Talk:Steven Milloy/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  secondhand smoke 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ... 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that is a pretty good suggestion. MastCell Talk 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 3RR violation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Content

message: 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."Junk Science of the Century: The DDT ban, by Steven Milloy, January 1, 2000 "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time."DDT Is Only Real Weapon to Combat Malaria, by Steven Milloy, October 27, 2005 Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."At Risk from the Pesticide Myth, by Steven Milloy, July 28, 2000www.RachelWasWrong.org Uncovering Silent Spring's Deadly Consequences (Competitive Enterprise Institute)Rachel Carson's Genocide, by Keith Lockitch, Capitalism Magazine, May 23, 2007
Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria ClockThe Malaria Clock: A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death, 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."Rachel Was Wrong: Uncovering Silent Spring's Deadly Consequences, retrieved 19 June, 2007Battle over anti-malaria chemical, 4 March, 2004Uganda's Director of Health Services, Dr. Sam Zaramba: Give Us DDT (Wall Street Journal), 12 June 2007
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.100 things you should know about DDT, by J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy, retrieved 18 June, 2007
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.Talequah Daily Press - DDT use encouraged by World Health Organization
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."WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria, 15 September, 1996Washington Post - WHO Urges Use of DDT in Africa; Call for Applications of Pesticide Changes 30-Year Policy, September 16, 2006 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."DDT - The Debate within the Malaria Community, WHO Roll Back Malaria Partnership, retrieved 27 June, 2007 Milloy applauded the decision, and wrote, "It’s a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses,"Day of Reckoning for DDT Foes?, by Steven Milly, FoxNews.com, Thursday, September 21, 2006 He called it "great news for developing nations that want to employ the most affordable and effective anti-malarial tool."Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006, by Steven Milloy, JunkScience.com, December 18, 2006
----
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reverted Consensus DDT Section

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe we've been over this before. Milloy's ties to PM are well documented, and his views on the Surgeon General are well sourced and relevant. Please explain why they are not fair game for inclusion in the article. There are other sources, too, like www.junkscience.com where he calls for the abolition of the SG's office e.g.  "Get rid of the surgeon general" so if your problem is with the specific source cited, we could easily use another one. Yilloslime 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to be more accurate, a direct quote would be great. --Theblog 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk has now reverted my correction, without explanation. NCdave 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgeon General 

message: Mad cow disease gets a mention in the intro, but not in the body of the article. A quick search found this  which gives some criticism. When I get time, I'll chase the original. JQ 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mad Cow

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reference to Surgeon General and WHO

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FeloniousMonk's revert, which substitutes false information for true - three times! 

message: Yilloslime has deleted "lawyer" from Milloy's ever-shrinking list of professions, after someone (else?) previously deleted "biostatistician" from his list of professions.  This is old ground, of course, since I've previously documented the fact that he is both a lawyer and a biostatistician.  But perhaps Yilloslime forgot.  So here it is again: FindLaw reporting on Milloy's law practice, and here's an article which says, '"Steven Milloy is a 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."
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)
replies: text: They're not supposed to be hagiographies, either. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  professions 

message: 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.
(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)
replies: text: I believe your interpretation of what happened is correct. --Theblog 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical claims 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Journalistic ethics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with MastCell. Yilloslime 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MastCell, you did the damage, you should undo it. NCdave 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving active threads 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove Chafee criticism? 

message: 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.
(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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Warning tag - biographical claims

message: 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)
thread_title: Warning tag - junk science

message: 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)
thread_title: Warning tag - Registration as a lobbyist

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Cool, much better. --Theblog 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exxon Secrets 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The science that Mr. Milloy disputes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of so called "debunked" theories from his Mug 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scientific majority

message: 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)
replies: text: Can we take these one at a time? MastCell Talk 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this guy know anything?