quotes Milloy's denial that he's ever done any lobbying work. Otherwise, I agree with your points. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We know that he has never been a lobbyist, period. We also know exactly ''why'' he is erroneously listed as a lobbyist. The claim that he is a lobbyist is false, plain and simple. ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding Milloy and the WHO's endorsement of DDT, note that Coburn is credited with a big role in bringing about the change, and Coburn cites Milloy: | |||
| ::::'''Doctor Tom's DDT Victory''' | |||
| ::::''The Wall Street Journal'' | |||
| ::::September 18, 2006 | |||
| ::::An unsung hero in last week's rehabilitation of the pesticide DDT is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a medical doctor and freethinker who makes even fellow Republicans uncomfortable with his habit of speaking unwelcome truths. | |||
| ::::Mr. Coburn serves as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, a perch he used to press international organizations to recommend DDT once again as a way to fight the mosquito-borne diseases that kill millions of people. Last week, the World Health Organization finally put DDT back in its arsenal. "The new WHO position paper on house spraying for malaria control is a revolutionary document," Sen. Coburn applauded. "The junk science and stigma surrounding DDT -- the cheapest and most effective insecticide on the planet -- have finally been jettisoned." '''...''' | |||
| ::::Ending the DDT ban is a victory for human life, sound science, and compassionate conservatism. Bravo, Dr. Coburn. | |||
| ::::''-- | |||
| ::::'''''' | |||
| ::::'''Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High''' | |||
| ::::By Steven Milloy | |||
| ::::Fox News | |||
| ::::July 6, 2006 | |||
| ::::... ] 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So the ''Wall Street Journal'' praised Tom Coburn, and Tom Coburn cites a Milloy essay on his website. Not to be flippant, but a few more degrees of separation and you can ]. I see this as ] in linking Milloy to having an influence on the WHO's policies. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The WSJ didn't just praise Dr. Coburn, it credited him with playing a key role in getting the W.H.O. to reverse its position. Coburn used Milloy's material to make his case. Q.E.D. ] 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here's something that everyone should be able to agree on, I hope. The article needs to include this link: | |||
| ] 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That would be an excellent link for the ] article. But come on - this is the Steven Milloy article. You have yet to provide a source demonstrating that Milloy's opinion on DDT has had any impact on the scientific debate, on the WHO's position. Can we start with a reliable secondary source claiming that Milloy has had any impact deserving of mention (one which doesn't require a multi-step, six-degrees-of-separation, ] "QED" from NCdave)? This is a very simple request. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not an ], MastCell, that's simple, direct, documentary proof that one of the key players in getting the W.H.O. to change its position to make the case for DDT. QED. (Which is not surprising, since DDT was Milloy's original signature issue.) ] 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] states, ''"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."'' Also impermissible is synthesis which ''"introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."'' You're proving A (that the WSJ thinks Coburn's role was important) and B (that Coburn cites Milloy's article on his website) to advance your favored position C (that Milloy had an impact on the WHO's DDT policy. Unless C is somehow, somewhere presented as an argument by an independent, reliable source, it is original synthesis and impermissible. Really, repeating the same arguments is not convincing anyone; if you're unclear on this policy point, consider posting to the ] to get outside input. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If this phrase is removed: ''Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition'' Do you agree with the proposed addition? It is getting hard to keep track of. The second hand smoke section details Milloy's writtings, then states scientific group's current position, couldn't something similar be done here, just with more history discussed due to the "chang in position"? --] 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I can accept that. ] 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Centralizing duplicate discussions and responding at the thread below. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===DDT ban=== | |||
| Regarding the use of the word "ban" (which one editor here wants to call an "alleged ban") I would not object to using, instead of ban, the term used in the WHO press release, which was "phasing out." Can we agree on that? ] 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As long as it's clear that it was a proposed phaseout, never adopted, I don't have a problem with that.] 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, John, it needs to be truthful. This is how the WHO press release begins: | |||
| :::'''Nearly thirty years <u>after phasing out</u> the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT''' and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa. “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. | |||
| :::] 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As has already been pointed out, what was phased out in the 1970s wasn't IRS, it was attempts to eradicate mosquitoes through broad-area spraying. WHO is responding to political pressure from people like Milloy and Coburn by dressing up a small change in policy (more emphasis on IRS) as a big one. This is all covered at length in ]. But this point has been made by plenty of reliable sources, and can be spelt out in the criticism section. ] 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I believe NCdave's proposal on the "phase out" terminology is good. If there is a quote or citation supporting John Quiggin's view as described above, that can be noted. Without one, I believe it would be considered original research to go against WHO's own statements. The only citation (in the DDT article) supporting this view is a blog entry that quotes a letter to the editor which doesn't mention the WHO at all, what other "reliable" sources are there JQ? --] 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The letter to the Lancet mentioned by Tim Lambert (above) makes the point quite clearly. And you don't need OR to show that what was phased out in the 1970s was broad-area spraying, not IRS.] 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Theblog, the blog entry apparently copies the entire letter to Lancet. Now, considering Lancet's recent endorsement of ''junk science'' for use as political propaganda, I wouldn't normally consider a letter to Lancet to be much in the way of evidence. However, the letter-writer, in this case, is a former WHO malaria expert, who left the W.H.O. shortly before they announced their change of position. That means he was probably privy to many of the internal W.H.O. deliberations and debates about DDT. The PAN anti-pesticide extremists suggested that he had left WHO because he disagreed with their change of position. He wrote the letter to Lancet to refute PAN's false suggestion: he has supported DDT use for years, apparently (more evidence that PAN is an unreliable source of information, btw). The other two interesting things about his letter were the references he included, and his claim that W.H.O. hasn't really changed their policies as much as their press release might lead you to believe. The W.H.O., he claimed, has been fighting the anti-DDT folks "for years" to ensure that DDT is available where needed. However, he concedes that the W.H.O. statement does represent a very "promotional" new emphasis on the use of DDT. ] 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The truth is presumably that the malaria folks at the W.H.O. have been divided on DDT use for years. The different "spins" of different W.H.O. officials and former officials are evidence of that. But for the "WHO position" on DDT, we should rely on official WHO documents, not on the personal remarks of single individuals. It is clear, from the WHO documents, that the pro-DDT folks have finally won the day at W.H.O.. ] 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Broad-area?" Where did ''that'' come from, John? What part of '''"Nearly thirty years <u>after phasing out</u> the widespread use of <u>indoor spraying</u> with DDT"''' is unclear? John, are you suggesting that the W.H.O. document is flat-out lying? Everyone pushing for expanded DDT use (W.H.O., Coburn, Milloy, etc.) seem to be talking mainly or exclusively about IRS (indoor use). ] 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If the official WHO website says they changed their position, you do need original research to claim that their policies haven't changed. Assuming the blog post is accurate, then I believe the letter fits the bill, although it would be nice to directly source it. I get nervous about contradicting a solid source (in this case the WHO release) with an unverified blog entry from a former employee. (That blog post is actually different from the one in the DDT article that I was talking about before, which is much weaker IMO) Use the phase out line as on the WHO website and say the newly announced position is subject to some controversy then link to the DDT article section that describes the controversy and leave it at that? There is probably a source that says the who policy change is a bad idea, throw that in the DDT article as well so both sides are covered. This is not the DDT article so we should keep it basic.--] 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I share your concern about citing a blog without double-checking its accuracy. Here's the PubMed ID for the ''Lancet'' letter by Schapira: PMID 17174693. The full text requires you have access to the Lancet online, but having looked at it I can tell you that the letter appears accurately reproduced. It would not be OR to say something along the lines of "...A WHO press release indicated that the WHO had approved the use of limited indoor spraying of DDT for vector control, though several high-ranking WHO officials have since downplayed that message." Or somesuch. But I agree - this is all pointless until we have ''some indication'', from a reliable, independent secondary source, that the WHO's policy decisions have some connection to Milloy. So far we're getting ''Lancet''-bashing but nothing usable. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :re: Lancet -- Agreed that Lancet's black eye w/r/t junk science is irrelevant, since they just published the letter. Schapira was the actual source. | |||
| :re: Milloy's influence on the W.H.O. decision -- The fact that Milloy was vindicated by the W.H.O.'s policy change is the primary point. The extent to which he influenced that change is secondary. | |||
| :re: "say something along the lines of" -- It is not true that "several high-ranking WHO officials" have downplayed the WHO press release. So far we have hearsay evidence from a press release from a very dubious source (PAN) claiming that one (1) W.H.O. official made extemporaneous remarks to the effect that the W.H.O. still wants to end DDT use. We also have a letter from one <u>former</u> W.H.O. official, Schapira, which contradicted PAN's claim, and says that the W.H.O. has been striving for "years" to make DDT available for use against malaria. That same letter also contests another PAN document, which had wrongly suggested that Schapira opposed the W.H.O.'s endorsement of DDT for use "throughout Africa" and wherever malaria is prevalent. It would be very misleading to use wording which suggest unity of opinion by "several" WHO officials when, actually, there are only two sources, and they are in strong <u>dis</u>agreement, and one of them was no longer a WHO official when he wrote his letter (so he obviously couldn't speak for the WHO), and the other claim was not even directly or verifiably from the WHO official that it named. | |||
| :re: "say something along the lines of" -- Why would you write an article which says the WHO had approved "<u>limited</u>" indoor spraying, when what the W.H.O. press release actually endorsed is "<u>widespread</u>" use of DDT "<u>throughout Africa</u>" and wherever DDT is prevalent? How do you get "limited" from "widespread?" That's not even spin, that's complete inversion. | |||
| :We've strayed from the question, however. Some editors here objected to the use of the word "ban," which is the word that Milloy uses and most press reports seem to use. So, seeking consensus, I asked whether we could all agree to substitute "phase out" for "ban," since that is how the W.H.O. put it. Is the answer to ''that'' question "yes, we can say phase-out"? Or, to be perfectly precise, since the ban wasn't total in every country, how about "phase-out of widespread use"? ] 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In the spirit of compromise, and consistent with changing "ban" to "phase-out" in the proposed "DDT Triumph" section, I would also be fine with changing: | |||
| ::''"(before its use was discontinued) DDT..." | |||
| :to: | |||
| ::''"DDT (before its use was <u>largely</u> discontinued)..." | |||
| :Okay? ] 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We still have no reliable, independent source claiming that the WHO's policy is, in any way, shape, or form, a vindication for Steven Milloy. We're going around in circles. I'm not going to take the bait regarding the ''Lancet'', and it's pointless to quibble about phrasing when we haven't even established that anything beyond a simple statement of Milloy's views on DDT belongs in the article at all. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sigh. To everybody else: do you agree with these two changes? (Insert "largely" before "discontinued," and replace "ban" by "phase-out"?) | |||
| :::To MastCell: The new policy which the W.H.O. announced is ''exactly'' what Milloy's been calling for. You don't have to like it, but you know that is true. It is a triumph, a victory, a vindication for Milloy -- all those words are apt. But we don't need to make up a description of the W.H.O.'s position, or find some third party to spin it. Their own press release is sufficiently succinct, so let's just quote it. Agreed? ] 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, this indicates that Milloy rejects the WHO policy. He's calling for a reversal of the 1972 ban on agricultural use, and for the resumption of broad area spraying. As far as I can tell, he's written little or nothing on IRS. ] 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :John, I cannot understand how you can write, "As far as I can tell, 's written little or nothing on IRS." Have you read ''anything'' he has written about DDT? '''Milloy harps on the need for IRS incessantly!''' If you do a Google site search for it on his junkscience.com web site, you find 87(!) hits! '''That's 87 different web pages on junkscience.com which mention indoor spraying with DDT.''' Many of them are reprints of articles that other people have written, but ''all'' of Milloy's mentions of IRS are supportive. In contrast, ff you do a google site search of junkscience.com for broad area spraying you get zero (0) hits. | |||
| :That link you gave points to a good article, but you don't seem to have read it. It doesn't say that Milloy rejects the WHO policy, it doesn't say Milloy wants DDT used in agriculture, and it doesn't say Milloy supports broad area spraying with DDT. It does contain some good info, which ought to give the PAN folks pause, such has: | |||
| ::''"According to WHO, views about DDT have changed in recent years, with the Sierra Club, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, and Environmental Defense (formerly the Environmental Defense Fund, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the '60s and '70s) now endorsing its indoor use." | |||
| :and: | |||
| ::''"In a lot of places, people have a very simple choice... They can either spray DDT, or lose someone to malaria." | |||
| :and: | |||
| ::''"The environmentalists really tout the ban on DDT as their greatest accomplishment," said Milloy. "But it really ranks them among some of the top mass murderers in the world." | |||
| :If you look on Milloy's web site, at the links I've given you, or just by going to junkscience.com and searching for DDT, you'll see that Milloy is focused very heavily on getting DDT used for Indoor Residual Spraying against malaria. There is absolutely nothing there that I've found that promotes DDT use in agriculture. He does say that Carson, Ruckelshaus, et al were wrong about the environmental and health concerns about DDT. But (though, off the top of my head, I can't recall where) I remember reading criticism by Milloy of at least some agricultural use of DDT, not for environmental or health reasons, but because it promoted resistance, and thereby threatened to reduce the effectiveness of DDT against disease vectors. ] 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've read the article, so there's no need to quote it selectively. I've also checked junkscience website. Most of the indoor spraying hits are to external links, not to material written by Milloy. ] 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you've read the article and the junkscience.com articles, then why did you claim that the article indicates that "Milloy rejects the WHO policy," and that Milloy is "calling for a reversal of the 1972 ban on agricultural use," and that Milloy seeks "the resumption of broad area spraying?" None of those statements are true. Why did you write that Milloy has "written little or nothing on IRS?" That's not true, either. It is all over his site. His page says, ''"<u>spraying DDT inside dwellings</u> presents no discernable human or environmental hazard."'' His page says, ''"Part of the reason some one-third of the world's population remains at risk of malarial infection is the appalling indifference of coddled, self-indulgent European consumers with a chemical fetish. So removed now from real-world risk, so pampered by State-funded health care that they obsess over pretend risks, European consumers essentially preclude affordable, effective malarial defence in impoverished regions by threatening desperately needed hard currency flows from agricultural exports from any country that dare use <u>safe and effective DDT in Indoor Residual Spray programs.</u> Most development and aid grants or loans preclude the use of DDT, regardless of health need."'' I could go on and on and on with citations like these. Milloy pounded incessantly on the need for IRS. If you think he hasn't, it just means that you don't read what he writes -- and shouldn't be editing his biography. ] 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How about this? Instead of arguing about how Milloy influenced the WHO decision, and how to describe it,how about simply quoting what the W.H.O. said, and then quoting what Milloy said about that WHO decision? Can we all agree on ''that?'' ] 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In other words, "let's be reasonable and do it ''my'' way." Sorry, no. ] 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please, focus on the article, and not on the editors. What objection do you have to simply ''quoting'' what the WHO said, and then ''quoting'' what Milloy said in response? ] 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is ] jumping in after a weekend away from the ole compruta. In terms of "ban" vs "alleged ban" vs "phase out" I think it's important to not lose sight of who is saying what. There has never been a worldwide ban on DDT use in malaria, so the article should never refer to a DDT ban. I.e., the article shouldn't say something like "Milloy opposes the ban on DDT" since there isn't such a ban. Nor has the WHO has never banned DDT use in IRS either, although I admit if you are only looking at the you might get that impression. So the article shouldn't say things like "Milloy opposes the WHO's ban on DDT" either. Quoting Milloy refering to "bans" is fine, provided that we balance those quotes with accurate info about the legal status of DDT. | |||
| :::I think best way to flesh out a section on Milloy's views on DDT is to simply quote/paraphrase/summarize them, and also include some criticism of his views that is sourced to--or better yet quoted from --reliable third party sources. I think this is our best shot at writing a balanced, ] discussion of his views while avoiding ]. | |||
| :::A long these lines, since we've got no evidence of him influencing the WHO (other than tenuous ]) let's just leave this out. And as I've said before, if we do manage to drag the WHO into the article, let's represent their current position on DDT accurately, which means noting that WHO officials have made conflicting statements. On the one hand we've got the , and on the other Dr Neira's remarks, quoted in this (and corroborated , , and ) and Schapira's letter to the editor of Lancet reproduced (and I've checked the original source and it's accurate.) ] 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem is this: if we juxtapose Milloy's stance with the WHO press release, we're implicitly making a case. We could just as easily juxtapose his stance (support for DDT, environmentalist-bashing, disdain for the many other methods of fighting malaria) with evidence that DDT , that the most successful malaria eradication efforts (in the Panama Canal zone and southeastern US) , that the WHO recognizes that DDT is at best a small part of an overall solution, etc., saying, ''"Milloy's avowed concern for malaria focuses solely on the use of DDT, despite evidence that it is at best a partial and temporary solution to the problem."'' Then run it all under a title saying, "Milloy's use of DDT controversy to attack environmental concerns". That's a synthesis of primary sources that might seem obvious to some; yet I wouldn't propose it, because it violates ]. Same with stacking the sources to create the illusion of a "triumph" or vindication here. The fact that we're going through the contortions to mask the lack of a reliable secondary source is telling. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding that Washington Post article, I thank you, MastCell, for the link. It is a useful article, and would be a useful addition to the references. I note that this author estimates the number of annual deaths due to malaria at 3 million, which is slightly higher than the figure that Milloy uses. However, the author makes a couple of mistakes, such as ignoring the protection conferred by DDT IRS which results from DDT's repellant effects, even on DDT-resistant mosquitoes; and this: ''Spraying DDT on the interior walls of houses -- the form of chemical use advocated as the solution to Africa's malaria problem -- led to the evolution of resistance 40 years ago.'' In fact, most scientists believe that agricultural use, rather than IRS, was the main contributor to DDT resistance. That's why Milloy does not advocate agricultural use of DDT. ] 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding the ban of DDT, the W.H.O. phased it out (their words), and well over 100 countries banned it completely. That's not a uniform, total, worldwide ban. But it is a lot of bans. I proposed using the W.H.O.'s terminology, which is "phase out." That is the question for which I created this section to solicit an answer. So, returning to the topic at hand, can we all agree on that? Or, if not, we could just use the plural: "bans." Nobody can dispute that there were (and are) many DDT bans. ] 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding the position of the W.H.O., there is no ambiguity or inconsistency. Two supposed contradictory sources have been pointed out, but they contradict each other, and neither is from a current W.H.O. official. One of the two (Schapira) is from a former WHO official, who left the WHO shortly before the WHO's announcement. The other is spin from a press release from an extremist organization (PAN) that opposes the WHO's position, and that conveniently claims (but cannot prove) that one (1) WHO official made extemporaneous verbal remarks that were consistent with the PAN position and inconsistent with the WHO position. | |||
| :::::The PAN press release is particularly suspect. In fact, the Schapira letter was prompted by misleading information in the PAN press release! What's more, even if there were reliable evidence of the WHO official's extemporaneous verbal remarks (such as a transcript), the W.H.O. does not determine its official policies via the mechanism of its employees making extemporaneous remarks, on their own, in non-WHO venues, so the question of what (if anything) she actually said is moot. The WHO's position is what the WHO's web site says it is, period. ] 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm also distressed that MastCell keeps trying to "spin" Milloy's and the WHO's words to insert his own POV. For instance: | |||
| :::::* MastCell would have the article say that "WHO recognizes that DDT is at best a small part of an overall solution," when actually the WHO said DDT should have a "major role" int the efforts to combat malaria whereever malaria is prevalent, including "throughout Africa." How on earth can you translate phrases like "major role" and "widespread use" into "at best a small part?" | |||
| :::::* MastCell would have the article report Milloy's ''"disdain for the many other methods of fighting malaria."'' But there's no evidence of such disdain. That's just a gratuitous and unsubstantiated attack on the subject of this biography. | |||
| :::::* MastCell would insert POV-heavy weasel words (''"<u>avowed</u> concern"'') along with false (''"it is at best a... temporary solution"'') and irrelevant (''"it is at best a partial... solution"'') remarks about the science of DDT's use against malaria: ''"Milloy's avowed concern for malaria focuses solely on the use of DDT, despite evidence that it is at best a partial and temporary solution to the problem."'' The truth of the matter is that Milloy focuses on the carnage which has resulted from the bans on DDT, which, in turn, resulted from junk science. That doesn't translate into "disdain" for complementary methods of fighting malaria. Milloy has never suggested that other methods be dropped. Indeed, he praised the W.H.O. when it endorsed the use of three complementary methods, one of which uses no insecticides at all. | |||
| :::::* MastCell proposes a title which imputes uncharitable ulterior motives to Mr. Milloy, without any evidence of such motives: ''"Milloy's use of DDT controversy to attack environmental concerns."'' Such a title would be unfair POV, and inaccurate. The fact that Milloy accuses anti-DDT environmentalists of "genocide" and "junk science" is not evidence that Milloy is motivated by anything other than the millions of innocents who died and the abuse of science. If you could justify a section with that title in this article, then you could equally justify a section in ]'s article entitled, ''"Wiesenthal's use of Holocaust controversy to attack German concerns."'' | |||
| :::::] 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding MastCell's new suggestion that the article report the fact that malaria eradication was successfully accomplished by the USA without the use of DDT, in the Panama Canal zone and the SE USA: I wonder what that has to do with Milloy, since that was long before either DDT or Milloy existed? I also wonder if MastCell knows ''how'' those eradication programs achieved their successes? Does anyone think that the methods which the USA used in those eradication programs should be used again today, in preference to DDT and other insecticides? I won't keep you in suspense: those eradication programs achieved success largely by permanently draining wetlands, and by pouring petroleum slicks onto standing bodies of water. Is that how you think we should fight malaria, MastCell, and are you ''sure'' you want this article about Milloy to advocate those approaches? ] 01:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''The problem is this: if we juxtapose Milloy's stance with the WHO press release, we're implicitly making a case.'' Isn't this exactly what we're doing in the second hand smoking section when we say: ''Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the United States Surgeon General and the World Health Organization as a clear cause of lung cancer and other health problems.'' ?? --] 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::NCdave, please re-read my comments. You're going off on my "proposal" as if it were something I want in the article. In fact, I held it up as an alternate interpretation of the primary sources, which a reasonable person might arrive at, to point up the fundamental problems with ] in your proposed paragraph. My "proposal", like yours, draws on primary sources and synthesizes them in a way which might appear quite logical to some, but is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. My fault - I shouldn't employ such overly complicated rhetorical devices. Forget it - just please re-read my comments, and realize ''I'm not proposing we add that to the article'' - I'm pointing out the reason why ] is a vital part of policy, and why your proposed paragraph violates it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As to Theblog, you make a reasonable point. I'd be fine with removing the sentence on the Surgeon General/WHO findings from the secondhand smoke paragraph - it's covered at the ] article anyway, and you're right, it probably is guiding the reader a little too much. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think, I think its fine as it is, as long as it is consistent, it seems to me to work a bit better with the summaries. I'm not really sold on leaving them out or putting them in, both ways are somewhat unsatisfactory, maybe there is a better way we haven't thought of. --] 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Raymond arritt, do you have constructive input? All I have seen so far is snarkiness on your part while others try to come up with something that is at least a better article. I've reread the input twice now and besides a two minor issues I think it is factually correct and devoid of OR. (I think the word signature is subjective, and a link to the phaseout controversy section of the DDT article is warranted.)--] 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Raymond, we had an ''enormous'' amount of discussion here on the Talk page, trying to hammer out a consensus on the DDT section. I modified it to accomdate numerous objections: I deleted what MastCell thought was ] (though I still disagree with his opinion about that). I removed all mention of "triumph" or "vindication." I changed "ban" to "phaseout." Everything in the section was copiously documented with reliable sources. But how did you respond? You reverted/deleted the whole thing, without so much as even a comment here on the Talk page. What are we to make of that? You are making it very difficult to ] on your part. ] 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I propose the section be readded since Raymond has decided not to reply despite a couple dozen edits since the question was asked, if he truly has issues, then he can post them later. The section doesn't really do anyone any good sitting on the sidelines. --] 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While agree that it's unfortunate that Raymond hasn't yet replied and did not leave any comment here in the first place, I disagree with the proposal to put the section back in. Other than for perhaps Milloy's stated position on DDT, we were far from reaching anything even approximating a consensus on what this section should look like, and much of it is ] and ] as Raymond reminded us in his edit summary when he removed it. I would support inclusion of the just the first paragraph for now while we work on the rest, though I think we should hear from the other editors who have been involved in this before sticking anything in.] 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] summarized my concerns well. There was no point in adding to what was plainly stated in my edit summary. What passes for "discussion" here is for the most part simply determination on the part of Milloy's partisans to wear down other editors (see also ].) Adding bulk to the talk page when there is no true discussion is pointless. ] 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not so, Yilloslime. Before adding the DDT section to the article, '''I deleted <u>everything</u> which had been accused of being ] and ] by anyone,''' even through I strongly disagree with that complaint. I also changed "ban" to "phaseout," even though DDT was banned completely in over 100 countries. W/r/t the WHO's position, I gave up trying to summarize it, and just quoted their own position paper. I also removed all mention of "triumph" or "vindication," though the WHO turnaround was surely both for Milloy. '''Seeking consensus, I did all those things to accommodate the objections of other editors.''' Everything in the section was copiously documented with reliable sources, and thoroughly discussed beforehand here, on the Talk page. '''I bent over backwards to address every objection.''' And what is the result? An '''instant total revert,''' deleting the entire section that covers Milloy's original signature issue, an issue which is touched on by more than ''eighty'' web pages on his junkscience.com web site. In the meantime, often-misleading, POV-charged sections on minutia like a remark he once made about evolution, his service as an AAAS juror, and his erroneous listing as a lobbyist remain in the article. ] 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Please spell out exactly which part of the current edit you believe to be OR or SYN, I do not see it. Also, Raymond Arritt, please stop making false accusations. --] 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Indeed. And for everyone's convenience, here's . Where's the ] or ], Yillowslime & Raymond? ] 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, the compare link makes it kind of hard to read, because of the copious references. So here it is as it appeared in the article, for the 10 minutes that it was there: | |||
| ------ | |||
| ===DDT=== | |||
| For many years, Milloy's signature issue was his long campaign for a reversal of the phaseout of DDT, the use of which he says could save millions of lives in the fight against malaria in Third World nations. In January 2000, he called the DDT ban ''"Junk Science of the Century"'' and ''"genocide by junk science."''<ref name="ddtban1"></ref> ''"Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT,"'' he says, is ''"the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time."''<ref>, October 27, 2005</ref> ], he wrote, ''"misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."''<ref>, July 28, 2000</ref><ref> Uncovering Silent Spring's Deadly Consequences (Competitive Enterprise Institute)</ref><ref>, May 23, 2007</ref> | |||
| Milloy's junkscience.com web site features ''The Malaria Clock''<ref name="malariaclock"></ref>, which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world, most of which he says could have been prevented by the use of DDT. As of June, 2007, the toll stands at more than 94 million dead, 90% of whom are said to have been expectant mothers and children under five years of age. ''"Infanticide on this scale appears without parallel in human history,"'' writes Milloy. ''"This is not ecology. This is not conservation. This is genocide."''<ref name="malariaclock"/> He cites a 1970 ] committee report that (before its use was discontinued) DDT ''"prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."''<ref>, retrieved 19 June, 2007</ref><ref name="bbcbattle">, 4 March, 2004</ref><ref>, 12 June 2007</ref> | |||
| He is strongly critical of EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus' decision to ban DDT in 1972, a decision which overturned the ruling of an EPA administrative law judge who had found that, ''"DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...'' ''not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."'' According to Milloy, the judge was right, and Ruckelshaus was wrong. In support of his conclusions, Milloy cites numerous studies which found that plausible levels of exposure to DDT have no serious adverse effects on Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcon, Brown Pelicans, or other birds.<ref name="ddtfaq">, retrieved 18 June, 2007</ref> | |||
| In September, 2006, the ] announced that, ''"Nearly thirty years after phasing out, the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT... will once again play a major role in'' ''efforts to fight... malaria."''<ref name="who4ddt">, 15 September, 1996</ref><ref>, September 16, 2006</ref> The W.H.O. gave the indoor use of DDT ''"a clean bill of health for controlling malaria,"'' and stated that, ''"Extensive research and testing has... demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans."''<ref>, WHO Roll Back Malaria Partnership, retrieved 27 June, 2007</ref> Milloy applauded the decision, and wrote, ''"It’s a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses,"''<ref>, Thursday, September 21, 2006</ref> He called it ''"great news for developing nations that want to employ the most affordable and effective anti-malarial tool."''<ref>, December 18, 2006</ref> | |||
| ------ | |||
| (In the above I now notice that I accidentally left out the word "largely" which I had proposed here on the Talk page to insert before the word "discontinued.") But where is the ] and ] which Yilloslime and Raymond Arritt accuse me of? Please be specific, gentlemen. ] 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''OR''': | |||
| :*''The Malaria Clock''<ref name="malariaclock"></ref>, which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world. | |||
| ::*says Steven Milloy and ]. If we bring the clock into the mix, let's do it justice and at least quote Milloy's own footnote: <blockquote> Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban. -- Ed.</blockquote> And perhaps other critical sources. | |||
| :*Then there is the problem of the WHO's position which we've been over so I won't waste my time rehashing it here. And also Milloy's interpretation of the 1972 US ban, which NCdave takes at face value, but is debunked here . | |||
| : today.]] 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding the Malaria Clock, are you are suggesting that the description is unclear? It counts, "the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world." Do you think that someone might think it counts the number of cases and deaths which would have been avoided were DDT not banned? Frankly, I very much doubt that. But I have no objection to clarifying the wording. How about this. Instead of, "which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world," we could say, "which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world (most of which Milloy contends could be prevented though the judicious use of DDT)." Would you prefer that? If you really think it is necessary, I don't object to the whole footnote, but it is rather lengthy. We could also note that other sources estimate an even higher death toll than Milloy does (like which gives an estimate 11% higher than Milloy's). But I don't really think that is necessary. | |||
| ::Regarding that leftist blog site which you say "debunks" Milloy's interpretation of the 1972 ban, I don't object to adding references to other viewpoints (like Schapira's letter, and treasure trove of information), but I don't think that nasty leftist blog is a reliable source. | |||
| ::As for the WHO's position, I gave up trying to get agreement on what to say about it, and just quoted the WHO's own position paper / press release. So there's can be no legitimate argument about ''that.'' ] 06:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''<font color=brown>The following was moved here from the new "DDT" section:</font>''' ] 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've added a section on Milloy's DDT claims and a response in the criticism section, trying to avoid OR about Milloy's influence on WHO and similar.] 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You've substituted a stub DDT section that begins with a misleading POV statement for the much more comprehensive and NPOV section we've been discussing at such length here on the Talk page. You start out by saying that the USA banned DDT for "agricultural" use. That is incorrect. DDT was banned completely in the USA, not just for agricultural use. What's more, Milloy's focus has always been on DDT use against malaria, and the lives than can be saved through IRS. The credulous reader of your DDT section would think that he advocates DDT be used again in agriculture, but that is untrue, and I challenge you to find anywhere that he has said that. (BTW, the accusations of dishonest Milloy-bashers don't count.) | |||
| :I googled the junkscience.com web site for mentions of agricultural use of DDT, and found a few, such as this one: | |||
| ::''"Earlier this year , a group of 380 scientists signed an open letter, arguing for the renewed use of DDT inside houses to fight the spread of malaria. As these doctors point out, the standard environmental concerns -- such as eggshell-thinning in raptor birds -- have nothing to do with spraying indoors. In poor, developing countries, small amounts of DDT are sprayed on the inside walls of homes and huts. The DDT mostly repels, rather than kills, the mosquitoes. Tiny amounts of DDT are used compared with the millions of pounds that were once sprayed on agricultural fields in the 1950s and 60s. The environmental consequences, as a result, would be negligible." | |||
| :I found no reference indicating that Milloy recommends resumed use of DDT in agriculture. ] 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Again,''' I ask: ], where is the reference supporting the allegation that Milloy recommends resumed agricultural DDT? That is ''not'' what Milloy says in any article on the junkscience web site that I've been able to find. So what justification do you have for putting that unsourced allegation into the article? ] 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Also, <u>again</u> I ask: where's the WP:OR or WP:SYN''' in the section that '''Raymond Arritt''' deleted? Here's , which deleted the entire DDT section, supposedly because of ] and ]. Yillowslime chimed in and agreed with the action and the supposed reason. But both Raymond and Yilloslime <u>still</u> have for the last week stonewalled the question of ''what'' they say in was WP:OR or WP:SYN. Gentlemen, if you are going to denude the article of important content, allegedly for violating specific Misplaced Pages policies, you need to be willing to justify your accusations. ] 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, after two weeks with no answer, I think it is safe to declare consensus. There is no ] and ] in the proposed DDT section. In the absence of any other criticism, I'm putting it back into the article, with the several modifications recommended here on the talk page incorporated. ] 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==vandalism== | |||
| Raymond Arritt's of the DDT section meets Misplaced Pages's definition of ]: It is '''Blanking''' ("removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus"), and '''Sneaky vandalism''' ("reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages"). | |||
| Raymond, since last year as a vandal, you ''should'' know the rules against vandalism. Please don't let it happen again. ] 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll re-read ] if you read ]. Deal? ] 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. It's not vandalism. False accusations of vandalism are something of a pet peeve of mine. Read the first paragraph of ]: Vandalism is ''"a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."'' Then check out ]: Stubborness. Raymond's not trying to sabotage Misplaced Pages; he just disagrees with you about how to improve Misplaced Pages. Sure, he should have discussed removing the text first, just as you should have waited to see if everyone else's objections had been satisfactorily addressed before adding the section in the first place. Stubborness. Let's get back to dealing with this for what it is: a content dispute. Leave the false accusations of vandalism out of it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Raymond, have <u>you</u> read ]? If so, why do you keep pushing your disdain for Mr. Milloy? ] 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::MastCell, actually, . He removed a large chunk of the article without any discussion on the Talk page, and he reverted a legitimate edit with the intent of hindering the improvement of the article (and there is a ''lot'' of that going on here). Both of those are vandalism, certainly not any "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia." | |||
| :::What's more, I ''did'' address the criticisms of the section before adding it, and I removed the part that y'all (wrongly) insisted was ] or ]. Has there ''ever'' been a section added to this article which was more thoroughly discussed on the Talk page before being added to the article? I doubt it. Nevertheless, Raymond Arritt deleted it all, citing only a complaint that had been raised only about a part of the section that I had already removed! | |||
| :::If you truly think that his "objections" were legitimate cause for that <s>vandalism</s> <u>wholesale deletion</u>, then, ''please,'' answer the question which Theblog asked in the : ''where'' is the supposed WP:SYN and WP:OR that Raymond Arritt and Yillowslime say justified deleting that section of the article? ] 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If Raymond (and he has commented now, above), Yilloslime, and myself are all not yet satisfied that the section doesn't violate policy, then you clearly don't have consensus to re-insert it. I don't see how removing it, under those circumstances, is vandalism or a bad-faith attempt to damage Misplaced Pages. You're mistaking reams of circular discussion for consensus to insert the section. When ] reverted me twice, without comment and without an edit summary, and blanked my polite request for an explanation from his talk page, did you call him out as a "vandal"? No, nor did I - just stubborn. | |||
| ::::I'm happy to keep discussing the section, but don't reach for the "vandalism" bludgeon; it's clearly inappropriate, given Raymond's demonstrated history of contribution to Misplaced Pages and the fact that this is, obviously, a ''content dispute'' over how the article should look, rather than Raymond trying to damage Misplaced Pages and you trying to protect it. If you can't at least get that far, then there's a problem. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since I had already deleted the part of the section that the Milloy-bashers called OR or SYN, and that's the only explanation that Raymond Arritt gave for his total deletion of the section, it is obvious that he didn't care about the reason, he just wanted it gone. That's vandalism. <u>Once again, if anyone here truly thinks that there is OR or SYN in the proposed DDT section ''please identify it!''</u> I obviously can't address a problem if nobody will tell me what it is! ] 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That is the main problem here as I see it, if you say you have a problem with a section, you should then directly and clearly state what parts violate what rules. If you do not respond in a reasonable amount of time (for example if you have dozens of other edits) or if you are not specific, then I think it is fair to repost the deleted section. You must be more specific than "violates OR" go line by line. It is not fair to criticise and delete something then clam up when asked for clarification or details. --] 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, it's fair to repost the deleted section - but if that section is again removed, by people who expressed clear objections less than a day ago on the talk page, then obviously the content dispute is not resolved. So don't run around calling it "vandalism" when it's not. End of story. Stop trying to bludgeon us with false vandalism accusations, and stop cross-posting your false vandalism accusations to Raymond's user talk page (, ). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As for why I say it was vandalism, I quoted the two definitions of types of vandalism which his total delete of the section fits. But I just gave him a warning. I refrained from filing a formal complaint. Hopefully there won't be another offence. | |||
| ::::::::As for the "clear objections" that the section contains WP:OR and WP:SYN, for the umpteenth time I ask, '''what are they?''' The entire section was supposedly deleted for ] and ], with both Raymond Arritt and Yilloslime claiming that it contained those violations. But '''where?''' I notice that even while defending them, you have avoided expressing concurrence with their accusation. I think you know that there was nothing even arguably resembling WP:OR or WP:SYN in that section. I think Raymond Arritt and Yilloslime know it, too. ] 06:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry, some of us are not ] and spend some of our time on Misplaced Pages on subjects other than Steven Milloy. That makes it hard to keep up with 8 different threads, each containing 5 new posts every time I look at this talk page. You're going to have to wait more than 16 hours before declaring you've addressed everyone's concerns and that people are committing "vandalism" by removing your text from the article. I'm not in lockstep with Yilloslime or Raymond, so likely I have not concurred with all of their concerns. Nonetheless, there are still issues with the section, which we can continue working on. As to vandalism: it wasn't, your warning was off-base, and if you're unclear about that feel free to ask at the ] or elsewhere. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Creationism == | |||
| I removed the section, it is inappropriate to include it without a source that first criticised Milloy on the subject. --] 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. It is well sourced and illustrative of his views. Please explain why "it is inappropriate to include it without a source that first criticised Milloy on the subject." And with all the recent controversy over this page, I think it bad ettique for you to excise this previously stable content without first discussing it here on the talk page. ] 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry about the delete without talking, figured it was obvious. This line is OR, no source cited: ''Milloy has been reluctant to criticise creationism.'' The editors are making the claim, hence it is OR. --] 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sourced quote which immediately follows that sentence illustrates Milloy's reluctance to criticize creationism. However, if you think the wording needs to be more neutral, it could be changed to read: ''"Milloy has expressed the following views on creationism..."'' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That sounds accurate enough for me, but I'm wondering why it is notable enough to include, he also doesn't talk about any number of things which aren't in the article, why include this one? The only reason I can think of is because the editors have decided that he should be covering creationism. --] 23:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Creationism is a major issue of controversy as regards science in the US. So Milloy's position is of obvious interest for anyone who wants to assess his claims to be a defender of science. Commenting more generally on this article ], ] and other issues, I've encountered consistent attempts to remove mention of the fact that all of these "controversies" involve the same people and institutions, notably including Milloy, various Washington thinktanks and so on.] 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<I>Creationism is a major issue of controversy as regards science in the US</I> Says who? The catholic church? BTW, evolution is more accurate since neither the Q or the A discuss creationism. --] 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Says ] for one. "In the United States, more so than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in political controversy, in particular over public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state." ] 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thats great, but as noted, the quote question or answer doesn't even discuss creationism, its all about evolution, which he says ''"some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt.”'' I don't still don't see why his views on evolution are particularly notable, unless there is a quote actually referring to his views on creationism or some criticism of him not criticizing creationism (how about a source that includes the word creationism, instead of just adding it in where it isn't), then I don't believe there is a place for a creationism section in this article. --] 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You're right, Theblog. As far as I can see, none of Milloy's work has touched on this topic. There are many other topics that his work ''has'' focused on, which are not mentioned in this article. So what is this section doing here? I think the answer is obvious: the purpose is to denigrate Mr. Milloy. ] 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Surgeon General == | |||
| I removed the section, the source did not directly quote Milloy creating confusion to who actually said what, also Milloy has never been directly employed by PM as far as everyone else seems to know. --] 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe we've been over this before. Milloy's ties to PM are well documented, and his views on the Surgeon General are well sourced and relevant. Please explain why they are not fair game for inclusion in the article. There are other sources, too, like www.junkscience.com where he calls for the abolition of the SG's office e.g. "Get rid of the surgeon general" so if your problem is with the specific source cited, we could easily use another one. ] 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I changed it to be more accurate, a direct quote would be great. --] 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Somehow one of my comments got erased, but if you look at the section source, it references an article by TWO people, its 50/50 if its Milloy going by that source. --] 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've changed it to reference the original article that Milloy and his co-author actually wrote, and to quote something that they actually said in their article, rather than something that someone else said ''about'' their article. ] 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FeloniousMonk has now reverted my correction, without explanation. ] 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mad Cow== | |||
| Mad cow disease gets a mention in the intro, but not in the body of the article. A quick search found this which gives some criticism. When I get time, I'll chase the original. ] 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reference to Surgeon General and WHO== | |||
| The discussion on this seems to have got lost. ] said, and I agreed, that it's inappropriate to present WHO and the Surgeon-General's position as a direct refutation of Milloy, since this could be seen as ]. It would be better to find a ] quoting these authorities in response to Milloy and include it in the criticism section. I'll try to tackle this soon.] 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I somewhat disagree--though maybe this is getting into the difference between what wikipedia ''actually is'' versus what ''I wish it was.'' If someone's views are demonstratably wrong, fly in the face of scientific consensus, or are at least controvesial, then I think the artcile should point this out. It seems very POV to quote the subject's incorrect and/or minority view on a topic and let it stand without adding a note that his/her views/opinions go against the mainstream or, in some cases, the truth. It might be ] to quote say, Milloy's views on ETS, then quote the SG's views, and then say ''ergo Milloy is wrong.'' But simply juxtaposing the views of Milloy and the SG/WHO and leaving it to the reader to form his or own opinion avoids that trap. On the other hand, only quoting Milloy's controversial views and letting them stand w/o any critique or contradictory evidence seems like POV in Milloy's favor, plus doesn't wikipedia have a policy of trying to always represent the scientific consensus? I agree that the best solution, the one that avoids all these traps, is to find a quote from a verifiable reliable source that makes the criticism. But lacking such a quote (or in the meantime while we look for one), it seems far preferable IMHO to cite the SG and leave it at that. Where has my reasoning gone wrong? ] 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == American Petroleum Institute == | |||
| Please, guys, stop adding that false information about Milloy "representing" or lobbying for the the American Petroleum Institute. the in the article to make it easy to find the information. So take advantage of that, and ''click on it,'' please! ] 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As regards the lobbying stuff, I find Milloy's explanation at best a quibble. He was registered as a lobbyist on behalf of particular clients, and pretty clearly produced material used by EOP in their lobbying efforts, but (he says) did not personally lobby any officials. However, there's no need for us to judge whether he's credible or not on this. Just report the fact of his registration and his denial that he was really a lobbyist, without making a judgement either way.] 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, Unless you've got some convincing evidence the senate is way off the mark, you're beating a dead horse. ] 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Good grief! Click on the links!!!''' You obviously don't know what you are looking at. That is the result of a search on the SOPR database for Milloy. '''The significance of the list is that it shows that the EOP Group was the <u>only</u> company that ever registered Milloy as a lobbyist.''' Do you think that the "client" column is Milloy's clients? It isn't. That's not a list of who Milloy lobbied for, it is the list of who the EOP Group lobbied for. Those are EOP Group's clients. Milloy didn't lobby for any of them. Look at the details, if you don't believe me. Click, for example, on the link for FMC Corp. '''If you truly believe that those reports represent lobbying by Milloy, then you must believe that Milloy earned $1.8 million lobbying for FMC Corp. in the last half of 1999!''' Come on, I know you aren't that silly! Do you even believe that ''any'' single lobbyist earned that kind of money in six months? '''That's not a list of who Milloy lobbied for, it is the list of who the EOP Group lobbied for. Milloy sold the EOP Group consulting services, not lobbying.''' The EOP Group registered all their employees and all the consultants they used as lobbyists, because of some lawyer's interpretation of a 1995 law. '''That link (which I put in the article!) shows that Milloy was <u>not</u> a lobbyist, because it corroborates Milloy's statement that he was only registered as a lobbyist by that one firm (EOP Group),''' which registered all their employees and consultants, not just the actual lobbyists.''' ] 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::NCDave is correct, if you click on the links it details why the report is filed, the API ones do not list Milloy as a lobbyist. --] 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nor do any of the others. ] 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Centralizing discussion of the lobbying issue at the thread below. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've moved it back here, including MastCell's comments. ] 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As to the issue of with whom Milloy was registered as a lobbyist, the best solution to a dsipute about the primary source is probably to use a secondary source. See : ''"For years, Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a Washington, DC firm whose clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. The clients for whom Milloy was personally registered included Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council. Both Milloy and the EOP Group claim that he no longer works there, but he was still registered as an EOP lobbyist as recently as the summer of 1999."'' Of course, we also include Milloy's explanation of how he came to be registered as a lobbyist, but that doesn't mean we disregard a number of reliable secondary sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Update: I've removed reference of Milloy being registered with API, as it is not supported by the sources cited, and rephrased the section to more closely agree with our secondary and primary sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Surely you jest, MastCell! You cite a dishonest, Milloy-bashing editorial on a leftist web site as a legitimate source to rebut both the clear and uncontested statement of Mr. Milloy, himself, and the ? The fact is that nobody has found any source which addresses and contests Mr. Milloy's statement. As Theblog pointed out, if you actually ''read'' the lobbyist registration documents, none of them actually report that Milloy was working as a lobbyist. They name many ''other'' individuals who lobbied, but not Milloy. That leftist prwatch.org web site editorial's accusation that Milloy was a registered lobbyist for "Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council" '''is a complete fabrication.''' Lobbyist registrations are public records, and there is no record of Milloy ''ever'' being registered as a lobbyist for either of those two. What's more, we've already seen that EOP Group's lobbyist registration documents for Milloy did <u>not</u> actually name him as one of the people who lobbied. They named many other individuals, but not Milloy. ] 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Replacing the false statement that he was a lobbyist for the API with the equally false statements that he was a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council is no improvement, especially when you add a misleading and completely irrelevant list of the EOP Group's clients, all prior to any mention of the fact that Milloy was never a lobbyist for anyone, and especially when you try to cast doubt on the truthfulness of Milloy's words, when, in fact, there is no legitimate doubt, and nobody has found any source anywhere which has referenced and disputed their accuracy. ] 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The lists Milloy a lobbyist in 1998-2000 for EOP with the ''clients'' (their word, not mine) Crosthwait Terney, Solutia, API, FMC, UWS, Dow, Edison, etc. If you search for all of EOPs lobbying records for that time period, you see that they lobbied on behalf of many other clients. So it's not simply that Milloy worked for EOP and EOP represented those clients and that's why his name shows up with those clients. It is therefore completely in keeping with the source to say (as I did in my edit which was reverted) that ''The United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program lists Milloy as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group for the years 1998-2000, representing the American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade association for the U.S. oil and gas industries, and other associations and corporations.'' If you want to change ''representing'' to ''with clients including'' that's fine, but totally removing any mention of who the system says his clients are is not justified. Note that the text doesn't say that he '''did''' represent API, on that the Senate lobbying system lists him as representing API. | |||
| ::With the preponderance of primary and secondary sources, and careful wording, there is '''no''' reason this info should be excluded.] 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yilloslime, you don't understand . '''Those are EOP Group's lobbying "clients," not Milloy's.''' Milloy had no lobbying clients. Milloy had consulting clients, and EOP Group was one of them. Please, for the umpteenth time, <u>click on the links for each document</u>. That will show you the first page of each filing. '''Note that Milloy's name does not appear on it.''' Then, for each document, click on the little "next" button in the upper left corner, to see subsequent pages. Note that each document lists the individuals who actually lobbied for EOP Group, and '''note that Milloy's name is not among them.''' Look at the sections entitled, '''"18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area."''' Note the names: '''Joseph Hezir, Jan Mares, Jonathan Gledhill, James Rollins, Donald Gessaman, Corey McDaniel, Michael O'Bannon, Kevin Morley, James Downs.''' Note that '''Milloy's name is not listed.''' Milloy is not listed as a lobbyist on any of those documents, for any of EOP Group's clients. | |||
| :::Now, can we ''please'' put this nonsense to bed. Despite the false accusations found on some leftist web sites, the simple fact is that Milloy was not a lobbyist. Period. ] 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''I love it!''' First ] removes the fact that documents show Milloy representing API while at EPO, then ] leaves the edit summary: ''removed line which did not have anything at all to do with being a lobbyist'' to justify removing ''In April 1998 Milloy was part of the "Global Climate Science Team," which was convened by the ] to work out a strategy to influence the media so that it would "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science".<ref name="ucs">{{cite web|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html|title=Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science|date=] ]|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-01-11}}</ref>'' from the same section! Good show gentlemen, good show! ] 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed. NCdave, let's try this: | |||
| *From the SOPR lobbying database, click on the first link that comes up under Milloy's name (entitled "Crosthwait Terney Registration Amendment, 1998"). Click to Page 3. Milloy's name is added to an updated list of registered lobbyists. | |||
| * Go to "American Petroleum Institute Mid-Year Report, 1998." Page 5: People ''no longer'' expected to work as a lobbyist for the API: Steven Milloy. If he is "no longer" registered as a lobbyist for them, then clearly he was, at one point, registered. | |||
| Ergo, Milloy was a registered lobbyist in this database. Not a complex matter at all. But the solution to hair-splitting over interpretation of primary sources is to back them up with a secondary source. That's what PR Watch is. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : First off ''"In April 1998 Milloy was part of the "Global Climate Science Team," which was convened by the American Petroleum Institute to work out a strategy to influence the media so that it would "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science".'' does not mean he is a lobbist, it sounds like he went to a meeting, do you have a source which shows what he lobbied for while in the meeting? | |||
| : Second, Mastcell, If you are going to follow that line of logic, then I believe that NCDave's Milloy quote from the AAAS meeting should be allowed, if he was quoted at the meeting as a judge, then it follows that is true. Its not a complex matter either to make that leap. --] 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? I'm not following the logic here. The point is not that being on that panel is evidence of him lobbying. The point of API stuff is that 1) congressional records have him done as lobbyist for API (direct employer is EOP, of course, not API), and then 2) he shows up on panel of convened by API. The inference you might make, but the article doesn't, since that would violate ], is that he is mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry. Might this have something to do with his global warming denialism? hmmmm.....] 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm removing the "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed" tag from this section since every single sentence is a verified fact linked to a credible source, and the section is worded very carefully to avoid asserting the Milloy lobbied on the hill. Saying, ''The United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program lists Milloy as a registered lobbyist...The guidebook Washington Representatives also listed him as a lobbyist...'' is very different from saying ''Milloy is a registered lobbiest...'' etc. Let's be reasonable or not waste easch other's time.] 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::MastCell wrote, " Milloy's name is <u>added to</u> an updated list of registered lobbyists." But '''MastCell didn't read carefully.''' That's actually a list of people to be added to 8b, which is individuals who are to be <u>removed from</u> the list of employees and lobbyists. That is exactly consistent with what Milloy said: that EOP Group had listed all its employees and consultants, regardless of whether or not they did any lobbying, and he asked that his name be removed. '''None of the lobbying reports from EOP Group list Milloy as someone who lobbied.''' In other words, '''if you guys will bother to actually read the reports carefully''' you'll find that (as usual) Milloy is corroborated and (as usual) the Milloy-bashing environmental extremists lied. '''There is no evidence whatsoever that Milloy was ever a lobbyist,''' and this section is absolutely false. ] 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''There is no evidence whatsoever that Milloy was ever a lobbyist,''' Being officially registered with the US Congress as a lobbyist is pretty good ''prima facie'' evidence. Even if he wasn't a lobbyist in the strict sense of the term, he worked for a lobbying company whose clients interests he promoted while presenting himself as a fearless and independent defender of science. I'm happy that we should report Milloy's explanation, but you don't help yourself with over-the-top claims of this kind.] 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Milloy was registered as a lobbyist. He denies ever lobbying and claims he was listed as a technicality. Both facts, both sourced (with primary and secondary sources). I don't see a problem, outside of the constant spin on the talk page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::MastCell wrote, " Milloy's name is <u>added to</u> an updated list of registered lobbyists." But '''MastCell didn't read carefully.''' That's actually a list of people to be added to 8b, which is individuals who are to be <u>removed from</u> the list of employees and lobbyists. That is exactly consistent with what Milloy said: that EOP Group had listed all its employees and consultants, regardless of whether or not they did any lobbying, and he asked that his name be removed. '''None of the lobbying reports from EOP Group list Milloy as someone who lobbied.''' In other words, '''if you guys will bother to actually read the reports carefully''' you'll find that (as usual) Milloy is corroborated and (as usual) the Milloy-bashing environmental extremists lied. '''There is no evidence whatsoever that Milloy was ever a lobbyist,''' and this section is absolutely false. ] 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I also don't appreciate Yilloslime's false accusations. He wrote, "NCdave removes the fact that documents show Milloy representing API while at EPO." The fact is that '''I was the one who added (not removed)''' the correct link to the documents, and the fact is that '''the documents show that Milloy was <u>not</u> a lobbiest for API (or anyone else).''' | |||
| :::::::As for the Global Climate Science Team, I found an impressively long list of supporters for that organization, and I've not found any evidence that it was actually "convened" by the API. Does anyone have documentation for that claim? | |||
| :::::::What's more, the GCST didn't do lobbying, so Theblog is certainly correct that the reference doesn't belong in the lobbying section. The GCST was promoting truth & opposing junk science in the public global warming debate, so I've moved it to that section, where it fits nicely. | |||
| :::::::Yilloslime, you just recently objected to mentioning the proven fact that one of (according to WHO) the world's leading anti-malaria figures uses Milloy's material to make his case for rehabilitating DDT. You called it WP:SYN. But now you want to draw some sort of hazy inference from the fact that, 1) Milloy sold consulting services to a firm that, 2) did lobbying for various clients one of whom was the API, and 3) Milloy also served in a small API-supported organization that was opposing global warming junk science, and from that you somehow come up with the contention that Milloy was a lobbyist for the API? That's way beyond WP:SYN, that's just ridiculous. You also act as though you thing that the API is in some way disreputable. It isn't. It is a highly respected organization, and serving on a panel that they supported would be a feather in anyone's cap. | |||
| :::::::John Quiggin, the documents that you cite as evidence that he was a lobbyist actually shows just the opposite. It shows that only the EOP Group filed reports listing him, and we know exactly how that happened: they listed ''all'' their employees and consultants. So that is ''not'' evidence that he was a lobbyist. The documents also show that he was ''not'' listed as a lobbyist for or by anyone ''other than'' the EOP Group. We also know that the reports they filed did ''not'' list him as actually doing any lobbying, which shows conclusively that he was not a lobbyist for the EOP Group (which only makes since: they had many trained lobbyists on staff, and Milloy has no special training or expertise as a lobbyist). So if he wasn't a lobbyist for EOP Group (which the documents demonstrate), and he wasn't a lobbyist for anyone else (which the documents also demonstrate), then what does that mean? Do you think it requires WP:SYN to conclude from that that he wasn't a lobbyist for anyone? ] 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Milloy was registered as a lobbyist at one point. That is a fact, and its importance and weight are supported by its discussion in multiple secondary sources. It's not going away. I fully support it being put in context, but you're going way beyond that. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed he was ''registered'' as a lobbyist, which is what I changed to section title to say. What is interesting and needs to be explained in the section (after the title), is that he was ''not'' a lobbyist, ever. Indeed, that is all the salient information which the section needs to convey: that he was registered as a lobbyist by one of his consulting clients, despite never being a lobbyist, and how that odd state of affairs came to be. Anything which casts doubt on those facts makes the section inaccurate. Any allegation or insinuation that he ever represented API or Monsanto or PM or anyone else as a lobbyist makes the section inaccurate. Recitation of his client's clients is likewise irrelevant and deceptive, because he did not lobby for them (nor represent them in any capacity). ] 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The for Milloy's explaination of how he came to be listed in the lobbying directories is clearly not a ]. It is a clearly biased, left wing, self published website with no editorail oversight. '''I demand that Milloy's quote be removed unless someone can corrobate it with a ] ]!''' ] 03:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just kidding. Sort of. But if NCDave can't accept PRWatch, Salon.com, PAN Press releases, SourceWatch, etc as reliable, permissible, secondary sources, then I don't think we should allow some physics student's personal website either. A with the terms ''Milloy lobbyist'' reveals a treasure trove of secondary sources claiming Milloy was a lobbyist. So we've 2 primary sources and several secondary sources that say he's a lobbyist, and one source that totally fails to meet the criteria of ] claiming that he isn't a lobbyist. Are NCdave's arguments and tags wearing a little thin on anyone else? ] 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh my yes. Not to mention the sheer weight of redundant verbiage. ] 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There is no reason to make personal attacks. --] 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, there is no reason to make personal attacks. However, the underlying point is valid and worth discussing. We seem to be at an impasse and we're hearing the same arguments again and again. I'm willing to give ground where I'm mistaken, and some of NCdave's edits have markedly improved the accuracy of the article. These positive contributions, though, are indeed being buried by an absolute resistance to including ''well-sourced, clearly notable'' information which reflects negatively on Milloy. At some point, it does become ], particularly when it's supported by repeating the same arguments endlessly despite the fact that they've been rejected. And soliciting outside input, via a ], becomes a reasonable next step in trying to move forward here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The issue is whether or not this article is to be truthful. We all know that Milloy is not now nor ever has been a lobbyist. To call him a lobbyist in spite of that fact is simply to lie. The "importance and weight" of him having once upon a time been erroneously registered as a lobbyist by one of his ''consulting'' (not lobbying) clients is exactly nil. Milloy is in the business of skewering dishonesty (junk science), and some of the dishonest people whom are embarrassed by that respond by spreading lies about him, such as the false claims that he is a "spokesman" or "lobbyist" for various companies. But Milloy says otherwise, and the documentary evidence supports him (when you actually ''click on the links!''), so there is no reason to doubt his word. | |||
| :::::::I do find it ironic that the same folks who ''don't'' want to admit that he is an attorney and biostatistician, despite his advanced degrees in both fields, and despite seeing vitas that so describe him, nevertheless want to call him a lobbyist, though he has no training as a lobbyist and emphatically denies having ever lobbied for anyone. The obvious reason is that some editors here wish to detract from Milloy's credibility, and the professions of law and biostatistician add to his credibility, and the profession of lobbyist would be perceived to detract from his credibility. | |||
| :::::::In answer to Yilloslime, I don't have a problem with the use of primary documents which are reproduced on left-leaning web sites. So, for example, if Salon (or even PAN!) had a reproduced copy of a lobbyist disclosure form which showed that Milloy had actually done lobbying, then ''that'' would be satisfactory documentation of the claim that he was once a lobbyist. However, I do have a problem with the use of bald, unsupported, accusatory editorial comments found on left-leaning web sites, to trash the character of living person in a Misplaced Pages biography (even if you prefix those accusations by weasel words like "critics claim"). Do you understand the difference, Yilloslime? ] 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| NCdave, this has to be a record for most straw-man arguments in a single post. Let's take them in order: | |||
| # The article ''very clearly'' states that Milloy was ''registered'' as a lobbyist, with certain clients. It stays extremely close to what reliable primary and secondary sources have published. It does not state that he worked as a lobbyist, and it also includes Milloy's denial and inncocent explanation. The "importance and weight" of him being registered as a lobbyist is confirmed by the several secondary sources which expound on it. I know that you see ''"no reason to doubt his word"'' - that's clear - but as reliable secondary sources have amplified on this well-documented registration, it belongs in the article regardless of your opinion (or mine) of Milloy's candor. | |||
| # ''No one'' "doesn't want to admit" that he has degrees in biostats and law. Those facts have been in the article since long before you joined us. What is being objected to is listing "lawyer and biostatistician" ''in the lead'', in the first sentence, in violation of ] (he is not notable in those professions, but as a "junk science" commentator). It's utterly disingenuous to claim we're denying his credentials; we just don't see inserting non-notable professions in the lead sentence as consistent with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. | |||
| # Trashing the sources which criticize Milloy does not erase the fact that there has been notable, well-sourced criticism of his public role. ''Mother Jones'', ''The New Republic'', ''The Guardian'', the ], etc are widely recognized as ] on Misplaced Pages; dismissing them all as "bald, unsupported, accusatory editorial comments found on left-leaning web sites" may accord with a certain worldview, but doesn't alter the fact that the criticism is notable for Misplaced Pages purposes. | |||
| In sum, we seem to be having a problem here; from my perspective, your approach is beginning to seem ]. If we find ourselves repeating the same ground and unable to move forward, then perhaps dispute resolution (e.g. a ]) would be in order. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Again I ask about that claim that the GCST was "convened" by the API. Does anyone have documentation for that claim? Where did it come from? Is it true? ] 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The , a report from the ], states that ''"...in 1998, ExxonMobil helped create a small task force calling itself the "Global Climate Science Team" (GCST)."'' So I've changed the article to state that ExxonMobil, rather than the API, was involved in the GSCT's founding. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So now it wasn't the API, it was ExxonMobil? And to support an encyclopedia entry saying that ExxonMobil created it "in part," all you have is an opinion piece from an extreme environmentalist advocacy group, saying that ExxonMobil "helped" create it? | |||
| :::In the first place '''there was no such thing as ExxonMobil in April, 1998.''' In the second place, an opinion piece from an extreme environmentalist group is not a ''reliable'' source, and even if it were it doesn't even say anything worth noting. ''Everyone'' who was involved in the GCST "helped" create it. Helped how much?? If ExxonMobil contributed only 10% or 5% or 1% of the support, that is "helping," but it certainly isn't worth noting in this article about Milloy. Saying that ExxonMobil "helped" or founded it "in part" is just trying to cover reporting the unknown with ]. What's more, it turns out that if you look at the source cited in the UCS report, it does ''not'' say that ExxonMobil helped create the GCST. Rather, it turns out that ''one'' employee of Exxon (not ExxonMobil) was on a committee of 13. Milloy was also on the committee. There was also one person employed by the API (and at least one meeting took place at a meeting room lent by the API). | |||
| :::Also, the source does not support the Misplaced Pages article's claim that the GCST was created to influence the ''media.'' Rather, it was created to influence the ''public,'' because, | |||
| ::::''"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science...'' ''developed an action plan to inform the American public that science does not support the precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate, thereby providing a climate for the right policy decisions to be made."'' | |||
| :::Obviously, educating the media was part of that, as was (according to their action plan) educating energy industry "senior leadership." But their goal was to educate the public. | |||
| :::I'll correct the article accordingly, to state what is known, and not imply that which is not known. Please do not revert this correction without proper documentation. ] 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is utterly silly. A detailed report by the Union of Concerned Scientists is a reliable source. End of story. Your effort to smear and disparage every source critical of Milloy is completely inappropriate. It's becoming harder and harder to believe that your approach here is anything other than ] in the extreme. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What is silly is calling the UCS a reliable source. They are a left-wing environmentalist outfit, with an axe to grind. What's more, the source cited in their "report" does not substantiate the claim they make, let along the claims that you make. I asked you politely not to revert without finding documentation for the claims in that section, but you reverted anyhow, even after I carefully documented what was misleading about the section, and added the proper source. You reverted the section and deleted the reference. You are making it extraordinarily difficult to assume good faith. | |||
| :::::This paragraph also contains another claim that does not appear to be sourced. It says that Milloy criticized the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment as "debunking itself." I found the article in which Milloy said that, and I will add the reference to the Misplaced Pages article. However, it would be wrong to insert that bare assertion without telling ''how'' Milloy says the report "debunks itself," because doing so just makes Milloy sound shrill, when, actually, he makes a very sound point. So I'll add that, too. ] 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is also rather obviously silly to claim, in the article, that a company which came into existence in 1999 did something in 1998. ] 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FeloniousMonk's revert, which substitutes false information for true - three times! == | |||
| FeloniousMonk has just reverted, without explanation or discussion, the following corrections which I made to the article: | |||
| 1) The article had contained the statement that Milloy and a coauthor had "claimed" that '''"Critics say the the nation could well do without the lecturing and hectoring" associated with the Surgeon-General's role as a spokesperson to the nation on matters of public health.''' | |||
| '''That quote is false.''' Milloy and his coauthor '''never said it.''' The quote actually comes from an entirely different article. That article didn't even claim to be paraphrasing Milloy and his coauthor, it just credited their article as a source. | |||
| So I found the original article, the one which Milloy and his coauthor wrote, and I fixed the Misplaced Pages entry to be factual. I also added a reference to the article. | |||
| Note that I explained my change here, on the Talk page, so that everyone would know why it was necessary. | |||
| But FeloniousMonk apparently didn't bother to read that, or else he didn't care. He just reverted to the false version, without so much as a word on the discussion page. | |||
| 2) The article had contained the false statement (with two slightly varying phrasings) that Milloy represented the American Petroleum Institute as a lobbyist. He didn't. He was never a lobbyist for anyone at all. He didn't represent anyone, as a lobbyist or in any other capacity. He was never listed as a lobyist for the API or any other association or corporation, other than the EOP Group, and we know exactly how that registration came about: he never represented or lobbied for them, either. | |||
| So I fixed the article, to make it factual, and noted the reason in the edit summary, after discussion here on the Talk page. | |||
| But FeloniousMonk apparently didn't bother to read that, or else he didn't care. He just reverted to the false version, without so much as a word on the discussion page. | |||
| 3) Despite the fact that I had noted on the Talk page that Milloy was never registered as a lobbyist for the API, FeloniousMonk also reinserted the false statement that, '''"Milloy is also listed as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade association for the U.S. oil and gas industries."''' I don't know who fabricated that claim (and FeloniousMonk didn't bother to cite a source), but it is a complete falsehood. | |||
| It is really hard to ] when editors behave like this, with such cavalier disregard for truth and accuracy. ] 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've gone with the WSJ version, included by ], on the Surgeon-General. I think NCPA is a reasonable paraphrase, but there's no point in arguing about this when we can just cite the original. The main point, after all is that Milloy wants to abolish the SG job, and this is clearly established. ] 09:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** Note: I've moved the API lobbyist discussion to the preceding section **** ] 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == professions == | |||
| Yilloslime has deleted "lawyer" from Milloy's ever-shrinking list of professions, after someone (else?) previously deleted "biostatistician" from his list of professions. This is old ground, of course, since I've previously documented the fact that he is both a lawyer and a biostatistician. But perhaps Yilloslime forgot. So here it is again: FindLaw reporting on Milloy's law practice, and here's an article which says, '''"Steven Milloy is a <u>biostatistician</u>, <u>lawyer</u>, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com where the motto is: 'All the junk that’s fit to debunk,' as well as CSRWatch.com."'' | |||
| Yilloslime, will you ''please'' stop trying to trash Mr. Milloy in every way you can? Misplaced Pages biographies are not supposed to be hatchet jobs. ] 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :They're not supposed to be hagiographies, either. ] 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's the ]. It's supposed to discuss what he's ''notable'' for. He's notable as a junk science commentator, not as a lawyer, biostatistician, husband, father, volunteer fireman, or whatever. No one is taking away his degrees or accomplishments; they've always been mentioned in this article, as far back as I can remember. What's at issue is NCdave's push to laundry-list his degrees in the lead, which goes against ]: ''"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."'' Notable. If he's notable in any of those other professions, please cite a reliable secondary sources to establish that notability. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::MastCell, he cites those credentials, at least some of the time, in the articles he writes, and he uses them continually. That's who he is. You can't debunk junk science without a very strong background in statistics, and his focus is on the biological/environmental sciences where junk science is most widespread, so being a biostatistician is just exactly the right credential. What's more, much of junk science is used to push legal and public policy agendas, which is where his expertise as a lawyer is just exactly the right credential. The reason it is important to cite those professions is that they are key to establishing his credibility: he has the expertise to do the job. ] 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Raymond Arritt, I shall be sure to guard against the danger of this article becoming a hagiography. The question is, will Mr. Milloy's detractors here cease making it a hatchet job? ] 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The goal of the lead is not to "establish his credibility" (though that appears to be your goal); it's to present, briefly, the reasons that he's notable. Notability is not defined as "how Milloy presents himself." It's defined as the role in which he's been written about by other sources. That role is as a junk science commentator. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I stand corrected. Thank you ] for finally providing some that Milloy practices law. I'm still not convinced that he actually does practice law, or is on the bar somewhere, etc, but the findlaw.com listing is compelling none the less. Having said that, I still agree with ] that it his work as a lawyer (as well as his still unverified work as a biostatistician) are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. But (unless someone comes up with evidence to the contrary) I won't challenge whether he actually practices law anymore. ] 03:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've never challenged the attorney bit, because lots of people act as attorneys without spending time in a courtroom, and being an attorney is not a big deal anyway. A listing in the directory is good enough for a mention, though whether it belongs in the lead is more open to question absent evidence that he has acted as an attorney -- filed suits, motions to produce documents, and the like. Dave, can you find anything? ] 03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::MastCell, the reason he is notable is that he is credible, and the reason he is credible is not just that he is a careful scholar, but also that he is eminently qualified for the work he does, by virtue of his background as a biostatistician and lawyer. If he were just a journalist, as you want him to be listed, he might be qualified to write about someone ''else'' debunking junk science, but he certainly couldn't debunk it himself, and he wouldn't be relied upon by FoxNews, Dr. Coburn, and many others as an expert. He is not known primarily as a writer/journalist, though that is certainly part of what he is known for. Rather, he is known for what he writes ''about:'' his expert debunking of junk science. Most of the junk science he debunks is statistical hokum in the areas of health & environment, which is why he needs to be an expert to debunk it. ] 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Finally providing," Yilloslime? How quickly you forget! This is all old ground. I documented Milloy's biostatistician and lawyer credentials at 17:31 on 21 June 2007 (UTC), right here on this Talk page, including a FindLaw link. Both are critical to understanding who he is, and how he can do the work that he is famous for. IMO, we should also add "consultant" to the list, since that is a big part of his livelihood. But his consulting work is not what he is famous for, and is not essential to understanding how he can do the work he is famous for, so perhaps having "consultant" in the lead isn't essential. But "biostatistician" and (to a lesser degree) "lawyer" are essential to that understanding, so they have to be in the lead. ] 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Raymond Arritt, you've got a lot of chutzpah to demand documentation of <u>anything</u>, before you provide justification for of the section. You've been asked over and over by other editors to justify your characterization of that section as WP:OR & WP:SYN, and you've not even bothered to reply. So before you demand even ''more'' documentation, beyond the more than adequate documentation that I have already provided, of the fact that Milloy is a biostatistician, please tell us just <u>what</u> WP:OR and WP:SYN you believe there was in the section that you deleted. ] 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I do not believe that Milloy's status as an attorney or biostatician is ] enough to meet the requirements of ], and therefore should be removed from the lead. Alternatively, sections about his work as an attorney and his work in biostatistics could be added--this would be another way to satisfy ].<blockquote> In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. '''Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article,''' although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only.</blockquote> Clearly, starting the article with the line ''Steven J. Milloy is a biostatistician'' does not adhere to this guideline.] 01:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ridiculous. Milloy couldn't do the work he does without employing his expertise as a biostatistician and attorney. WP:LEAD says that "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article." Without those essential qualifications, Milloy becomes just another editorialist, which he clearly is not. Please cease your hateful POV-pushing. ] 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Biographical claims == | |||
| I've tagged this section because it is false. It insinuates that Milloy has made a false or questionable claim to be a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards. However, as I've previously pointed out here on the Talk page, we have documentary proof of the fact that he ''was'' a member of that judging panel, participated in the deliberations, and helped select the winner. Out of 22 judges on the panel, Milloy was one of only three whom the AAAS chose to quote in of the winner. | |||
| {{Quotation| | |||
| "He gives the public a a new way of looking at everyday things," commented Steven Milloy of ''FoxNews.com'' | |||
| }} | |||
| (The other two judges quoted in the AAAS announcement were Gary Stix of ''Scientific American,'' and Paul Guinnessy of ''Physics Today.'') | |||
| Subsequently, after the judging was concluded and the winner already announced, Ms. Ginger Pinholster ordered that Milloy's name be deleted from the list of judges, ostensibly because they had an (unknown to Milloy) selection criteria which excluded judges with non-journalistic affiliations. However, as was pointed out by Tom Rosensteil, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, "They can’t have made him a judge and then take it away from him." The fact is that Milloy was one of the judges who helped select the winner. | |||
| BTW, no conflict of interest on Mr. Milloy's part was alleged, and no one at the AAAS has suggested that Mr. Milloy behaved improperly in any way. The implication that he did is false and biased. ] 05:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I believe your interpretation of what happened is correct. --] 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Journalistic ethics == | |||
| I've tagged this section because it is false and viciously POV. It is one big series of falsehoods and misleading innuendo. Let me count the ways: | |||
| '''1.''' The section starts out by saying, "Critics have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, and other companies." | |||
| That's a false allegation prefixed by weasel words. It is true that dishonest critics have said that, but it is also true that prefixing an unproven accusation with weasel words does not make it acceptable for a Misplaced Pages biography. The truth is that there is no evidence from any reliable source that Milloy has ever worked as a paid advocate for anyone at all. | |||
| '''2.''' The section goes on to make the grossly misleading claim that, "Tobacco-industry documents show that Milloy's website content was discussed, reviewed, and revised by a public relations firm hired by RJR Tobacco." | |||
| Let's break that down: | |||
| * Did a PR firm discuss Milloy's web site? Sure. So what? | |||
| * Did a PR firm review Milloy's web site? Sure. So what? (So have we, here!) | |||
| * Did a PR firm revise Milloy's web site? Well, it turns out, not directly. They provided material to him, for him use on his web site at his discretion. But there's nothing wrong with that: he has material on his web site from hundreds of sources. | |||
| The false accusation, which the sentence slyly tries to suggest without quite saying it, is that Milloy's web site wasn't really Milloy's, but was controlled by RJR. That is emphatically false. There is not a speck of evidence to support it. The web site was, at the time, controlled by Milloy, and hosted by Cato. There is no evidence at all to suggest that anyone else had control over any part of it. | |||
| '''3.''' Then the article goes on to breathlessly reveal that Journalist Paul Thacker and The New Republic reported that "Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist" also did independent consulting work for big corporations (horrors!), as if that were any way a black mark against him. Note the weasel words again: "presented... as," implying, without quite saying it, that Milloy was ''not'' an independent journalist. Of course, in fact, he ''is'' an independent journalist, but that's not all he is. He makes no secret of the fact that he also sells consulting services; his "about" page on junkscience.com says: | |||
| {{quotation| | |||
| Mr. Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to food, beverage, and other consumer product businesses and organizations. | |||
| }} | |||
| But just quoting Milloy's own statement about what he does for a living doesn't make it sound like he is doing anything wrong. So, instead, the article cites what the phrasing & placement suggests is an embarrassing revelation: another article, spinning the same information to try to make Milloy look bad. | |||
| : You care to actually ''explain'' your actions? ] (]) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''4.''' Then comes what is perhaps the most outrageous cut of all, "Journalists who take money to write pieces favorable to corporate interests are widely considered to be breaching journalistic ethics." | |||
| ::No, you should. You reverted unreliable sources into a BLP twice. Explain please ] (]) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The citations used by user Big K hex, do not look reliable to me, | |||
| Note the sly phrasing: it is a statement which, taken by itself, is certainly true. But by its placement in this article, it suggests that Milloy has committed that breach of ethics, which is false and possibly defamatory. | |||
| This section is nothing but a blatantly dishonest smear. That is why I tagged it for non-neutrality and factual inaccuracy. ] 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| .. | |||
| :Honestly, trying to do a sentence by sentence parsing of statements of plain facts is not going to get you anywhere. Milloy took large sums of money from PM (who, as you might recall sell addictive products that kill people) and Exxon, either personally or through organizational fronts. Meanwhile he presented himself as an independent journalist. That's unethical, and I'm disappointed (though no longer surprised) that anyone still wants to defend him. ] 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ... | |||
| ::Nonsense. He is a consultant, and sells consulting services. He is also an independent journalist, and sells his articles. He is completely up front about both, and there's absolutely nothing unethical about any of it. It is no more unethical for a journalist and consultant to sell his services to Exxon and PM than to the New York Times and Salon. What is unethical is smearing someone's good name the way this article does, with innuendo and outright lies. ] 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::My opinion, or John's or NCdave's, of Milloy's behavior are not really relevant to the article. The ethics of Milloy's tobacco connection have been questioned by a number of reliable sources. Even Fox News felt it was mildly inappropriate, which is saying something. This isn't going away because NCdave doesn't like it, and repeating the same arguments a dozen times will not make them any more effective. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also, what is wrong user Big K hex in following bold, revert , discuss? in a BLP content you have added was disputed and that is fair enough but all you have done is edit war it back in? Why is that? ] (]) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, the only people who think that Milloy's consulting career is unethical are the junk science purveyors and their acolytes, whose sacred cows he demolishes. You obviously have an axe to grind with the tobacco industry, the oil industry, the pesticide industry, and probably many others. But your grievances against them do not translate into an ethics problem for someone who sells goods or services to those companies. ] 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You forgot to sign O2RR, those sources are nowere near good enough for a BLP, what is worse is BK has edit warred them back in and broken 3r in the process ] (]) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You're persistently missing the point. My opinion of the oil, tobacco, or pesticide industry, or of Milloy's ethics, is not relevant to the article. What is relevant is the notable amount of sourced third-party criticism of Milloy. You keep trying to personalize this by talking about what ''I'' or other "liberal, Milloy-bashing" editors supposedly believe, rather than what the sources document. That's inappropriate, and it's one reason for the tendentious, unproductive nature of the past 400 kb of talk page discussion here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I rv'd; BigK HeX please discuss it here before any further editing per policy. As it stands Mark may have a strong case - most of those look unreliable for a BLP article. Particularly the real climate blog. --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your point perfectly, MastCell. Your point is that you despise Milloy, and you want the article to reflect your viewpoint. The amount of third-party criticism of Milloy is ''not'' relevant, when that criticism takes the form of invention and fantasy. This article is supposed to tell the truth about Milloy's views, without second-guessing his motives and inventing ethical grievances where none legitimately exist. ] 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hmm ... thought I posted this a while ago, but it looks like I an edit conflict might have happened. In any case, the statement of a notable advocacy group that criticizes Milloy by name seems like a pretty good citation for "Milloy receiving criticism", (although the web link would be better if linked to the report proper, as Mark had already been informed). I saw others used when they were merely reporting secondhand quotes of Milloy, which hardly seems contentious. But those uses can be updated. ] (]) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, you don't seem to understand. This article is supposed to describe Milloy in terms that take into account all notable sources. Many notable, reliable sources are critical of Milloy. Therefore, the article reflects them, without giving them ] in relation to other reliable secondary sources. If many reliable secondary sources "second-guess" Milloy's motives, then that should be reflected in the article. To ignore those sources would violate ] and ]. Your constant, relentless efforts to hairsplit and ] rather than content issues are disruptive and tendentious, and you show no signs of changing your methods. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your reverting this disputed content into this BLP is in violation of multiple guidelines and likely policies, if you want to discuss it carry on and if you think these citations are wikipedia reliable then they are disputed and take them to the ] if you like but do not edit war disputed content into a ] ] (]) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Listed at ]. ] (]) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the article is supposed to be truthful. Second-guessing his motives to impugn his character is never acceptable, according to the , which state, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." Milloy is in the business of skewering untruthful people, and it is understandable that they howl. The quantity of howling does not mean that there should be that much howling in the Misplaced Pages article. ] 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :PRWatch agreed. | |||
| ::::I figured you'd raise BLP again in the course of this circular discussion. See the above thread in which I addressed the BLP issue. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Realclimate - possibly (depends on context) | |||
| :UCS - bad call. | |||
| :Someone should give Mark a real hiding for breaking 1RR within a day of him being blocked for much the same. --] (]) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kim my 1R is on CC articles only, do you see a template on this page? Right, job done. None of those sources i removed which were edit warred back in are suitable for a BLP. UCS is an advocacy group and are not a decent source for a BLP ] (]) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Pretty obviously this article has a (probably better-than) tangential relationship to the climate change issue. And, in any case, the UCS is most certainly a decent source to cite for opinions of the UCS. ] (]) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You have to admit, the amount of howling included is pretty impressive, compare Milloy's article to GWB or Al Gore and Milloy's criticism section is just below theirs, while his main article is obviously much shorter, and also includes plenty of criticism not specifically in the criticism section. I would remove his death of critics criticism and the 911 criticism to keep things balanced weight wise better,(I feel they are both not really notable, people's feelings got hurt, not notable) but thats just me and its not high on my list of wants. But the weighting is something to be aware of. --] 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No the ucs is an advocacy group, this is not a reliable source for a BLP, why do you not get this? And have you yet explained why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP? | |||
| :::::"No the ucs is an advocacy group" is kind of funny for an article ''about'' a number of virtual advocacy groups attributed to Steven Milloy in direct opposition to ucs, don't you think?--] (]) 16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Kim''', Mark was not blocked for violating 1RR. That's not what the block log says, and NW specifically denied that it was for 1RR. However, '''Mark''', you can't have it both ways - you can't say that 1RR doesn't apply because this isn't a CC article, then bring an enforcement request to the CC probation.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::These aren't the appropriate comparisons. Look at say, ]. His article is mostly criticism and for the same reason - he's been caught redhanded in unethical behavior. Balance requires that the weight of the article reflect the weight of the evidence, not that every article should contain equal amounts of praise and criticism.] 08:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was informed that this article falls under the probation. However my reverts do not count as reverts as this was an obvious BLP violation. I have finished filing the request, it is now for uninvolved admins to decide ] (]) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == another additional citation == | |||
| :::::::Well, we can certainly see where ''your'' prejudices lie, John. Milloy has not been caught in any unethical behavior. Rather, he is a good and decent man who has made a life's work of identifying and taking to task ''other'' people's unethical behavior, some of which has cost many millions of innocent people their lives. ] 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| what about this one? It doesn't look very ] to me.] (]) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That comment asserts a POV without reference to altering or improving the article in any way. Given the volume of posts here, and the fact that NCdave apparently also wants to unarchive a bunch of other threads to argue about, can you at least make an effort to follow the ]? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : For the ref: <blockquote><nowiki>{{Cite news | |||
| :::::::::Nonsense. It was in reply to a comment which made the defamatory allegation that Milloy has been "caught redhanded in unethical behavior," which is untrue, but which is strongly implied by the current biased and inaccurate article. To improve the article, it is necessary to make it truthful and NPOV, which you and several other editors here are stubbornly resisting. ] 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| | last = Stauber | |||
| | first = John | |||
| | last2 = Rampton | |||
| | first2 = Sheldon | |||
| | title = The Junkyard Dogs of Science | |||
| | newspaper = ] | |||
| | location = Oxford, England | |||
| | publisher = New Internationalist Publications | |||
| | date = July 1999 | |||
| }}</nowiki></blockquote> | |||
| : It might help if you elaborate a bit on how it "looks". ] (]) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Why do you think that? It's a well-established and prominent UK publication (see ]). It's politically slanted, to be sure, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- ] (]) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Archiving active threads == | |||
| :Looks exactly like an opinionated self published editorial to me. It is clearly not a mainstream neutral publication is it? ] (]) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| On 20 June, 2007, MastCell archived numerous "long-inactive threads" (his words), quite a few of which had had activity as recently as 16 June or later. Typing "Ctrl-F" on the archive page and searching for "June 2007" finds eight comments. In each case, the most recent comments were comments that I had made. | |||
| :: Self-published?? It's very unclear where you are getting these charges... ] (]) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Pray tell how it is that you characterize threads which have been updated within the last week (and, in some cases, within less than two days), as "long-inactive," MastCell? ] 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rob, it's not self-published. It's a news report from a mainstream publication. New Internationalist is the largest progressive magazine in the UK (circulation of 75,000). Yes it's opinionated, but most of the UK media is. -- ] (]) 20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Quite simple; the threads were inactive for 3-4 months. The "recent activity" to which you refer consists of you trying to have ] on a 3-month-old thread. As we have more than enough active threads, and these threads were not truly "active", I archived them. Feel free to un-archive them if you feel we do not have enough contentious issues to discuss, though. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't get where you get the "self-published" from, or the "editorial".... It seems to be a focus magazine though, with a clear political stance, and where i have no idea about the reputation for fact-checking or editorial thoroughness. --] (]) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Archiving recently updated threads is contrary to ], which states, '''"you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page."''' Please move those threads back to this Talk page, and in the future please do not archive threads which have had activity within the last month or so, to give everyone time to notice and respond to recent comments. ] 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, it looks like a non neutral site publishing its own peoples articles to me, self published, advocacy, call it what you like it is not a mainstream neutral publication imo. ] (]) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::They were not "current, ongoing discussions." They were discussions which everyone had left for several months, which you then showed up to append a ] to. If you feel strongly that these threads represent active areas of discussion to someone other than yourself, then go ahead and move them back; I won't stand in your way. Don't, however, try to use this as leverage to accuse me of some sort of malfeasance; you've tried numerous angles to discredit editors who don't agree with you, and it reflects badly on you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say it's tenuous; possibly fails for being strongly opinion driven (I pick it up from time to time, articles usually consist of ad-hominems etc). On the other hand I would say they usually get facts right - just put massive spin on them (welcome to the media...). If it were one of the blogs or online columns 100% no. As it was published... possibly ok. But a more neutral source would be ''much'' preferable to my mind. --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As you know perfectly well, I wasn't here months ago. That's why I didn't comment months ago. If you were going to archive inactive discussions, you should not have waited until I added a comment. Once someone has added a comment or question, the discussion is not inactive. Again: please restore those archived threads. ] 04:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the two guys attributed to writing it run another site that BikK Hex added in a citation during the edit war earlier ] (]) 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I've said, I won't object to you restoring them if you feel I've erred, though I stand by my reasons for archiving them in the first place. Trying to insist that ''I'' restore them is simply grandstanding. If it's important to you, then restore them. If you're just trying to leverage the issue to discredit me, which your history here leads me to believe, then it reflects poorly on you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree with ]. ] 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
