Talk:Henry I. Miller

message: Hello - I'm a human being, named Cfulbright.  Can you tell me the reason for the edits you made to the Henry I. Miller article?
:The above message was on my talk page. Since it is about this page I moved it here.
:Hello  - I'm a human being, named Wuerzele. The reason for the edits I made are in the edit summary. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary sources 

message: ,
I made an honest mistake adding Miller as author to what you call the Barrons article (but is a weirdo commercial authorless searchwebsite pseudosource). Good that you found my mistake.
Hey, even better would be to find the ACTUAL Barrons reference, instead of this website ( not that Barrons doesnt have any..) 
Now, please stop yelling bias and agenda in EDIT SUMMARIES at someone who's clearly trying to clean up andhas been correcting lousy/lazy incomplete refformats.
However, just reading through your contributions allows anyone to see that you do defend a really poor page, with puffery and stretched out, pompous sounding sentences, plus lousy sourcing, and getting mad at criticism of teh article, which will make anyone awake scratch their head and ask : Why is he doing that?  
So why dont you hold your horses and stay cool?
BTW: The sentence announcing removing of the 3rd party source label is totally off the (wikipedia) wall, and I will remove it.
--Wuerzele (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already removed the talking in the article. I would have done it sooner had I noticed it. Meters (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  rhetoric questions and accusations in edit summaries by {{U|Cfulbright}} 

message: Re "Wuerzele is making silly edits. Philip Leder is a medical doctor. MD. If you don't want to call him "Dr.", then accept "M.D." after his name."
Look, , we dont use Professor (which Leder is, yes) or Medical Doctor, which Leder is by training, (yes, thanks, I am aware), and such on wikipedia. I have indicated this in my edit summary referring to WP:MOS. you apparently didnt read it. 
I will not WP:edit war and thus will not undo your reversion, hoping a third editor will. 
I'd appreciate if you stop your irrational personal attacks calling my edits silly.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of MD here seems fine per WP:CREDENTIAL. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees ... may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications" Meters (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Meters, I am aware of WP:CREDENTIAL. You are right that a one time use of MD to clarify if Philip Leder was an MD is ok. On the whole though, it is completely irrelevant for the article, and as such unnecessary, which was my point. If someone really wanted to know, whether the head of the NIH lab where Miller was at the end of teh 60's was an MD or not, they could click on Leders  wikilink. In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD. enough said...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You cited WP:MOS as the reason for removing the "Dr." before Leder's name. I don't think that MOS link says anything about professional titles. When the other editor changed it to M.D. after his name you started this thread and claimed that Wikipedia does not use M.D. I really don't care if we use M.D., but the editor wants to, and I'm simply pointing out that in this case (not the subject of the article) it is perfectly acceptable, despite what you have said in the edit summary and in this thread. If you want to take the position that the information is irrelevant, we can discuss that, but that that was not the point you made in the edit summary when you removed the "Dr." or when you started this thread after "M.D." was added. If you are going to point someone to a policy, and then give them grief for apparently not reading it, you should probably point them to something that actually supports what you are claiming. Instead, the policy supports the other editor's latest version of the edit. There's no point in making a reader follow a link just to find out if Leder was an M.D., and not every reader would know that "In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD", and even if they did know that, they still wouldn't know if this was one of the cases where that wasn't true. So, this seems like a lot of hand waving to justify leaving out two letters that policy supports using in this case. Meters (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor  title in wikipedia articles 

message: In connection with the fairly recent court decision (November 6, 2015) in Paris about a defamation case in the Séralini affair, it was claimed that the defendants' only source for the claim that Séralini had been fraudulent was Miller, in a Forbes article, and dismissed Miller as an "American lobbyist" known for having claimed that tobacco is "non-cancerogenic", for "the benefit of the industry" (, my translation).  Is there some truth in these accusations?  Has Miller really disclaimed the correlation between smoking and cancer?  If so, has he ever retracted this? JoergenB (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Miller "an American lobbyist"?  I can find no reference to him being a lobbyist at all.  Being a research at a think tank doesn't make you a lobbyist, which has regulatory definition and requirements. Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Did Miller say that tobacco is non-carcinogenic, or did he say that nicotine is non-carcinogenic? Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Miller a "tobacco danger sceptic"? 

message: In an article in Forbes, Miller defended the use of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA), which is banned in Europe and Canada for use in baby bottles.[Henry I. Miller, “BPA Is A-OK, Says FDA.” Forbes, March 12, 2014.]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bongilles (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 March 2016
:Hi , welcome. I am replying to your points here- the usual etiquette on WP to respond is to keep it together and not separate. 
:First, I am glad you started to discuss this on the talk page. Clearly, Henryimillermd should respond here and not in an edit summary, and not by reverting a second time.
: Secondly, I see you outlined Miller's positions by quoting his oped's in the mainstream press and I see no problem there . In fact, Miller should thank you, because you are only listing his work. If you take out what you call your source and everything should be acceptable to him.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 5. Defending the plastics industry 

message: I turned the writings section into a partial bibliography with proper citations and ISBNs. I also added articles from Google scholar (all of which are highly cited). This paragraph was in the writings section, where it did not belong. I save it here in case someone has an idea for it. (ps I'm not sure that Heartland News is a stellar source for this.) LaMona (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph, saved here - + Bibliography 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Henry I. Miller. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150606063854/http://www.systemsbiology.org/download/BitechWhosWho.pdf to http://www.systemsbiology.org/download/BitechWhosWho.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 Meters (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Miller writes for a handful of newspapers and magazines, and it makes sense to me to include some representative articles here in the bibliography. However, I don't have a method for selecting them. For the research articles I was able to select those with the highest number of citations in G-Scholar -- imperfect, undoubtedly, but at least a method with some criterion. He has written dozens of articles for the New York Times, for instance -- does anyone know of a metric I could use to select a small number of those for inclusion? LaMona (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selecting articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry I. Miller. 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/20160417125128/http://www.saworldview.com/worldview-100/ to http://www.saworldview.com/worldview-100/
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) 01:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Cfulbright (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions on Public Policy Issues 

message: Cfulbright (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does CFulbright Have a Conflict of Interest?