This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I took out:
I wouldn't be surprised if Milloy had done what is claimed, but that link doesn't support it. William M. Connolley 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
According the to dioxin article, "out of the 210 PCDD/F compounds in total, only 17 congeners (7 PCDDs and 10 PCDFs) have chlorine atoms in the relevant positions to be considered toxic by the NATO/CCMS international toxic equivalent (I-TEQ) scheme." So wouldn't it make a difference which dioxin compound was found in Ben and Jerry's? He never mentions which one on his web site. He just keeps saying, dioxin. Am I thinking about this correctly?
There is no section to put stuff like the following:
-response to above. I'd like to see where they got that statement. I've never read anything like that in a CREDIBLE PEER REVIEW journal.
I would prefer that we mention Milloy's views first, followed by two separate sections of criticism:
Sparsefarce 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
While I know that it's painful, I have to agree with Ace-o-aces in many respects. My perception of Steven Milloy is one of a genius, I give him credit for that. I like that last sentence because it is an example of an emotionally evocative statement. This statement sounds like praise of a person who is (arguably) causing the world great harm. I am willing to wager that when most people who care greatly about the environment and know Steven Milloy's work, hear me say that he is a genius, they will feel like "I support him and I'm about to tear down every pathetic argument that you've clung to in order to vainly claim that you aren't just another idiot who fell for the global warming scare". See! That's another emotionally evocative statement. I'm getting good huh?
In my view, the type of work that Milloy does is targeted at invoking these more belligerent responses -- it makes you look like a fool (and makes Ace-o-aces trash your article in the discussion page :). If you want to combat serious FUD, you have to get serious.
Beat him at his own *shame* instead. (Cute pun huh?) But if you want to hold a person accountable for their "crimes", address the crimes, not the person. Finely comb through the fallacies, misinformation, patterns of fallacies, etc., in an objective manner so as to present the reader with a truly unbiased look at his work and it's effects on the world (where possible). I think that it's fine to examine his financial links, but don't draw the illogical conclusion that just because he gets paid by Exxon-Mobile, that he is working to cover up the effects that petroleum based fuels have on the environment. Do you see what I mean? Both of these may be the case, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that one proves the other. This doesn't mean you can't indicate a suspected link between him getting money from the oil guys and lying on national television about the reality of global warming.
Daniel Santos 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a referenced section on the issues of journalistic ethics raised by Milloy's critics. MastCell 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a description of the activities of the Free Enterprise Action Fund JQ 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I ran "what links here' to find a few more references. Even for Milloy, the asbestos stuff is low. I've also been looking for positive stuff to add in the interests of balance, but haven't found anything so far except endorsements from similarly dubious sources. JQ 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a criticism section here? The whole article is critical. 147.114.226.172 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in Mr Milloy, but I think that the intro should be an intro. The actual details of Milloy's issues should be kept to the body of the text. Sparkzilla 16:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is no mention of DDT in the Junk Science section, as this seems to be Milloy's No 1 issue. anyone care to add the section? Sparkzilla 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
His reponse to the question of Human evolution is so full of errors, and ironicly for msomeone who basis their career on exposing "junk science", it shows he has a poor understanding of how the scientific method works. Is their someway to indicate this without violating NPOV? Ace-o-aces 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen anything indicating this in the discussion or the article's citations so I removed one reference. I may have missed it somewhere. -- Theblog 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the exploitation part because it is not clear how he exploited it for his own gain and I think that would be a judgement call that only he could clear up anyway. The entire section probably should be removed or reduced as it contains no details or background about the supposed wrong doing by Milloy, but then has a paragraph quote by the people he criticised.-- Theblog 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I found more information on Milloy's Asbestos claims here [3]. I think this would be useful to start with. Ace-o-aces 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the criticism is a stretch to be notable, but until someone reorganizes the whole thing I think it might as well stay. I did change the intro from: Milloy drew criticism for immediately blaming the collapse of the World Trade Center on the anti-asbestos movement. Laurie Kazan-Allen of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat wrote:
to: Milloy drew criticism for claiming that if asbestos, instead of a substitute, was used as insulation for all floors of the World Trade Center buildings (asbestos was used as insulation in both buildings up to mid-level floors) it could have saved lives.
Again, it is possible that I missed something, but I do not think the first statement accurately reflects the information from the sourced articles. -- Theblog 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the section on other journalists who have been found to have conflicts of interest similar to Milloy's. Since the article states that such a conflict is "widely considered to be a breach of journalistic ethics", it seems entirely relevant to note, by way of supporting this assertion, that a number of prominent journalists have been fired for such conflicts. I suppose it could be shortened, and the names removed, to say something like, "several other prominent journalists have been fired when such conflicts came to light", and then cite the sources without naming names in the body of the article... but I think since we're saying that a conflict is a big deal, it's important to support that assertion with examples/evidence. MastCell 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That was why I had included the quote from Thacker in The New Republic, to make clear that reliable and independent sources had made the connection between Milloy accepting $$$ and an ethical breach on his and FoxNews' part - to demonstrate that's it's not original research. It's fine to remove the TNR quote in the interest of space or relevancy, and I like the edits you've made so far, but if there's a question of OR then it should go back. MastCell 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing to support this claim, and I'm an avid reader of Milloy's website. This is rather a distortion of his view.
Milloy says rather that environmentalist exaggerate hazards of trace amounts of chemicals. He does not say that they are "safe" in all amounts.
This distorted charge against Milloy is a proxy fight over the " precautionary principle" which environmentalists use in their claims that "no dose is safe". That itself is junk science, because as Wikipedia's Toxicology article clearly points out, the dose makes the poison. See also linear no-threshold hypothesis. -- Uncle Ed 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons indicates to me that the article needs a full rewrite. -- Uncle Ed 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that we should retitle the section "False Biographical Claims" to just "Biographical Claims". It seems less POV, and the sourced information in the section is unchanged. I made such an edit, but it was reverted. Can I get thoughts on the change from other editors? MastCell Talk 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I took out:
I wouldn't be surprised if Milloy had done what is claimed, but that link doesn't support it. William M. Connolley 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
According the to dioxin article, "out of the 210 PCDD/F compounds in total, only 17 congeners (7 PCDDs and 10 PCDFs) have chlorine atoms in the relevant positions to be considered toxic by the NATO/CCMS international toxic equivalent (I-TEQ) scheme." So wouldn't it make a difference which dioxin compound was found in Ben and Jerry's? He never mentions which one on his web site. He just keeps saying, dioxin. Am I thinking about this correctly?
There is no section to put stuff like the following:
-response to above. I'd like to see where they got that statement. I've never read anything like that in a CREDIBLE PEER REVIEW journal.
I would prefer that we mention Milloy's views first, followed by two separate sections of criticism:
Sparsefarce 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
While I know that it's painful, I have to agree with Ace-o-aces in many respects. My perception of Steven Milloy is one of a genius, I give him credit for that. I like that last sentence because it is an example of an emotionally evocative statement. This statement sounds like praise of a person who is (arguably) causing the world great harm. I am willing to wager that when most people who care greatly about the environment and know Steven Milloy's work, hear me say that he is a genius, they will feel like "I support him and I'm about to tear down every pathetic argument that you've clung to in order to vainly claim that you aren't just another idiot who fell for the global warming scare". See! That's another emotionally evocative statement. I'm getting good huh?
In my view, the type of work that Milloy does is targeted at invoking these more belligerent responses -- it makes you look like a fool (and makes Ace-o-aces trash your article in the discussion page :). If you want to combat serious FUD, you have to get serious.
Beat him at his own *shame* instead. (Cute pun huh?) But if you want to hold a person accountable for their "crimes", address the crimes, not the person. Finely comb through the fallacies, misinformation, patterns of fallacies, etc., in an objective manner so as to present the reader with a truly unbiased look at his work and it's effects on the world (where possible). I think that it's fine to examine his financial links, but don't draw the illogical conclusion that just because he gets paid by Exxon-Mobile, that he is working to cover up the effects that petroleum based fuels have on the environment. Do you see what I mean? Both of these may be the case, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that one proves the other. This doesn't mean you can't indicate a suspected link between him getting money from the oil guys and lying on national television about the reality of global warming.
