Jump to content

Talk:Steven Milloy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

globalwarming.org

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Steven Milloy

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. yandman 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

The anon above was wrong, you can get a masters in biostats from JH [1] mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for nailing this down.JQ (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

rv: Why

[edit]

See: http://www.unep.org/civil_society/Registration/index2.asp?idno=1345, as well as the publication record of the author: [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
O and the link you posted is broken kim mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[3] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Science qualifications

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

PR watch?

[edit]

MN has stripped out a pile of refs [4], 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)[reply]

Letter from Margery Kraus

[edit]

What's wrong with this primary source? [5] A13ean (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it`s a primary source mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rv Why

[edit]

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)[reply]

You care to actually explain your actions? BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should. You reverted unreliable sources into a BLP twice. Explain please mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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(Talk) 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Listed at RSN. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

another additional citation

[edit]

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)[reply]

For the ref:

{{Cite news | last = Stauber | first = John | last2 = Rampton | first2 = Sheldon | title = The Junkyard Dogs of Science | newspaper = [[New Internationalist]] | 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Self-published?? It's very unclear where you are getting these charges... BigK HeX (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(Talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(Talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(Talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(Talk) 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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(Talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Honestly; those others are barely mainstream. But that's only my opinion - I shouldn't really have mentioned it sorry --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New Internationalist [6] 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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(Talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, John was saying that Sourcewatch should not be used ("Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS...") MastCell Talk 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It makes sense that mark nutley has been blocked indefinitely. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

primary documents

[edit]

Are all over this article, ref 18 is another one [7] So is nobody going to remove these? mark nutley (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well please supply the secondary sources which also cover the primary documents mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([8]) similarly references the tobacco documents in linking Milloy to Philip Morris. MastCell Talk 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks; I think your personal opinion on the subject has now been amply expressed on this article talk page. MastCell Talk 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the point here Mastcell is that you inserted some of these primary documents [9] 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)[reply]
Is that the point? I made those edits in October 2006, a couple of months into my Wikipedia 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 Talk 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Deletions and BLP

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Mark, this request is inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(Talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's like complaining that historians have been critical of Hitler. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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(Talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[10] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[sic] 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)[reply]
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(Talk) 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia). 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)[reply]

[citation needed] there john mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
happy to oblige [11]JQ (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, a good thing all round, I thinkJQ (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Dumb Venus tweet

[edit]

Milloy's tweet about Venus was dumb. Putting it in Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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. SteelMarinerTalk 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia a valuable reference work. -- M.boli (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Milloy&oldid=1257744361"