Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 23 July 2010

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Inception—mid-2007 Mid-2007—present

globalwarming.org

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)

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)

Steven Milloy

"Milloy has labeled specific studies junk science, such as two papers published in Science that were later retracted"

The problem with this is that it implies they were retracted due to Milloy or the reasons he gave. And Fox is hardly the most reliable of sources. Have Nature talked about this incident?

"but more generally he applies the term to climate change and certain health controversies including those detailed in the sections below"

I don't like the wording of this part, it's slightly too verbose. It's pretty obvious that the controversies below are his. This sounds like an undergraduate trying to fill a certain number of essay pages... I don't think we really need it.

And is it fair to say "Junk Science" was popularised by Milloy? Reading the article, he isn't really a center figure. yandman 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% fine removing any reference to the Science papers that were retracted. As I recall, someone long ago edit warred over including a reference to that Foxnews article, but I've never been convinced it was pertinent. And I don't think Milloy called them junk science before they were retracted, and we certainly shouldn't imply that he did. He's just flaming Donald Kennedy (who he mistakenly calls David Kennedy) in that FoxNews.com article presumably b/c Kennedy, Science, and AAAS had been highly critical of the Bush admin, OMB, and climate change denialists. So I think he's trying to make Kennedy look bad by publicizing some retractions in his journal.

I do think, however, that before the paragraph criticizing Milloy's use of the term, there needs to be an NPOV description of how Milloy uses the term--we can't just jump right in with criticism. I freely admit that what I wrote is not the best, and if you or someone else can do a better job, please do. And I do think it's fair to say he popularized, or at least helped popularize, the term in the American media. I don't have references off hand, but later tonight I can try to find one. Actually the C&EN editorial hints at this, calling junkscience the "best known" example of the right-wing antiscience movement. Yilloslime (t) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. yandman 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just excised the Science bit and some excess verbosity, and the result isn't as non-NPOV as I thought it might be. Still, I think it probably needs work. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with... Yilloslime (t) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his education: It is not possible to get a masters in biostatistics from Johns Hopkins. They only offer a "generic" masters in public health. This should be edited since it is misleading to label him as having expertise in biostatistics when he clearly does not have any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.231.137 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The anon above was wrong, you can get a masters in biostats from JH mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for nailing this down.JQ (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

rv: Why

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)

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)

O and the link you posted is broken kim mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot

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)

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)

Science qualifications

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)

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)

PR watch?

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)

Letter from Margery Kraus

What's wrong with this primary source? A13ean (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it`s a primary source mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

rv Why

I had remove a bunch of unreliable sources, Bigk seems to think reverting them back in is suitable so i have reverted him again, BK please explain your actions mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You care to actually explain your actions? BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you should. You reverted unreliable sources into a BLP twice. Explain please mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The citations used by user Big K hex, do not look reliable to me,

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Also, what is wrong user Big K hex in following bold, revert , discuss? in a BLP content you have added was disputed and that is fair enough but all you have done is edit war it back in? Why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to sign O2RR, those sources are nowere near good enough for a BLP, what is worse is BK has edit warred them back in and broken 3r in the process mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I rv'd; BigK HeX please discuss it here before any further editing per policy. As it stands Mark may have a strong case - most of those look unreliable for a BLP article. Particularly the real climate blog. --Errant Tmorton166 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... thought I posted this a while ago, but it looks like I an edit conflict might have happened. In any case, the statement of a notable advocacy group that criticizes Milloy by name seems like a pretty good citation for "Milloy receiving criticism", (although the web link would be better if linked to the report proper, as Mark had already been informed). I saw others used when they were merely reporting secondhand quotes of Milloy, which hardly seems contentious. But those uses can be updated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting this disputed content into this BLP is in violation of multiple guidelines and likely policies, if you want to discuss it carry on and if you think these citations are wikipedia reliable then they are disputed and take them to the WP:RSN if you like but do not edit war disputed content into a WP:BLP Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Listed at RSN. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

PRWatch agreed.

Realclimate - possibly (depends on context)

UCS - bad call.

Someone should give Mark a real hiding for breaking 1RR within a day of him being blocked for much the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim my 1R is on CC articles only, do you see a template on this page? Right, job done. None of those sources i removed which were edit warred back in are suitable for a BLP. UCS is an advocacy group and are not a decent source for a BLP mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obviously this article has a (probably better-than) tangential relationship to the climate change issue. And, in any case, the UCS is most certainly a decent source to cite for opinions of the UCS. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No the ucs is an advocacy group, this is not a reliable source for a BLP, why do you not get this? And have you yet explained why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP?

another additional citation

http://www.newint.org/issue314/junkyard.htm what about this one? It doesn't look very WP:RS to me.Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For the ref:

{{Cite news | last = Stauber | first = John | last2 = Rampton | first2 = Sheldon | title = The Junkyard Dogs of Science | newspaper = ] | location = Oxford, England | publisher = New Internationalist Publications | date = July 1999 }}

It might help if you elaborate a bit on how it "looks". BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that? It's a well-established and prominent UK publication (see New Internationalist). It's politically slanted, to be sure, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks exactly like an opinionated self published editorial to me. It is clearly not a mainstream neutral publication is it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published?? It's very unclear where you are getting these charges... BigK HeX (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob, it's not self-published. It's a news report from a mainstream publication. New Internationalist is the largest progressive magazine in the UK (circulation of 75,000). Yes it's opinionated, but most of the UK media is. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get where you get the "self-published" from, or the "editorial".... It seems to be a focus magazine though, with a clear political stance, and where i have no idea about the reputation for fact-checking or editorial thoroughness. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a non neutral site publishing its own peoples articles to me, self published, advocacy, call it what you like it is not a mainstream neutral publication imo. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's tenuous; possibly fails for being strongly opinion driven (I pick it up from time to time, articles usually consist of ad-hominems etc). On the other hand I would say they usually get facts right - just put massive spin on them (welcome to the media...). If it were one of the blogs or online columns 100% no. As it was published... possibly ok. But a more neutral source would be much preferable to my mind. --Errant Tmorton166 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two guys attributed to writing it run another site that BikK Hex added in a citation during the edit war earlier http://www.prwatch.org Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you seem to be conflating political leanings and distortion. I'll have to leave you to clarify your objections against this long-running publication. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You added it to support this content .. When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day? ... Is this content even noteworthy of reporting, just looks like an insult to me? And the section in the citation article that this content is included in is just a list of insults which I wont bother posting here.Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Source reliability depends on three factors; article, publishers and writer. Any of then can undermine reliability. I disagree slightly with rob that them running prwatch and their lack of neutrality entirely affects this new source. But in light of the fact they also wrote the rejected prwatch material, that this holds similar material and the already tenuous reliability of the New Internationalist combine to undermine the source. Actually reading this article that statement seems out of place anyway. It really needs to be in a section about the way he attacks reports rather than a section on his views on tobacco science. No? --Errant Tmorton166 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, its just a valueless off the cuff insult type comment that does nothing to inform our readers about anything. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand how objections to the prwatch site have any relevance on the RS for the cite to New Internationalist. That'd be like saying "You can't cite Stephen Hawking's claims on some obscure BLOG," and then when the findings are cited to a peer-reviewed journal, to say that "You can't cite the claims from a journal when we already objected to them being in that obscure blog." BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the placement of the attacks, it might just be better to clarify the section headings, than to try to compartmentalize criticisms, per WP:STRUCTURE. Might work either way, though this sort of compartmentalization usually fails. BigK HeX (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The SH example is poor; as an individual he does not fail reliability. In your example the venue is the problem. In this example I would have concerns about the writers and the content. It is critique of a thing the guy said (fair enough) design simply to attack (not so suitable in my mind). That sort of source concerns me --Errant Tmorton166 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The key to reliability is the editorial process that a source has gone through. A peer-reviewed source has gone through the most rigorous editing, so it's regarded as the most reliable. A book, newspaper or magazine has gone through a less rigorous but still substantial editing process. A self-published source has gone through no external editing at all, which is why we generally exclude such sources. The fact that this has been published in a major, mainstream publication gives it a considerably higher level of reliability than the PR Watch website probably has. The fact that it is written by someone who has published material on PR Watch isn't relevant - the question is whether the magazine has placed its editorial seal of approval on it, which it clearly has. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect; the content of the article and the authors are an important part of it being a reliable source. This is explicitly stated ast WP:RS. True an extremely solid peer-reviewed publisher pretty much removes any issues with authorship. But this site is highly opinionated; I'd argue that this, combined with the suspect reliability of the author undermines the overall reliability of the source. On a broader note; I'm feeling very uncomfortable with using ad-hominem attacks and articles designed to undermine their subject in BLP articles. I wouldn't consider them overly critical or fair. --Errant Tmorton166 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also unconvinced by the claim of mainstream; I have to order it where I live when I want to read a piece - the only place I have seen it directly on sale is in Central London :) --Errant Tmorton166 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your local newsagents don't stock it - mine do. *shrug* But a publication with a circulation of 75,000 is most certainly a significant player in the UK media market. The New Statesman, which I'm sure you've heard of and would agree is a mainstream publication, has a circulation of less than a third of the New Internationalist. The NI's circulation is pretty close to that of The Spectator. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly; those others are barely mainstream. But that's only my opinion - I shouldn't really have mentioned it sorry --Errant Tmorton166 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Pr Watch run by the same guys who run source watch, anyone who thinks this is a reliable source for a BLP needs to reread WP policy mark nutley (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles