Talk:Steven Milloy

message: I propose the new opening sentence:
Steven J. Milloy is the "Junk Science" commentator for FoxNews.com and runs the Web sites junkscience.com and globalwarming.org, which are dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis."
I'm not 100% sure that it's correct to say that Milloy "runs" this site as well.  It's run by Competitive_Enterprise_Institute, of which Milloy is a staff member, although Myron Ebell is supposed to be their "climate change" guy.  Either way, Milloy has lots of stuff on globalwarming.org and sure seems to be the primary actor.  Please post opinions. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure globalwarming.org was a CEI property before Milloy got the push from Cato. By contrast, junkscience.com is definitely his baby, and I think the same is true for demanddebate.orgJQ (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  globalwarming.org 

message: See: http://www.unep.org/civil_society/Registration/index2.asp?idno=1345, as well as the publication record of the author: . Btinternet is a webhosting service, and the original site for IBAS  (but anyways the ref can also be found on the new site, here: http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka_science_not_as_we_know.php --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, it looked to me like it had been copied and pasted from here, you know what with all the ref`s still in there, are you sure about this? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: O and the link you posted is broken kim mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It takes around 1 minute to verify. You shouldn't remove references, when you do not know what it is, and aren't going actually check it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim i did, i followed the link and saw a copy and paste from this article being used as the source to cite that section, if you have a decent link then fine, but what i removed was not reliable was it mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you removed was reliable - and it was not a "copy and paste from this article" (i have no idea where you get that one from) - check it again - this time try to more than glance --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv: Why 

message: This page appears to have been edited line by line by detractors.  As near as I can tell, nobody has anything to say about him that is even remotely positive or even mildly neutral.206.169.197.222 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that's because there is precious little positive to say about someone who claims to point out "junk science" but fails to adhere to even the most rudimentary standards of disclosure of conflict of interest and of scientific evidence? Milloy chose his battlefield himself, no one forced it on him. If he wants to fight outside his league, that's his own, personal problem. --84.46.25.14 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Your inability to point out any error or missing positive content speaks for itself. The article is full of facts. Facts in and of themselves are neutral. It's interesting that you consider these facts to be negative. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot 

message: Steven Milloy seems to be promoting himself as a science expert. This article should include a list of his science qualifications (or a statement about the lack of such, if none). Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, he has an MDM.Sc., and no further scientific qualifications. However, it's usually hard to find reliable sources about the lack of formal qualifications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Editorial comments in wikivoice are against policy. A reliable source commenting on his expertise or lack of it could be included. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science qualifications 

message: MN has stripped out a pile of refs , characteristically without troubling to discuss on talk. It is not clear that his judgemetn on refs is 100% reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR watch? 

message: What's wrong with this primary source?   A13ean (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it`s a primary source mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter from Margery Kraus 

message: Are all over this article, ref 18 is another one  So is nobody going to remove these? mark nutley (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like the definition of original research.  Is there a secondary source that makes this arguement?  Arzel (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I`ve not looked. I am still finding unreliable sources all over the shop. I`ll look into secondary sources once the junk is out of the way. I am tagging as RS the primary sources i am finding mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear on what WP:BLP says. Primary sources may be acceptable where their content has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, to augment those sources. It seems to me that several reliable secondary sources discuss Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, and cite specific documents linking Milloy to Philip Morris. In that context, it would seem that the actual documents themselves may be acceptable, where they are referenced by secondary sources. MastCell Talk 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well please supply the secondary sources which also cover the primary documents mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Per MastCells description, those secondary sources should be in the article already. That's the "...to augment those sources" part. Of course MastCell knows as well as anyone that we don't use primary sources in place of secondary sources in articles where there are reliable secondary sources to be had, as that would only beg the question "Where are these secondary sources you speak of, I don't see em in the article". So I would encourage you to look at the article again, the secondary sources must be there like MastCell says, otherwise someone would have removed the primary sources already as being original research, or non notable, or a BLP violation or somesuch commonly used term. Weakopedia (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether you're being sarcastic, you are correct in that the existing secondary sources reference the tobacco documents library. Thacker 2006 extensively references primary documents from the UCSF tobacco library. This piece from the Guardian similarly uses the documents to illustrate Milloy's work on behalf of Philip Morris. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists () similarly references the tobacco documents in linking Milloy to Philip Morris. MastCell Talk 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that this section is combining several sources together to provide a strong point of view against Milloy.  What I find most interesting about this section, and the others, is not that his opinion is faulty, but that his opinion must be faulty because he has received funding from Exxon and/or Phillip Moris.  One could make exactly the same argument against Mann and others for receiving funding primarily from government agencies and others favorable to pushing the AGW movement.  The question one must ask is this an article to "prove" that Milloy's analysis is biased or is it a neutral presentation of his views?  Arzel (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, the article is out to honestly and proportionately represent what independent, reliable sources have to say on the subject. It so happens that of the sources currently under discussion, several are quite critical of Milloy. I'd prefer not to use the talk page to argue about whether accepting money from ExxonMobil is "right" or "wrong", and I'd really prefer that you don't try to open additional fronts in the AGW war if you can help it.I think you're missing the point, though. The critical sources are not focused on Milloy's receipt of money from Philip Morris and ExxonMobil per se. They're focused on the fact that he is presented as an impartial science journalist when in fact he has an undisclosed but highly relevant conflict of interest. People tend to think that crosses an ethical line - for example, in Thacker 2006, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says of Milloy's corporate ties: "Not disclosing this is wrong." Even Milloy's employer, FoxNews, seems to recognize something amiss - they told Thacker: "Fox News was unaware of Milloy’s connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." In other words, from these sources' perspectives, it's not about taking oil money - it's about failing to disclose a conflict of interest. MastCell Talk 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would carry more/some weight if those complaining that Milloy has a conflict of interest were neutral and independent, particularly when it comes to AGW research.  It is well known that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money in this day unless you are going to promote a certain point of view.  Unfortunately that is just the way it works, and it is not just limited to climate sciences. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I think your personal opinion on the subject has now been amply expressed on this article talk page. MastCell Talk 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who is neutral agrees that Milloy has a conflict of interest. Only extremely biased people deny it. (Also only extremely biased people claim that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money unless you are going to promote a certain point of view--the claim is not true.) 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I think the point here Mastcell is that you inserted some of these primary documents  I have also seen that JQ has added junk sources in and WMC used timmy lamberts blog, what has been going on here is a disgrace mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the point? I made those edits in October 2006, a couple of months into my Wikipedia editing career. I don't think I'd make those edits again today. On the other hand, at the time, WP:BLP was far more permissive about primary sources; I think (though I don't feel like arguing at length) that my edits were in keeping with the policy as it stood at the time. Both then and now, the primary tobacco-industry documents are amply supported by secondary sources. I don't think that qualifies as a "disgrace", but YMMV. Does anyone feel like getting back to the question of whether secondary sources describe these documents, thus making it potentially appropriate to cite them directly per WP:BLP? MastCell Talk 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't say that Milloy's opinion must be faulty ... that's a conclusion that you have apparently inferred from the content. One cannot in good faith make that sort of complaint. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary documents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106043720/http://junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928192547/http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm to http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061203112904/http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html to http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609102545/http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html to http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050123004011/http://sopr.senate.gov:80/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL== to http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060308231250/http://business.bostonherald.com:80/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681 to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511210047/http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm to http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Steven Milloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522051743/http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF to http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103071613/http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm to http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082118/http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html to http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184936/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125080948/http://junkscience.com/decem98.html to http://www.junkscience.com/decem98.html
*Added  tag to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2045655935_5937_0.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704050040/http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF to http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185012/http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html to http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184419/http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html to http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003204/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html
*Added  tag to http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified