Talk:Michael Fumento

message: This article blatantly misquotes Fumento. Case in point… the article says:
:Although he would be accused of claiming heterosexuals have no AIDS risk,[36] the back cover of his AIDS book[37] states, “The ‘myth’ of heterosexual AIDS consists of a series of myths, one of which is not that heterosexuals get AIDS. They certainly do get it . . .” Rather, he argued[38]
When the back of the book actually says:
:“The ‘myth’ of heterosexual AIDS consists of a series of myths, one of which is not that heterosexuals get AIDS. They certainly do get it, from shared needles, from transfusions, from clotting factor, from their mothers at or before birth, and sometimes through sexual intercourse with persons in these categories and from bisexuals. The primary myth, however, was that the disease was no longer anchored to these risk groups but was, in fact, going from heterosexual to heterosexual to heterosexual through intercourse….” 
This deliberate misquote makes it seem like Fumento is admitting heterosexual transferal of AIDS is indeed common which Fumento certainly does not say.  
I would further question why the comment:
: In 2009, the CDC reports, there were 12,860 HIV infections through heterosexual contact.[41]
is in the article at all? This is a biography of Fumento and he certainly did not write or say this. Is this an attempt to refute Fumento? This comment is totally inappropriate and should be removed unless Fumento is given an opportunity to respond.
I did some searching on the web and found that Tim Lambert is an anti-Fumento blogger? I don’t know anything about Fumento myself other than I read one of his books, but doesn’t it seem inappropriate for Mr. Lambert to be writing a biographical article about Fumento, especially when he admits to removing edits by Fumento himself! Shouldn’t Fumento be allowed to correct his own biography? How do we report Mr. Lambert's abuse to an administrator?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joenitwit (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquote

message: Is he a Jew?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.42.117 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jew?

message: I've reverted edits made by Michael Fumento. See WP:AUTO.
If you are wondering how I know that 69.143.188.141 is Fumento, see here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimLambert (talk • contribs) .
The link leads only to an error message. Nicmart (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits made by Michael Fumento 

message: Does anyone have any idea what this guys education background is. Normally I don't think it matters that much, but as a scientific journalist (particularly one who has made some interesting claims on cancer causing agents) it definitely does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.84.44 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Education/Background

message: === The book grant ===
From the Fumento column 71.226.45.87 linked to: "Javers asked if I had EVER received money from Monsanto. Sure, I said. It was a $60,000 book grant to my employer, solicited back in 1999, which was applied to pre-established salary and benefits." Emphasis mine. This was a grant solicited by Fumento himself for a book (BioEvolution) to be written by Fumento, not generic funding tossed in the general direction of the Hudson Institute. --Lanius 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Hudson Institute received it, they passed it on to Fumento, and he received it (as was Monsanto's intent all along). That's what routinely happens with grants, and we always speak of them as being to the person the money is meant for. If you want to write up a more detailed, NPOV account of what happened then go ahead, but it's disingenuous to imply that Fumento didn't benefit personally from Monsanto's largesse. --Lanius 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monstanto Kerfuffle

message: From the Fumento column 71.226.45.87 linked to: "Javers asked if I had EVER received money from Monsanto. Sure, I said. It was a $60,000 book grant to my employer, solicited back in 1999, which was applied to pre-established salary and benefits." Emphasis mine. This was a grant solicited by Fumento himself for a book (BioEvolution) to be written by Fumento, not generic funding tossed in the general direction of the Hudson Institute. --Lanius 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book grant 

message: From the Fumento column 71.226.45.87 linked to: "Javers asked if I had EVER received money from Monsanto. Sure, I said. It was a $60,000 book grant to my employer, solicited back in 1999, which was applied to pre-established salary and benefits." New emphasis mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.45.87  (talk • contribs) .
:So the Hudson Institute received it, they passed it on to Fumento, and he received it (as was Monsanto's intent all along). That's what routinely happens with grants, and we always speak of them as being to the person the money is meant for. If you want to write up a more detailed, NPOV account of what happened then go ahead, but it's disingenuous to imply that Fumento didn't benefit personally from Monsanto's largesse. --Lanius 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Grant Redux 

message: I'd tried to rewrite the section avoiding questionable issues and sticking just to the facts. Comments? --Pierremenard 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsanto Controversy 

message: (I may have played Gauntlet a little too much.)
This article is badly out of date, reflecting none of Fumento's recent activities as a war reporter. It is out of date in another way as well: it arguably violates WP:BLP, a newish policy. (Also, the link to Tim Lambert's attack blog, now deleted, clearly violated WP:EL as it now stands.) Furthermore, it comes close to violating WP:OR and the coverage of the Monsanto kerfuffle probably needs to be trimmed down per the "undue weight" provisions of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
I've made a start on reducing these problems, but lots more work needs to be done. We probably should have a paragraph or two about his reporting from Iraq under a new "==" heading. Any volunteers? Please? CWC(talk) 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs work ... badly

message: I removed an unsourced sentence about Buckley and Reagan. Feel free to put it back if you like. Michaelgossett (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced Sentence

message: This entry is now stale and outdated. Fumento has disappeared from the public debate. The “old right” quote is peculiar since Fumento likes Burke. Buckley and Reagan were definitely not “old right.” Is Fumento even still alive? Nicmart (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Fumento. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207081157/http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/plague/15.shtml to http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/plague/15.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per WP:BLP:
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)"
An IP editor removed some article content here, but was promptly reverted. The revert was unfortunate. The content that was removed is an obvious and blatant violation of policy, and the IP editor was right to remove it. Controversial or negative claims about living people must be reliably sourced. There was no reliable source for the claim that Fumento's views about the coronavirus are wrong. The assertion that they are wrong was sourced to one of Fumento's own articles. Obviously an article by Fumento is not a reliable source for the claim that Fumento's views are wrong. The claim that his views are wrong was simply editorial opinion. It has no place in the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: He got into it with science writer Gary Taubes in Reason magazine, and then with the editor of the magazine. That’s worth mentioning. Nicmart (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with Taubes 

message: Wasn’t Fumento badly injured in Iraq? Nicmart (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injuries in Iraq?