::::: That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist. ] (]) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing.. ] (]) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I'm not sure, but you seem to be conflating ''political leanings'' and ''distortion''. I'll have to leave you to clarify your objections against this long-running publication. ] (]) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You added it to support this content .. '''When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?''' ... Is this content even noteworthy of reporting, just looks like an insult to me? And the section in the citation article that this content is included in is just a list of insults which I wont bother posting here.] (]) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| As I mentioned above, I don't see it as damage. If you do, however, then I'm not going to argue with you or stop you from restoring the threads. It's become obvious, though, that this is not really about the threads. I won't be responding further to this tactic of yours; restore them or don't, but stop trying to bully and grandstand. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Source reliability depends on three factors; article, publishers and writer. Any of then can undermine reliability. I disagree slightly with rob that them running prwatch and their lack of neutrality entirely affects this new source. ''But'' in light of the fact they also wrote the rejected prwatch material, that this holds similar material and the already tenuous reliability of the New Internationalist combine to undermine the source. Actually reading this article that statement seems out of place anyway. It really needs to be in a section about the way he attacks reports rather than a section on his views on tobacco science. No? --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == reorganization? == | |||
| :::::::::Yep, its just a valueless off the cuff insult type comment that does nothing to inform our readers about anything. ] (]) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I ''really'' don't understand how objections to the prwatch site have any relevance on the RS for the cite to New Internationalist. That'd be like saying "You can't cite Stephen Hawking's claims on some obscure BLOG," and then when the findings are cited to a peer-reviewed journal, to say that "You can't cite the claims from a journal when we already objected to them being in that obscure blog." ] (]) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me like the article could be organized better. Separating the discussion of his views from the critcism of his views seems artificial, and also creates the situation where we end up with duplicate information, since we have to reiterate his views in the criticism section. (Compare §2.3 to §5.4, or §2.5 to §5.7). My proposal is to merge the ''Junkscience'' and ''Criticism'' sections (perhaps under the heading ''Controversial Views''), and discuss any relevant criticism of his views when discussing said view. We could also have section of ''General Criticism'' that could go into his ties with Tobacco, Oil, etc. I imagine the material in the current ''Registration as lobbyist'' could live in this section, along with the API stuff, and any general, non-issue specific or multiple-issue criticisms. §4 and §5.6 could be also merged into a single section. | |||
| ::::::::: As for the placement of the attacks, it might just be better to clarify the section headings, than to try to compartmentalize criticisms, per ]. Might work either way, though this sort of compartmentalization usually fails. ] (]) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The SH example is poor; as an individual he does not fail reliability. In your example the venue is the problem. In this example I would have concerns about the writers and the content. It is critique of a thing the guy said (fair enough) design simply to attack (not so suitable in my mind). That sort of source concerns me --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I think we'd end up with a shorter, more comprehensible article if we took this strategy. Thoughts?] 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The key to reliability is the editorial process that a source has gone through. A peer-reviewed source has gone through the most rigorous editing, so it's regarded as the most reliable. A book, newspaper or magazine has gone through a less rigorous but still substantial editing process. A self-published source has gone through no external editing at all, which is why we generally exclude such sources. The fact that this has been published in a major, mainstream publication gives it a considerably higher level of reliability than the PR Watch website probably has. The fact that it is written by someone who has published material on PR Watch isn't relevant - the question is whether the magazine has placed its editorial seal of approval on it, which it clearly has. -- ] (]) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and it's supported by the ], ] (an essay, not a guideline or policy, however), and . ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: Incorrect; the content of the article and the authors are an important part of it being a reliable source. This is explicitly stated ast ]. True an extremely solid peer-reviewed publisher pretty much removes any issues with authorship. ''But'' this site is highly opinionated; I'd argue that this, combined with the suspect reliability of the author undermines the overall reliability of the source. On a broader note; I'm feeling very uncomfortable with using ad-hominem attacks and articles designed to undermine their subject in BLP articles. I wouldn't consider them overly critical or fair. --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: I am also unconvinced by the claim of mainstream; I have to order it where I live when I want to read a piece - the only place I have seen it directly on sale is in Central London :) --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Maybe your local newsagents don't stock it - mine do. *shrug* But a publication with a circulation of 75,000 is most certainly a significant player in the UK media market. The ], which I'm sure you've heard of and would agree is a mainstream publication, has a circulation of less than a third of the New Internationalist. The NI's circulation is pretty close to that of ]. -- ] (]) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: Honestly; those others are barely mainstream. But that's only my opinion - I shouldn't really have mentioned it sorry --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::The New Internationalist is not a reliable source for a BLP, at least not the one in this article. It is an Op-Ed and as such has no place here ] (]) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree. The problem is not the separation, it is the vicious character assassination, the hateful POV-pushing, the repeated deletion of relevant content that reflects favorably on Mr. Milloy, and the outright dishonesty that is pervasive in this hideous article. Currently, the criticism section is 13x the size of the praise section, and is placed ahead of the praise section, and there's lots of criticism even outside the criticism section, and most of the criticism is ill-founded. What's needed is more honesty and less abuse. | |||
| (od) | |||
| Pr Watch run by the same guys who run source watch, anyone who thinks this is a reliable source for a BLP needs to reread WP policy ] (]) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| A minute with Google finds the quote on Milloy's Junk Science site, and I've therefore used this as the source. A couple of observations | |||
| ::Speaking of honesty, Yilloslime, you could start with an honest answer to this question: '''where's the WP:OR or WP:SYN''' in the DDT section that '''Raymond Arritt''' deleted with your approval? Here's , which deleted the entire DDT section, supposedly because of ] and ]. You, Yillowslime, chimed in and agreed with the action and the supposed reason. But for more than a week both of you have stonewalled the question of ''what'' you say in was WP:OR or WP:SYN. Gentlemen, if you are going to denude the article of important content, allegedly for violating specific Misplaced Pages policies, you need to be willing to justify your accusations. '''Or apologize and restore the deleted content.''' ] 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * For direct quotes attributed to the subject, the initial publication is best. | |||
| :::I actually answered your question about OR/SYN on June 29th. You have yet to comment on several issues, including the evidence that I dug up that corroborates the PAN press release and the fact that the source for Milloy's explanation of how he ended up in the lobbying databases totally fails wikipedia's guidelines for acceptable sources. ] 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The central point about ] is not whether a source is biased, but whether it is reliable as regards factual claims. In this case, what matters is that the quote attributed to Milloy should be accurate and in context. | |||
| :::NCDave, so your argument against reorganization is that sthere are bigger fish to fry--do I understand you correctly?] 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * New Internationalist is generally a reliable source in this sense, and has proved so in this case (the quote is right there on Milloy's site). Editors who have suggested otherwise might want to reconsider their views. | |||
| :::Since you keep dragging this up I'll point out that your proposed edit started with obvious OR/POV "For many years, Milloy's signature issue ..." and got worse from there. 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS for the same reason as Misplaced Pages isn't - it's an encyclopedia. So, if we are using Sourcewatch, we should always go to the citations and not reproduce uncited claims. But that doesn't mean there is something bad about Sourcewatch or its editors, as Mark Nutley seems to think. Most of the time it's pretty accurate. In particular, reading the article on Milloy, there's nothing that looks to be unfair or inaccurate. Some of the details regarding Milloy's role in front organizations like TASSC probably would be regarded as ] here, but it's obvious that this organization (registered address, Milloy's House) is pretty much as described.] (]) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Quiggen; unfortunately there is a BLP problem here; using the original source is synthesis because we are picking a quote he has made about a report and critiquing it (or picking it as something of importance). ''That'' is what must be sourced - not that he said it. The problem here is not whether he wrote what he did but finding a ''reliable'' critique of it. The huge and compounding issue is that the only critique of him writing it is part of pieces written to undermine his character. It seems wildly problematic to repeat the attacks in a neutral BLP. Just because the source ''just'' proves reliable (and barely in my mind) does not automatically mean it is included (for the same reason that is a WP:RS newspaper relates that a subject was questioned over XYZ by the police we would not report it). --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Quiggen, you should not be editing this BLP. The fact that you think sourcewatch can be used in a blp tells me that. ] read it. The source has to be rock solid, the use of primary documents and blogs and advocacy sites in this BLP is insane, i am not surprised to see you here defending them ] (]) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless I'm mistaken, John was saying that Sourcewatch should ''not'' be used ("Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS...") ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Firstly, John Quiggin should probably be commended for coming up with a far less contentious approach for the specific issue of concern here. | |||
| ::::Yilloslime, I'm astonished that you now say that on you answered the question about ''where'' in the DDT section there was any WP:OR and WP:SYN. Here's all of what you wrote on that date which had any bearing on the question I asked, about where was the supposed WP:OR and WP:SYN in the section which Raymond Arritt deleted, an action he has : | |||
| :: Secondly, I've seen your reading of policy and you may not the best authority to lecture others. Seems there are sanctions against you that have prompted others to question the same. ] (]) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''"...much of it is WP:OR and WP:SYN as Raymond reminded us in his edit summary when he removed it. I would support inclusion of the just the first paragraph for now while we work on the rest..." Yilloslime 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you ever going to explain why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP ? JQ sorry i misread your statement, however i know whom you are and believe you should not edit BLP`s of those sceptical of AGW ] (]) 08:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On June 29 you did not identify ''any'' supposed WP:OR or WP:SYN (nor did Raymond Arritt). You just claimed that "much of" was OR and SYN, <u>except for the first paragraph</u>. Now, for the first time, you have identified what you say is a specific instance of OR: my reference to DDT as having been Milloy's "signature issue" -- in <u>in the first paragraph</u>! Note that the first paragraph is the one and only part of the section that you previously indicated did ''not'' have OR/SYN problems. | |||
| ::::It makes sense that mark nutley has been blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 20:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Setting aside the contradiction between what you wrote on 29 June and what you wrote today, '''I am willing to compromise,''' for the sake of consensus. I think the "signature issue" phrase is rather obviously correct, and is just descriptive of the heavy emphasis that Milloy put on that issue. It is not, IMO, WP:OR. However, I do not think it is essential to the article. '''So, seeking consensus, I will not object to removing it.''' In other words, I will change, ''"For many years, Milloy's signature issue was his long campaign for a reversal of the phaseout of DDT..."'' to ''"For many years Milloy has campaigned for a reversal of the phaseout of DDT..."''. I assume that will answer your objection satisfactorily? | |||
| ::::Now that that issue is settled, will you and/or Raymond Arritt '''please identify whatever other examples of OR or SYN you believe contains, or concede that there are no others?''' | |||
| == primary documents == | |||
| ::::However, changing the topic slightly, has severe WP:OR and accuracy problems. The opening phrase characterizes the USA's 1972 ban on DDT as just a ban on agricultural use. That very ] claim is unsupported and untrue. The 1972 ban in the USA was a total ban on ''all'' manufacture, sale and use of DDT (yes, I'm old enough to remember it), and it is still in effect. That same opening phrase that JQ put in the article also implies that Milloy supports a resumption in agricultural use of DDT, which is also untrue. I pointed out these problems JQ a week ago, and have been awaiting a response ever since. | |||
| ::::Claiming that someone holds a position which they do not actually hold, for the purpose of opening them to criticism, is called a ] attack. It is disreputable form of argumentation, and especially egregious in the ]. ] 17:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Are all over this article, ref 18 is another one So is nobody going to remove these? ] (]) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yilloslime, my recollection is that the corroboration you found of PAN's press release about a WHO official's supposed extemporaneous remarks was ''another'' PAN press release. That's not corroboration, that's just repetition. You found nothing at all from the W.H.O. or any other reliable source to indicate that the W.H.O.'s position is not what the W.H.O.'s own position paper / press release says that it is. ] 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That looks like the definition of original research. Is there a secondary source that makes this arguement? ] (]) 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I`ve not looked. I am still finding unreliable sources all over the shop. I`ll look into secondary sources once the junk is out of the way. I am tagging as RS the primary sources i am finding ] (]) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's be clear on what ] says. Primary sources may be acceptable where their content has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, to augment those sources. It seems to me that several reliable secondary sources discuss Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, and cite specific documents linking Milloy to Philip Morris. In that context, it would seem that the actual documents themselves may be acceptable, where they are referenced by secondary sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well please supply the secondary sources which also cover the primary documents ] (]) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per MastCells description, those secondary sources should be in the article already. That's the "''...to augment those sources''" part. Of course MastCell knows as well as anyone that we don't use primary sources ''in place of'' secondary sources in articles where there are reliable secondary sources to be had, as that would only beg the question "''Where are these secondary sources you speak of, I don't see em in the article''". So I would encourage you to look at the article again, the secondary sources must be there like MastCell says, otherwise someone would have removed the primary sources already as being original research, or non notable, or a BLP violation or somesuch commonly used term. ] (]) 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::W/r/t Milloy's non-lobbying, you are simply wrong about the source. Mr. Milloy's explanation, found on a site which is ''critical'' of him, is adequately sourced. No one here has suggested that the quoted email was not genuine, simply because ] tells us that there would be no motive for a ''critic'' of Mr. Milloy to manufacture such a document. What's more, as I've you, the SOPR database strongly supports that explanation. ] 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of whether you're being sarcastic, you are correct in that the existing secondary sources reference the tobacco documents library. extensively references primary documents from the UCSF tobacco library. from the ''Guardian'' similarly uses the documents to illustrate Milloy's work on behalf of Philip Morris. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists () similarly references the tobacco documents in linking Milloy to Philip Morris. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whoops, I see that the unsigned note above, which is indented the same as Yilloslime's note, and which characterized my "signature issue" phrase as WP:OR, '''is not by Yilloslime.''' It is by '''JQ.''' Please accept my apology, Yilloslime, for suggesting that your comments were contradictory. In fact, it is JQ (not you) who contradicted your 29 June note. However, my request for a final list of supposed OR and SYN problems in the proposed DDT section still stands. '''It has been over a week,''' and neither you nor Raymond Arritt have identified ''any'' OR/SYN problems. '''How long must I wait before concluding that you agree that there are none''' to identify? ] 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It would appear that this section is combining several sources together to provide a strong point of view against Milloy. What I find most interesting about this section, and the others, is not that his opinion is faulty, but that his opinion must be faulty because he has received funding from Exxon and/or Phillip Moris. One could make exactly the same argument against Mann and others for receiving funding primarily from government agencies and others favorable to pushing the AGW movement. The question one must ask is this an article to "prove" that Milloy's analysis is biased or is it a neutral presentation of his views? ] (]) 03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ideally, the article is out to honestly and proportionately represent what independent, reliable sources have to say on the subject. It so happens that of the sources currently under discussion, several are quite critical of Milloy. I'd prefer not to use the talk page to argue about whether accepting money from ExxonMobil is "right" or "wrong", and I'd ''really'' prefer that you don't try to open additional fronts in the AGW war if you can help it.<p>I think you're missing the point, though. The critical sources are not focused on Milloy's receipt of money from Philip Morris and ExxonMobil ''per se''. They're focused on the fact that he is presented as an impartial science journalist when in fact he has an undisclosed but highly relevant conflict of interest. People tend to think that crosses an ethical line - for example, in , the ] says of Milloy's corporate ties: "Not disclosing this is wrong." Even Milloy's employer, FoxNews, seems to recognize something amiss - they told Thacker: "Fox News was unaware of Milloy’s connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." In other words, from these sources' perspectives, it's not about taking oil money - it's about failing to disclose a conflict of interest. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It would carry more/some weight if those complaining that Milloy has a conflict of interest were neutral and independent, particularly when it comes to AGW research. It is well known that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money in this day unless you are going to promote a certain point of view. Unfortunately that is just the way it works, and it is not just limited to climate sciences. ] (]) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thanks; I think your personal opinion on the subject has now been amply expressed on this article talk page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Everyone who is neutral agrees that Milloy has a conflict of interest. Only extremely biased people deny it. (Also only extremely biased people claim that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money unless you are going to promote a certain point of view--the claim is not true.) ] (]) 20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think the point here Mastcell is that you inserted some of these primary documents I have also seen that JQ has added junk sources in and WMC used timmy lamberts blog, what has been going on here is a disgrace ] (]) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Is that the point? I made those edits in October 2006, a couple of months into my Misplaced Pages editing career. I don't think I'd make those edits again today. On the other hand, , ] was far more permissive about primary sources; I think (though I don't feel like arguing at length) that my edits were in keeping with the policy as it stood at the time. Both then and now, the primary tobacco-industry documents are amply supported by secondary sources. I don't think that qualifies as a "disgrace", but YMMV. Does anyone feel like getting back to the question of whether secondary sources describe these documents, thus making it potentially appropriate to cite them directly per ]? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The article doesn't say that Milloy's opinion must be faulty ... that's a conclusion that you have apparently inferred from the content. One cannot in good faith make that sort of complaint. ] (]) 20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletions and BLP == | |||
| :I have not edited this article previously, but many other biographical articles are sectioned by e.g. eduction, career, and noteworthy controversies, with critical commentary included in the relevant sections. ] 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at the deletions recently, the only inference I can draw is that, in the view of some editors, any reference to anything Milloy has done constitutes a BLP violation. I can understand why this is, but it's still amusing.] (]) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed -- unlike this article, which consists ''mostly'' of criticism of Mr. Milloy. When attempts are made to add solid, well-documented, NPOV information about his career, they are often ] 17:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the highly critical articles and blog posts you have written about this subject i would ask to not edit this BLP, thanks ] (]) 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mark, this request is inappropriate. --] (]) 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stephan this request is necessary, the articles and blog posts written by JQ are highly critical of this BLP. One if the sources was an article by JQ. This is a clear COI and JQ should recuse himself from editing this BLP ] (]) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually I would back up that request now Mark has pointed this out; JQ has been critical of the subject. I think it is reasonable to ask if he could avoid editing the article - especially considering it is a BLP. Hopefully that is not a judgement on JQ's criticisms (it isn't) etc. but, rather, simple practicality. --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's like complaining that historians have been critical of Hitler. ] (]) 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Since it seems that the vast majority of the criticism of Mr. Milloy is from environmental activists, perhaps we should gather all of it into one section, entitled "criticism from environmental activists" or similar. Sprinkling numerous criticisms of Mr. Milloy throughout the article from what is essentially the same source amounts to pushing the POV of that source, and biasing the article. ] 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, it's fairly defamatory to make all of these bare assertions that JQ is engaged in COI editing, just because he happens to write about the field. Even ] plainly states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." | |||
| :That's an inaccurate summarization. Milloy has been criticized in environmental magazines, ''The New Republic'', ''Mother Jones'', ''The Guardian'', PRWatch, etc. These are hardly "the same source", nor is criticism limited to "environmental activists". Incorporating notable criticism into the article, rather than segregating it in one section, is the approach favored by the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, Jimbo Wales, etc, as I detailed above. Given your zealous efforts to spin, discredit, minimize, or exclude all well-sourced criticism of Steven Milloy, which appears to be ], I feel compelled to wonder whether there's a ] at work here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I suggest ] reconsider these remarks suggesting biased editing, as they are easily construed as ]. More importantly, here, these charges merely serve as useless ad hominems, when we can easily limit discussion to the content and not the contributor. ] (]) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The only reason I would support mark on this is that he mentioned that JQ has a) critiqued this person and b) one of the sources used in the article (I assume it is now removed based on marks language) was written by him. I'd encourage mark to be more explicit in those statements (i.e. link to the source that was used). I think it is reasonable to say that where an editor has been critical about a BLP subject directly in the media may constitute a COI --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: This was a source in this article. JQ`s personal site feel free to peruse the other posts in that link. JQ most certainly has a COI, and looking through the history of this article he has purposefully used suspect sources and biased writing to make milloy look bad ] (]) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: What is your point? ] clearly states, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason." So, trying to harp on just the fact that such sources were used is pretty useless. If you think the sourcing is not reasonable, then we can focus on how you think policy is being violated, instead of trying to build ''ad hominems'' against JQ with it. FYI, ] also clearly directs <blockquote>"Do '''not''' use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.</blockquote> | |||
| :::::: If you truly have an issue with JQ in this regard, the talk page is not the forum for you to try to tear the contributor down, and merely dismiss his edits instead of telling us exactly what policy basis you have for your objections. ] (]) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] ''When editors write to '''promote their own interests''', their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference.'' This is what has happened in this article, there are no ad hom`s about it. If an editor is writing editorials about a subject they should not edit the persons BLP. This was said to richard tol when he wrote about pachauri, not to edit the article. Now if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda (as is shown by his article and blog posts) can edit this article then your cracked. His contributions to it have all been heavily biased to making the subject look bad. He has used suspect sources. He quite simply should not edit here. Not lets move onto actually clearing up the mess certain editors have made of this BLP ] (]) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Re: "''there are no ad hom`s about it''" | |||
| :::::::: FYI: Your statement there is followed by basically nothing ''but'' ad hominem. | |||
| ::::::::* "If an '''editor''' is writing editorials..." | |||
| ::::::::* "an '''editor''' with a clear agenda"' | |||
| :::::::: I don't see actual objection detailed in there, but a ''whole'' lot of noise about the contributor himself. | |||
| :::::::: Also, I may point out the poetic irony in your statement about a person's stances, that "''...if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda ... can edit this article then your''<sub></sub> ''cracked''," given your own declared interests. Were it the case, I'm not sure how one would be able to ] taking such a decisive stand and also still justify the ] for oneself. | |||
| :::::::: In any case, yes ... let's proceed with any specific objections you may have with the article. ] (]) 18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Just to point out that it is not ad-hominem if the issue is related - which in this case it is. Besides what you pointed out isn't ad-hominem - if it ''is'' bad rhetoric then it is just attack, nothing more. Anyway; I'm not going to go as far as mark but I ''will'' say that considering that JQ has been openly critical about Milloy then he has a ] with this article. And on that premise, coupled with the fact it is a contentious BLP and therefore problematic it seems reasonable to ask he limits his contribution to the article. He may choose to ignore that - which is fine by me. On the other hand we could stop the barging and ''go back to discussing JN's contributions below - some of the sources he posted look pretty good for shoring up that part of the article! --'''Errant''' <small>]<sup>(])</sup></small> 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :(Coming here from the RSN discussion) I fully endorse the deletion of the sources discussed at RSN per BLP policy and would advise editors to stop edit-warring to add such sources to this BLP. We do not use activists' press releases and other self-published sources as BLP sources (see ], ], ], etc.). | |||
| :However, there is no dearth of BLP-compatible sources referring to Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies. I believe ] article, which comments on Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies, would be a suitable source. It directly references the UCS report. This is how such reports find entry into BLPs: through the filter of secondary sources. When press articles have been written about it, '''then''' we have a basis for including it in a BLP. is another press article in the '']'' that will pass muster under ]. another source that I think could be used without falling foul of BLP concerns. Here is a commenting on Milloy's involvement with ExxonMobil. Both the review and the book, which likely contains further information, are unequivocally suitable sources for this BLP. | |||
| :'''Please, please do <u>not</u> go to activists' press releases and self-published websites when you are editing biographies of living persons'''. It is not compatible with BLP policy. Instead, check the and to see whether there are reliable third-party sources commenting on the matter. If there are, ''those'' are the sources that should be cited; if there aren't any, then the matter does not deserve to be added to the biography. Thank you. --''']]''' 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: To cite a book found in google books, you can use webcitation tool. It makes the job a lot easier. --''']]''' 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Let's be honest here, guys. Mark Nutley's relationship with Milloy is the mirror image of mine (and the same is true, I'm sure of quite a few others). Neither of us (I assume) has any personal relationship with him or any conflict of interest (in the sense in which COI is usually used, outside Misplaced Pages). On the other hand, he is an opponent of mine, and an ally of Mark Nutley's in a bunch of debates over science and the environment. In this case, the facts are pretty clear, and the only option available to Mark is to try to keep them out of the article by whatever means possible.] (]) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{cn}} there john ] (]) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: happy to oblige ] (]) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fail to see how my incredibly accurate post about what the usual suspects would do to an article has any bearing here, were is your source to back the assertion that i consider milloy an ally? Better try and find a post by me praising him, which you won`t, as i think milloy is actually full of it ] (]) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And John, stop removing RS tags from primary sources. Either find reliable secondary sources to support them or they shall have to go ] (]) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Mark, are you actually looking at the sourcing in the article, or simply tagging things and demanding others do the legwork? The Free Enterprise Action Fund press releases are a) not primary sources, and b) covered by an independent secondary source cited in the same paragraph (). Please remove those tags. The Philip Morris memos on using TASSC as a tool to influence legislative decisions is cited by {{PMID|11684593}}, . Please remove that tag as well. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to withdraw from editing this article now. I think Mark Nutley should do likewise.] (]) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Mastcell, i am tagging things only. I am not allowed to add content to a BLP per my sanctions. John, you have a deal, i will also recuse from editing this BLP ] (]) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, a good thing all round, I think] (]) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| ::Responding to NCdave's posts down here. JQ is right: the 1972 ban was only for agricultural use. Production in the US continued for foreign markets until 1985 . I belive that public health use was exempted by the US ban as well, though it was never actually needed or used for that purpose after 1972. My corroboration of the PAN PR is , , , and I gave this info several times above, MAstCell commented on it, and then TimLambert provided as well. I'm surprised you missed that discussion. And you still seem have missed my OR/SYN post from the 29th. It's . ] 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| Returning to the topic of reorganization - I believe Yilloslime is correct that a great deal of the views/criticism/praise/responses can be melded into a "controversial views" section. The lobbying, corporate activism, AAAS judging claims and responses should probably go into a more biographical section. This should probably also include a description of Milloy's work at FoxNews and TASSC. Also, I'll put in his published books, as that should be included in the article. Thanks, ] 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| == Biographical claims section == | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106043720/http://junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928192547/http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm to http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| Regarding the recent edits to the AAAS judging controversy: the reasons I removed the "selective quotations" are severalfold. First, Rosensteil's quote was being (mis)used "in defense" of Milloy, when the context in the article was clearly completely different (Rosensteil was taking the AAAS to task for not sufficiently vetting Milloy before offering him the judging gig). Secondly, if we're going to quote from the article, the quotes should be representative of what the article actually says (hence "selective quotation"). There are a number of quotes from academics and journalists which are quite critical of Milloy in that article - if we're going to use quotes, they should not be cherry-picked to provide a favorable impression when the article itself does no such thing. ] does ''not'' mandate that we manufacture "supportive" evidence to balance out criticism. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree completely. --] 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why take out the information that he was originally quoted as a judge then? I don't think this section is giving him his fair shake, if you read the Thatcher article carefully, you will see that it never directly disputes that he was a judge. No one disputes he was a judge. This is because he was one, and then at some point it was discovered he shouldn't be, so either he was removed or he removed himself- it doesn't matter how it happened. If this was during, or after the competition is up for debate, but since he showed up (and collected his free lunch), was quoted and they indicate they didn't take any of his thoughts into consideration in choosing the winner, it is certain. I read the Rosensteil quote differently than you do. Regardless, something is being made out of nothing by Thatcher and then made worse by the Misplaced Pages summaries which condense and leaving out further details and I don't think its in keeping to BLP to present it as it has been. --] 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| :::It appears, from the sources, that Milloy was invited by the AAAS to be a judge. After Milloy informed the AAAS of his position with Cato, his input was disregarded and his name and comments removed from the AAAS website. The AAAS seemed mildly embarrassed about the whole thing and was taken to task in Thacker's articles for not properly vetting Milloy. It reflects on Milloy only to the point that his website ''continues'' to claim he was a judge, when according to Thacker and the AAAS he did not serve as a judge. I'm open to rewording so as not to cast unfair light on Milloy or anyone else, but I think the current section already reflects these verifiable facts. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Theblog, i didn't take anything out - i added a citation. --] 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: MastCell, where do you read that he never served as a judge? --] 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::::From the . Thacker on the AAAS representative: ''"She aggressively questioned my credentials as a journalist, and stated again that Milloy had not been a judge."'' <s>That's why we cite 'em.</s> ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :::::: I see the confusion, there is two versions, I thought they were both the same, if you read the first part ''"According to AAAS spokesperson Ginger Pinholster, Milloy was invited to be a judge but quickly notified the other panelists that he had conflicts of interest due to his affiliation with the Cato Institute, another libertarian think tank. “It was just kind of a snafu, and he had a nice lunch on us,” she said in a phone message. “We’ve already dealt with it. This is a sponsored, nonprofit program, and I just want it to go away.”"'' she never actually states that he wasn't a judge. | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:4|one external link|4 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| :::::: The two articles also explains the framing of this quote ''"“They can’t have made him a judge and then take it away from him,” says Tom Rosensteil, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, adding that AAAS must not have done its homework."'' is different in the non pdf one. --] 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061203112904/http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html to http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609102545/http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html to http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050123004011/http://sopr.senate.gov:80/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL== to http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL== | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060308231250/http://business.bostonherald.com:80/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681 to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681 | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| <--- I'm not quite sure I understand what TheBlog is saying--are you happy that this section accurately reflects what the sources acutally say, or do you think the quotes are taken out of context. Assuming it's later and we've got this settled now, I'd like to make a radical proposal: ''We should eliminate the second paragraph ("The AAAS drew criticism...) or at least the second sentence of it, which is now entirely criticism of AAAS and irrelevant to an article on Milloy.'' ] 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| :I am fine with removing this sentence: ''"The AAAS drew criticism for initially including Milloy on the judging panel; Sheldon Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said that "...for AAAS to have someone participating on their science journalism panel whose fundamental job is spreading anti-science and confusion... it’s just stunning."'' The other one I think should stay. --] 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::So we're in agreement that we have a verifiable source (the AAAS spokeswoman, quoted by Thacker) stating that Milloy was not a judge. As to the quotes, I'd be OK with removing the entire second paragraph. I'm not really OK with just removing the Glantz quote, again because I think it gives a mistaken impression of the source. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| ::: Then I believe we should leave the whole second paragraph in, I think removing the whole thing does more harm than leaving the whole thing in. --] 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| == demanddebate.com == | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| Does count as a ], ] source for Milloy running demanddemand.com? It's a National Review Online blog post by none other than ]'s Iain Murray. It is a blog, but by the same reasoning that we've accepted as a source for his explanation of why he turns up in lobbying records, I think we can maybe accept this a source for his involvement with demanddebate. Why would CEI lie about this? And let's not forget that he . Thoughts? ] 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511210047/http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm to http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| : I believe its fine to use that as a source for that material. If it was in any way controversial I would say no though. --] 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| ::OK with me. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, the cat is out of the bag. Check out this , which says, "''DemandDebate’s activities were coordinated by author, columnist and professional debunker of junk science, Steven Milloy. “DemandDebate educates and empowers parents and students about bias in environmental education,” said Milloy.''" I've already updated the main article.] 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::Interesting that even the CEI describes him as a junk science commentator, but not as a lawyer, biostatistician, etc etc. (in reference to an earlier interminable discussion). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::Erm - i'd remove it again from the page because that text neither says that Milloy is running or owning the site (try reading it again). Some better reference is needed please. Otherwise its still pure speculation based upon whois - which isn't a reliable indication. All we can say is that Milloy has fronted the domain registration. --] 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note: I do not have any interest invested here. And i have no idea whether or not Milloy is really running demanddebate.com or not (i suspect he does) - but BLP and V demands that you document this please. --] 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 9 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| ::::The article doesn't say that he "owns" it, only that he "operates" it. The cited sources decribe Milloy as the "boss" of demanddebate or as having "coordinated" its activities, and the now-not-cited whois query lists Milloy as the organizational contact. To me that adds up to "operating" it. If you want to change the article so that description of his association with demanddebate.com uses the actual words used in the sources, that's fine, but I don't think totally removing all references to his association with demanddebate.com is justified. ] 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522051743/http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF to http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF | |||
| :::::Yilloslime, no the article does in fact ''not'' say that Milloy runs/coordinates it. It says that he has coordinated ''one'' action that was being promoted by demanddebate. As said i'm contact for a few websites, that are my customers - despite having nothing more to do with them than freelance work. And i have a couple of pals running websites that they do not want their names on, that are either running sites via strawmen (fronts) or via postoffice boxes. Whois.com is indicative - but nothing more. I had hoped that someone could find a real reference for this - if not it should be deleted per ] - the first question to ask here is: Why is Milloy not upfront about this? Could there be some reason that we cannot deduct? So verifiability please. --] 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103071613/http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm to http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm | |||
| :::::We need to document this. | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082118/http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html to http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184936/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125080948/http://junkscience.com/decem98.html to http://www.junkscience.com/decem98.html | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2045655935_5937_0.PDF | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704050040/http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185012/http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html to http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184419/http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003204/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| I agree that the whois, by itself, is not indicative. But what about the CEI and national review sources? What if we revised the article to say that Milloy is "involved with" demanddebate. ] 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Involved is good. But we still need to document this by more than the CEI about ''one'' action. WP is already being cited as the primary source in the blogosphere for this information - which is ''not'' acceptable by the rules. The whole demanddebate.com thing here could blow up (both for WP and Milloy)- so please be carefull. --] 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (ie. the plane stunt at the live earth concert is sufficiently good political stuff - that the blogosphere talk right now - could escalate into full articles in large news media - if our information is then shown as being wrong.....) --] 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| ::I have to agree with Kim here. I think we need to be careful, both related to our own policies (]) and the potential for an echo-chamber effect. We can say that demanddebate's activities at Live Earth were ''coordinated'' by Milloy, according to a CEI press release. Beyond that, I think we should err on the side of caution. It also raises questions of notability - is the Live Earth disruption being covered by the Real Media? If not, then a) it's borderline in terms of notability, and b) we're providing free publicity, which I'm not excited about. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::It looks like Reuters ran a story mentioning the demanddebate banner at Live Earth, and at the picked it up, so the story is in the main stream media, but it's certianly not making headlines. But I see your point about notability, and I'm starting to come around. The ] is probably not the best place for the demanddebate stuff to live in the article. At the same time though, it doesn't really fit into any other section of the article, and creating a new '''Demanddebate.com''' section might give it ]. One way or another, I still think the material deserves to stay, though I'm very open to rewording it so that the article reflects the sourcesas accurately as possible. We could say something like "According the Competetive Enterprise Institute, Milloy is the "boss" of Demand Debate, a group that contends XYZ. Milloy "coordinated" having a plane fly over bla bla bla." Then we cite the sources. Going on and on like this, however, might give this whole matter undue weight. A concise one sentence summary would be best. I agree that "owns" and/or "operates" aren't the best descriptors, but I'm not enamored with "involved with" either. ] 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No you can't say: He is the "boss" - because thats not what the CEI is saying (unless i'm missing something) - you have to stick with what is verifiable. Something like: According to the CEI Milloy coordinated an event by Demanddebate.com .... Would be correct and verifiable. Stick to what you can find direct reliable sources for. --] 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The "boss" thing is from the by Milloy's CEI collegue Ian Murray: "Anyway, the event was also crashed by Bureaucrash and DemandDebate.com, whose boss Steve Milloy writes..." ] 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, I went back and reread the thread, and I think I see what you mean. The "boss" thing: the source is the National Review Online post, authored is a CEI Senior Fellow. So, I'm actually not sure what's most accurate, saying "according to CEI" or "according to the NRO"... But there is probably a way to word this that avoids this all together. ] 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Doesn't matter since the NRO source is out - per ] (its a blog). But its the closest thing i've seen towards a direct link. --] 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure it's out per ]. It is a blog, yes, but not all blogs are created equal. This is a National Review Online blog--they don't give just anyone a blog. It's not the same as a blogspot.com blog, or a personal homepage or anything like that. Furthermore, it'd be one thing if it were a left wing blog and we were quoting some anti-Milloy material from it. But in fact it's a right-wing blog, and the author is collegue of Milloy, and he's painting Milloy in a favorable light. Whereas we'd have ample reason to be distrustful of this info if it were from lefty blog, we have no such reason be distrustful of this source. ''And that's the best and last arguement I'll make about the suitability of the NRO source. If its not convincing to you and othes, then I'll let it drop.'' I will, however, point out that if NRO doesn't fly as a source per ] then there is absolutely no way that for ] flies either. ] 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The reason to dismiss the blog is rather simple (]): 1) Person writing blog must be an expert on the subject. 2) The information '''must''' have been previously published by other sources. 3) Never use blogs as 3rd party sources about living persons. This information fails all three. This is a potential political quagmire - and i see no reason what so ever to waive the rules - and plenty to enforce them. | |||
| ::::::::Further rationale: The reason that blogs are a problem, is that there is no editorial oversight. So there is no check for incorrect information. All blogs are not created equal - correct - thats the reason for the exceptions to ] rules - and this information fails all allowances for exception. --] 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Dumb Venus tweet == | |||
| ::::::: If you consider WP:BLP do no harm, you can justify leaving in the lobbying one and out the demanddebate one. I think they both should be included however. --] 04:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Milloy's tweet about Venus was dumb. Putting it in Misplaced Pages is dumber. The tweet was merely a childish taunt about the word "existential." Milloy trolled the Congressperson, making sport of his language "''existential threat to the future of the planet.''" Milloy wrote "''the atmosphere Venus is 96.5% CO2 -- and the planet is still there.''" | |||
| ::::::::The plot thickens: Steve's buddy Anyway I've rearranged and reworded this stuff, let me know what you think.] 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In other words, ''Venus exists. So there! Nyah!'' | |||
| No doubt the communicative intent of this tweet was climate change denial. But as an example of Milloy's climate denialism, it illustrates very little. | |||
| == Remove Chafee criticism? == | |||
| In fact, the addition to this article was inaccurate, viz: {{tq|tweet criticizing the scientific consensus on the harmful effects of carbon dioxide on the earth's climate, specifically as referenced by Oregon congressman Peter DeFazio, claiming that the exponentially higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is proof that carbon dioxide is safe.}} No. The tweet was a childish taunt about the word "existential." | |||
| I believe the following should be removed: ''"Following the death of Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) in 1999, Milloy highlighted Chafee's death as the "Obituary of the Day", writing: "Unfortunately, Sen. Chafee too often acted like a Democrat on environmental and regulatory reform issues. The good news is his replacement as Committee chairman will be Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who has shown courage in opposing the Kyoto protocol and the EPA air quality proposals.""'' | |||
| Save this for the encyclopedia of meaningless twitter spats. The following example in the article, where Milloy rushed to misinterpret some NOAA published data, is much more illustrative. -- ] (]) 00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| First off, its in the criticism section, yet no one is criticizing it but Misplaced Pages editors, the only link goes to his web site. Also I believe his rudeness isn't really notable with so much other stuff going on in the article. --] 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. This was a well-sourced story. Do you think deleting it from wikipedia means it didn't happen? When I first added this several years ago, it was deleted by the user Peter Gulutzan, at whose history a very brief glance reveals is a climate change denying hack whose body of work on this site seems to be a committment to removing evidence of the excesses of scientists who reject the consensus in their fields. When I realized that, I added it back, with additional sources. It was then removed with a request to add "evidence that Venus is hot" with which I complied. I'm very confused by the parade of people trying to keep this off this page. I'll be re-adding unless I can get a more substantive removal reason than you don't like the vibes. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It's probably there because it follows on from with the Rall obit of the day material. I think the Chafee material should be in the article somewhere because it provides a political context for Milloy's views, though as you say they don't strictly fit with the "criticism" section. ] 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A lot of twitter spats get publicity. That doesn't make them meaningful. The Daily Kos post you reference makes no claim about the tweet except that it is extremely stupid. The Indy100 article adds a little more about the insanity of referring to Venus as a comparison, but that article leads with and correctly characterizes Milloy's tweet, mostly noting its juvenile stupidity. | |||
| ::What is "well-sourced" is that it was a dumb tweet. Period. | |||
| ::This isn't about climate change, this is about Milloy trolling the other team with a really dumb tweet. | |||
| ::There are plenty of examples that Milloy is a climate change denier. If you add more that could be fine. Breathlessly covering meaningless twitter spats is ''not'' what makes Misplaced Pages a valuable reference work. -- ] (]) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with ], there is no need to include Milloy´s tweet/nonsense in this article. ] (]) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, it's there because he ''was'' criticized for his reaction to Chafee's death, in which mentioned his reaction to Rall's death. There is actually a secondary source providing some weight to his mention of Chafee. However, I think in general we should be merging the "criticism" into the main article, as per the previous thread. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:21, 16 November 2024
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Steven Milloy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 Archives |
globalwarming.org
I propose the new opening sentence:
Steven J. Milloy is the "Junk Science" commentator for FoxNews.com and runs the Web sites junkscience.com and globalwarming.org, which are dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis."
