Talk:Steven Milloy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is awful

[ Long-inactive threads archived here ]

Milloy has lots of opponents because he is not afraid to attack sacred cows. He has lots of supporters because of the consistent rigor of his analysis.

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.[1] NCdave 03:29, 18 June 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. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"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? NCdave 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem: "PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke" (from Philip Morris) and "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company believes that individuals should rely on the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking." Can you please comment at the bottom of the talk page, instead of adding your last-word responses to 4-month-old threads? It makes the discussion hard to follow. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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.71.72.217.102 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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.71.72.217.102 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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. MastCell ^Talk 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.71.72.217.102 01:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry about the sarcasm - that was a moment of weakness. MastCell ^Talk 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Junk Science

The part on junk science is ludicrous. THe american journal of public health makes no such claim; an opinion article in AJPH makes a claim. There is a world of difference, and attempting to pass off such a claim reveals a lot.

the second quote makes an allegation which is perilously close to corruption. It is difficult to see how this can be allowed if there is consideration for defamation against living persons.

peroxisome 82.7.75.161 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

the quote from the non-smoking pressure group is libellous, and should be removed under WP:BLP. There is no evidence that Milloy creates a "facade"; this goes to his motivation, and is unfounded allegation. The quote suggests that Milloy "denies" science; this is unfair and untrue. He debunks junk science. Both these suggestions make unwarranted, and POV, allegations about Milloy's motivations, and should be removed.

An editorial in AJPH has no special merit, and I do not see that this editorial has any reason for being in a section describing what Junk science is. The quote text is highly misleading. The actual text of the paper merely says that many issues have been identified as junk science on the junkscience pages; it does not say that junkscience.com is run by those "opposed to regulation". Peroxisome 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt; you corrected on 00:55, 22 July 2007. I think your correction is wrong. It is not Milloy who is making the judgement that the science is junk; he is reporting in the cited article that there have been two counts of scientific misconduct, as determined by regulators. So i think your wording is wrong, as it suggests that Milloy made the determination. This is not true. Peroxisome 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"11:59, 22 July 2007 Stephan Schulz (Talk | contribs) (39,728 bytes) (Rv. to NPOV version by JQ. You cannot use the unqualified editorial voice to present Milloy's position, particularly not on such a disputed topic.) (undo)" I am dumbfounded. I don't see how you can have read the cited reference. Milloy is reporting on matters of fact. It is an article by a journalist; that is in authoritative source. It is beyond doubt that each case was research misconduct. The cited article reports that fact.

You have actually changed the text so that it is wrong; it is not Milloy who made the determination of fraud. Milloy is reporting these facts. Peroxisome 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The version I reverted to is verifiably correct. The article in question is by Milloy, who has his own editorial column on FoxNews. In it, Milloy makes certain claims and we report them. And if you think that a column by Milloy, published under his own editorial control by FoxNews is a reliable source and warrants the objective editorial voice, then I am sorely tempted to agree with your first sentence. --11:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Peroxisome is asserting that we should treat claim by Milloy that some event or other is an example of 'junk science' as factually true, because they have been reported as such by ... Milloy? This is the best I've seen in a while. JQ 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the statement by JQ is untrue. Milloy (in the reference cited) is reporting the decision of the Office of Research Integrity that a piece of work is fraudulent, and articles in Nature that another piece of work is fraudulent. It would help if editors read the references cited, rather than just relying on their prejudice. Peroxisome 12:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I've read Milloy's article. You write that he finds "numerous examples of junk science". His column mentions 2 papers from the journal Science, over the past 11 years, which were retracted or found fraudulent. "Numerous"? He's describing two high-profile cases of research fraud. The whole point is that "junk science" is in the eye of the beholder; yes, everyone agrees those were cases of research fraud, but are they "junk science"? Milloy claims that they are. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is bizarre. You are asserting that fraudulent science is not junk ? There is a definition of junk science in the paragraph. These are clear examples of what junk science is.

If you are really upset that I am only citing two examples, I will be quite happy to give chapter and verse on a whole slew, if you think that is a constructive way forward. Just let me know, and I will put in the references.

Re: the AJPH article. It explicitly does not make the case that is made in this paragraph. It merely points out that numerous issues are identified as junkscience on Milloy's website. By conflating the two sentences, you have misrepresented what the article says, and this sentence is potentially defamatory. It should be removed under WP:BLP. Peroxisome 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just read both Milloy's commentary and the AJPH commentary, and I feel that both sources are accurately characterized in the current version. I'd love to turn our attention to Peroxisome's deletion of this section:

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation says Milloy's campaign against what he calls "junk science" is a carefully-crafted facade on behalf of the tobacco industry and other elements of big business to mislead the public in order to protect their profits:

Steven Milloy has adopted the role of a tobacco industry 'sound science' defender. Milloy has made it his life’s work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the world’s most reputable and credible scientific agencies—such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization—and legitimate peer reviewed periodicals—such as Science, Nature, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association—and label their objective evidence as “junk science"…Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy relationship with the tobacco industry that has resulted in his incarnation as Big Tobacco’s poster boy for 'junk science.'

His given justification being: "WP:BLP remove libellous quote. There is no evidence that he creates facades, or that he denies; he debunks. Example given" It is neither libellous nor does it violate WP:BLP, there is plenty of evidence to support what it says, and it's a nice summary of the major criticisms against him. Thoughst? Yilloslime 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've made some edits to describe the money from Philip Morris as "budgeted", not "received", by Milloy to address Peroxisome's criticism. Can you cite other instances where you believe WP:NPOV or WP:LIVING have been violated (or better yet, propose alternative wording)? I note that, although you listed this site on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 10 days ago, no one's chimed in yet. Which is too bad; I'd like some outside input. MastCell 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 WP:NPOV and we can attempt to address them. MastCell 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. NCdave 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. JQ 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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 [is] 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. NCdave 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?JQ 11:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false claims, like the claim that Milloy thinks "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution [is] harmless" are not "trivial." They are defamatory.

What's more, one need not "campaign for tighter [gov't] 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: [2]. NCdave 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 meJQ 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.JQ 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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.JQ 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 18 June 2007 (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. NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean, other than the statement that the PR firm "reviewed and revised" Milloy's website? Those are editorial functions, are they not? MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 19:42, 18 June 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 reliable secondary sources 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 reliable source here. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that NCdave 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 WP:NPOV does not allow us to turn the article into a hagiography, continued discussion here is unlikely to serve any purpose. More at WP:STICK and WP:WORD. Raymond Arritt 18:43, 19 June 2007 (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.

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:

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... [snip]

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 Wikipedia biography? NCdave 17:49, 29 June 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NCdave 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"No evidence"? You mean except for the primary and secondary sources cited in the article, right? MastCell ^Talk 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss the discussion about the dates? While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[2] 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.[11]

The sourced memo is from Dec 1996, yet I find no secondhand smoke articles referenced from that time. There is one from 1997 [3](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. --Theblog 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Searching the 1996 articles on the junkscience.com web site, I did find a little bit of information on secondhand tobacco smoke, in this May 6, 1996 short article. That's all I could find on the topic from back then. Nothing that looked like it came from RJR. There were articles on global warming, malaria, radon, PCBs, diet drugs, gun control, olestra, agent orange, abortion, baldness, and many, many other topics. But my favorite from 1996 was this article on the debunking of the supposed association between Electric Razor Use and Leukemia. NCdave 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attributing criticism

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. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 18 March 2007 (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 anthropogenic global warming 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 Upper West Side. Dr. Connolley gave me the link to the transcript. --Uncle Ed 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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 secondhand smoke causes cancer.

I'm going to study the Passive smoking 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 smoking gun - 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. --Uncle Ed 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 Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. 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, [it] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer." [4] (emphasized added for Wikipedia discussion)

This wouldn't be the first time EPA ignored scientific evidence. Remember the DDT ban? 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 passive smoking 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 Wikipedia 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? --Uncle Ed 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 passive smoking is harmful? How about the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General (a G.W. Bush appointee, by the way), the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, etc? MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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 Wikipedia and subjects are generally presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field, 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 WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as Milloy has pointed out, most 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. NCdave 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record, but then you keep repeating the same arguments. Re-read my previous post. Your opinion and mine of the state of evidence are unimportant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm not going to debate you on the specifics of individual studies. I'm sorry, but that's not what this talk page is for. The opinion of experts in the field is what matters, and what should be reflected (see U.S. Surgeon General, IARC, WHO, etc). MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

secondhand smoke

71.72.217.102 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.[11] 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.[11]"). 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 71.72.217.102's position. Yilloslime 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 Wikipedia'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. 71.72.217.102 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, 71.72.217.102, thanks for helping .JQ 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

71.72.217.102 you've violated WP:3RR. As I assume you're new to Wikipedia, I suggest you read the policy and revert your own edit. Otherwise you are liable to be blocked from editing.JQ 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that new... this IP has been active at Passive smoking for a while now. Three guesses as to their POV there. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

just left a 3RR warning on his talk page, 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.Yilloslime 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already done so (reported to WP:AN3). 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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. 71.72.217.102 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. JQ 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My POV is, simply, that Wikipedia should accurately represent the current state of scientific and medical knowledge. 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? MastCell ^Talk 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. 71.72.217.102 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"the issue at hand was excessive government spending" Give me a break! You surely don't believe this. JQ 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. 71.72.217.102 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 WP:SYN. 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? MastCell ^Talk 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 United States Surgeon General, the AMA, the XYZ, etc. It's not simply Milloy vs the SG, but Milloy vs the scientific establishment. Yilloslime 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 passive smoking article. MastCell ^Talk 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. Wikipedia at its finest.209.168.176.130 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty good suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 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.JQ 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. 209.168.176.130 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.192.123 (talk)

True, it's a clear single-purpose account dedicated to minimizing the risks of smoking, and a conflict of interest is not out of the question - but none of those things are blockable offenses. MastCell ^Talk 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?" NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 this 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.[5]

Another example was the (now discredited) 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. NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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.[6] NCdave 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). MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell 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?Yilloslime 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 biostatistician, 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."[7] NCdave 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

digression about DDT statistics

An aside: In support of his claim that Milloy is a biostatistician, NCdave quotes Milloy's attempted criticism of the recent Journal of Andrology paper 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. Yilloslime 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you have made a very serious charge against Milloy. Now the question is, can you support it? If you have, in fact, given both the paper and Milloy's article 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 Wikipedia 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. NCdave 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough - that's why all of the criticism in the article is sourced to reliable sources, and not anonymous Wikipedia editors. MastCell ^Talk 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:

• You 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 abstract (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 [OR] = 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 Milloy discusses are pulled from the table 2 on page 36 of the manuscript. 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, I shouldn't feed the trolls. Yilloslime 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? NCdave 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting with "Bated" 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 last page of the manuscript, that graphically shows the strong relationship between lipid DDE concentrationsand % deformed sperm. Now I've really got to stop. 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 his website, nor do the folks that pay him (Foxnews.com, CEI) call him one--these facts ought to put this discussion to bed. Yilloslime 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. NCdave 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, 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 straw man by cherry picking 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 Bar 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. Yilloslime 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 biostatistician and lawyer.

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. NCdave 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - we have independent, reliable sources 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 his work debunking junk science, and if you'd clicked on the link in my last message 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. NCdave 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, he's notable (in the Wikipedia 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you consider inserting verifiable material that's actually reliably sourced 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 notable 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 WP:NPOV, and actually of WP:BLP, 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. MastCell ^Talk 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). MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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. NCdave 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not "false" to claim that Milloy is a registered lobbyist; it's a verifiable 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. MastCell ^Talk 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). NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 wrong! 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?? NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that he was never a lobbyist, and you know it. You know how he came to be erroneously registered as a lobbyist by a client, even though he never did any lobbying. The article even states, falsely, that "Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council," citing as its only source, not any primary documentation at all, but (as usual) a dishonest editorial from a leftist outfit which cites no sources. You also know that official Wikipedia policy requires that such trash must be removed immediately. Yet you persist in defending the indefensible. NCdave 01:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently added 'Praise' section

The newly added section for 'praise' contained this single mention:

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."[47]

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. FeloniousMonk 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.JQ 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.) NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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. JQ 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He is still well-respected, except by those whose oxen he has gored. NCdave 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?JQ 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 hundreds of columns, 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? NCdave 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 DDT. 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 Roger Bate gives a likely explanation.JQ 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no explanation in the Wikipedia article on Roger Bate 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, Wikipedia 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.”

NCdave 04:02, 20 June 2007

<---You can cite the old WHO press release all you want, but it doesn't represent the WHO's current position. Yilloslime 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, Yilloslime. The press release I cited is the WHO's current position. I cite the WHO press release on the WHO web site, from just this last September. You cite only the anti-DDT spin found in a press release from an obscure environmentalist organization 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 WHO web site 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. NCdave 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And your reliable, independent secondary source calling this a "vindication" or "triumph" is where? MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you, MastCell, are demanding that a reliable 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 an obscure environmentalist outfit's press release to refute the official WHO web site -- 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). NCdave 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting somewhere. For the record, the PAN press release is a reliable source, 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. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that "the PAN press release is a reliable source." Neira's remarks were made at the Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). I can't find a transcript of her talk, but the website 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 this document. Daily summaries of the conference provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development 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." [8] 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." [9]. Yilloslime 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,"[10] 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 Washington Post reported 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 on the WHO web site. To the extent that PAN claims the WHO's position is different from that, PAN's claims are untrue. NCdave 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting (from page 5 of the POPS report you found):

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.

And also: "several [delegates] 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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 comment on content, and not the contributor... 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? MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, 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 wikipedia guideline. 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 disregard for this etiquette. Anyway, that's a pretty serious charge you make about PAN. Now, can you back it up? You say, they [PAN] 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 my talk page. [If this violates a WP, someone please let me know.] 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. Yilloslime 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, to address this comment of Ncdave 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 [11] and Moore and Watts attended the meeting at which Niera made her remarks.[12]. Oh, and here's yet more corroboration of the PAN press release: The World Health Organisation (WHO) also held a malaria side event where they recommitted to the joint goals of fighting malaria and eliminating DDT. It is now clearly on the record that the WHO has not given DDT a ‘Clean Bill of Health.’Yilloslime 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this tidbit from today's New England Journal of Medicine, 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." ([13]). 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 selectively ignore the wealth of evidence that DDT is still regarded as undesirably toxic. The fascinating coda is that Milloy actually cites the NEJM editorial on his website, 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 [PAN] 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,"[14]...

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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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[15]

"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[16]

"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[17]

Do you want more? NCdave 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, 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.[18]

Have you head back from Milloy yet? Yilloslime 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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 AAAS announcement 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? NCdave 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He was not a judge. Look at the list. --TimLambert 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 reliably sourced information, then that conflict should also be noted, particularly when reliable secondary sources have pointed it out as well. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is proven, by a reliable source, beyond any legitimate dispute, that Milloy was 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!! NCdave 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. We have a reliable secondary source 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 here - note the absence of Milloy's name). The contention meets WP:V. 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 here. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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 WP:RFPP ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 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. NCdave 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? MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 the rules 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. NCdave 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 reliable secondary sources. This is actually the standard for Wikipedia 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 reliable sources by Wikipedia'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 WP:BLP:

• 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 reliable 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 here, 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 BLP noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 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: NCdave 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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock, 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." He cites a 1970 National Academy of Sciences committee report that (before its use was discontinued) DDT "prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."

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... [and, when properly used, does] 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.

In September, 2006, Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition. The World Health Organization 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 [WHO's] 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."

(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), NCdave 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 DDT and Roger Bate 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. JQ 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. NCdave 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is a passing mention of Milloy's stance on DDT in the article, and Milloy's views on DDT are also discussed in the DDT entry. 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. me) to include information that refutes of his views.Yilloslime 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 WP:TALK#Editing_comments. Raymond Arritt 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? NCdave 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, "amazing triumph" is too modest. Milloy == Copernicus is more objective. And both are sourced, right? To someone besides Steven Milloy? We're not just using the talk page as a forum for general discussion, are we? MastCell ^Talk 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? NCdave 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. Raymond Arritt 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. NCdave 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I left my heart in San Francisco. It was on a Wednesday, I think, during the 2004 Fall AGU meeting. Raymond Arritt 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sure isn't in Africa. NCdave 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your knowledge of geography is impressive! Raymond Arritt 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 DDT page and the recent remarks 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. Yilloslime 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a productive thread of conversation. Getting into general debates is one thing; the talk-page guidelines 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 consensus-builder. 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 reliable, 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 Smirnoff, despite its low price and lack of cachet, was the best vodka out there; recently a New York Times taste test 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, reliable secondary sources). MastCell ^Talk 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. --Theblog 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole business of a "triumph" or "vindication" rests on few key assumptions that are, in fact, false. Theblog, NCdave, 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 Driessen, Bate, Tren, and other CEI-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 DDT and Malaria ought to give some perspective. For the WHO's current position on DDT, see the remarks of Director of the World Health Organization Office on Public Health and Environment Dr Maria Neira. Some non-Milloy authored reading is also worthwhile if you really want a balanced view on DDT/Malaria. If can get access, there is this special issue of JAMA about malaria. And while not necessarily any more neutral than Milloy it's view on DDT, the DDT pages on the website of the Pesticide Action Network will provide some prespective and perhaps balance out Milloy's hardline views. Yilloslime 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. --Theblog 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 latest press release on the subject from the World Health Organization. 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. NCdave 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. JQ 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: we don't have any reliable, independent secondary sources 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 original synthesis. 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 Wikipedia's purposes. MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask certain editors here to please cease using strawmen 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 consensus. NCdave 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to User:Theblog'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. The burden of proof rests with those who want content included. 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 NCDave's suggested first paragraph is a good start, with following change (in bold):

  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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

  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, nearly thirty years after phasing it out, "the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT... will once again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight... malaria."[11][12] 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?Yilloslime 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." Raymond Arritt 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. Tom Coburn, M.D (R-OK).

* 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 Washington Post article 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. NCdave 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 malaria clock web page, and see whether you still doubt that is the case. NCdave 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there are fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. 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 WP:SYN. "I think it would be a most remarkable coincidence if X were not so, therefore we should include it" does not square with WP:V. 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 reliable sources noticeboard with it. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems the we can agree on the following, all of which conform to WP:V while avoiding WP:OR, including WP:SYN:

• Milloy is a journalist and "junk science expert"

Agreed. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Milloy has degrees in law and biostatistics

• (Expect for NCdave, 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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 [is] 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? NCdave 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. NCdave 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 original research 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 column from the Wall Street Journal 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 Steven Milloy article on DDT. 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. NCdave 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." NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also of relevance is Allan Schapira's letter to the Lancet stating that the WHO was just re-iterating WHO's endorsement of DDT. --TimLambert 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 false implication by PAN 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. NCdave 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.) --TimLambert 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. NCdave 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can all agree on this stuff, maybe we can hammer out some text that reflects it.Yilloslime 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 reliable sources available in stating exactly where he's registered as a lobbyist (which can be verified by anyone), and even quotes Milloy's denial that he's ever done any lobbying work. Otherwise, I agree with your points. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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.

-- Stephen Moore, The Wall Street Journal, "Doctor Tom's DDT Victory"

coburn.senate.gov

Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High

By Steven Milloy

Fox News

July 6, 2006

... NCdave 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 link them to Kevin Bacon. I see this as original synthesis in linking Milloy to having an influence on the WHO's policies. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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: http://rbm.who.int/globaladvocacy/ddtdebate.html NCdave 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be an excellent link for the DDT 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, original-synthesis "QED" from NCdave)? This is a very simple request. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an original-synthesis, MastCell, that's simple, direct, documentary proof that one of the key players in getting the W.H.O. to change its position used Milloy's material to make the case for DDT. QED. (Which is not surprising, since DDT was Milloy's original signature issue.) NCdave 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN 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 Village Pump to get outside input. MastCell ^Talk 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"? --Theblog 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that. NCdave 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Centralizing duplicate discussions and responding at the thread below. MastCell ^Talk 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? NCdave 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.JQ 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, John, it needs to be truthful. This is how the WHO press release begins:

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. 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.

NCdave 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 DDT. But this point has been made by plenty of reliable sources, and can be spelt out in the criticism section. JQ 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? --Theblog 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.JQ 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,[19] 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. NCdave 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.. NCdave 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Broad-area?" Where did that come from, John? What part of "Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying 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). NCdave 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.--Theblog 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 former 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 disagreement, 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 "limited" indoor spraying, when what the W.H.O. press release actually endorsed is "widespread" use of DDT "throughout Africa" 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"? NCdave 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 largely discontinued)..."

Okay? NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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? NCdave 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this AFM report 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. JQ 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I cannot understand how you can write, "As far as I can tell, [Milloy]'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. NCdave 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. JQ 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 Malaria Clock page says, "spraying DDT inside dwellings presents no discernable human or environmental hazard." His Terrible Cost of Malaria 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 safe and effective DDT in Indoor Residual Spray programs. 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. NCdave 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? NCdave 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, "let's be reasonable and do it my way." Sorry, no. Raymond Arritt 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? NCdave 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is User:Yilloslime 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 WHO press release 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, WP:NPOV discussion of his views while avoiding WP:OR.

A long these lines, since we've got no evidence of him influencing the WHO (other than tenuous WP:SYN) 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 WHO press release (Sept 06), and on the other Dr Neira's remarks, quoted in this press release (and corroborated here, here, and here) and Schapira's letter to the editor of Lancet reproduced here (and I've checked the original source and it's accurate.) Yilloslime 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 "failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working", that the most successful malaria eradication efforts (in the Panama Canal zone and southeastern US) were accomplished completely or largely without DDT, 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 WP:SYN. 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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 ("avowed 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 Simon Wiesenthal's article entitled, "Wiesenthal's use of Holocaust controversy to attack German concerns."

NCdave 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? NCdave 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. ?? --Theblog 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 WP:SYN 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 Wikipedia. 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 WP:SYN is a vital part of policy, and why your proposed paragraph violates it. MastCell ^Talk 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 passive smoking article anyway, and you're right, it probably is guiding the reader a little too much. MastCell ^Talk 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. --Theblog 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.)--Theblog 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 WP:SYN (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 assume good faith on your part. NCdave 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. --Theblog 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 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, though I think we should hear from the other editors who have been involved in this before sticking anything in.Yilloslime 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime 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 WP:WORD.) Adding bulk to the talk page when there is no true discussion is pointless. Raymond Arritt 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Yilloslime. Before adding the DDT section to the article, I deleted everything which had been accused of being WP:OR and WP:SYN 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. NCdave 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. --Theblog 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And for everyone's convenience, here's Raymondd Arritt's revert. Where's the WP:OR or WP:SYN, Yillowslime & Raymond? NCdave 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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock, 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." He cites a 1970 National Academy of Sciences committee report that (before its use was discontinued) DDT "prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."

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... [and, when properly used, does] 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.

In September, 2006, the World Health Organization 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 [WHO's] efforts to fight... malaria." 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." Milloy applauded the decision, and wrote, "It’s a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses," He called it "great news for developing nations that want to employ the most affordable and effective anti-malarial tool."

---

(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 WP:OR and WP:SYN which Yilloslime and Raymond Arritt accuse me of? Please be specific, gentlemen. NCdave 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OR:

• The Malaria Clock, which counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world.

• says Steven Milloy and NCdave. If we bring the clock into the mix, let's do it justice and at least quote Milloy's own footnote:

  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.

  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 [20].

[Aside: I just read a great article on DDT fetishism in Salon.com today.]Yilloslime 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 this Washington Post article 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 this 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. NCdave 06:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The following was moved here from the new "DDT" section: NCdave 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.JQ 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 [2000], 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. NCdave 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask: JQ, 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? NCdave 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, again I ask: where's the WP:OR or WP:SYN in the section that Raymond Arritt deleted? Here's Raymond Arritt's massive revert, which deleted the entire DDT section, supposedly because of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Yillowslime chimed in and agreed with the action and the supposed reason. But both Raymond and Yilloslime still have for the last week stonewalled the question of what they say in the deleted section was WP:OR or WP:SYN. Gentlemen, if you are going to denude the article of important content, allegedly for violating specific Wikipedia policies, you need to be willing to justify your accusations. NCdave 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, after two weeks with no answer, I think it is safe to declare consensus. There is no WP:OR and WP:SYN 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. NCdave 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Consensus DDT Section

Despite the apparent consensus on this section, as soon as I put it into the article it was instantly reverted, first by MastCell, then by John Quiggin, then by Yilloslime. So let's try again. Here's the consensus DDT section, plus a short addition (in brown) which I think is also noteworthy:

---

===DDT===

Milloy campaigned for many years 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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock, 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." He cites a 1970 National Academy of Sciences committee report that (before its use was largely discontinued) DDT "prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."

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... [and, when properly used, does 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.

In recent years, some environmental organizations have retreated from their opposition to DDT. The Sierra Club, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, and Environmental Defense (formerly the Environmental Defense Fund, which once led the campaign against DDT) now support indoor residual spraying with DDT for malaria control.

In September, 2006, the World Health Organization 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 [WHO's] efforts to fight... malaria." 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." Milloy applauded the decision, and wrote, "It’s a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses," He called it "great news for developing nations that want to employ the most affordable and effective anti-malarial tool."

---

Notice that I have accepted and incorporated all specific criticism received to date in the above section. If there is anyone here who has a specific criticism of that section, or other suggestions for improvement, please state it now. NCdave 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NCDave, in my first post to this page after you stopped editing here I responded to some of the questions you are re-asking today. (I actually thought maybe that post of mine is what prompted you to WP:STICK.) But let's try to avoid talking in circles like we did before--you might consider rereading the talk page before re-asking questions that have already been answered. Also, please refrain from making new sections everytime you post a new a comment. It makes it hard to follow the discussion. Yilloslime 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Raymond Arritt's total deletion of the DDT section meets Wikipedia's definition of vandalism: 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").[21]

Raymond, since last year you reported another user as a vandal, you should know the rules against vandalism. Please don't let it happen again. NCdave 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-read WP:VAND if you read WP:TE. Deal? Raymond Arritt 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 WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Then check out What vandalism is not: Stubborness. Raymond's not trying to sabotage Wikipedia; he just disagrees with you about how to improve Wikipedia. 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. MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, have you read tendentious editing? If so, why do you keep pushing your disdain for Mr. Milloy? NCdave 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, actually, it is vandalism. 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 WP:SYN or WP: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 vandalism wholesale deletion, then, please, answer the question which Theblog asked in the previous section: where is the supposed WP:SYN and WP:OR that Raymond Arritt and Yillowslime say justified deleting that section of the article? NCdave 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 Wikipedia. You're mistaking reams of circular discussion for consensus to insert the section. When User:Peroxisome 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 Wikipedia and the fact that this is, obviously, a content dispute over how the article should look, rather than Raymond trying to damage Wikipedia and you trying to protect it. If you can't at least get that far, then there's a problem. MastCell ^Talk 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. Once again, if anyone here truly thinks that there is OR or SYN in the proposed DDT section please identify it! I obviously can't address a problem if nobody will tell me what it is! NCdave 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. --Theblog 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 ([22], [23]). MastCell ^Talk 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 WP:OR and WP:SYN, 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. NCdave 06:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, some of us are not single-purpose accounts and spend some of our time on Wikipedia 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 village pump or elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 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. --Theblog 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. Yilloslime 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. --Theblog 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..." MastCell ^Talk 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. --Theblog 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 passive smoking, global warming 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.JQ 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is a major issue of controversy as regards science in the US Says who? The catholic church? BTW, evolution is more accurate since neither the Q or the A discuss creationism. --Theblog 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Says Wikipedia 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." JQ 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.[21]” 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. --Theblog 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. NCdave 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. --Theblog 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"[24] so if your problem is with the specific source cited, we could easily use another one. Yilloslime 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to be more accurate, a direct quote would be great. --Theblog 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. --Theblog 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. NCdave 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has now reverted my correction, without explanation. NCdave 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 [25] which gives some criticism. When I get time, I'll chase the original. JQ 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Surgeon General and WHO

The discussion on this seems to have got lost. User:TheBlog 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 WP:SYN. It would be better to find a WP:RS quoting these authorities in response to Milloy and include it in the criticism section. I'll try to tackle this soon.JQ 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 WP:SYN 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? Yilloslime 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. I fixed the link in the article to make it easy to find the information. So take advantage of that, and click on it, please! NCdave 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.JQ 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, Numbers 3 through 15, 1998 through 2000: EOP GROUP AMERICAN PETROLEUM INST MILLOY, STEVE Unless you've got some convincing evidence the senate is way off the mark, you're beating a dead horse. FeloniousMonk 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 only 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 not 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. NCdave 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. --Theblog 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor do any of the others. NCdave 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Centralizing discussion of the lobbying issue at the thread below. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back here, including MastCell's comments. NCdave 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 here: "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. MastCell ^Talk 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 documentary evidence? 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 not actually name him as one of the people who lobbied. They named many other individuals, but not Milloy. NCdave 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. NCdave 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The US Senate Lobby Registration & Reporting Disclosure Page 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.Yilloslime 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you don't understand what you are looking at. 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, click on the links for each document. 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. NCdave 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I love it! First NCdave removes the fact that documents show Milloy representing API while at EPO, then TheBlog 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 American Petroleum Institute to work out a strategy to influence the media so that it would "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science". from the same section! Good show gentlemen, good show! Yilloslime 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. MastCell ^Talk 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. --Theblog 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 WP:SYN, is that he is mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry. Might this have something to do with his global warming denialism? hmmmm.....Yilloslime 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.Yilloslime 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell wrote, "[on p. 3] Milloy's name is added to 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 removed from 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. NCdave 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.JQ 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. MastCell ^Talk 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell wrote, "[on p. 3] Milloy's name is added to 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 removed from 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. NCdave 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 not 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? NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 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). NCdave 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The source for Milloy's explaination of how he came to be listed in the lobbying directories is clearly not a reliable source. 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 verifiable reliable source! Yilloslime 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 google search 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 WP:RS claiming that he isn't a lobbyist. Are NCdave's arguments and tags wearing a little thin on anyone else? Yilloslime 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my yes. Not to mention the sheer weight of redundant verbiage. Raymond Arritt 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to make personal attacks. --Theblog 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 tendentious, 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 request for comment, becomes a reasonable next step in trying to move forward here. MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia biography (even if you prefix those accusations by weasel words like "critics claim"). Do you understand the difference, Yilloslime? NCdave 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:

1. 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.
2. 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 WP:LEAD (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 Wikipedia's guidelines.
3. 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 Union of Concerned Scientists, etc are widely recognized as reliable sources on Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia purposes.

In sum, we seem to be having a problem here; from my perspective, your approach is beginning to seem tendentious. If we find ourselves repeating the same ground and unable to move forward, then perhaps dispute resolution (e.g. a request for comments) would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 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? NCdave 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited source, a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, 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. MastCell ^Talk 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 weasel words. 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 Wikipedia 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... [so the GCST] 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. NCdave 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 tendentious in the extreme. MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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. NCdave 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. NCdave 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 Wikipedia 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 assume good faith when editors behave like this, with such cavalier disregard for truth and accuracy. NCdave 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone with the WSJ version, included by NCdave, 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. JQ 09:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Note: I've moved the API lobbyist discussion to the preceding section **** NCdave 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,[26] and here's an article which says, '"Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, 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."[27] Yilloslime, will you please stop trying to trash Mr. Milloy in every way you can? Wikipedia biographies are not supposed to be hatchet jobs. NCdave 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not supposed to be hagiographies, either. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the lead. 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 guidelines: "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. MastCell ^Talk 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. NCdave 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? NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. Thank you NCdave for finally providing some evidence 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 MastCell 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. Yilloslime 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? Raymond Arritt 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 biostatistician to debunk it. NCdave 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. NCdave 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, you've got a lot of chutzpah to demand documentation of anything, before you provide justification for your total deletion of the DDT 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 what WP:OR and WP:SYN you believe there was in the section that you deleted. NCdave 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Milloy's status as an attorney or biostatician is notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, 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 WP:LEAD.

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.

Clearly, starting the article with the line Steven J. Milloy is a biostatistician does not adhere to this guideline.Yilloslime 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. NCdave 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 their announcement of the winner.

"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. NCdave 05:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe your interpretation of what happened is correct. --Theblog 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 Wikipedia 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:

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.[28]

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.

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."

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. NCdave 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. JQ 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. NCdave 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. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 30 June 2007 (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. NCdave 19:32, 1 July 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 4 July 2007 (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. NCdave 02:37, 5 July 2007 (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 undue weight 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 WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Your constant, relentless efforts to hairsplit and focus on the personal motivations of editors rather than content issues are disruptive and tendentious, and you show no signs of changing your methods. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the article is supposed to be truthful. Second-guessing his motives to impugn his character is never acceptable, according to the [[WP:BLP|Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons], 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 Wikipedia article. NCdave 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 5 July 2007 (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. --Theblog 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

These aren't the appropriate comparisons. Look at say, Michael A. Bellesiles. 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.JQ 08:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NCdave 16:22, 5 July 2007 (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 talk page guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NCdave 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving active threads

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.

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? NCdave 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple; the threads were inactive for 3-4 months. The "recent activity" to which you refer consists of you trying to have The Last Word 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. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving recently updated threads is contrary to Wikipedia policy, 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. NCdave 04:45, 5 July 2007 (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 Last Word 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. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 5 July 2007 (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. NCdave 04:59, 5 July 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. Yilloslime 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you did the damage, you should undo it. NCdave 18:57, 5 July 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I will restore the threads which MastCell characterized as "long inactive" but which had actually had comments posted to then within the few days before MastCell archived them. NCdave 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

reorganization?

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.

I think we'd end up with a shorter, more comprehensible article if we took this strategy. Thoughts?Yilloslime 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and it's supported by the manual of style, Wikipedia:Criticism (an essay, not a guideline or policy, however), and Jimbo himself. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 5 July 2007 (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.

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 Raymond Arritt's massive revert, which deleted the entire DDT section, supposedly because of WP:OR and WP:SYN. 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 the deleted section was WP:OR or WP:SYN. Gentlemen, if you are going to denude the article of important content, allegedly for violating specific Wikipedia policies, you need to be willing to justify your accusations. Or apologize and restore the deleted content. NCdave 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Yilloslime 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NCDave, so your argument against reorganization is that sthere are bigger fish to fry--do I understand you correctly?Yilloslime 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 declined to explain:

"...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)

On June 29 you did not identify any supposed WP:OR or WP:SYN (nor did Raymond Arritt). You just claimed that "much of" the deleted section was OR and SYN, except for the first paragraph. 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 in the first paragraph! Note that the first paragraph is the one and only part of the section that you previously indicated did not have OR/SYN problems.

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 the proposed section contains, or concede that there are no others?

However, changing the topic slightly, JQ's version of the DDT section 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 original 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 strawman attack. It is disreputable form of argumentation, and especially egregious in the biography of a living person. NCdave 17:03, 6 July 2007 (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. NCdave 17:37, 6 July 2007 (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 common sense 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 already shown you, the SOPR database strongly supports that explanation. NCdave 17:37, 6 July 2007 (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? NCdave 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Hal peridol 23:08, 5 July 2007 (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 immediately reverted. NCdave 17:03, 6 July 2007 (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. NCdave 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 your sole activity on Wikipedia at present, I feel compelled to wonder whether there's a conflict of interest at work here. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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 according to ATSDR. 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 this UN report, this IPEN summary, this daily from an observer, and another daily by the same observer. I gave this info several times above, MAstCell commented on it, and then TimLambert provided this evidence as well. I'm surprised you missed that discussion. And you still seem have missed my OR/SYN post from the 29th. It's here. Yilloslime 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, the UN Report does not corroborate PAN claim that the WHO had reversed their position promoting the use of DDT for disease vector control. There's no reference there to anyone from the WHO saying such a thing.

The IPEN summary does, indeed, contain the claim that, "It is now clearly on the record that the WHO has not given DDT a ‘Clean Bill of Health.’" But they are just whistling in the wind. IPEN is a non-governmental anti-pesticide outfit, dedicated to the extreme position of supporting the complete elimination of DDT and similar pesticides. They have no authority to speak for the WHO, and certainly no authority to contradict the official statements of the WHO on the WHO's behalf. They give no quotes from any WHO documents or officials. In other words, they give no evidence.

The IISD (yet another private environmentalist outfit) is much the same. It amounts to a breezy environmental gossip sheet. They say, "Others, 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." Surely you can't be suggesting that sort of "buzz" is a more authoritative statement of the WHO's official position than is the official statement of the WHO, itself? What's more, the IISD even gives some hint of the truth regarding the WHO's support for DDT use: "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."

All in all, there is no solid evidence to support the anti-pesticide activists' claims that the WHO position is not what the WHO claims it is, and certainly nothing approaching the authority of the WHO's own official statement of position.

Also, there's nothing in that post of yours about the supposed OR/SYN problem with the proposed DDT section. Not a word. You do suggest adding Milloy's own footnote about the malaria clock, but that has nothing to do with OR/SYN, and mainly just reiterates what the section already says: that the malaria clock page counts numbers of malaria cases and deaths, most (not all) of which Milloy contends could be be prevented by judicious use of DDT to control disease vectors. My only objection to including that footnote is its length.

As for the 1972 ban, you and JQ are mistaken. It was not just agricultural use which was banned. The EPA banned "general use," not "agricultural use." It is a very broad ban, with only a few theoretical exceptions. In practice, the ban is complete. It currently is not possible for ordinary Americans to legally buy DDT for any purpose in the USA. It has been taken completely off the market, not just for agricultural use, but for any use.

This is the beginning of the EPA press release, taken from the epa.gov web site:

DDT Ban Takes Effect

[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]

The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes...

I added the bold-face of "general use" above, but other than that it is just the top of the EPA's own 1972 press release. You will not find anything on the EPA web site that says the ban is just on agricultural use. NCdave 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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, Hal peridol 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not organization, the problem is that right now the article is so loaded down with blistering criticism, much of it untrue, and nearly all of it overblown, that the article amounts to a hit piece rather than a biography. If there were a balance of praise and criticism, then it might be possible to make a reasonable article which included balanced praise and criticism of each topic. But right now there is about 20X as much criticism as praise, and most of the criticism is unfair, inaccurate, or both. NCdave 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical claims section

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. WP:BLP does not mandate that we manufacture "supportive" evidence to balance out criticism. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Kim D. Petersen 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 Wikipedia 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. --Theblog 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Theblog, i didn't take anything out - i added a citation. --Kim D. Petersen 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, where do you read that he never served as a judge? --Theblog 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From the source cited in the article. Thacker on the AAAS representative: "She aggressively questioned my credentials as a journalist, and stated again that Milloy had not been a judge." That's why we cite 'em. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. --Theblog 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<--- 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. Yilloslime 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Theblog 05:19, 10 July 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Theblog 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is false. It is an indisputably proven fact that Milloy was one of the 22 judges who chose the winner, and that he was only of only three of those judges whom the AAAS quoted in their announcement of the winner. Later, Ginger Pinholster determined that he should not have been a judge, because of his dual affiliation (i.e., his position as an adjunct scholar with Cato, i.e., that he's not a full-time journalist). But that was months later. The judging was already over, the winner was already announced. Someone at AAAS (presumably Pinholster) subsequently ordered that his name be deleted from the list of judges on the AAAS web site, but neither Pinholster nor anyone else at AAAS has ever alleged that Milloy had a conflict of interest, nor that he behaved in any way improperly. NCdave 00:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

demanddebate.com

Does this count as a verifiable, reliable source for Milloy running demanddemand.com? It's a National Review Online blog post by none other than CEI's Iain Murray. It is a blog, but by the same reasoning that we've accepted this 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 registered the domain name. Thoughts? Yilloslime 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Theblog 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. MastCell ^Talk 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the cat is out of the bag. Check out this CEI press release, 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.Yilloslime 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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). MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Kim D. Petersen 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. --Kim D. Petersen 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Yilloslime 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:BLP - 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. --Kim D. Petersen 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to document this.

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. Yilloslime 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. --Kim D. Petersen 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.....) --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kim here. I think we need to be careful, both related to our own policies (WP:BLP) 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Reuters ran a story mentioning the demanddebate banner at Live Earth, and at the Washington Post 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 Intro 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 undue weight. 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. Yilloslime 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. --Kim D. Petersen 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "boss" thing is from the National Review post by Milloy's CEI collegue Ian Murray: "Anyway, the event was also crashed by Bureaucrash and DemandDebate.com, whose boss Steve Milloy writes..." Yilloslime 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. Yilloslime 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter since the NRO source is out - per WP:SPS (its a blog). But its the closest thing i've seen towards a direct link. --Kim D. Petersen 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's out per WP:SPS. 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 WP:SPS then there is absolutely no way that only source for Milloy's explaination of his lobbying ties flies either. Yilloslime 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason to dismiss the blog is rather simple (WP:SPS): 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 WP:SPS rules - and this information fails all allowances for exception. --Kim D. Petersen 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Theblog 04:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens: Steve's buddy Tom Borelli is also involved. Anyway I've rearranged and reworded this stuff, let me know what you think.Yilloslime 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Chafee criticism?

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."[56]"

First off, its in the criticism section, yet no one is criticizing it but Wikipedia 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. --Theblog 03:06, 16 July 2007 (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. Raymond Arritt 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's there because he was criticized for his reaction to Chafee's death, in the same article 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. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's backward. The criticism should be consolidated in the criticism section. There is so much criticism in this article, and so little non-POV material, that if the two are merged it will become almost impossible to find the non-POV material. Even though the criticism section is more than 18x the praise section, there's still a lot of criticism strewn like litter along a highway, in the rest of the article. NCdave 23:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Alright, who deleted the tiny "praise" section? It was less than 10% of the length of the criticism section! Don't the Milloy-haters here care even about the appearance of balance in this article?

I've created a tiny praise section, with just one quote. It is less than 1/18 the size of the criticism section. It is factually accurate. It is far from adequate for providing balance to the heavy-handed and frequently inaccurate criticism of Milloy in this article, but it is better than nothing. Please do not delete it. NCdave 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your praise section was created in the course of a major edit which introduced any number of inappropriate and non-consensus alterations. If you want to add a proposed praise section, go ahead, but don't lump it in with a wholesale reversion to your personal preferred version of the article, which has been rejected at length on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The text of the "Praise" section I put in a while back is now in the "Books" section which is right at the end of the article. It's a matter of judgement whether this is more or less prominent than in the middle, following the criticism section. I'd be happy with recreating a Praise section myself.JQ 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Praise section now seems to have disappeared altogether. Perhaps we could fix this up before undertaking a discussion of unrelated issues.JQ 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back. Please do not do wholesale reverts without discussion. NCdave 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back to the starting point before you made wholesale changes. Note that a further reversion by you will violate WP:3RR. At this point, I suggest that we discuss the Praise section and try for consensus on that point. Then, if you want, you can resume discussion of other issues.JQ 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

JQ, you are one step ahead of me! Yilloslime 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've only done two reverts. But I obviously can't get these corrections to the article done with three anti-Milloy revert warriors instantly undoing them. So I've just tagged the whole article. NCdave 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. One could also draw the conclusion that, as you are the only one who supports the changes, they do not have anything near consensus and you've resorted to edit-warring and tag-bombing the article. MastCell ^Talk 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're in excess of 3RR, and I've reported you as tendentious editing is an ongoing problem here. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in excess of 3RR, MastCell, but you recently were. It is not tendentious editing to persistently object to blatant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. This is an article riddled with factual inaccuracies, poorly sourced criticisms, and deliberate misrepresentations. How can you possibly defend an article which claims that (for example), "In the world according to Milloy, any scientific study that does not support the world view where all chemicals are safe is "junk science", all environmentalists are alarmist, and pollution and second hand smoke are harmless?" You know perfectly well that is not an accurate, NPOV summary of Milloy's views, it is a vicious caricature. How can you defend having things like that in this article? NCdave 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I generally don't bother to defend obvious strawmen. The article doesn't claim that about Milloy. It notes that Milloy's critics have made such charges - and quite a few have. Reliably sourced criticism of a public figure in his public role is not only permissible under BLP, it must be noted for an article to be truly neutral. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag - biographical claims

Let's start with the Biographical Claims warning tag. That section is just plain false. That conclusion was reached w/o disagreement from anyone, weeks ago.

The section 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, 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 their announcement of the winner.

"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. So we need to correct the section to be truthful, or delete it. In the meantime, I just flagged it as as inaccurate. But I was reverted. NCdave 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Milloy critic's quote in this section is botched in just about every way imaginable, too. "Sheldon Glantz" does not exist. The man's actual name is Stanton Glantz. He's not an M.D., either. Despite his UCSF affiliation, he has no medical qualifications. He is an engineer, and leading anti-tobacco activist, who has been repeatedly skewered by Milloy, as "integrity-impaired" and a "hypocrite." Another article on Milloy's web site refers to Glantz's "statistical gibberish." Obviously Glantz is not exactly an impartial source of opinion about Milloy. NCdave 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag - DDT

As I've previously documented the current DDT section is not just biased, it is factually inaccurate. In the opening sentence, it falsely states that the 1972 ban was just on "agricultural use" of DDT, rather than a blanket ban on all use of DDT, with the effect of distorting Milloy's position as supporting agricultural use of DDT. Discussion of the consensus version of the DDT section ended weeks ago, with all concerns addressed. So I put it in the article... and was instantly reverted. Hence the warning tag. NCdave 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As previously pointed, you are wrong. In fact, the 1972 US ban was just on "agricultural use" of DDT. See Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002, specifically §5.3. And there definitely was no consensus over this section, and all concerns were not addressed. The reason debate stopped is because you went away. Yilloslime 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Yilloslime. I remember. We used to use it for mosquitoes. It was banned for that, too. We could no longer buy it at all. We still can't. If you know otherwise, please tell me where I can buy some!

But don't take my word for it. This is what they EPA said, in their Dec. 31, 1972 press release:

DDT Ban Takes Effect

[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]

The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes...

Read that again, please: "general use." Not "agricultural use."

As for the debate over the DDT section, what concerns do you think were not addressed? NCdave 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag - junk science

This section, apart from its controversial material about a living person taken from an extremely dubious source (inflammatory editorial comments from a political advocacy group), also contains the following REFerence:

'In the world according to Milloy, any scientific study that does not support the world view where all chemicals are safe is "junk science", all environmentalists are alarmist, and pollution and second hand smoke are harmless.' :Tittabawassee River Watch article on Steven Milloy

As I have previously pointed out, that is a particularly blatant lie. (Also, as I have also previously pointed out, the article is incorrectly sourced.) There is not a speck of evidence that Milloy believes that all chemicals are safe, or all environmentalists are alarmist, or pollution is harmless. Those are straw men: lies about an opponent, to facilitate dishonest attacks on him. I would think that even Milloy-bashers would be embarrassed by the viciousness and dishonestly of such attacks. NCdave 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag - Registration as a lobbyist

This section is factually inaccurate and extremely misleading. The fact is he was never a lobbyist, not for Monsanto, not for the International Food Additives Council, not for the API, and not for anyone else. We know how he came to be erroneously registered as a lobbyist by a client (EOP Group), even though he never did any lobbying. To state that he was a lobbyist is simply a lie. The article even states, falsely, that "Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council," citing as its only source, not any primary documentation at all, but (as usual) a dishonest editorial from a leftist outfit which cites no sources. Official Wikipedia policy requires that such trash must be removed immediately. For now, I'm just tagging it with a warning. NCdave 01:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag - Secondhand smoke

This section is factually inaccurate. It says, "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." That is untrue.

The most obvious (but least important) error is that the article says "R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company," but the actual company name in 1996 was "RJR Nabisco."

The significant error is the false claim that a PR firm "revised" Milloy's web site. That false claim is based on an out-of-context sentence fragment taken from an internal memo written by an employee of the PR firm. 'If the entire sentence is read, you learn that the PR firm did not, in fact, "revise" Milloy's web site themselves. They merely provided materials to Milloy for him to utilize on his web site. Since his web site includes a huge repository of information, his receiving information from a PR firm with whom he had no business relationship is not at all noteworthy.

The purpose of this deception is clear. The implication is that Milloy's web site wasn't really his own, but was actually just a mouthpiece for RJR. That implication is false and perhaps defamatory. I'll add a warning tag. NCdave 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will address those points, but first: the tendentious editing needs to stop. Accusing everyone else of revert-warring and ignoring consensus is absurd; in fact, there is general consensus about most of the article, and the only one continuing to argue a case which has been rejected by the other editors is NCdave. Proof of that principle occurred during his recent absence from the article, during which there was no edit-warring, there was civil progress made on the talk page, disputes were discussed rationally, and no one was accused of being a Milloy-hater, bleeding-heart liberal, or accomplice to genocide. That's a pretty good indication of where the disruptiveness is coming from on this article.

That said. As to the biographical claims section, it is amply documented in reliable secondary sources; cherry-picking one primary source which is widely acknowledged to be out-of-date is inappropriate. We have an AAAS spokeswoman, quoted in a reliable secondary source, stating that Milloy had a conflict of interest (which, to his credit, he eventually disclosed) and that his input was not used in selecting the winners, yet NCdave continues to ignore these clear, verifiable facts and claim that Milloy "helped select the winner". No.

There is no implication made in the article that Milloy behaved improperly at the AAAS. The criticism, from the secondary source, is largely the fact that he continues to have the claim on his website when the AAAS disavows him having any input as a judge. Yilloslime has tackled the endless stream of DDT objections.

As to the lobbyist issue, again we're going in circles. The article recapitulates what's found in verifiable, reliable sources. That includes Milloy's denial, but his denial doesn't make the question magically disappear when it's documented in multiple independent sources. Labeling every criticism of Milloy as coming from a leftist fringe group is both inaccurate and tired.

Finally, please stop claiming that the "reviewed and revised" thing is out of context. It's not. It's a direct quote, backed by secondary sources, and efforts to spin it away are not going to work.

The bottom line is that you've made these arguments before. Dozens of times. They have not convinced anyone that black is white. If you believe that everyone else except you is "ignoring consensus" and "edit-warring", then you can pursue dispute resolution, mediation, etc. But continuing your current course of tendentious editing is exhausting everyone's patience, and makes it clear that the problems raised in your prior RfC are still very much in play here. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. This article is full of well-documented inaccuracies and POV-pushing by the Milloy haters. The facts matter. When a biography of a living person is riddled with false statements, including blatant misrepresentations of his own opinions and positions, it is not "tendentious editing" to attach warnings to the article -- it is partial conformity to official Wikipedia policy. NCdave 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you also played the BLP card a bunch of times. There was a lengthy discussion of it above. Again, you convinced no one that there was a BLP issue; you persisted; it was suggested you go to the BLP noticeboard for outside opinions; you ignored that suggestion and continued hammering away with the accusations here. Tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is official Wikipedia policy, which you are thumbing your nose at. Continued violations of it do not make it less of a problem, but rather more of a problem, MastCell.

I see that Hal peridol has reverted my addition of a warning tag, claiming in his edit summary that "The facts that you dispute are clearly supported by the cited documents." Hal, you must not have read the cited document, because that is not true. In the first place, there was only one cited source for the disputed claim that the PR firm "revised" Milloy's web site. If you had read that then you would have seen that the anonymous memo writer actually said that what he edited was "new materials" for inclusion on Milloy's web site. The memo writer made no claim to have revised any existing material on the web site, nor did he even claim that Milloy had actually used any of the "new materials" he was edited, nor is there any other evidence in existence that Milloy actually used any of the materials.

This section is not accurate. It makes a claim that is only supported by taking a short sentence fragment out of the context of the whole sentence, and even that whole ungrammatical sentence is from an single anonymous source of unknown credibility. I'll try a different tag, which perhaps you will accept, Hal, if you read the actual cited source. NCdave 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to consider that Hal, like everyone else, has read the source, and like everyone else, finds your arguments unpersuasive. Please stop the tag-bombing. You are well over 3RR. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, why don't you let Hal answer for himself whether he read the source. I don't know him, but I would prefer to believe that he has the integrity to not intentionally get it wrong.

As for you, MastCell, you are the fellow who claimed that this memo says that Phillip Morris revised Milloy's web site, which is completely wrong -- and that was after I badgered you into finally reading it! Here are your words, and my reply:

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. MastCell Talk 00:34, 18 June 2007 (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. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that the cited source is evidence only that Powell Tate provided new materials to Milloy for use on his web site, and does not suggest that Powell Tate edited any existing content on the web site. It is shameful that you keep insisting on misleading wording which hides that fact, to confuse the reader into believing that someone other than Milloy controlled his web site. NCdave 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)The document [29] contains the following section:

PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH

Common Sense Science . RJR1475

• 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 .

• Fulfilled mailing requests for Science Without Sense .

• Held conversation with Steve Milloy to discuss column being written by Tony Snow on David Kessler and the ruling on ETS by the Environmental Protection Agency .

• Held discussions with Steve Milloy regarding Junk Scient Website content for 1997 .

Thus, "reviewed and revised" is a direct quote, from the PR firm (Powell Tate), describing work done on behalf of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (the name as used in the document). This seems to fully support the statement that "his junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company." Hal peridol 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:NCdave has been blocked for 1 week for edit-warring and violating WP:3RR. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be good to include Milloy's definition of "sound science". Searching junkscience.com and the archived TASSC homepage disn't yeild anything (in my hands), but there's got to be a good quote from Milloy out there somewhere, and I think it'd be good to include it.Yilloslime 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:NCdave was blocked for 1 week because of a false and shameful accusation of 3RR violation by MastCell.

Note, too, that "reviewed and revised" is an out of context quote, taken from an (ungrammatical) sentence in a memo by an unnamed person at Powell Tate, which then describes in the same sentence, in (slightly) more detail, what that phrase meant, which was the "reviewing and editing [of] new materials for inclusion on Website" -- the implication being that existing content was not revised by Powell Tate. What's more, there is no indication that the "new materials" which they had provided had yet been used by Milloy, and the phrase "for inclusion" suggests a hopeful future tense. The phrase, "reviewed and revised," thus, was typical PR-type hype, and when extracted from the context of its sentence in conveys the very false impression that someone other than Milloy had or shared editorial control of his web site. That would, indeed, be notable, were it true. But it isn't. Rather, Powell Tate took an interest in his web site, which, because it debunks junk science, they felt was helpful to their goals, so they provided him material which they encouraged him to use on his web site. But there is no suggestion that any such inclusion would be other than at his own discretion. That means that the whole matter is entirely unremarkable, since his web site contains a very large repository of material from many sources other than his own pen.

The transparent purpose of using this misleading out-of-context quote is to mislead the reader into believing that there is some evidence that Milloy was acting in concert with or as an agent of a PR firm. That is false, and blatantly in violation of WP:BLP, and perhaps defamatory. NCdave 09:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. As to "reviewed and revised", it is only "out of context" in that you haven't been afforded the opportunity to spin it as you're trying to do here. We've had consensus on this which you refuse to accept, we've used a direct quote, we have reliable secondary sources which back up the relevance of the issue, we've had outside uninvolved editors (e.g. User:Hal peridol) come in and agree that the wording of the article is fully supported by the sources... Tagging the article is a temporary measure during good-faith attempts to resolve a dispute. We've moved past that. It's time to put down the stick and back away from the horse carcass. If WP:BLP is your concern, then I'd suggest you bring it up at WP:BLP/N rather than edit-warring and tag-bombing. Your current approach, of making 4 reverts in 27 hours, is likely to be viewed as gaming the system. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You know perfectly well, MastCell, that quoting that sentence fragment, out of the context of the whole sentence, is deliberate deception, and anti-Milloy spin. It is indefensible. Until there is a good faith willingness by certain editors here to make the article truthful its accuracy and balance will remain disputed by the editors who care about such things, including me. NCdave 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Exxon Secrets

If you must link to exxon secrets, can you at least find a page that talks about Milloy and link directly to it? I tried to find him, but the site is too flash intensive and I quickly lost interest. --Theblog 05:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. When I restored the link, I made it go directly to the Steven Milloy page. Check it out now. Yilloslime 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, much better. --Theblog 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

In the current atmosphere of relative calm, I'd like to propose significantly restructuring the article. Mainly, this would involve incorporating the criticism into the body of the article, as previously proposed, and doing away with the separate "Criticism" section. As part of that, as Theblog has mentioned, we should probably draw some tighter distinctions about what areas of criticism are most relevant. The criticism of Milloy's objectivity, in light of his corporate connections, is very relevant and should remain. However, as Theblog mentioned, criticism of Milloy for "being rude" (e.g. his reaction to Rall's death), while distasteful, may not rise to an encyclopedic level or need to remain in the article. For all the arguing about the AAAS thing, I'm similarly on the fence over whether the whole incident is relevant enough to mention, or should perhaps be excised or folded into a section on Milloy's relationship to mainstream scientific bodies. I think that by focusing the "criticism" section on the most encyclopedically relevant issues, the article will be improved and possibly less drama-prone. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here here. Let's do it. I could live without the Rall thing as well, but I do think the AAAS stuff should stay--I see it as evidence of Milloy trying to pump up his scientific creds. Also, the fact that AAAS decided not to play ball with him says something about his relationship to mainstream scientific bodies. It'll probably be contentious, but I'd love to see the whole episode boiled down to like 2 or 3 sentences, because that's all it deserves per WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. Would burying some details in footnotes be a solution if we can't cram all the relevant details into the body, or is that frowned upon? At any rate, I think we could start by deleting the last sentence (and possibly the entire last paragraph) of that section. Yilloslime 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove the Rall and Chafee parts, its not like the article is hurting for material. I would be for removing the AAAS thing too, I think it was blown out of proportion by the article. If left in, I still object to deleting the last part of the AAAS thing, taking that out swings it completely to NPOV, instead of just partially being there. As for the rest, integrate away. --Theblog 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing about that last sentence is that it's a criticism of AAAS, not Milloy. The sentence refers to Milloy, but if the controversy had instead been about accidentally inviting a garbage man to be managing editor of Science, that sentece would still be a valid criticism of AAAS. See what I'm getting at? (I realize I'm perhaps not phrasing very well.)Yilloslime 21:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So I've taken a stab at restructuring. I've merged the sections on asbestos, removed the last paragraph of the AAAS controversy, and removed the Rall stuff. I've copied the deleted section below, so they're not lost forever. Let me know what you think, and please revert if you all ain't confortable with this!!! Yilloslime 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Biographical claim 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." Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, criticized the AAAS for not doing its homework, saying "They can’t have made him a judge and then take it away from him."

Reaction to death of political opponents

In 1999, David Platt Rall, a prominent environmental scientist, died in a car accident. Milloy noted Rall's death on junkscience.com as the "Obituary of the Day," writing: "Scratch one junk scientist who promoted the bankrupt idea that poisoning rats with a chemical predicts cancer in humans exposed to much lower levels of the chemical — a notion that, at the very least, has wasted billions and billions of public and private dollars." Cato Institute President Edward Crane called Milloy's attack an "inexcusable lapse in judgement and civility", but Milloy continued his attack on Rall, writing: "As far as David Rall is concerned, he was a bad guy when he was alive — shamelessly promoting the bankrupt notion that human cancer risk can be predicted by poisoning rats with chemicals. …Death did not improve his track record — no matter how many letters the Environmental Working Group sends to the Cato Institute." Since that time, Milloy has removed the attacks from his website, although he has not apologized.

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."

Breast implants. The LEAD mentions breast implants, but this is not discussed any further in the body of article. Since Milloy is/was actually right about silicone breast implants for the most part (as I recall), it might be nice to add a little section. This might help counter all the criticism that's already in the article. Thoughts? Yilloslime 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a can of worms to open up, particularly as the FDA recently re-approved silicone but there is still a significant (though minority) portion of the medical community who consider that decision erroneous. However, we could certainly add something about his comments on breast implants, with a link to our page on the controversy and recent FDA actions. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We certianly don't need to. I have NOT followed the breast implant thing much, but my (possibly mistaken) understanding of the situation is that despite all the media attention and court battles, no link between silicone breast implants and autoimmune disorders was ever identified. But maybe it's not that simple... Yilloslime 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the restructuring, I have folded the "Criticism" aspects of secondhand smoke and the environment into the main headings (under "Junk Science"), and I'm going to remove the AAAS section entirely for now - I can't see a good place to fit it, and it seems too minor to mention in its own right. Of course, we could work it back in if so desired. I'm going to finish up and remove the "Criticism" section entirely, as most of the relevant info has been merged, or removed as Yilloslime mentioned above. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, once you are done cutting and rearranging, would you mind pasting here any paragraphs that have been totally excised? That would make it really easy for everyone to see what has been lost, since it can sometimes be hard to tell from the diffs exactly what happened. Thanks. Yilloslime 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem: here is the revision immediately before I started condensing, and here is a diff summarizing all the changes I've made. As to excised sections, they include the lead of the criticism subsection:

Milloy has been accused by his critics of making misleading and false claims, and of misrepresenting himself as an impartial journalist on health and environmental matters while accepting funding and editorial input from tobacco and oil companies. 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.

... as well as the remainder of the AAAS section:

Milloy's biography on his junkscience.com website claims that he was a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards. However, the AAAS website does not list him among the 2004 judges. Journalist Paul D. Thacker reported that the AAAS initially invited Milloy as a judge, because he was listed in a media directory of journalists as a "science editor". However, Milloy quickly notified the other panelists that he had a conflict of interest due to his affiliation with the Cato Institute. His input was not considered and he was removed from the AAAS' list of judges, though Milloy's website maintains that he was a member of the judging panel.

Everything else has just been moved around, so far as I can see. I did remove this passage from the "Journalistic ethics" criticism:

Journalists who take money to write pieces favorable to corporate interests are widely considered to be breaching journalistic ethics.

... because it seemed a little like WP:SYN to list other non-impartial journalists and then make the implicit comparison to Milloy. After all, there are already notable, relevant direct criticisms of him under this topic. Finally, I removed Category:American lobbyists. While we've gone back and forth, and he was registered as a lobbyist, no one has argued that he actually worked as one, and categories are not meant to be a vehicle to engage in disputes (i.e. if they're controversial, they should generally be removed). That's about it, I think. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Yilloslime 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier, in the Junkscience and got no reply (perhaps b/c it was buried in the middle of the page?), so I'll bring it up again here:

I'd love to turn our attention to Peroxisome's deletion of this section:

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation says Milloy's campaign against what he calls "junk science" is a carefully-crafted facade on behalf of the tobacco industry and other elements of big business to mislead the public in order to protect their profits:

Steven Milloy has adopted the role of a tobacco industry 'sound science' defender. Milloy has made it his life’s work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the world’s most reputable and credible scientific agencies—such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization—and legitimate peer reviewed periodicals—such as Science, Nature, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association—and label their objective evidence as “junk science"…Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy relationship with the tobacco industry that has resulted in his incarnation as Big Tobacco’s poster boy for 'junk science.'

His given justification being: "WP:BLP remove libellous quote. There is no evidence that he creates facades, or that he denies; he debunks. Example given" It is neither libellous nor does it violate WP:BLP, there is plenty of evidence to support what it says, and it's a nice summary of the major criticisms against him. I think it should go back in. Thoughts?Yilloslime 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that as neither libellous (as it is their opinion of his performance, and his relationship with the tobacco industry is a matter of record - though I'm not a lawyer) nor inherently a BLP violation. However, I was a little uncomfortable with the prominence and weight accorded that section, both by virtue of its placement toward the top of the article and by virtue of the highlighted quotebox. I think that a much-condensed, probably quotebox-free version of the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation position could be included (in 1 or 2 sentences) in the "Secondhand smoke" section. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While you guys are thinking about restructuring, the page seems out of date. Milloys junkscience page these days is mostly concerned with global warming, which should have its own section. By the way, considering its such a controversial subject, the page is quite good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.243.220.21 (talk)

Yes, but the page is supposed to be an overview of his public career, rather than what's-he-doing-at-the-moment. That said, his global-warming-related stances are discussed in detail in the article, but given his lengthy involvement in the secondhand smoke debate, that section remains though Milloy has apparently moved on. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The science that Mr. Milloy disputes

Allegations aside, the science that Mr. Milloy disputes is open to a certain and fair amount of debate.

No, most are not.jgwlaw 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Milloy is a careful documenter of politicized science and other bad science. This article is an anti-Milloy hit-piece. I've added a "neutrality disputed" warning. NCdave 08:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Straightforward categorizing of his views and evidence as being 'baseless' shows a bit of POV. This article could use less POV by including a section on what Mr. Milloy calls junk science rather than opening the page on him with a section called 'CRITICISM'. NPOV please... (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see the word "baseless" in the article. Please point out the POV. --Viriditas 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry 66.75.3.244, but you don't appear to understand the NPOV policy. Please read it. --Viriditas 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one the entire biographical section on Mr. Milloy had been summed up as being 'evil tobbacco front' and 'scary industry insider.' So I added the section on his education quoted verbatim from his website. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Please sign your comments with three tildes. There's nothing wrong with adding information to the article. That is actively encouraged, so I thank you for doing that. We don't want to add anything "verbatim" however, as there are copyright policies in place and plagiarism is discouraged. I don't see the word "evil" or "scary" anywhere in the article. --Viriditas 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Better, please sign your comments with four tildes, so they get a timestamp. NCdave 08:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the only POV on the page had to do with external criticism of Mr. Milloy by enviromentalists and their front groups. The extent of those criticisms summed up Mr. Milloy's views as being 'baseless' which if you search Yahoo you can find is standard for the rebuttals of his claims. So I added the section that covered some of Mr. Milloy's junk science views which maintains the pages NPOV by balancing the arguments for and against. Best. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

I disagree with what you claim about external criticism, however I encourage you to add information rather than deleting it, so thank you again for adding information about his views. --Viriditas 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I deleted a couple of redundencies and moved them to the opening paragraph (mostly about his affiliations). I added the background about his education and viewpoints and linked to examples. I think the only things I have actually 'deleted', rather than moved, were POV words such as 'attacked' and such where I changed these to say criticized. Best. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Cato Institute is not an environmental group, nor is Robert Todd Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary. Milloy has been criticized by many different groups, so please don't describe them as "environmental groups" as they run the gamut. --Viriditas 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is awful

The vast majority of this article consists of Ad hominem attacks against Milloy. Whilst this ia a rhetorical technique works against most people, it is logically fallicious - you cannot say that because he has links to organisations with vested interests in what he is saying, everything he says is therefore wrong with no further qualification - which is what this article (well... it looks more like an op-ed piece, but whatever) appears to be implying, and what people on this discussion page seem to be saying ought to be the case..

In addition, this paragraph is particularly objectionable:

"Milloy has been one of the most prominent popularizers of the idea that scientific research suggesting that corporate activities may damage health or the environment is junk science, which should be replaced by sound science. These terms are used primarily by corporate special-interests and have no definition within the scientific community."

I despise Milloy, but I have to agree that this paragraph needs to be rewritten or moved to the criticism section. This section should describe junk science (Milloy has provided his own definition if a suitable one can't be found within the "scientific community"), not condemn usage of the term. --Garrepi 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While "Junk science" may not be a technical term, scientists do, in fact, have a concept of science that is wrong, or that is inconclusive. No effort appears to have been made in the creation of this article to present his views with any semblence of balance, but simply to smear his character and attack nit-picks in his massive site and body of work.

I have read this article, his site and various articles attacking him, and I have to say that this article is not in any way befitting of an encyclopedia (although in all fairness, I have noticed this appears to be an endemic problem in wikipedia in politics-related articles; I have no idea why). It ought to be editted by someone, preferably neutral in the global warming debate, who is not attempting to come across as a rabid envrionmentalist. 88.105.242.190 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global warming is beyond dispute. No reptuable scientist disuputes it. In fact, that global warming is caused by humans is also not in dispute

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." (Washington Post)

IN contrast, Rush Limbaugh stated that he read somewhere that the earth's temperature had actually dropped in the last couple of years. Don't know where he would have read that, since 2005 was the hottest year on record (as far as the earth' temperature). This is an example of what real 'junk' the notion of 'exposing junk science' often is. jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Global warming is far from beyond dispute. I have read many articles arguing the theory and even the top climatologist Stephen Schneider says, "Is there global warming? I'm not 99% sure, but I am 90% sure." The fact is, from the POV of the skeptics, much of the data gathered about global warming is insufficient or suspect. This article needs less ad hominem attacks and more unbiased critical analysis of his writings. That's what I came here for, not this nonsense. 202.61.229.85

Yes, scientists do have a concept of science that is "wrong", but junk science is used almost exclusivly by corporate interests to disparage scientific findings at odds with corporate needs. Furthermore, the labeling of something as "Junk Science" seems to have little to do with its scientific merit. Thus Global Warming, which is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community is called "Junk", while no such label is attached to Creationism or Intelligent Design. This is because Creationism does not pose any immediate threat to profits. (In fact, one of Milloy's sites had an anti-evolution article on it).

Also, while it is true that recieving thousands of dollers from interested parties does not mean everything he says is wrong. However, the fact that he has recieved so much money from corporations, and then did not mention this in his writings or commentary does make his statements suspect at best. Ace-o-aces 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not a scientist. He is not an academic. He is a political columnist and paid pundit. This is not a biased article, and I am removing the tag.jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course he's a scientist. He has a Masters degree in biostatistics, and specializes in critiques of the misuse of statistics. He is not a paid pundit. This hit piece grossly violates Wikipedia's guidelines requiring accuracy and NPOV, and its guidelines for biographies of living people. NCdave 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment by 88.105.242.190 misunderstands the notion of "ad hominem", which concerns criticism of an argument, not of a person. Also NPOV does not mean the same thing as 88.105.242.190 appears to understand from "neutrality" - Global warming is today's featured article and presents the view of the scientific community, while noting the existence of dissent. You might improve the article by reporting endorsements of Milloy's work by scientists or by mentioning positive things he's done JQ 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You ought to read your own writing. Your entire response is a hodge-podge of Ad hominem attacks and appeal to motive attacks. Regardless of his motives, if you believe that his analysis of the evidence for global warming is incorrect then you must attack 1) his evidence and/or 2) his analysis. You have done neither, yet you have no qualms with simply declaring it is wrong because of evil big business and <fallacies>. Global warming is most certainly not a theory without contention in the scientific community, whereas intelligent design and creationism have no supporters in the scientific community to my knowledge. In fact, numerous scientists have openly criticises the "consensus" on global warming:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wkyoto09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3612471

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00001.htm

The "scientific community" does not exist as a single homogenous collection of views.

At best you could say that global warming is 'likely', but it remains to be seen how much of the historically unspectacular 0.6deg rise can be attributed to human activity, yet hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on measures to combat global warming that will be completely ineffective even if 100% of it is due to human causes. This appeals to be the crux of Milloy's point, as far as I have read, and I am yet to be shown why it is invalid.

This is absolutely untrue. Global warming is not 'likely'. It is a proven fact. See below. You have not evidently read the many many scientific articles on this issue.jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the earth's average climate has warmed slightly is not widely disputed, but whether that warming is out of the historical norm, whether it is a significant problem, whether it results from anthropological causes, and what (if anything) can and should be done about it are very much in dispute in the scientific community. NCdave 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that Milloy's links to business should be included in the article, they should not be framed in such a way as to suggest to an average reader that they invalidate all of his views without the need to do anything so quaint as scientifically examine his arguments. 88.105.244.99 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to repost the entire Global Warming article here. That article already mentions arguments against global warming by some scientists. Milloy is not a scientist. He is a paid PR rep. He is paid to represent the views of his clients. Ace-o-aces 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course he's a scientist. He has a Masters degree in biostatistics, and specializes in critiques of the misuse of statistics. He is not a paid PR rep, and there is no evidence at all that he is paid to represent the views of his clients. On the contrary, all the records I've seen indicate that, like any good consultant, he is paid to provide information to his clients. There is no record of him ever having been paid to disseminate someone else's views, nor is there any evidence at all that he has ever said or written something he didn't honestly believe, in his expert opinion, to be true. NCdave 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Well one point is clear, Milloy has lots of opponents ... seems someone mentioned the world was round in a flatland beehive. Last time I checked, popularity was not part of the scientific method.Tanuki-Dori

Popularity is not part of the scientific method, but integrity is. Milloy has lots of opponents because he disrespects and attacks the scientific method to advance harmful agendas in return for a tidy profit. He's the flat-earther in your analogy. MastCell 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, integrity is a social instrument, like popularity. Tanuki-Dori 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand... corrected???? MastCell 06:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem (and possibly defamatory) attacks on Milloy are strictly forbidden by WP:BLP, MastCell. Your first sentence, about integrity, is true. Your false and vicious Milloy bashing in the two subsequent sentences prove only your own disdain for what you just wrote in the first sentence.

The truth is that Milloy has many detractors mostly because he is a careful scientist: that is, he is hated because he is so effective at skewering junk science, and he is only effective and persuasive because he is a careful scientist. NCdave 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

this article is one long string of bile and ad hominem abuse. Milloy points out many examples of junk science, where the science really is junk. This is transformed into him being a paid hack who only looks out for paid corporate interests. There are numerous errors, e.g.

"the CDC could not link any cancer clusters with environmental causes"

this is then labelled as a falsehood, by giving examples of cancer obtained through occupational exposure. Most epidemiologists make a distinction between occupational and environmental, and I don't see the need for such high octane languange under any circumstances. Peroxisome 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Over at John Brignell you say associating JB with Milloy is a smear. Now you're defending him. Do you deny that he's a paid hack? Can you point to any instance where his writing damages the corporate interests who pay him? The evidence on this was clear enough for Cato to sack him. JQ 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I dare say you are paid, and you probably don't damage your employer's interests much. Does that make you a paid hack, and does that justify any poisonous bile anyone puts on your page ?

As I understand, WP:V is an important issue. How about you provide some evidence that his writing makes a material difference to corporate interests that pay him, instead of speculating ? How about you provide some evidence that his writing on junk science is motivated by payments, instead of speculating ? If you have something to say about sacking, and it meets WP:v and is relevant, how about you put it up ?Peroxisome 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Milloy seems to be exploiting a relatively arbitrary distinction between environmental and occupational exposure, but having checked out the CDC's website it does support a literal reading of his statement. I'll go ahead and remove the offending paragraph you cited. Can you cite other examples of POV (or even better, propose corrections?) I do think your analogy is a little ridiculous. If I'm paid to report on "science" for a supposedly reputable news organization, and I then take beaucoup $$$ and coincidentally disparage any science that harms my benefactors, I've committed a fairly giant breach of journalistic ethics (or paid hackery, if you like). Even Fox News admitted as much, for God's sake. This fact, as well as the fact that Milloy has repeatedly profited handsomely by being on the wrong side of public health issues (and spreading as much FUD as possible) are all relevant to the article, and will result in an overall negative tone; however, if you cite other areas which violate WP:NPOV, let's try to fix them. MastCell 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

dear mast cell, thanks for your comment. If you have something specific to cite about milloy breaching journalistic ethics that meets WP:V, please reference. As is, there seem to be an awful lot of innuendo, and very little substance. I don't see anything that supports the contention "has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company"; for such a specific, and potentially defamatory claim, I would expect to see exact citation. I also cannot find the factual basis for the first sentence; even if Milloy did work for an organisation that received funds from a tobacco company, that does not necessarily make him a paid advocate for that company. Does prwatch.com qualify as a reliable source ? Looking at WP:V, it looks perilously close to being a "Sources of dubious reliability".

the junk science page defines as follows

""Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas."[[30]] Why not set out what that says before launching into a POV paraphrase ? Peroxisome 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, don't push it too far. The citation for the claims about "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is The New Republic article. It's plastered all over the article. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. As far as journalistic ethics, again, it's there in black and white. Fox News confirmed it. This article is actually fairly well-sourced, and there's plenty of substance there. MastCell 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ok; if it is footnote 2, can you please add a link to that footnote from paragraph 3 ? If sentence 1 justifies the paid advocate bit by reference to footnote 2 (and not footnote 1), change the reference. The footnote should point out that a subscription is required. It is unfortunate the subscription is required to ref 2, because I cannot evaluate the claim. I do not see anything in reference 1 which substantiates a claim of direct payment to SM by phillip morris, nor that he was paid to be an advocate for them- can you help me with this ? The statements about reference 2 also appear inconsistent; if sm is a paid advocate for exxon mobil, that is very different from the formulation of para 3 that organisation sm is associated with have received payment from exxon mobile.

Does PRwatch.com meet wp:rs ? It looks to have problems under "Company and organization websites", and the article author is the CEO of the organisation, so it is close to self-publication. Peroxisome 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at footnote 2 on google cache. Several of the statements made on the main page are not supported by reference 2; it does not say he is a paid advocate; it does not say he was paid hundreds of thousands of $ from PM. Peroxisome 09:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you appear to have learned from The Master (Milloy) himself. OK, here are direct quotes from ref 2:

According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. “In 2000 and 2001, some of the work he did was to monitor studies, and then we would distribute this information within to our different companies,” Gonzalez said. Although she couldn’t comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. [emphasis added]

Here's more from the same reference:

Milloy’s relationship to big tobacco goes back at least to March 1997, when he took over as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group established in 1993 by Philip Morris and p.r. firm APCO Associates "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states"...A 1997 Philip Morris budget report includes a line item granting TASSC $200,000. As executive director, Milloy also reached out to other allies within the industry. For instance, in September 1997, he sent a letter to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation soliciting $50,000: “The grant will be used to further TASSC’s efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers on priorities in public health,” he wrote.

This is not from PRWatch; it's from TNR, which meets WP:V and WP:RS. Ergo, paid advocate. Ergo, hundreds of thousands of dollars (if you prefer "more than $100,000" we could change it to that). Anything else? MastCell 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there are numerous issues here. If the source is TNR, then that is the source which should be cited. Are you accepting that PRWatch looks to be a dubious source ?

I understand that there is a difference between paying someone (a fee), and reimbursing expenses. I don't see that there is necessarily any obligation imposed if someone reimburses reasonable expenses to you; whereas there might be if they make a payment to you. I see that there is a world of difference between a company budgeting for an expense, and actually paying that expense; if a budgeted item is not paid in one year, you can move the budget item into the next financial year. The cited reference does not state that he was paid hundreds of thousands, nor does it show for what purpose he was paid.

What the reference says is that Milloy's company/organisation was paid to "educate the public, media and policymakers on priorities in public health”; specifically, this does not say that Milloy was directly paid by philip morris or exxon, nor does it say he was paid to be an advocate for PM or exxon. Peroxisome 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that milloy is alive, and so this article must adhere to WP:LIVING.

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] Peroxisome 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it a break, per, this is just silly. The TNR article sets out the facts quite clearly, and euphemisms like "educate the public" don't fool anybody. There's loads of well-sourced criticism of Milloy over his paid advocacy (just Google Milloy+TASSC), and the article can easily be expanded to include more if that's what you want. Also, read the section on Rall - even Brignell found that one a bit hard to stomach. Do you really want to waste your time on this guy? JQ 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of argument that gives pedantic sophistry a bad name. First of all, I'm not saying PRWatch is dubious (it's not); you expressed some concerns about verifiability; I took these to be in good faith, so I'm providing a second, corroborating source to support the statements in the article. You're making a non-existent distinction between paying someone and "reimbursing expenses". What "expenses" did Milloy spend $90,000 a year on? Staples? You're really arguing that accepting $90,000 a year from a tobacco company doesn't reflect a service rendered? There's a paper trail a mile long here. Finally, please stop throwing policies around left and right. This article DOES adhere to WP:LIVING. The TNR article was published; no relevant corrections were made; Fox News indirectly confirmed its allegations. If you'd prefer, there are several articles on Milloy in The Guardian, a U.K. paper published in a country with even stricter libel laws, which corroborate the info in TNR (and this article) and then some. I appreciated your first comment about the cancer clusters, and acted on it. If you'd prefer different wording, then propose it here and let's discuss it. MastCell 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that Milloy's earnings from his consulting work didn't reflect service rendered. What I object to is leaving out what services he rendered, to support bogus accusations against him. The same report which documents the payments to Milloy (on p. 13) also documents what work he did to earn that money. The work he was paid for was "monitoring and reporting on scientific studies concerning tobacco, food and beer" (p. 66). That's exactly the sort of services you'd expect him to be hired for, because that's what he's expert on (that and statistical analysis).

If you are going to believe what the report says about what he was paid, why would you deny what it says about why he was paid, and invent an entirely different supposed reason for the payments? There's no evidence that he was ever paid a penny for "advocacy."

BTW, the expenses were only $2500 of the $92,500. NCdave 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

my understanding is that this is an encyclopedia, and that you have to provide verifiable sources for statements of fact. You must adhere to wp:LIVING. It is not acceptable to misrepresent the reference you have, on the grounds that there is another reference somewhere else, which you haven't cited.

1. just because a company budgeted for something, does not mean that they spent the money. The journalist thacker made this statement quite carefully. Reimbursement of expenses is not payment, and is not payment for advocacy. Even if milloy was paid, it doesn't show he was paid for advocacy.

2. According to Thacker, Altria say that he worked on monitoring studies. This is not paid advocacy, and there is no mention of the amount of money.

3. Payment to a company run by Milloy is different from a payment to Milloy. According to the Thacker article, TASSC was funded for a specific purpose, and it was not advocacy for PM or exxon.

4. I think that PRwatch is a dubious source under WP:living; it is clearly partisan, it makes statements that are unreferenced and unverifiable, and it is a special interest group with inadequate standards of editorial supervision publishing on their own website. Under any circumstances, it does not justify the claim "a paid advocate for Phillip Morris".

5. This is an encyclopedia; the reliable source (Thacker) made clear that TASSC was funded to "educate the public", as you put it. Changing who was paid, and what they were paid for, is to contradict the facts that you have available.

6. If there is a story about journalistic ethics and Milloy and Fox, I cannot work out what it is. It is not clearly spelt out, and there are insufficient references to back up anything under any circumstances.

Peroxisome 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there is a story about journalistic ethics and Milloy and Fox, I cannot work out what it is." I don't think anyone else had any trouble working this out, including Cato who dumped him like a hot potato, even after tolerating the Rall business. JQ 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference: Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (look under "Act Independently"), or try Public Relations Society of America statement on disclosure of financial interests, since Milloy is more of a PR type than a journalist. However consider him, Milloy has violated the ethics codes of both PR and journalism - not my opinion, but a verifiable fact. MastCell 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

innuendo and spin is not the same as a clear statement of what the facts are. If cato, or fox, fired or dropped him for a reason, and you have a reference substantiating that clearly, provide the reference and make the statement of fact. If all you have is innuendo, then delete it. Peroxisome 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have a better way to state the fact that Milloy was paid by Philip Morris to put forward their point of view, let's hear it. Or you could spend some time looking at the Philip Morris document archive. Milloy's name comes up a few times. The organization he ran, TASSC, was listed by Philip Morris as a "PM tool to affect legislative decisions" - see here. Since make accusations of misrepresenting sources, perhaps you should re-read the Thacker article - to say that Thacker "makes clear the TASSC was funded to educate the public" obscures the fact that Thacker's article is about the nefarious purposes for which TASSC was actually funded. MastCell 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made the point that the reference you cite does not justify your claims. You are not even arguing against that. Peroxisome 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've repeatedly mispresented the Thacker article. Milloy was paid by Philip Morris. He advanced their agenda. Hence, paid advocate. This is spelled out in the Thacker article; hence the citation justifies the claim. There are parts of the article that could use a more neutral tone. However, you seem to be fixated on spinning things to a pro-Milloy POV that just isn't supported by the references given here. As I've said repeatedly, if you have a constructive suggestion, propose it here. If you feel we're being unreasonable, there are any number of dispute resolution tools available. MastCell 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the article in front of me; it does not use the word advocate at all. I have addressed above the specific quotes you provided, and made clear that they do not justify the words that you have used. You obviously have a belief that he is "on the wrong side of public health", but that does not justify statements that are not supported by the reference. You must conform to WP:living. Peroxisome 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see WMC has taken to reverting. I merely note that he is inserting material which confirms to his POV, and which is clearly partisan. The reference gives a specific definition of what the web-site is dedicated to. WMC's paraphrase is not supported by the reference. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, with attention to accuracy; it is not a place for excoriating your personal hate-icons :-) Peroxisome 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As a general point, Per, if you regard something as inadequately cited, it's best to add a cite or fact tag, and see if you get a response rather than immediately blanking material.

Again, the Thacker article does not use the word "advocate", but makes it clear that Milloy is exactly that. Paraphrasing the conclusions of an article is acceptable and in fact a cornerstone of what we do on Wikipedia; if you have a serious disagreement about what the article says, that's one thing. If your objection is that I use the word "advocate" and the article expresses the same idea with different words, then that seems a little silly. How about this: I'll change the first sentence from "paid advocate" to "paid consultant". Then we're using the exact same words. MastCell 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) — — Addendum: After reviewing further tobacco company documents, which explicitly state that RJR Tobacco, for one, reviewed, revised, and edited Milloy's junkscience website content, I've decided that advocate is actually more appropriate. MastCell 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also added some information and citations regarding the secondhand-smoke issue. The citations are from the primary documents (Philip Morris memos, letters, etc), and are freely available. MastCell 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, in reference to Peroxisome's argument about payment to Milloy directly vs. payment to a company consisting of Milloy, I've mentioned I regard this as a specious argument. Nonetheless, if you'd like evidence the fact that Milloy himself was directly on Philip Morris' payroll, here is Philip Morris's 2001 budget for "Strategy and Social Responsibility" - note Milloy's name, next to $180,000 in payments over 2 years. The point is not so much PRWatch, or TNR, as individual sources, but the fact that what they say is backed up by multiple independent primary sources as well, creating a coherent picture of Milloy as a paid advocate for PM and others. Please re-read WP:RS on this, since you're fond of quoting it. MastCell 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these improvements to the article, MastCell, and thanks to Peroxisome for stimulating them. The more the article is challenged on weakly sourced points, the better it will become, and the better the documentation of Milloy's activities for readers who aren't already aware of them. JQ 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

err, the point is exactly about individual sources and what they say. What you are saying is that you are willfully ignoring the distinction between payments to Milloy, and payments to organisations that he is associated with- that the distinction is "specious". That is obviously perverse.

You have evidence of a budget for payments from PM; but there is nothing there to say what it is for, beyond "emerging issues". You may note that RJR have been in discussion with milloy, but you are lacking the elements of payment, and the notion of purpose (advocacy). I don't think you have provided anything which links exxon directly to payments to milloy, or for advocacy. Just because you have found the primary sources that Thacker used, does not give you licence to garble them together to make unjustifiable, and defamatory, statements.

I counsel you again; wp:living. I also counsel you that " Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. " This is the warning on the top of the page. Peroxisome 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will note as well that, despite the mutual appreciation from quiggin and mast, all you have done is go back to the primary literature that thacker indicated; and I hadn't complained that that article failed to meet WP:RS. I will note that there is a distinction between the approach of a professional journalist- who refers to the budget for fees to milloy- and yourself, who translates that into payments to milloy. This article remains full of ad hominem abuse, unverified claims, and POV. Peroxisome 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying it does not make it so. The sources adequately back the article's statements in the opinion of many people who have made their opinion known on this talk page. A quick read of the article and this talk page indicates to me that you are pushing a specific point of view that would make wikipedia a worse encyclopedia. Using our policies to make wikipedia worse is called gaming the system and is not allowed. WAS 4.250 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a voice of sanity. At first I assumed that Peroxisome was interested in making this article, which was already reasonably sourced and in compliance with WP:LIVING, more robust. However, as more and more sources have been added, Peroxisome has shifted to out-and-out denialism (i.e. claiming that the sources don't say what they say). I've started to think that Peroxisome is more just a garden-variety troll, based on his/her comments on the talk page. It's becoming clear that Peroxisome is indeed trying to "game the system", by engaging in Wikilawyering and throwing policies around willy-nilly. Peroxisome is correct that "all we have done is go back to the primary literature"; if he/she takes the time to re-read WP:RS and WP:V, he/she will see that secondary sources (PRWatch, TNR) supported by primary sources (tobacco co. documents) is the gold standard for verifiability on Wikipedia. MastCell 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have stated earlier that Peroxisome is a well-known blogospheric troll, but I thought it better for Peroxisome to make this clear to everyone JQ 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

feel free to engage in all the name-calling you want; that will not make your statements any more true. The tobacco document you have provided is a budget for paying Milloy; not evidence that Milloy was actually paid, nor evidence that he was paid for advocacy; that is why the professional journalist referred to a budget. The TNR article speaks of payments to the company that Milloy is associated with, not to Milloy. These distinctions are crystal clear, and you deliberatetly ignore them because you want to write nasty things about Milloy, and you cannot back these things up with a reference. Peroxisome 22:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not crystal-clear. You seem to be the only one arguing these points; the two other independent folks who have chimed in seem to agree with my feeling that you're deliberately denying obvious and well-sourced facts. We're allowed to use common sense; if a tobacco company budget says "Milloy, $90,000", then we can conclude he was paid $90,000 by the tobacco company. I think most reasonable people would agree that you'd actually have to produce some kind of evidence that the budget was revised, or the $$$ not paid to Milloy, to disprove this. Finally, we're not talking about one document here; there are a web of documents, referenced by TNR and PRWatch and now sourced through this article, which corroborate the conclusion that Milloy received $$$ from tobacco and oil companies to advance their agenda under the cover of supposed independence. If you truly believe you have a point and we're all wrong here, consider utilizing Wikipedia mechanisms for dispute resolution. However, I'm starting to get the sense, based on your comments here, that you're more interested in trolling that in making this a better article. MastCell 22:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

dear mast, what you wrote was ," Milloy has repeatedly profited handsomely by being on the wrong side of public health issues". You start off with a belief that Milloy is evil, and after that, anything you write is justified. You are rationalising that you can state your conclusions as facts; yet if you truly believed it, you wouldn't need to misrepresent your conclusions as facts. In fact, why not put the false claim about epidemiology back in as well ? It will be consistent with the rest of the article. Peroxisome 08:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't start off with that belief; I came to it after examining the evidence documenting it. I removed the claim about cancer clusters because it overreached the available evidence, in keeping with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. I'm not sure why you're criticizing my action there. You argued the claim was unsupported, I examined the evidence and agreed, and I removed it. Isn't that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? If I fail to respond to your next missive on the talk page, please don't take it as capitulation to your point of view. You're trolling, and unless you have something constructive to say about making the article better, I should really stop feeding into it. MastCell 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring to a scientist's professional opinion as being "on the wrong side of public health issues" simply reflects the application of your POV to the topic. Trying to make the article reflect that POV is a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

A very good case can be made that Milloy is usually on the "right side" of public health issues, particularly if you consider the fact that if Milloy's views on the use of DDT for disease vector control hadn't taken so long to become accepted by the scientific mainstream, millions of lives would surely have been saved. However, Wikipedia editors' judgments about whether someone is on the right side or wrong side of issues do not belong in Wikipedia articles. It is proper to report Milloy's own views about such matters, in a biography about Milloy, especially when there is evidence that such motivations animate Milloy, as in the case of DDT/malaria. But the editors' POVs have no place in it. NCdave 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Following recent edits aimed at achieving compromise, the article is noticeably biased towards a pro-Milloy POV. The removal of the Rall material and the absence of an adequate response to his disgusting blood libel on environmentalists are notable examples. The fact that he poses as an independent commentator but is in fact a shill for Big Tobacco at least gets a mention, but is soft-pedalled to an excessive extent. In the interests of compromise, I'm willing to accept it as it stands, but if it's going to be tag-bombed as in the recent past, it might as well at least be accurate.JQ 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List of so called "debunked" theories from his Mug

global warming, ddt, silicone breast implants, dioxin, alar, mad cow, second hand smoke, ozone depletion, emf, pcb's, endocrine disruptors Ilena 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is good info, Ilena. It represents a concise list of the topics that Milloy apparently considers his top issues. That means that the Wikipedia article should probably list them, too. Most of these are not covered in the current article. NCdave 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, topics NOT on the list are potential candidates for removal from the article, since they are apparently not core issues for him. For instance, his entirely unremarkable passing remark about evolution comes to mind... unless someone can show that he debunked some evolutionary science, of course. That would be noteworthy, but the current section is not. NCdave 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific majority

How would we as editors ascertain whether there is a scientific majority? Do scientists submit to polls? And why would that be relevant, anyway? Does science work by votes? With the lone exception of the APA decision to de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder, I cannot recall any matter which was ever settled by scientists voting on it (or being polled).

The thing about Milloy is that he criticizes junk science on the grounds that it's stuff made up, spun, massaged, etc. in way to make it look like it's sound science - when (as he purports to show) there are scientists who say just the opposite of what the partisans are saying. It doesn't surprise me that partisans would accuse him of being a junkie too - or even the only junkie. That's the problem with politicized science.

I think Wikipedia should not concern itself with a majority, if "majority" is taken to mean 51% of scientists polled. If it's only a majority, then maybe it's not firmly established. I'd rather have a scientific paper, or the result of a hearing, or even just a pronouncement by a learned society. But we should not give undue weight to a mere 51% majority.

How much of a majority on a scientific question must there be to call it a "consensus"? Is 80% enough? (Four out of five doctors say that transfats are no good for you?)

As a layman interested in science, I would want to know if as many as 5% of scientists in a particular field disagreed on anything. --Uncle Ed 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this relevant to a specific content issue of this article, or are we using this talk page for a philosophical discussion? MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. This article slams Milloy without mercy for espousing minority viewpoints on issues like global warming, yet you ask whether Uncle Ed's observation is relevant?? NCdave 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is POV, and it is inaccurate

the comment about the AJPH editorial takes two separate sentences, and runs them together to create a new, and defamatory, meaning. I have removed it under WP:BLP. Mast cell claimed that my comment about "numerous" examples of junk science is imprecise; I have made clear that milloy identifies two examples of junk science.

This whole article is a one-sided sliming, and it not NPOV. Peroxisome 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the balance of reliable secondary sources available on the subject. Of course, if you have more reliable secondary sources which you'd like to add, please feel free to propose them. So far all I've seen from you is more links to junkscience.com.

For the record, here is the unabridged paragraph from the AJPH article:

Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. Unfortunately, environmental epidemiology studies have become convenient targets. One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled, including global warming, indoor radon, disinfection byproducts, ergonomics, pesticides in foods, mercury emissions, electromagnetic radiation, and particulate air pollution. This activity also appears to have tobacco industry support.

You're right, my paraphrase is incomplete - I left out the last part, about the tobacco industry's involvement in junkscience.com, as it's well-documented elsewhere. There is no "new" meaning being created; I quoted the AJPH article, which clearly and unambiguously lists junkscience.com as an example of the use of the term "junk" by those opposed to regulation.

Also, please re-read WP:BLP: "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 [or Peroxisome] dislikes all mention of it." In light of that, please stop throwing around words like "defamatory". You may wish to visit the BLP noticeboard if you'd like outside opinions; at this point, I'd recommend it. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mast you will notice that the sentence cited merely says that Junkscience labels a lot of issues. It does not say that Junkscience is written by "those opposed to regulation"; which is what the milloy article says. That is an inference you have drawn, and misrepresented as fact. I suggest you read up on basic english grammar; that way you might understand what you are talking about, and you will avoid making defamatory comments. Peroxisome 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the personal attacks, it is clear to anyone reading the AJPH editorial, which I've excerpted above, that junkscience.com is being noted as an example of labeling things "junk" by those opposed to regulation. A point driven home by the final sentence, indicating that junkscience.com is tobacco-funded. If you don't agree, go to WP:BLP/N for a second opinion. Also, stop throwing around the word "defamatory" in every post and edit summary you make. It verges on a legal threat. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mast, it is not clear to me, and it is not what the article explicitly says. What is more, you are making an inference, and reporting it as fact. That is misrepresentation. I have pointed it out twice to you the distinction, and I can only conclude that you are either reckless of this distinction, or intentionally making an untrue statement of what the AJPH article says.

I will stop using the "defamatory" charge, when there are no charges that are defamatory, and which contradict WP:BLP. You might want to consider the implications of misrepresenting inference as fact, and whether that might be defamatory. Peroxisome 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentence A: Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation.

Sentence B: One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled... (emphasis mine)

Conclusion: the editorial is citing junkscience.com as an example of the labeling of science as "junk" by those opposed to regulation. There is no malicious inference here, just basic reading comprehension. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, you have established that "so labelled" means that they have been labelled as junk science. That is completely different from making the statement that the people at junkscience are opposed to regulation. Your "conclusion" is pure inference that is unsupported by the text, and fails WP:V. i do not believe that your reading comprehension is as bad as you make out, and I do not believe your assertion that there is no malicious inference here. Peroxisome 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Again leaving aside personal attacks and imputations of sinister motive, "so labelled" clearly refers to the clause in the first sentence, "Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation." Any attempt to read the entire paragraph, rather than individual sentences, leads to the conclusion that junkscience.com is not being mentioned in a vacuum, but in reference to the point about junk science as an antiregulatory tool. The last sentence in the paragraph, which explicitly draws a link between junkscience.com and the tobacco industry, underlines this. MastCell ^Talk 02:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is tiresome; the AJPH does not say what you say it does. You are drawing inferences, which you assert to be "conclusions", and which are not what the text literally says. You know full well that wikipedia is not original research or drawing conclusions; it is about accurately reporting sources.

Yet again, you have made an untrue assertion, and yet again, it "happens" to be damaging to Milloy. "The last sentence in the paragraph, which explicitly draws a link between junkscience.com and the tobacco industry, underlines this." "A point driven home by the final sentence, indicating that junkscience.com is tobacco-funded." see if you can get your act together; is it an indication, or explicit ? In fact, it is ambiguous what the sentence refers to. Since this is an editorial, and there is no reference or information to substantiate the claim, it seems to me that this fails WP:V.

But hey; who is interested in the truth of the matter, when you can maliciously throw slime ? Peroxisome 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm patient and thick-skinned, but your constant personal attacks are starting to become tiresome. Instead of accusing me left and right, re-read the article. You are simply wrong when you say "there is no reference" and that it's ambiguous what the paragraph refers to with regard to tobacco-industry funding. There is a citation for the tobacco industry comment. It is footnote 12 in the AJPH article, and it cites "How big tobacco helped create “the Junkman.” Since "The Junkman" is Milloy, and the cited article deals with his ties to the tobacco industry, even you will admit that the AJPH article is clearly and unambiguously referring to junkscience.com as a tobacco-industry-supported endeavor. Now, since you insist on personalizing this, I want to know: Have you just not read the article and spouted off out of ignorance, or are you being deliberately untruthful? MastCell ^Talk 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Long experience suggests to me that there is no point in engaging Peroxisome, and that edits by this user are most unlikely to be of any value. Go to the BLP noticeboard if you want, Per, but don't waste any more of our time here.JQ 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just reaching the same conclusion; it's hard to extend credibility to someone who's so relentlessly combative but obviously hasn't read the article he's arguing about. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. MastCell's use of the source is clearly fair, accurate, and proper, and Peroxisome's interpretation makes no sense and his accusations are groundless. Peroxisome, you're not going to get anywhere with your strategy here. If you want to pursue this more, take it up at the BLP notice board, as MastCell has repeatedly suggested. Yilloslime 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

oh, ain't it wonderful to hear the howls of anguish ! How they have been slighted ! Well, let me remind you of what is at issue: "Sentence A: Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. Sentence B: One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled... (emphasis mine) Conclusion:" MastCell's stated assertion, even by his own admission is a conclusion; and not what the article literally says. WP:SYN. WP:BLP. Take it down. You know you are wrong. Peroxisome 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What you refer to as "howls of anguish" is the sound of consensus developing against you. Carrying on with sarcasm, personal attacks, misrepresentation of sources (see above), and edit-warring only reinforces that you are a single-purpose account acting in bad faith and ought to be ignored from here on out. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. JQ's advice given above is sound; engaging in Peroxisome's shrill "debates" does nothing but encourage the further generation of noise. Raymond Arritt 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. When MastCell calls me names, does that mean he must be a "a single-purpose account acting in bad faith and ought to be ignored from here on out"  ?

it is noticeable that MastCell himself found that the wording in the wiki article is a "conclusion" which he drew from the AJPH editorial. Whatever happened to no original research ? WP:SYN ? Why isn't mastcell addressing the issue that he has drawn a conclusion which is not clearly supported by the ajph editorial ? oh, yes, there is a "consensus". Peroxisome 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus," Raymond? That's about as accurate as this vicious article. The truth, as you surely know, is that this article is a grossly POV-laden anti-Milloy hit piece. Peroxisome's patience with the POV-pushers here is impressive, I am tiring of it. NCdave 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the text to lift the entire quote out of AJPH (as cited by mastcell). That way, it is exactly as in the reference, and is the most accurate rendition of the reference. This way, we can avoid the possibility of a misinterpretation, and avoid drawing conclusions, original synthesis and conjectural interpretation. I have specifically argued that the text as was has a conjectural interpretation which is not in the original text. It will be interesting to see if the original text is reverted in favour of a "conclusion". Peroxisome 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"which is critical of environmental science" & "attacked the science linking..."

Paragraph #2 of this article has two statements which allege, without foundation, that Milloy criticizes or attacks environmental science. There is no truth to that. He has made a career out of criticizing only faulty science. The allegation that he has ever attacked an entire scientific discipline, or solid, well-done science in any discipline, is completely untrue, not to mention POV-biased. I challenge any editor to find any example of Milloy criticizing environmental science in general, or criticizing any scientific study for anything other than flawed science.

This false accusation against Steven Milloy is an attack on the very essence of what he does, which is a relentless campaign for scientific rigor. I'm going to edit this paragraph to fix this most blatant problem, but it is, unfortunately, just one example of the massive POV bias of this horrible article. NCdave 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that"; see 2001: A Space Odyssey. You must remember that NPOV is always trumped by consensus at Wikipedia. Even though Jimbo called NPOV a non-negotiable rule, it is still applied by people who have strong opinions.

All you can hope to do is insert one or two lame sentences which defend Milloy. The bulk of the article is going to slam him, in proportion to the percentage of Wikipedians who are determined to label him a fraud. That's the current interpretation of "weight" around here nowadays.

There is no way around consensus at Wikipedia, any more than there is a way around consensus in the European Union or at the UN. And please don't self-destruct, the way I did, by insisting that we "follow the rules" as written. Wikipedia is not an anarchy but a government, and the 'constitution' will always be trumped by the notion of "consensus".

Historical note: this is a perverse spin-off of "Ignore all rules", in which enough people getting together can do whatever they want; see "Might makes right" or maybe "Victor's justice".

Please don't think I'm being cynical. I'm just being realistic about Wikipedia's internal politics. It's a democracy of sorts, and YOU simply do not have enough votes here. If you want an article to be neutral, and gang of POV-pushers doesn't - then you simply have to get enough votes on your side. If there are 5 POV pushers here, you'll need 15 NPOV supporters to overcome them! (That's the minimum for a consensus, 75 percent.)

I'll vote with you, but bear in mind that one more vote is not enough. You need to outnumber the POV-pushers 3 to 1 to get neutrality. --Uncle Ed 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, how to decide how NPOV applies to any given situation. I know that you and a couple of other Wikipedians have a ACME truth-o-meter, but somehow they all seem to give different readings. In particular, the claim that Milloy attacks "only faulty science" seems to register very differently on many instruments, except maybe in the trivial interpretation that no human attempt is ever perfect. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Stephan, and also suggest that Ed's grouping of himself and NCdave as "NPOV supporters" and everyone else as "POV pushers" is, at best, highly questionable. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, at least as currently written, mandate that views be covered in proportion to their representation in reliable secondary sources. Numerous such sources are critical of some aspects of Milloy's public career, and they are represented here. What, exactly, is the POV issue? Do you disagree that these sources are reliable? If so, please explain. Do you feel the article should represent Milloy more positively? If so, please help us find reliable secondary sources. WP:BLP actually mandates the following: "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." The negative information contained in this article is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources - hence it is covered. If you have specific disagreements, then I think you'll find people willing to discuss them. If you come in saying you'll "vote" to support NCdave (ignoring his well-documented behavioral issues), characterizing everyone else as "POV-pushers", and casting yourself as the lone defender of NPOV, then what can I say? MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on science

This section is linked from the NPOV tag at the top of the article. Or it will be if nobody removes the tag before the dispute is resolved.

The phrase "attacked the science" is at best, ambiguous. It implies that (1) science has definitively proved a certain point but that (2) the "attacker" has abandoned scientific principles altogether, merely because they don't like the results of disinterested, objective scientific inquiry.

• Milloy is at the focal point of a long-running controversy over whether key scientific claims of the environmental movement are well-founded or not. Conservatives applaud Milloy for "uncovering fraud and deceit", while environmentalsts (and liberals in general) assert that Milloy's "debunking" is itself nothing more than junk science.

• Milloy is a controversial figure, whose work has drawn both high praise and harsh criticism. The late Philip Abelson, editor of Science magazine for over 20 years, wrote that, "Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of the truth of science." But Milloy has drawn criticism from environmentalists and anti-smoking activists for his consulting work for big corporations ...

I don't see why the two paragraphs above were deleted. Isn't Milloy controversial? Aren't there two POV's about his work? He says he's debunking junk, others say he's full of it himself. I'd call that a textbook definition of controversy.

Just a note that the Abelson quote has not been deleted. The rest of the material is editorialising. It's also worth observing that the quote is quite a few years old, and that the exposure of Milloy's tobacco and oil funding came after Abelson's death. I don't think you'll find many scientists with anything positive to say about Milloy today. JQ 08:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there is indeed an NPOV dispute if one or more contributors believe there is:

• That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.
• Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Raul, you and a couple of others might not think the article is biased. NCDave, Peroxisome and I think is *is* biased. This means that your group and my group disagree about the objectivity of the article. My group requests that you acknowledge the existence of this dispute, and that you work with us to resolve it. --Uncle Ed 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regading this sentence

"Milloy is at the focal point of a long-running controversy over whether key scientific claims of the environmental movement are well-founded or not. Conservatives applaud Milloy for "uncovering fraud and deceit", while environmentalsts (and liberals in general) assert that Milloy's "debunking" is itself nothing more than junk science."

1. That Milloy is the "focal point" of the controversy is WP:OR
2. "Long-running" is ambigous. 1 year, 10 years, 100 years?
3. Casting the POVs as conervatives vs liberals is WP:OR and wrong. Why I'll agree that people who appluad Milloy tend to be conservatives and that those most critical tend to be liberals, it is a dramatic oversimplification to suggest—as that statement does—that all conservatives love him and all liberals hate him. And regardless, my and your theories about what types people applaud and criticize Milloy have no place in an encyclopedia entry about him. Yilloslime 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, going back to the original issue, I see your point about "attacked the science" being a bit leading or non-neutral. I've changed it to "criticized the science", which I think is both an accurate summary of Milloy's views and more neutral language. What do you think? MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed. I agree that this article is severely biased, and should have a POV tag. Peroxisome 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "attacked the science" is at best, ambiguous. It implies that (1) science has definitively proved a certain point but that (2) the "attacker" has abandoned scientific principles altogether, merely because they don't like the results of disinterested, objective scientific inquiry."

Both implications would, in this case, be 100% accurate. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this guy know anything?

The changes I suggested are:

• changed "labels" to "calls" ... more neutral
• You don't "author" books, you write books. Why do you prefer "he authored" over the simpler term?
• Maybe there's some ties with industries. Why do you want to call them "close" ties? How close? With who? And for what reason? Was he a consultant or something? An employee? Is anyone who worked for an oil company get their scientist license revoked or something?
• "have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources," is "weasel words"
• Why is everything "according to" Milloy and "claimed by" Milloy, but for other critics, they just state it. I say make it even, no need to keep adding "claims" and "according to milloy..." just a simple "to him" or "milloy thinks" etc.
• The stuff about "he claimed vindication!" -- then we are told "no, but he was wrong." That's just POV. Where did he say "I claim to be vindicated?" etc.
• You have the British medical thingamajig doing a study that "confirms" that milloy was wrong. What is this place god or something? The study can say something, or suggest something, or indicate something, but no scientist says "I confirm that this is wrong"
• You got some "piling on" in the tobacco industry lobbying claims. Why not just say "the top secret papers the evil tobacco company tried to keep from you so you and your grandmother would die finally revealed..." When you are better just saying "The tobacco company released documents..." We get the idea of what a tobacco company is.
• changed some "big words" (really, complex words) to simpler words. "contend something" is the same as saying something, writing a book is the same as "authoring a book" etc.
• The POV is leaning in the stuff about that article from "The New Republic"... on the one hand, it's "milloy claimed this" or "milloy contends this" but the guy from the new republic simply says it's wrong. The new republic guy says "he received money" not "claims he received money" etc. Also, that quote about Fox and if they knew he was a lobbyist is just problems... it's like they asked "How long has he been a lobbyist" .. and they answer "we didn't know about that" as some kind of confirmation. It could be he wasn't a lobbyist and fox was saying "we have no knowledge of him being a lobbyist."
• critics are just given free reign to assert anything. One of them says "this study was done by good people, right people, who aren't biased" ... therefore, Milloy is wrong.
• The so called global warming prize was updated to $125,000 not $100,000. Some of the other changes are right from the references. I'll go through them and try to add them one at a time. No need to thank me.
• There are some power words in there... my edit was milloy "helps" the media, that got changed back to he "influences" the media. That's a word that can have two meanings... whatever.. maybe it is influence now that you mention it.
• Isn't Rachel Carson a beloved figure? The point of that is that it gives a reason for the "virulent criticism" ... just as the article now claims milloy isn't sincere, he's motivated by money or the tobacco lobby... and therefore, he's wrong. The comment about Rachel Carson shows that his critics are also motivated by something, they are "out to get milloy" because he insulted their leader, well, spiritual leader... so maybe they are wrong too?
• The whole DDT thing is one of milloy's strongest areas, even Scientific American has done two articles on this. That just needs to be re-done for neutrality since it turns out Milloy is probably right, and the do-gooders who banned DDT probably did do some harm. But that's the point, why do we have to go back and "make it neutral" just because Milloy was found to right about this one. The article should be neutral all over, that's what neutrality is. Like, if tomorrow they discover tobacco is really good for you, will have to go back and fix that part of the article? You shouldn't have to change it at all if it was neutral. Think about that one. That's a good guide, you should write it twice, once pretending that Milloy is all wrong and an idiot, and then write it again thinking that Milloy is a genius way ahead of his time. And here's the secret -- both versions should be exactly the same.
• the rest were spelling fixes.SecretaryNotSure 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we take these one at a time? MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)