Daniel Santos 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a referenced section on the issues of journalistic ethics raised by Milloy's critics. MastCell 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a description of the activities of the Free Enterprise Action Fund JQ 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I ran "what links here' to find a few more references. Even for Milloy, the asbestos stuff is low. I've also been looking for positive stuff to add in the interests of balance, but haven't found anything so far except endorsements from similarly dubious sources. JQ 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a criticism section here? The whole article is critical. 147.114.226.172 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in Mr Milloy, but I think that the intro should be an intro. The actual details of Milloy's issues should be kept to the body of the text. Sparkzilla 16:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is no mention of DDT in the Junk Science section, as this seems to be Milloy's No 1 issue. anyone care to add the section? Sparkzilla 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
His reponse to the question of Human evolution is so full of errors, and ironicly for msomeone who basis their career on exposing "junk science", it shows he has a poor understanding of how the scientific method works. Is their someway to indicate this without violating NPOV? Ace-o-aces 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen anything indicating this in the discussion or the article's citations so I removed one reference. I may have missed it somewhere. -- Theblog 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the exploitation part because it is not clear how he exploited it for his own gain and I think that would be a judgement call that only he could clear up anyway. The entire section probably should be removed or reduced as it contains no details or background about the supposed wrong doing by Milloy, but then has a paragraph quote by the people he criticised.-- Theblog 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I found more information on Milloy's Asbestos claims here [3]. I think this would be useful to start with. Ace-o-aces 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the criticism is a stretch to be notable, but until someone reorganizes the whole thing I think it might as well stay. I did change the intro from: Milloy drew criticism for immediately blaming the collapse of the World Trade Center on the anti-asbestos movement. Laurie Kazan-Allen of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat wrote:
to: Milloy drew criticism for claiming that if asbestos, instead of a substitute, was used as insulation for all floors of the World Trade Center buildings (asbestos was used as insulation in both buildings up to mid-level floors) it could have saved lives.
Again, it is possible that I missed something, but I do not think the first statement accurately reflects the information from the sourced articles. -- Theblog 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the section on other journalists who have been found to have conflicts of interest similar to Milloy's. Since the article states that such a conflict is "widely considered to be a breach of journalistic ethics", it seems entirely relevant to note, by way of supporting this assertion, that a number of prominent journalists have been fired for such conflicts. I suppose it could be shortened, and the names removed, to say something like, "several other prominent journalists have been fired when such conflicts came to light", and then cite the sources without naming names in the body of the article... but I think since we're saying that a conflict is a big deal, it's important to support that assertion with examples/evidence. MastCell 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That was why I had included the quote from Thacker in The New Republic, to make clear that reliable and independent sources had made the connection between Milloy accepting $$$ and an ethical breach on his and FoxNews' part - to demonstrate that's it's not original research. It's fine to remove the TNR quote in the interest of space or relevancy, and I like the edits you've made so far, but if there's a question of OR then it should go back. MastCell 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing to support this claim, and I'm an avid reader of Milloy's website. This is rather a distortion of his view.
Milloy says rather that environmentalist exaggerate hazards of trace amounts of chemicals. He does not say that they are "safe" in all amounts.
This distorted charge against Milloy is a proxy fight over the " precautionary principle" which environmentalists use in their claims that "no dose is safe". That itself is junk science, because as Wikipedia's Toxicology article clearly points out, the dose makes the poison. See also linear no-threshold hypothesis. -- Uncle Ed 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons indicates to me that the article needs a full rewrite. -- Uncle Ed 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that we should retitle the section "False Biographical Claims" to just "Biographical Claims". It seems less POV, and the sourced information in the section is unchanged. I made such an edit, but it was reverted. Can I get thoughts on the change from other editors? MastCell Talk 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)