I'm not 100% sure that it's correct to say that Milloy "runs" this site as well. It's run by Competitive_Enterprise_Institute, of which Milloy is a staff member, although Myron Ebell is supposed to be their "climate change" guy. Either way, Milloy has lots of stuff on globalwarming.org and sure seems to be the primary actor. Please post opinions. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure globalwarming.org was a CEI property before Milloy got the push from Cato. By contrast, junkscience.com is definitely his baby, and I think the same is true for demanddebate.orgJQ (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Steven Milloy
"Milloy has labeled specific studies junk science, such as two papers published in Science that were later retracted"
The problem with this is that it implies they were retracted due to Milloy or the reasons he gave. And Fox is hardly the most reliable of sources. Have Nature talked about this incident?
"but more generally he applies the term to climate change and certain health controversies including those detailed in the sections below"
I don't like the wording of this part, it's slightly too verbose. It's pretty obvious that the controversies below are his. This sounds like an undergraduate trying to fill a certain number of essay pages... I don't think we really need it.
And is it fair to say "Junk Science" was popularised by Milloy? Reading the article, he isn't really a center figure. yandman 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm 100% fine removing any reference to the Science papers that were retracted. As I recall, someone long ago edit warred over including a reference to that Foxnews article, but I've never been convinced it was pertinent. And I don't think Milloy called them junk science before they were retracted, and we certainly shouldn't imply that he did. He's just flaming Donald Kennedy (who he mistakenly calls David Kennedy) in that FoxNews.com article presumably b/c Kennedy, Science, and AAAS had been highly critical of the Bush admin, OMB, and climate change denialists. So I think he's trying to make Kennedy look bad by publicizing some retractions in his journal.
- I do think, however, that before the paragraph criticizing Milloy's use of the term, there needs to be an NPOV description of how Milloy uses the term--we can't just jump right in with criticism. I freely admit that what I wrote is not the best, and if you or someone else can do a better job, please do. And I do think it's fair to say he popularized, or at least helped popularize, the term in the American media. I don't have references off hand, but later tonight I can try to find one. Actually the C&EN editorial hints at this, calling junkscience the "best known" example of the right-wing antiscience movement. Yilloslime (t) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. yandman 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just excised the Science bit and some excess verbosity, and the result isn't as non-NPOV as I thought it might be. Still, I think it probably needs work. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with... Yilloslime (t) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. yandman 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding his education: It is not possible to get a masters in biostatistics from Johns Hopkins. They only offer a "generic" masters in public health. This should be edited since it is misleading to label him as having expertise in biostatistics when he clearly does not have any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.231.137 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The anon above was wrong, you can get a masters in biostats from JH mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for nailing this down.JQ (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Milloy has never published any peer-reviewed papers on any of the scientific matters he criticizes. I worry that people see him as an "expert", when he really has no expertise or academic training in any of the fields he writes about. Runjmb (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I just read one of Steven Milloy's opinion articles originating from the junkscience web site (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/models_not_climate_are_hypersensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html) and apart from not appreciating the lawyerly Latin inserts found much to criticise about the content. It appears he like Myron Ebel and others using the cover of exclusively right-wing think tanks and propoganda outlets gets a lot of respect from certain readers, who then themselves blog online to amplify incorrect and misleading conclusions. How is it that someone like this can end up quoted in the congressional record? As Runjmb notes above Myron Ebel and Steven Milloy and others that have been employed to spread doubts about sound science underpinning some of the greatest issues of this century have no training, experience or credentials in the fields they are constantly criticising as "junk science." Steven Milloy specifically states on the World Wide Web that he (junkscience.com) has done research that contradicts and refutes the findings of at least 97% of the world's actual climate scientists. Such false claims are an abuse of the medium and in my opinion must be called out as such. Because my views conform to the majority of people who have weighed in on climate change and Steven Milloy's clearly do not, in no way would I dare edit this article. But for the confusing mention of 2 withdrawn Nature articles (Steven Milloy has published none) it seems to fairly portray the living entity, thanks to the authors. Misplaced Pages is where I turned today when I wanted to know more about Steven Milloy from a less biased and more concise source than his own bio. --Paulsuckow (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
rv: Why
See: http://www.unep.org/civil_society/Registration/index2.asp?idno=1345, as well as the publication record of the author: . Btinternet is a webhosting service, and the original site for IBAS (but anyways the ref can also be found on the new site, here: http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka_science_not_as_we_know.php --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, it looked to me like it had been copied and pasted from here, you know what with all the ref`s still in there, are you sure about this? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- O and the link you posted is broken kim mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- It takes around 1 minute to verify. You shouldn't remove references, when you do not know what it is, and aren't going actually check it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Kim i did, i followed the link and saw a copy and paste from this article being used as the source to cite that section, if you have a decent link then fine, but what i removed was not reliable was it mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- What you removed was reliable - and it was not a "copy and paste from this article" (i have no idea where you get that one from) - check it again - this time try to more than glance --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Kim i did, i followed the link and saw a copy and paste from this article being used as the source to cite that section, if you have a decent link then fine, but what i removed was not reliable was it mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- It takes around 1 minute to verify. You shouldn't remove references, when you do not know what it is, and aren't going actually check it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot
This page appears to have been edited line by line by detractors. As near as I can tell, nobody has anything to say about him that is even remotely positive or even mildly neutral.206.169.197.222 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's because there is precious little positive to say about someone who claims to point out "junk science" but fails to adhere to even the most rudimentary standards of disclosure of conflict of interest and of scientific evidence? Milloy chose his battlefield himself, no one forced it on him. If he wants to fight outside his league, that's his own, personal problem. --84.46.25.14 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your inability to point out any error or missing positive content speaks for itself. The article is full of facts. Facts in and of themselves are neutral. It's interesting that you consider these facts to be negative. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Science qualifications
Steven Milloy seems to be promoting himself as a science expert. This article should include a list of his science qualifications (or a statement about the lack of such, if none). Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, he has an
MDM.Sc., and no further scientific qualifications. However, it's usually hard to find reliable sources about the lack of formal qualifications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC) - Editorial comments in wikivoice are against policy. A reliable source commenting on his expertise or lack of it could be included. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
PR watch?
MN has stripped out a pile of refs , characteristically without troubling to discuss on talk. It is not clear that his judgemetn on refs is 100% reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Letter from Margery Kraus
What's wrong with this primary source? A13ean (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it`s a primary source mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
rv Why
I had remove a bunch of unreliable sources, Bigk seems to think reverting them back in is suitable so i have reverted him again, BK please explain your actions mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- You care to actually explain your actions? BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you should. You reverted unreliable sources into a BLP twice. Explain please mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The citations used by user Big K hex, do not look reliable to me,
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Also, what is wrong user Big K hex in following bold, revert , discuss? in a BLP content you have added was disputed and that is fair enough but all you have done is edit war it back in? Why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to sign O2RR, those sources are nowere near good enough for a BLP, what is worse is BK has edit warred them back in and broken 3r in the process mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I rv'd; BigK HeX please discuss it here before any further editing per policy. As it stands Mark may have a strong case - most of those look unreliable for a BLP article. Particularly the real climate blog. --Errant Tmorton166 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm ... thought I posted this a while ago, but it looks like I an edit conflict might have happened. In any case, the statement of a notable advocacy group that criticizes Milloy by name seems like a pretty good citation for "Milloy receiving criticism", (although the web link would be better if linked to the report proper, as Mark had already been informed). I saw others used when they were merely reporting secondhand quotes of Milloy, which hardly seems contentious. But those uses can be updated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your reverting this disputed content into this BLP is in violation of multiple guidelines and likely policies, if you want to discuss it carry on and if you think these citations are wikipedia reliable then they are disputed and take them to the WP:RSN if you like but do not edit war disputed content into a WP:BLP Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm ... thought I posted this a while ago, but it looks like I an edit conflict might have happened. In any case, the statement of a notable advocacy group that criticizes Milloy by name seems like a pretty good citation for "Milloy receiving criticism", (although the web link would be better if linked to the report proper, as Mark had already been informed). I saw others used when they were merely reporting secondhand quotes of Milloy, which hardly seems contentious. But those uses can be updated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Listed at RSN. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- PRWatch agreed.
- Realclimate - possibly (depends on context)
- UCS - bad call.
- Someone should give Mark a real hiding for breaking 1RR within a day of him being blocked for much the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kim my 1R is on CC articles only, do you see a template on this page? Right, job done. None of those sources i removed which were edit warred back in are suitable for a BLP. UCS is an advocacy group and are not a decent source for a BLP mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty obviously this article has a (probably better-than) tangential relationship to the climate change issue. And, in any case, the UCS is most certainly a decent source to cite for opinions of the UCS. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- No the ucs is an advocacy group, this is not a reliable source for a BLP, why do you not get this? And have you yet explained why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP?
- "No the ucs is an advocacy group" is kind of funny for an article about a number of virtual advocacy groups attributed to Steven Milloy in direct opposition to ucs, don't you think?--Paulsuckow (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No the ucs is an advocacy group, this is not a reliable source for a BLP, why do you not get this? And have you yet explained why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP?
- Pretty obviously this article has a (probably better-than) tangential relationship to the climate change issue. And, in any case, the UCS is most certainly a decent source to cite for opinions of the UCS. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, Mark was not blocked for violating 1RR. That's not what the block log says, and NW specifically denied that it was for 1RR. However, Mark, you can't have it both ways - you can't say that 1RR doesn't apply because this isn't a CC article, then bring an enforcement request to the CC probation.--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was informed that this article falls under the probation. However my reverts do not count as reverts as this was an obvious BLP violation. I have finished filing the request, it is now for uninvolved admins to decide mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, Mark was not blocked for violating 1RR. That's not what the block log says, and NW specifically denied that it was for 1RR. However, Mark, you can't have it both ways - you can't say that 1RR doesn't apply because this isn't a CC article, then bring an enforcement request to the CC probation.--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
another additional citation
http://www.newint.org/issue314/junkyard.htm what about this one? It doesn't look very WP:RS to me.Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- For the ref:
{{Cite news | last = Stauber | first = John | last2 = Rampton | first2 = Sheldon | title = The Junkyard Dogs of Science | newspaper = ] | location = Oxford, England | publisher = New Internationalist Publications | date = July 1999 }}
- It might help if you elaborate a bit on how it "looks". BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? It's a well-established and prominent UK publication (see New Internationalist). It's politically slanted, to be sure, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks exactly like an opinionated self published editorial to me. It is clearly not a mainstream neutral publication is it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Self-published?? It's very unclear where you are getting these charges... BigK HeX (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Rob, it's not self-published. It's a news report from a mainstream publication. New Internationalist is the largest progressive magazine in the UK (circulation of 75,000). Yes it's opinionated, but most of the UK media is. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get where you get the "self-published" from, or the "editorial".... It seems to be a focus magazine though, with a clear political stance, and where i have no idea about the reputation for fact-checking or editorial thoroughness. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like a non neutral site publishing its own peoples articles to me, self published, advocacy, call it what you like it is not a mainstream neutral publication imo. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it's tenuous; possibly fails for being strongly opinion driven (I pick it up from time to time, articles usually consist of ad-hominems etc). On the other hand I would say they usually get facts right - just put massive spin on them (welcome to the media...). If it were one of the blogs or online columns 100% no. As it was published... possibly ok. But a more neutral source would be much preferable to my mind. --Errant Tmorton166 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the two guys attributed to writing it run another site that BikK Hex added in a citation during the edit war earlier http://www.prwatch.org Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but you seem to be conflating political leanings and distortion. I'll have to leave you to clarify your objections against this long-running publication. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- You added it to support this content .. When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day? ... Is this content even noteworthy of reporting, just looks like an insult to me? And the section in the citation article that this content is included in is just a list of insults which I wont bother posting here.Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Source reliability depends on three factors; article, publishers and writer. Any of then can undermine reliability. I disagree slightly with rob that them running prwatch and their lack of neutrality entirely affects this new source. But in light of the fact they also wrote the rejected prwatch material, that this holds similar material and the already tenuous reliability of the New Internationalist combine to undermine the source. Actually reading this article that statement seems out of place anyway. It really needs to be in a section about the way he attacks reports rather than a section on his views on tobacco science. No? --Errant Tmorton166 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, its just a valueless off the cuff insult type comment that does nothing to inform our readers about anything. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Source reliability depends on three factors; article, publishers and writer. Any of then can undermine reliability. I disagree slightly with rob that them running prwatch and their lack of neutrality entirely affects this new source. But in light of the fact they also wrote the rejected prwatch material, that this holds similar material and the already tenuous reliability of the New Internationalist combine to undermine the source. Actually reading this article that statement seems out of place anyway. It really needs to be in a section about the way he attacks reports rather than a section on his views on tobacco science. No? --Errant Tmorton166 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how objections to the prwatch site have any relevance on the RS for the cite to New Internationalist. That'd be like saying "You can't cite Stephen Hawking's claims on some obscure BLOG," and then when the findings are cited to a peer-reviewed journal, to say that "You can't cite the claims from a journal when we already objected to them being in that obscure blog." BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- As for the placement of the attacks, it might just be better to clarify the section headings, than to try to compartmentalize criticisms, per WP:STRUCTURE. Might work either way, though this sort of compartmentalization usually fails. BigK HeX (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The SH example is poor; as an individual he does not fail reliability. In your example the venue is the problem. In this example I would have concerns about the writers and the content. It is critique of a thing the guy said (fair enough) design simply to attack (not so suitable in my mind). That sort of source concerns me --Errant Tmorton166 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The key to reliability is the editorial process that a source has gone through. A peer-reviewed source has gone through the most rigorous editing, so it's regarded as the most reliable. A book, newspaper or magazine has gone through a less rigorous but still substantial editing process. A self-published source has gone through no external editing at all, which is why we generally exclude such sources. The fact that this has been published in a major, mainstream publication gives it a considerably higher level of reliability than the PR Watch website probably has. The fact that it is written by someone who has published material on PR Watch isn't relevant - the question is whether the magazine has placed its editorial seal of approval on it, which it clearly has. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Incorrect; the content of the article and the authors are an important part of it being a reliable source. This is explicitly stated ast WP:RS. True an extremely solid peer-reviewed publisher pretty much removes any issues with authorship. But this site is highly opinionated; I'd argue that this, combined with the suspect reliability of the author undermines the overall reliability of the source. On a broader note; I'm feeling very uncomfortable with using ad-hominem attacks and articles designed to undermine their subject in BLP articles. I wouldn't consider them overly critical or fair. --Errant Tmorton166 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am also unconvinced by the claim of mainstream; I have to order it where I live when I want to read a piece - the only place I have seen it directly on sale is in Central London :) --Errant Tmorton166 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe your local newsagents don't stock it - mine do. *shrug* But a publication with a circulation of 75,000 is most certainly a significant player in the UK media market. The New Statesman, which I'm sure you've heard of and would agree is a mainstream publication, has a circulation of less than a third of the New Internationalist. The NI's circulation is pretty close to that of The Spectator. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly; those others are barely mainstream. But that's only my opinion - I shouldn't really have mentioned it sorry --Errant Tmorton166 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe your local newsagents don't stock it - mine do. *shrug* But a publication with a circulation of 75,000 is most certainly a significant player in the UK media market. The New Statesman, which I'm sure you've heard of and would agree is a mainstream publication, has a circulation of less than a third of the New Internationalist. The NI's circulation is pretty close to that of The Spectator. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The key to reliability is the editorial process that a source has gone through. A peer-reviewed source has gone through the most rigorous editing, so it's regarded as the most reliable. A book, newspaper or magazine has gone through a less rigorous but still substantial editing process. A self-published source has gone through no external editing at all, which is why we generally exclude such sources. The fact that this has been published in a major, mainstream publication gives it a considerably higher level of reliability than the PR Watch website probably has. The fact that it is written by someone who has published material on PR Watch isn't relevant - the question is whether the magazine has placed its editorial seal of approval on it, which it clearly has. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The New Internationalist is not a reliable source for a BLP, at least not the one in this article. It is an Op-Ed and as such has no place here mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) Pr Watch run by the same guys who run source watch, anyone who thinks this is a reliable source for a BLP needs to reread WP policy mark nutley (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A minute with Google finds the quote on Milloy's Junk Science site, and I've therefore used this as the source. A couple of observations
- For direct quotes attributed to the subject, the initial publication is best.
- The central point about WP:RS is not whether a source is biased, but whether it is reliable as regards factual claims. In this case, what matters is that the quote attributed to Milloy should be accurate and in context.
- New Internationalist is generally a reliable source in this sense, and has proved so in this case (the quote is right there on Milloy's site). Editors who have suggested otherwise might want to reconsider their views.
- Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS for the same reason as Misplaced Pages isn't - it's an encyclopedia. So, if we are using Sourcewatch, we should always go to the citations and not reproduce uncited claims. But that doesn't mean there is something bad about Sourcewatch or its editors, as Mark Nutley seems to think. Most of the time it's pretty accurate. In particular, reading the article on Milloy, there's nothing that looks to be unfair or inaccurate. Some of the details regarding Milloy's role in front organizations like TASSC probably would be regarded as WP:OR here, but it's obvious that this organization (registered address, Milloy's House) is pretty much as described.JQ (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quiggen; unfortunately there is a BLP problem here; using the original source is synthesis because we are picking a quote he has made about a report and critiquing it (or picking it as something of importance). That is what must be sourced - not that he said it. The problem here is not whether he wrote what he did but finding a reliable critique of it. The huge and compounding issue is that the only critique of him writing it is part of pieces written to undermine his character. It seems wildly problematic to repeat the attacks in a neutral BLP. Just because the source just proves reliable (and barely in my mind) does not automatically mean it is included (for the same reason that is a WP:RS newspaper relates that a subject was questioned over XYZ by the police we would not report it). --Errant Tmorton166 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quiggen, you should not be editing this BLP. The fact that you think sourcewatch can be used in a blp tells me that. wp:blp read it. The source has to be rock solid, the use of primary documents and blogs and advocacy sites in this BLP is insane, i am not surprised to see you here defending them mark nutley (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, John was saying that Sourcewatch should not be used ("Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS...") MastCell 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, John Quiggin should probably be commended for coming up with a far less contentious approach for the specific issue of concern here.
- Secondly, I've seen your reading of policy and you may not the best authority to lecture others. Seems there are sanctions against you that have prompted others to question the same. BigK HeX (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you ever going to explain why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP ? JQ sorry i misread your statement, however i know whom you are and believe you should not edit BLP`s of those sceptical of AGW mark nutley (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- It makes sense that mark nutley has been blocked indefinitely. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are you ever going to explain why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP ? JQ sorry i misread your statement, however i know whom you are and believe you should not edit BLP`s of those sceptical of AGW mark nutley (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
primary documents
Are all over this article, ref 18 is another one So is nobody going to remove these? mark nutley (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- That looks like the definition of original research. Is there a secondary source that makes this arguement? Arzel (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I`ve not looked. I am still finding unreliable sources all over the shop. I`ll look into secondary sources once the junk is out of the way. I am tagging as RS the primary sources i am finding mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's be clear on what WP:BLP says. Primary sources may be acceptable where their content has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, to augment those sources. It seems to me that several reliable secondary sources discuss Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, and cite specific documents linking Milloy to Philip Morris. In that context, it would seem that the actual documents themselves may be acceptable, where they are referenced by secondary sources. MastCell 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well please supply the secondary sources which also cover the primary documents mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's be clear on what WP:BLP says. Primary sources may be acceptable where their content has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, to augment those sources. It seems to me that several reliable secondary sources discuss Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, and cite specific documents linking Milloy to Philip Morris. In that context, it would seem that the actual documents themselves may be acceptable, where they are referenced by secondary sources. MastCell 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I`ve not looked. I am still finding unreliable sources all over the shop. I`ll look into secondary sources once the junk is out of the way. I am tagging as RS the primary sources i am finding mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per MastCells description, those secondary sources should be in the article already. That's the "...to augment those sources" part. Of course MastCell knows as well as anyone that we don't use primary sources in place of secondary sources in articles where there are reliable secondary sources to be had, as that would only beg the question "Where are these secondary sources you speak of, I don't see em in the article". So I would encourage you to look at the article again, the secondary sources must be there like MastCell says, otherwise someone would have removed the primary sources already as being original research, or non notable, or a BLP violation or somesuch commonly used term. Weakopedia (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you're being sarcastic, you are correct in that the existing secondary sources reference the tobacco documents library. Thacker 2006 extensively references primary documents from the UCSF tobacco library. This piece from the Guardian similarly uses the documents to illustrate Milloy's work on behalf of Philip Morris. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists () similarly references the tobacco documents in linking Milloy to Philip Morris. MastCell 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would appear that this section is combining several sources together to provide a strong point of view against Milloy. What I find most interesting about this section, and the others, is not that his opinion is faulty, but that his opinion must be faulty because he has received funding from Exxon and/or Phillip Moris. One could make exactly the same argument against Mann and others for receiving funding primarily from government agencies and others favorable to pushing the AGW movement. The question one must ask is this an article to "prove" that Milloy's analysis is biased or is it a neutral presentation of his views? Arzel (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ideally, the article is out to honestly and proportionately represent what independent, reliable sources have to say on the subject. It so happens that of the sources currently under discussion, several are quite critical of Milloy. I'd prefer not to use the talk page to argue about whether accepting money from ExxonMobil is "right" or "wrong", and I'd really prefer that you don't try to open additional fronts in the AGW war if you can help it.
I think you're missing the point, though. The critical sources are not focused on Milloy's receipt of money from Philip Morris and ExxonMobil per se. They're focused on the fact that he is presented as an impartial science journalist when in fact he has an undisclosed but highly relevant conflict of interest. People tend to think that crosses an ethical line - for example, in Thacker 2006, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says of Milloy's corporate ties: "Not disclosing this is wrong." Even Milloy's employer, FoxNews, seems to recognize something amiss - they told Thacker: "Fox News was unaware of Milloy’s connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." In other words, from these sources' perspectives, it's not about taking oil money - it's about failing to disclose a conflict of interest. MastCell 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would carry more/some weight if those complaining that Milloy has a conflict of interest were neutral and independent, particularly when it comes to AGW research. It is well known that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money in this day unless you are going to promote a certain point of view. Unfortunately that is just the way it works, and it is not just limited to climate sciences. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks; I think your personal opinion on the subject has now been amply expressed on this article talk page. MastCell 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Everyone who is neutral agrees that Milloy has a conflict of interest. Only extremely biased people deny it. (Also only extremely biased people claim that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money unless you are going to promote a certain point of view--the claim is not true.) 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- It would carry more/some weight if those complaining that Milloy has a conflict of interest were neutral and independent, particularly when it comes to AGW research. It is well known that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money in this day unless you are going to promote a certain point of view. Unfortunately that is just the way it works, and it is not just limited to climate sciences. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the point here Mastcell is that you inserted some of these primary documents I have also seen that JQ has added junk sources in and WMC used timmy lamberts blog, what has been going on here is a disgrace mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is that the point? I made those edits in October 2006, a couple of months into my Misplaced Pages editing career. I don't think I'd make those edits again today. On the other hand, at the time, WP:BLP was far more permissive about primary sources; I think (though I don't feel like arguing at length) that my edits were in keeping with the policy as it stood at the time. Both then and now, the primary tobacco-industry documents are amply supported by secondary sources. I don't think that qualifies as a "disgrace", but YMMV. Does anyone feel like getting back to the question of whether secondary sources describe these documents, thus making it potentially appropriate to cite them directly per WP:BLP? MastCell 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say that Milloy's opinion must be faulty ... that's a conclusion that you have apparently inferred from the content. One cannot in good faith make that sort of complaint. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ideally, the article is out to honestly and proportionately represent what independent, reliable sources have to say on the subject. It so happens that of the sources currently under discussion, several are quite critical of Milloy. I'd prefer not to use the talk page to argue about whether accepting money from ExxonMobil is "right" or "wrong", and I'd really prefer that you don't try to open additional fronts in the AGW war if you can help it.
- It would appear that this section is combining several sources together to provide a strong point of view against Milloy. What I find most interesting about this section, and the others, is not that his opinion is faulty, but that his opinion must be faulty because he has received funding from Exxon and/or Phillip Moris. One could make exactly the same argument against Mann and others for receiving funding primarily from government agencies and others favorable to pushing the AGW movement. The question one must ask is this an article to "prove" that Milloy's analysis is biased or is it a neutral presentation of his views? Arzel (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletions and BLP
Looking at the deletions recently, the only inference I can draw is that, in the view of some editors, any reference to anything Milloy has done constitutes a BLP violation. I can understand why this is, but it's still amusing.JQ (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Given the highly critical articles and blog posts you have written about this subject i would ask to not edit this BLP, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mark, this request is inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan this request is necessary, the articles and blog posts written by JQ are highly critical of this BLP. One if the sources was an article by JQ. This is a clear COI and JQ should recuse himself from editing this BLP mark nutley (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I would back up that request now Mark has pointed this out; JQ has been critical of the subject. I think it is reasonable to ask if he could avoid editing the article - especially considering it is a BLP. Hopefully that is not a judgement on JQ's criticisms (it isn't) etc. but, rather, simple practicality. --Errant Tmorton166 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's like complaining that historians have been critical of Hitler. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Mark, this request is inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it's fairly defamatory to make all of these bare assertions that JQ is engaged in COI editing, just because he happens to write about the field. Even WP:COI plainly states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."
- I suggest User:Marknutley reconsider these remarks suggesting biased editing, as they are easily construed as personal attacks. More importantly, here, these charges merely serve as useless ad hominems, when we can easily limit discussion to the content and not the contributor. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason I would support mark on this is that he mentioned that JQ has a) critiqued this person and b) one of the sources used in the article (I assume it is now removed based on marks language) was written by him. I'd encourage mark to be more explicit in those statements (i.e. link to the source that was used). I think it is reasonable to say that where an editor has been critical about a BLP subject directly in the media may constitute a COI --Errant Tmorton166 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- This was a source in this article. Tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy, looking for a stick with which to beat the environmental movement JQ`s personal site feel free to peruse the other posts in that link. JQ most certainly has a COI, and looking through the history of this article he has purposefully used suspect sources and biased writing to make milloy look bad mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- What is your point? WP:COI clearly states, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason." So, trying to harp on just the fact that such sources were used is pretty useless. If you think the sourcing is not reasonable, then we can focus on how you think policy is being violated, instead of trying to build ad hominems against JQ with it. FYI, WP:COI also clearly directs
"Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
- If you truly have an issue with JQ in this regard, the talk page is not the forum for you to try to tear the contributor down, and merely dismiss his edits instead of telling us exactly what policy basis you have for your objections. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COI When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. This is what has happened in this article, there are no ad hom`s about it. If an editor is writing editorials about a subject they should not edit the persons BLP. This was said to richard tol when he wrote about pachauri, not to edit the article. Now if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda (as is shown by his article and blog posts) can edit this article then your cracked. His contributions to it have all been heavily biased to making the subject look bad. He has used suspect sources. He quite simply should not edit here. Not lets move onto actually clearing up the mess certain editors have made of this BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "there are no ad hom`s about it"
- FYI: Your statement there is followed by basically nothing but ad hominem.
- "If an editor is writing editorials..."
- "an editor with a clear agenda"'
- I don't see actual objection detailed in there, but a whole lot of noise about the contributor himself.
- Also, I may point out the poetic irony in your statement about a person's stances, that "...if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda ... can edit this article then your cracked," given your own declared interests. Were it the case, I'm not sure how one would be able to reconcile taking such a decisive stand and also still justify the exception for oneself.
- In any case, yes ... let's proceed with any specific objections you may have with the article. BigK HeX (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just to point out that it is not ad-hominem if the issue is related - which in this case it is. Besides what you pointed out isn't ad-hominem - if it is bad rhetoric then it is just attack, nothing more. Anyway; I'm not going to go as far as mark but I will say that considering that JQ has been openly critical about Milloy then he has a WP:COI with this article. And on that premise, coupled with the fact it is a contentious BLP and therefore problematic it seems reasonable to ask he limits his contribution to the article. He may choose to ignore that - which is fine by me. On the other hand we could stop the barging and go back to discussing JN's contributions below - some of the sources he posted look pretty good for shoring up that part of the article! --Errant Tmorton166 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COI When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. This is what has happened in this article, there are no ad hom`s about it. If an editor is writing editorials about a subject they should not edit the persons BLP. This was said to richard tol when he wrote about pachauri, not to edit the article. Now if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda (as is shown by his article and blog posts) can edit this article then your cracked. His contributions to it have all been heavily biased to making the subject look bad. He has used suspect sources. He quite simply should not edit here. Not lets move onto actually clearing up the mess certain editors have made of this BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- What is your point? WP:COI clearly states, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason." So, trying to harp on just the fact that such sources were used is pretty useless. If you think the sourcing is not reasonable, then we can focus on how you think policy is being violated, instead of trying to build ad hominems against JQ with it. FYI, WP:COI also clearly directs
- This was a source in this article. Tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy, looking for a stick with which to beat the environmental movement JQ`s personal site feel free to peruse the other posts in that link. JQ most certainly has a COI, and looking through the history of this article he has purposefully used suspect sources and biased writing to make milloy look bad mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason I would support mark on this is that he mentioned that JQ has a) critiqued this person and b) one of the sources used in the article (I assume it is now removed based on marks language) was written by him. I'd encourage mark to be more explicit in those statements (i.e. link to the source that was used). I think it is reasonable to say that where an editor has been critical about a BLP subject directly in the media may constitute a COI --Errant Tmorton166 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Coming here from the RSN discussion) I fully endorse the deletion of the sources discussed at RSN per BLP policy and would advise editors to stop edit-warring to add such sources to this BLP. We do not use activists' press releases and other self-published sources as BLP sources (see WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS, WP:ELBLP, etc.).
- However, there is no dearth of BLP-compatible sources referring to Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies. I believe this Inter Press Service article, which comments on Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies, would be a suitable source. It directly references the UCS report. This is how such reports find entry into BLPs: through the filter of secondary sources. When press articles have been written about it, then we have a basis for including it in a BLP. Here is another press article in the Waterloo Region Record that will pass muster under WP:BLP. Here another source that I think could be used without falling foul of BLP concerns. Here is a USA Today review of a book commenting on Milloy's involvement with ExxonMobil. Both the review and the book, which likely contains further information, are unequivocally suitable sources for this BLP.
- Please, please do not go to activists' press releases and self-published websites when you are editing biographies of living persons. It is not compatible with BLP policy. Instead, check the google news archive and google books to see whether there are reliable third-party sources commenting on the matter. If there are, those are the sources that should be cited; if there aren't any, then the matter does not deserve to be added to the biography. Thank you. --JN466 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: To cite a book found in google books, you can use this webcitation tool. It makes the job a lot easier. --JN466 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's be honest here, guys. Mark Nutley's relationship with Milloy is the mirror image of mine (and the same is true, I'm sure of quite a few others). Neither of us (I assume) has any personal relationship with him or any conflict of interest (in the sense in which COI is usually used, outside Misplaced Pages). On the other hand, he is an opponent of mine, and an ally of Mark Nutley's in a bunch of debates over science and the environment. In this case, the facts are pretty clear, and the only option available to Mark is to try to keep them out of the article by whatever means possible.JQ (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- there john mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- happy to oblige JQ (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fail to see how my incredibly accurate post about what the usual suspects would do to an article has any bearing here, were is your source to back the assertion that i consider milloy an ally? Better try and find a post by me praising him, which you won`t, as i think milloy is actually full of it mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- And John, stop removing RS tags from primary sources. Either find reliable secondary sources to support them or they shall have to go mark nutley (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mark, are you actually looking at the sourcing in the article, or simply tagging things and demanding others do the legwork? The Free Enterprise Action Fund press releases are a) not primary sources, and b) covered by an independent secondary source cited in the same paragraph (Gross 2006). Please remove those tags. The Philip Morris memos on using TASSC as a tool to influence legislative decisions is cited by PMID 11684593, Ong & Glantz 2001. Please remove that tag as well. MastCell 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- And John, stop removing RS tags from primary sources. Either find reliable secondary sources to support them or they shall have to go mark nutley (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fail to see how my incredibly accurate post about what the usual suspects would do to an article has any bearing here, were is your source to back the assertion that i consider milloy an ally? Better try and find a post by me praising him, which you won`t, as i think milloy is actually full of it mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- happy to oblige JQ (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to withdraw from editing this article now. I think Mark Nutley should do likewise.JQ (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mastcell, i am tagging things only. I am not allowed to add content to a BLP per my sanctions. John, you have a deal, i will also recuse from editing this BLP mark nutley (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, a good thing all round, I thinkJQ (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106043720/http://junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928192547/http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm to http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061203112904/http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html to http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609102545/http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html to http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050123004011/http://sopr.senate.gov:80/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL== to http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL==
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060308231250/http://business.bostonherald.com:80/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681 to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Steven Milloy. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511210047/http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm to http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Steven Milloy. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522051743/http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF to http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103071613/http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm to http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082118/http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html to http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184936/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125080948/http://junkscience.com/decem98.html to http://www.junkscience.com/decem98.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2045655935_5937_0.PDF - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704050040/http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185012/http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html to http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184419/http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003204/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Dumb Venus tweet
Milloy's tweet about Venus was dumb. Putting it in Misplaced Pages is dumber. The tweet was merely a childish taunt about the word "existential." Milloy trolled the Congressperson, making sport of his language "existential threat to the future of the planet." Milloy wrote "the atmosphere Venus is 96.5% CO2 -- and the planet is still there."
In other words, Venus exists. So there! Nyah!
No doubt the communicative intent of this tweet was climate change denial. But as an example of Milloy's climate denialism, it illustrates very little.
In fact, the addition to this article was inaccurate, viz: tweet criticizing the scientific consensus on the harmful effects of carbon dioxide on the earth's climate, specifically as referenced by Oregon congressman Peter DeFazio, claiming that the exponentially higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is proof that carbon dioxide is safe.
No. The tweet was a childish taunt about the word "existential."
Save this for the encyclopedia of meaningless twitter spats. The following example in the article, where Milloy rushed to misinterpret some NOAA published data, is much more illustrative. -- M.boli (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. This was a well-sourced story. Do you think deleting it from wikipedia means it didn't happen? When I first added this several years ago, it was deleted by the user Peter Gulutzan, at whose history a very brief glance reveals is a climate change denying hack whose body of work on this site seems to be a committment to removing evidence of the excesses of scientists who reject the consensus in their fields. When I realized that, I added it back, with additional sources. It was then removed with a request to add "evidence that Venus is hot" with which I complied. I'm very confused by the parade of people trying to keep this off this page. I'll be re-adding unless I can get a more substantive removal reason than you don't like the vibes. SteelMariner 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- A lot of twitter spats get publicity. That doesn't make them meaningful. The Daily Kos post you reference makes no claim about the tweet except that it is extremely stupid. The Indy100 article adds a little more about the insanity of referring to Venus as a comparison, but that article leads with and correctly characterizes Milloy's tweet, mostly noting its juvenile stupidity.
- What is "well-sourced" is that it was a dumb tweet. Period.
- This isn't about climate change, this is about Milloy trolling the other team with a really dumb tweet.
- There are plenty of examples that Milloy is a climate change denier. If you add more that could be fine. Breathlessly covering meaningless twitter spats is not what makes Misplaced Pages a valuable reference work. -- M.boli (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with M.boli, there is no need to include Milloy´s tweet/nonsense in this article. JimRenge (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Alternative views articles
- Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images of people of the United States