Talk:Steven Milloy

This article is awful

[ Long-inactive threads archived here ]

Milloy has lots of opponents because he is not afraid to attack sacred cows. He has lots of supporters because of the consistent rigor of his analysis.

He has an annoying habit of standing his ground in the face of withering criticism, and then being vindicated in the end, as in the case of the now discredited 1993 EPA report on secondhand tobacco smoke.[1] NCdave 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Vindicated" is a little misleading; every major medical organization, including the U.S. Surgeon General and the World Health Organization, as well as many tobacco companies themselves, now recognize that secondhand smoke is undoubtedly a cause of lung cancer and other health problems. If anything, the EPA has been vindicated. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Vindicated" is not misleading at all. Milloy's criticism of the 1993 EPA report was for junk science: they manipulated the data most egregiously to get the result they wanted to get -- but what they actually got (eventually) was a big black eye. Milloy was vindicated.

That does not mean that SHS doesn't cause cancer; common sense suggests that it probably does, at least occasionally, and most observers (including me) believe that it probably does, at least occasionally. It just means that the scientific studies haven't proven that it causes cancer.

It doesn't take much thought to realize that there are surely indirect mechanisms through which SHS can cause cancer, too. One that I can think of is the effect that it has on former smokers, luring them back to the smoking habit. Many smokers return to smoking because of the enticement of SHS. Those people are at increased risk of cancer, without question, because they resume smoking. That, by itself, is a good public health justification for trying to reduce public exposure to SHS. But that is not what the bogus 1993 EPA report claimed. If the EPA had stuck to reporting what the science proved, rather than what they wanted it to prove, they'd not have that big black eye, and they'd not have run afoul of Steven Milloy.

However, I have a questoin for you, MastCell. You said that even many tobacco comapies recognize that SHS causes lung cancer. But that is news to me. Are you sure? Can you document that? NCdave 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem: "PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke" (from Philip Morris) and "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company believes that individuals should rely on the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking." Can you please comment at the bottom of the talk page, instead of adding your last-word responses to 4-month-old threads? It makes the discussion hard to follow. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, one should know that the tobacco firms making statements like those above are the U.S. manufacturers that participated in the "Master Settlement Agreement" in the late 1990's. I believe it was part of the deal.71.72.217.102 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add (after reading more) that the EPA has never been vindicated. I am glad that you (MastCell) added the caveat "if anything" to the statement above, which would leave the possibility of noone being vindicated. Just because others have arrived at similar conclusions does not excuse the reprehensible misconduct, dishonesty and bad science they engaged in and promoted. To my knowledge, they haven't even tried to further defend it. Remember, the end does not justify the means.71.72.217.102 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than having the Osteen decision overturned and their conclusions supported by reams of subsequent data and every major medical organization in the world, you're right, the EPA hasn't been vindicated. But maybe you're right - if someone (say) defends the use of DDT using suspect methods, and subsequently and independently the WHO agrees that limited use of DDT is a temporary, necessary evil, I wouldn't regard that as a "vindication" for the DDT advocate. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But your sarcastic premise -- that the reversal of the Osteen verdict vindicated the EPA in any way -- is a classic example of why some people are so passionate about the issue. There's too much spin, and not enough straight talk. I agree with you about the DDT advocate in this case (no vindication); the EPA, likewise, was not vindicated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.71.72.217.102 01:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry about the sarcasm - that was a moment of weakness. MastCell ^Talk 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've made some edits to describe the money from Philip Morris as "budgeted", not "received", by Milloy to address Peroxisome's criticism. Can you cite other instances where you believe WP:NPOV or WP:LIVING have been violated (or better yet, propose alternative wording)? I note that, although you listed this site on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 10 days ago, no one's chimed in yet. Which is too bad; I'd like some outside input. MastCell 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Having heard nothing, I am going to remove the POV tag. When reinstating it, please list specific areas of the article which you feel violate WP:NPOV and we can attempt to address them. MastCell 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. This entire article is a vicious anti-Milloy hit piece, as many comments here have adequately documented. NCdave 08:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article records lots of facts discreditable to Milloy. If you can find some facts creditable to him, feel free to add them. Otherwise don't complain that the truth hurts. JQ 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article contains numerous misrepresentations. I've corrected a couple of them, but I don't have time to go over the entire article right now. The article is still a horribly dishonest anti-Milloy hit-piece.

The WTC piece grossly misrepresented what his 9/14/2001 article actually said about asbestos and the WTC, and instead of citing the actual article (so that readers could see what he really said), it cited a vicious anti-Milloy attack piece. Then the same attack piece was quoted AGAIN, at painful length, down in the criticism section. I corrected the text to accurately characterize his article, moved the criticism to another paragraph, and deleted the duplicate criticism with its lengthy quoted anti-Milloy editorial comment.

Also, how can anyone justify citing an article which falsely accuses Milloy of believing that "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution [is] harmless?" Not only is that lie-filled article cited, the reference was right at the top, with the definition of "junk science," and it was wrongly attributed to a web site that just copied it from elsewhere. I've left that reference in the article, though I really should have deleted it altogether. But I moved it down to the criticism section, and I corrected the attribution to reference the original source (CLEAR).

When this article is truly NPOV, the warning can go. Until then it stays. NCdave 10:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The asbestos section gave a fair summary of Milloy's claims, apart from trivial errors irrelevant to his appalling behaviour in this case (asbestos being removed, rather than not installed, for example). And the criticism you object to is obviously intended as a hyperbolic statement of the factual claim that Milloy invariably sides with polluters. If you think it's genuinely unfair, why don't you point to some examples of Milloy campaigning for tighter restrictions on pollution?JQ 11:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false claims, like the claim that Milloy thinks "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution [is] harmless" are not "trivial." They are defamatory.

What's more, one need not "campaign for tighter [gov't] restrictions" to be against pollution. More government control is not the answer to every problem. In some cases, government restrictions increase pollution. But, since you asked, here is an article from Milloy's web site (reprinted from elsewhere) which makes the case for one effective way to reduce some types of pollition: [2]. NCdave 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So, we can write ""Junkscience considers pollution harmless, with the exception of "hot air generated by environmentalists"". That would be fine by meJQ 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

John, your POV is showing. You know perfectly well that this article is misrepresenting Milloy's views, but you joke about it? Sorry, I don't think such defamation is funny.

I was responding to your joke, so I think you should get off your high horse. And, if you think Milloy is really being represented, why don't you take my challenge seriously and find an instance where he proposes taking stronger action against pollution. Note that it isn't just government policy that's at issue here. Milloy is equally, or even more, critical of corporations that voluntarily pursue socially responsible policies, since they make life harder for his client companies, who want to keep polluting.JQ 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Joke? I made no joke. Misrepresentations of someone's opinions, to support ad hominem attacks on that person, are not funny. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Every time I look up a cited source to verify some criticism of Milloy in the article, I find that the criticism is exaggerated. For example, the article claims that the "junkscience.com website was receiving editorial oversight and content directly from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company." But the cited source gives no evidence that RJR had editorial oversight of junkscience.com, it simply documents that RJR provided information to Milloy. NCdave 10:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you knew about Milloy's record on asbestos and tobacco before coming to this article. But you must have worked out by now that his behavior in both cases is indefensible, and that his status as a paid shill for Big Tobacco demolishes his credibility ( Cato worked this out in the end, even though they kept him on after the deplorable Rall business). Feel free to correct errors and improve the article in other ways. But don't imagine that such minor changes are going to alter the facts.JQ 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact is that Milloy is a careful scientist, who is appalled by bogus scientific studies and and incorrect statistical analysis used to mislead people into believing that things are proven which actually are unproven and quite possibly untrue. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to post something like the following earlier today, but somehow it got lost...

I checked another cited source today, the one that supposedly proved that Milloy was on Philip Morris' payroll. That turns out to be untrue, too. If you read the source, it documents that Milloy received payments for consulting services, not employment.

Every time I look up a cited source to verify criticism of Milloy, I find that the criticism is exaggerated. That is not hyperbole. Truly, so far, every time I've looked up a source that was cited to prove an attack on Milloy, either the source was, itself, an editorial attacking Milloy, or else the information in the source does not come close to justifying the criticism.

Checking this particular source was very time-consuming, because it was a very large document, and not searchable. But I found the two references to Milloy, on pages 13 and 66. Once again, the source didn't support the criticism. Milloy wasn't "on the payroll," after all. Like any good consultant, it turns out that Milloy was simply paid to provide information to his client. The report indicates that he was paid for "monitoring and reporting on scientific studies concerning tobacco, food and beer." (p.66)

The difference between being a consultant and being "on the payroll" is very significant. It is the difference between a vendor and being an employee. Being "on payroll" means being an employee, and having a boss in the company. It means working for the interests of the employer, and it means that the employee is not independent. But an independent consultant has no boss. Milloy was was simply paid for the information he provided to PM.

So, the charge that Milloy was "on the payroll" of PM was false. I corrected the article.

To save the next reader a boatload of time, I also added the relevant page numbers (13 & 66) to the reference. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The cited source, regarding PM's input on Milloy's website, says Philip Morris "Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy... and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website." And, PM held "discussions with Steve Milloy regarding Junk Scient Website content for 1997." So Philip Morris "reviewed and revised" Milloy's website. This sounds like editorial oversight to me, though I'm open to different phrasing so long as it doesn't whitewash the facts documented in the source. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, MastCell. You didn't read it carefully. The cited source says no such thing. It is an "activity report" on the work of a PR firm called "Powell Tate." It is a memo to (not from!) RJR (not PM), reporting (boasting) of Powell Tate's accomplishments. The memo indicates that someone at Powell Tate (not PM or RJR!) reviewed Milloy's web site, spoke with him several times on the phone, and gave him material for use on the web site.

The paragraph in the activity report which begins with a boast of having "reviewed and revised junk science website" is followed by a list of the ways in which that was accomplished: by speaking to Milloy on the phone, by "researching and compiling website visitor comments," and by "reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on website."

That means is that the PR firm was simply providing information to Milloy. One may safely assume that at least some of the information that the PR firm gave Milloy originated with RJR, but there is no indication in that memo that anyone at RJR, PM, or any other tobacco company ever had editorial control/oversight of Milloy's web site. NCdave 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you prefer the article state that Milloy's site received content and editorial oversight from a Philip Morris-hired PR firm? I'm happy to include the additional degree of separation. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the use of the word "oversight" makes the accusation untrue. the Milloy received content from the PR firm for use on his web site, but there is no reason to suppose that anyone other than Milloy ever controlled the content of the site. NCdave 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean, other than the statement that the PR firm "reviewed and revised" Milloy's website? Those are editorial functions, are they not? MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not in this case. That is a summary phrase, which is followed by a description of the ways in which it was accomplished, and none of those ways imply editorial oversight. Editorial oversight means control, but I think it must be obvious to you as well as to me that Powell Tate did not control Milloy's web site.

PR people are in the business of spinning things, and it is obvious that "reviewed and revised" is an example of that. Someone at Powell Tate was maximizing their accomplishments in his memo to their client. The description was arguably not quite inaccurate, because it was surely true that they "reviewed" the web site, and providing material that Milloy used on the site does constitute a revision to the site. But, as the list of what they actually did shows, it is obviously incorrect to take that phrase out of the context of the rest of the sentence to justify a conclusion that Powell Tate had any control over the web site.

In fact, even if the writer of that memo at Powell Tate had claimed to control the web site, it would still be a very dubious claim. Remember, at that time the site was hosted by Cato. Why on earth would either Cato or Milloy give a PR firm control of their web site?? I'm sure you know they did not. NCdave 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to rely on divining the intent and motivations of the people at Powell Tate and Cato, while mine is based on the words actually printed in the source available to us. I'm happy to change "editorial oversight" to "reviewed and revised", though, which should put this particular semantic exercise to bed. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my argument is based on the fact, which you surely know, yet stubbornly refuse to admit, that nobody at Powell Tate or any tobacco company had editorial control over Milloy's web site.

The problem with the "reviewed and revised" phrase is that (as you have amply demonstrated!) it is ambiguous, and easily misunderstood to mean that someone at Powell Tate was claiming that he had control of the web site. That was obviously not the case. It is obvious both from facts of the situation (Cato owned the site), and from the rest of the sentence from which you plucked that out-of-context phrase. All Powell Tate had was the ability to provide information to Milloy for use on his web site, which is the same ability that you and I have. NCdave 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "out of context": the entire sentence says "Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy, researching and compiling Website visitor comments, and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website." Context is further provided by the numerous reliable secondary sources which have been cited. You seem to be trying to generate a context in which these fairly unequivocal items seem less damaging, by inferring all sorts of things about the mindset of Powell Tate, Cato, etc. Your belief that Powell Tate was likely to exaggerate their influence does not qualify as a reliable source here. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that NCdave will not allow any material that presents Mr. Milloy in a less than glowing light, no matter how well-sourced or faithful to the original wording of sources. Since WP:NPOV does not allow us to turn the article into a hagiography, continued discussion here is unlikely to serve any purpose. More at WP:STICK and WP:WORD. Raymond Arritt 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Attributing criticism

Hello - I understand the need to attribute criticism, and the criticism is fully attributed throughout the body of the article. However, in the lead I tried to summarize criticisms that have been raised. I'm not sure how, or whether, they should be attributed in the lead, since Milloy has been criticized by a wide variety of sources (PRWatch, American Chemical Society journal, TNR, The Guardian, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, etc). Suggestions? In general I've seen articles in which criticisms are mentioned in generality in the lead, and then specifics are given in the body of the article (including attribution) - this is what I'd prefer here. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very wide variety. Except for the journal, those are all liberal sources. Shouldn't we also mention what conservative sources say? After all, liberals and conservatives are split 50-50 on most environmental issues. For example, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says only 23% of registered Republicans accept the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, while 75% of registered Democrats do. (According to my math, that means 75% of Republicans oppose AGW and 75% of Democrats support it - just about the most even split I can think of, except for the debate this week in New York's liberal haven, a neighborhood notable enough to have its own article: the Upper West Side. Dr. Connolley gave me the link to the transcript. --Uncle Ed 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I glanced at ONE of those sources: the New Rebublic - pretty much the mirror image of Bill Buckley's National Review. They said that "he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke" (but without giving any details). I guess it's simply common knowledge that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

I'm going to study the Passive smoking article now, but it's not heartening to see that the first "scientific" footnote is actually a reference to a United Nations agency with the words "Parties recognize . . .". That is a political statement about the science, not a scientific statement.

A scientific statement would say how much smoke, how many people, what incidence of cancer compared to the control group, etc. Like "passive smoking has been found to increase the incidence of cancer from 1 in 10,000 to 16 in 10,000 - roughly the same as active smoking, which raises it to 24 in 10,000." Now that would be a smoking gun - no pun intended!

I don't want to see us quoting the *UN* as asserting that the scientific evidence is unequivocal - they're a bunch of governments each voting their national interest, not an objective source of info at all. I'd rather see a ref to a scientific paper. Better yet, a summary of what's in the paper. --Uncle Ed 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read a few ref's and adding the most damning evidence I could find. I like to think that was in the spirit of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. But then I found this:

• "Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS was a Group A carcinogen... In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme... and to influence public opinion... While so doing, [it] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer." [3] (emphasized added for Wikipedia discussion)

This wouldn't be the first time EPA ignored scientific evidence. Remember the DDT ban? Anyway, the point is not to "take sides" and make the article assert that EPA let political or ideological motives steer it into junk science. We should merely quote opposing sides. If there's a majority and minority involved, we should try to identify that. Politically, I guess that would run 50-50 but I'd sure like to know more.

Scientifically, it's hard to tell. The passive smoking article only quoted the "bad" side - I didn't see anything "not so bad" or "benign" in my rapid overview.

Politically, of course, the position of U.S. Liberals on nearly all scientific questions relating to environmental politics is that the science is unequivocal, unanimous, or that there is a "consensus" favoring (surprise!) the Liberal position. It would be nice if Wikipedia could shed some light on this, by suppling scientific information on all sides of the question.

Of course, if there really *IS* a scientific majority vs. a scientific minority, then we should say so. It's just difficult to determine this sometimes. Who can tell us? --Uncle Ed 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a liberal/conservative argument about the EPA, the environment, or passive smoking here. Who can tell us if a scientific majority thinks passive smoking is harmful? How about the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General (a G.W. Bush appointee, by the way), the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, etc? MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument is not over whether secondhand smoke is bad. The argument is over whether science has established that SHS causes cancer. The answer is that it has not. It is certainly plausible that SHS might cause cancer. Common sense, and extrapolation of dose-response data for smokers, suggests that SHS probably causes cancer, at least occasionally. But, so far, that hypothesis has not been scientifically proven. Milloy rightly objects to false claims that science has proven what it has not. His passion is not smoking, it is scientific integrity. NCdave 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No - your answer, and Milloy's, is that science hasn't proven the link adequately. However, since this is Wikipedia and subjects are generally presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field, the conclusions of the WHO, Surgeon General, EPA, and the admissions of the tobacco companies themselves - namely, that the link has been adequately and convincingly proven - hold more weight, and ignoring those conclusions would, in fact, violate WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

secondhand smoke

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)

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)

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)

3RR violation

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

The report was properly declined. I do, in sincerity, apologize for violation of the 3RR (for which I was unaware). In good faith, I documented reasons for the revert when I did do, and finally did so here as well. Before the section is again deleted, please explain in detail how the commercial for the SG relates to the biography of Mr. Milloy. To the best of my knowledge, the article is not a forum to debunk him. If there is evidence that report was written to refute him (most likely by the mention of his name), then it is proper. If it not, then it doesn't belong here. This would conform with Wikipedia standards on the biography of living persons. There is plenty of information here already that could be taken negatively about him, as well as the link to the secondhand smoke article. And I don't need three guesses for your POV, MastCell. 71.72.217.102 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

(unindent) I do agree that the Surgeon General paragraph, as currently existing, is a little awkward and perhaps borders on WP:SYN. I've taken a shot at fixing this; I've removed the SG paragraph, and instead of the previous paragraph on passive smoking, appended one sentence describing scientific/medical opinion on secondhand smoke, for context. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Every single edit 71.72.217.102 has made reeks of POV in favor of information beneficial to the smoking industry, and if I didn't know better I'd go as far to think that he's a lobbyist working for the Philip Morris. Seriously though, not just on this page but all across the site, 71.72.217.102 seems to have actively set out on a mission to put out a smear campaign on anti smoking movements, and he's clearly got an agenda and I'd suggest he be blocked, as he's more than abused his privileges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.192.123 (talk)

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)

biostatistician

This article says, in the "background" section, that Milloy has a "Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health." So why did you guys insert a citation-needed tag next to "biostatistician?" NCdave 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a degree in biostatistics does not make one a biostatistician. One is a credential, and one is a profession. Let's say I have a degree in computer science, but work as a physician. I wouldn't describe myself as a "computer scientist and physician". The article mentions his degree; let's leave it there. Unless he's published in the biostatistics literature, or held a position as a biostatistician, in which case I'm willing to be corrected. MastCell ^Talk 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course having a Masters degree in biostatistics makes one a biostatistician. If you have an MD, but work as a computer scientist, then you are, indeed, both a medical doctor and a computer scientist.

What's more, Milloy does, indeed, practice in his field. His expertise in statistics, and especially biostatistics, is central (and essential) to his analysis and criticism of junk science. There are hundreds of references to statistical analysis and statistical significance (or statistical insignificance) in the articles on his web site. For example, consider this excerpt from one of his articles on DDT:

Before going into their specific results, it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of the sort of statistical analysis they undertook.

The researchers conducted a so-called “regression analysis” to evaluate the nature of any statistical relationships between blood levels of DDT and various characteristics of the men’s semen/sperm. The key result in this type of analysis is called the “beta.”

In the context of these analyses, a non-zero beta (either positive or negative) means that a statistical relationship between DDT levels and sperm characteristics was observed, while a beta of zero means no relationship was observed.

The greater the beta is (either positive or negative), the stronger the statistical association; the closer to zero, the weaker the statistical relationship.

The sign (positive or negative) of the beta indicates the direction of the relationship: A negative beta indicates decreasing semen/sperm quality with increasing blood DDT while a positive sign indicates the opposite. Keep in mind that statistical relationships do not necessarily represent actual biological or cause-and-effect relationships.

For semen volume and blood DDT, the researchers reported a beta of -0.0005, meaning that they measured a very slight decline in semen volume with increasing blood DDT levels. But this beta result is so close to zero — and statistically insignificant, to boot — that it cannot constitute evidence of a relationship between semen volume and DDT exposure.

Though the researchers reported a beta of -27.63 for DDT and sperm motility, this result was also not statistically significant, meaning it could have occurred simply by chance. The likelihood that this beta is a spurious result is strengthened by the fact that the average sperm motility of the study subjects was within the standards of normalcy as determined by the World Health Organization.

In terms of sperm count, the results were, if anything, self-contradictory. While the beta for the DDT metabolite known as DDE was a statistically insignificant -0.0003, the beta for DDT was 0.0022 — meaning that sperm counts slightly increased with greater levels of blood DDT. Both betas, however, are so close to zero that, once again, they are probably meaningless.

For the final sperm endpoint mentioned in The Mercury article, sperm viability, the researchers reported betas of -0.6571 and -1.7258 for DDE and DDT, respectively. But neither result was statistically significant.

Not only have these researchers failed to statistically link DDT with harm to semen/sperm — let alone have they linked the two biologically — their study flies in the face of a couple of key touch points with reality.[4]

Another example was the (now discredited) 1993 EPA report on secondhand tobacco smoke.

Misuse of statistics is the probably the most common type of junk science. Milloy could not do his work without his expertise in statistics. NCdave 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think anyone argues that he's had training, and presumably has some expertise, in biostastitics. But I don't see that he's a "biostatistician", as he seems never to have worked in that capacity. Having a degree in economics doesn't make you an economist, etc etc. And you don't need to bash the 1993 EPA report in every comment; given that most major medical organizations (Surgeon General, WHO, etc) as well as many tobacco companies now recognize secondhand smoke as undeniably harmful, the EPA's conclusions have been pretty resoundingly vindicated. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not secondhand smoke is bad. Milloy doesn't argue that it is harmless, and I certainly do not. In my opinion, smoking cigarettes is equivalent to wearing a sign that says, "I'm stupid and I smell bad, too."

Nor does anyone that I know of deny that SHS aggravates some health conditions, such as allergies and emphysema.

Many years ago I took a bus tour of Europe with my wife. One of the other passengers had had a cornea transplant, with the result that her eyes were especially prone to irritation by SHS. Unfortunately, the bus driver was a smoking addict. He kept sneaking cigarettes, despite the sign above his head on the bus that said, "no smoking." He'd take a quick puff, and then hold the lit cigarette out the window, and hope nobody would notice. Well, we noticed. The lady with the cornea transplant sat in the back, but it still bothered her. So every time my wife or I would catch the driver smoking, I'd march to the front and make him discard his cigarette.

But the issue isn't whether SHS is bad. The issue is over whether science has shown that it causes various diseases, especially cancer. Since SHS is the same as firsthand smoke, in lower doses and at room temperature, common sense suggests that if smoking causes cancer then SHS probably also causes cancer, though less frequently. Yet, numerous attempts to prove that premise through statistical studies have failed to find a statistically significant link.

And that's where we get to Milloy. He is a stickler for truth and accuracy. He doesn't argue that SHS is harmless. He simply objects to the misrepresentation of scientific evidence to support claims that science proves what it has not (yet) proven. In other words, he objects to junk science.[5] NCdave 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your concluding paragraph or two; but since neither of our personal opinions are particularly relevant here, and both have been expressed, let's let it drop. I do think he should not be described as a "biostatistician" unless he's actually worked in said capacity; if it's based on the degree alone, then the preferred wording would be that he has a degree in biostatistics (which is what the article currently says). MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that having a degree in biostatistics doesn't make one a biostatistician. Milloy doesn't even call himself a biostatistician so why are we even having this conversation?Yilloslime 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

digression about DDT statistics

An aside: In support of his claim that Milloy is a biostatistician, NCdave quotes Milloy's attempted criticism of the recent Journal of Andrology paper that documented impaired semen quality among men living in DDT treated homes in South Africa. A close reading of Milloy's "criticism" and the paper in question reveals more about Milloy's PR skills than his knowledge of statistics. Milloy's "debunking" works like this: He cherry-picks numbers out of a huge table and notes that they are not statisically significant, while completely ignoring the statistically significant findings in the rest of the paper. The semen parameters that Milloy highlights in his critique are not discussed by the authors in the body of the paper, presumably because they aren't statisically significant. The authors instead focus their discussion on their significant results, the one's Milloy has conveniently ignored. Of course most readers of Milloy's column, will simply take him at his word, and won't bother (or even know how) to look up and read the original article. And even if they did, most wouldn't understand it. Of Milloy knows this, and is happy to exploit this fact, misrepresenting the article's findings to push his agenda. Yilloslime 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you have made a very serious charge against Milloy. Now the question is, can you support it? If you have, in fact, given both the paper and Milloy's article a "close reading," you won't mind being specific with your criticism:

* You say that "the semen parameters that Milloy highlights in his critique are not discussed by the authors in the body of the paper, presumably because they aren't statisically significant." Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring, and locate where in the paper the authors noted that those parameters were showed no statistically significant correlation with DDT exposure?

* You say that "the authors instead focus their discussion on their significant results, the one's Milloy has conveniently ignored." Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring in that sentence, as well?

* You also accused Milloy of "misrepresenting the article's findings." Will you please be specific about which of the article's findings you believe were misrepresented by Milloy?

Lastly, I am curious about you. Who are you, what is your expertise in statistics, and what connection (if any) do you have to this dispute? You need not answer those questions, of course, if you are uncomfortable doing so, and you need not even tell us the reason for your discomfort. But you are criticizing the statistical claims of a masters level biostatistician, which is a bold endeavor. What's more, your User page on Wikipedia does not identify who you are, and you must surely understand that anonymous accusations cannot carry the weight of accusations made by someone who has the confidence to put his name to them. NCdave 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough - that's why all of the criticism in the article is sourced to reliable sources, and not anonymous Wikipedia editors. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough indeed. I'm not suggesting that my critique of Milloy's critique be included in the entry. I am a Master's level chemist, and I don't have a degree in stats. Do you? That hardly matters though. My point was not that Milloy's statistical analysis is flawed. The results he says are not statistically significant are, in fact, not statistically significant. My point was that he ignores the results which are statistically significant--as though they weren't even there--and instead discusses results that the authors (presumably would) agree are not significant. Since you are apparently too lazy to look it up yourself, here goes:

• You ask: Will you please identify the semen parameters to which you are referring, and locate where in the paper the authors noted that those parameters were showed no statistically significant correlation with DDT exposure? From the abstract (I've put the put relevant paramaters in bold for easy reference): The multivariate linear regression analyses indicated that mean CASA motility was lower with a higher p,p'-DDE concentration (ß = -0.02, P = .001) and the CASA parameter beat cross-frequency (BCF) was higher with a higher p,p'-DDT concentration (ß = 0.01, P = .000). There was also a statistically significant positive association between percent sperm with cytoplasmic droplets and p,p'-DDT concentration (ß = 0.0014, P = .014). The ejaculate volume (mean 1.9 ± 1.33 mL) was lower than the normal range (2.0 mL) according to WHO, and a significant decrease with increasing p,p'-DDE values was seen for both square root–transformed volume (ß = -0.0003; P = .024) and count (ß = -0.003; P = .04). Although there were no associations between either p,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE concentrations and the rest of the seminal parameters, the incidence of teratozoospermia (99%; normal sperm <15%) was high. Twenty-eight percent of the study group presented with oligozoospermia (<20 x 106 sperm/mL), which had a significant positive association with p,p'-DDE (odds ratio [OR] = 1.001, P = .03). There was a significant positive association between participants with asthenozoospermia (32%) and p,p'-DDT (OR 1.003, P = .006) and p,p'-DDE (OR 1.001, P = .02). Note that a P-value less then 0.05 is generally used the threshold of statistical significance.
• Meanwhile, the parameters that Milloy discusses are pulled from the table 2 on page 36 of the manuscript. Milloy discusses semen volume and blood DDT which according to the table has a beta of -0.0005 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.00004). As Milloy points out, this is not significant--the CI includes 0. But as I point out, this isn't one the paramaters mentioned by the authors in the abstract quoted above, or in the body of the article itself. Next on Milloy's list: sperm motility with a beta of -27.63 (95% CI -155.8 to 100.5). Again, the CI includes 0, so it's not statistically significant, as Milloy correctly points out. But again, this isn't one of the parameters the authors highlight. You can go through and look up the rest of Milloy's results in Table 2 yourself. You'll see that in everycase, the CI includes zero, and the result is not highlighted by the authors as significant.
• If you care to, you can also look up the bolded parameters from the abstract in Table 2, and you'll find that for these, the CI never includes 0, so they are significant. That's probably why the authors calculated p-values for them and why those p-values are less than 0.05. That's also probably why they thought those results were important enought to mention in the abstract, and it's probably why the Journal of Andrology thought the paper was important enough to publish.

In think I've proved my point: Milloy ignores the statisically significant results highlighted by the authors, and instead sets up and then attacks a strawman by cherrypicking non-significant results from Table 2. To answer your question Will you please be specific about which of the article's findings you believe were misrepresented by Milloy: Milloy is misreprenting the article by implying it contained no statistically significant findings. He writes: "these researchers failed to statistically link DDT with harm to semen/sperm" and "The only thing that actually appears “impaired,” as far as I can tell, is the researchers’ willingness to communicate what they actually found — precisely nothing."

I'm happy to answer more questions if they are in good faith. But if you are simply too lazy to do the legwork yourself, then you'll be out of luck. Afterall, I shouldn't feed the trolls. Yilloslime 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a statistician, nor a urologist, so I'm a bit out of my depth here, which I hope you'll forgive. So I've attempted to contact Mr. Milloy, to ask him for his side of this argument; if I get it, I'll report it here. (I also have a friend who, like Milloy, is a masters level biostatistician; if necessary, I'll seek her expert opinion.) But, though I'm no statistician, I believe that betas of 0.01, 0.003 & 0.0003, and odds ratios of 1.001 & 1.003, when one of the two populations compared was just 48 individuals, means that there was essentially no difference between the two populations. Do you disagree? Also, though I'm no urologist, I believe that "semen volume" and "ejaculate volume" are synonyms, yet you simultaneously agreed with Milloy that the difference in semen volume was not significant, and with Aneck-Hahn, et al, that that the difference in ejaculate volume is significant. How can that be? NCdave 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting with "Bated" breath for Milloy's reply. I'm not a urologist either, but if you spend a few minutes reading the paper, you'll have the answer to your question about semen vs ejaculate volume. But I'll be a good sport and spare you the trouble: they are the same thing. However, the authors note that mean semen volume is lower than normal and that there is a statistically significant correlation between square-root transformed semen volume and serum lipid DDE levels. Milloy points out that square-root transformed semen volume and serum lipid DDT levels are not significantly correlated. This is a great example of Milloy ignoring a significant result that's literally right next to an insignificant result that he choses to highlight. You are also wrong about the 48 individuals. Sample sizes were between 239 and 303 and for all the correlations that they calculated betas and ORs for (see tables 2 and 3, pp. 36-38). And if you aren't comfortable thinking about statistical significance in terms of p-values and CIs, then just check out the graph on the last page of the manuscript, that graphically shows the strong relationship between lipid DDE concentrationsand % deformed sperm. Now I've really got to stop. And this is supposed to be about whether Milloy is a biostatician, and I think the fact that he doesn't call himself a biostatistician on his website, nor do the folks that pay him (Foxnews.com, CEI) call him one--these facts ought to put this discussion to bed. Yilloslime 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wrong about the sample size. I read the paper (thank you for the link, BTW). Quoting from the paper, the study was a comparison "between participants whose houses were sprayed with DDT (n = 249) (i.e. mud and thatch roof dwellings) when compared to those whose houses weren’t sprayed (n = 48)" (page 13). That means that one cohort was 249 individuals, and the other was just 48 individuals. Those are very small sample sizes.

As for the DDT v. DDE argument w/r/t semen volume, it seems specious, since both DDT and DDE levels were elevated in the 249-member cohort, as compared to the 48-member cohort, because the 249-member cohort were the individuals whose homes had been sprayed. DDE is simply a breakdown product of DDT, and the levels of both are simply markers of DDT exposure. The issue is whether that exposure was associated with reduced sperm quantity or quality. Either the 249-member cohort's semen was worse, to a significant degree, and with statistically significant consistency, than that of the 48-member cohort, or it wasn't. That is the question that the study should have been trying to answer. If they found an inverse correlation between semen volume and DDE, but not DDT, then something was seriously wrong with the study. What's more, the DDT levels were better indicators of exposure than the DDE levels (3.3x higher for DDT v. 2.4x higher for DDE).

Also, I'm no statistician, but my guess is that when one of the populations compared was just 48 individuals, betas of -0.003 and less are probably not significant. What's more, to get better numbers for the semen volume correlation, the study's authors found it necessary to exclude one individual who "consistently and considerably altered the statistical significance." ("Altered" means worsened, of course.) By excluding him, the study authors changed their "count" (sperm count) p value from 0.1 to 0.04, a most dramatic "improvement" -- if the goal of the study was to find the correlation, rather than to determine whether such a correlation actually exists at all. NCdave 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, you are comparing apples to oranges. The regressions data are tablulated in Table 2. The n associated with each beta is, as I said above, between 239 and 303. The n=48 is for something else. With all due respect, you don't seem to be reading the paper carefully, or understanding what it says. At anyrate, to get back to Milloy, I think I've proved my point the he hasn't "debunked" the paper in any way, shape, or form. Setting up a straw man by cherry picking insignificant results out of paper full of significant results does not a debunking make. It's certainly deceptive, and it's probably effective in advancing Milloy's views, but it falls apart upon examination. Anyhoo, still no evidence for Milloy ever having been a practicing biostatistician. There's also isn't any evidence that he's ever practiced law, so I'm starting to think that we shouldn't describe him a lawyer either. Is her on the the Bar anywhere? Journalist, fine; former lobbyist, fine; and I'd even be OK with "junkscience expert"; but not biostatician, and probably not lawyer, either.

Please let us know if you get a reply from Milloy or biostatistician buddy. Yilloslime 02:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he never worked as a lobbyist, and has no particular degree, certification or training as a lobbyist, so he's not a lobbyist. But he has a Master's degree in Biostatistics, and a JD, so he is obviously both a biostatistician and lawyer.

I got a call from my biostatistician buddy yesterday. She's a newlywed, and she is teaching a course on biostatistics at UNC, so she has a pretty full plate right now. So I'd rather not bother her with this stuff if I can get the info elsewhere. But I asked and she gave me her permission to email her my questions, if necessary. NCdave 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - we have independent, reliable sources documenting he's a registered lobbyist. Hence it's in the article. We have no such sources to back up the claim that he's a biostatistician. He is notable as a "junk science" commentator - this is neutral, factual, and what should be in the lead (in fact, it's what was in the lead before we started this mess). We mention his degrees as well. If you want to start listing numerous professions in the lead, "lobbyist" should be in there, since we have reliable sources documenting that he's a registered lobbyist. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. We have no evidence that he ever did any lobbying. He provided consulting services to a firm that routinely registered all its employees and consultants as lobbyists, as a legal precaution. That is undisputed. But there is no evidence that he ever actually lobbied any government officials, for that client or anyone else. He's never called himself a lobbyist, he has no special training/credentials/expertise in lobbying, and he's never done any lobbying, so he's not a lobbyist.

As for the fact that he is a biostatistician, it is undisputed that he has a Masters degree in the field, and that he routinely uses that training in his work debunking junk science, and if you'd clicked on the link in my last message you'd have seen that the Chicago Sun-Times called him a biostatistician back in 2000. (Google will find other examples, as well.) Q.E.D. NCdave 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, he's notable (in the Wikipedia sense) as a "junk science" commentator. That's how the lead should describe him. If we're including a laundry list of every profession he's ever been associated with or laid claim to, then "lobbyist" should be prominently featured: regardless of his self-description, he is listed as a registered lobbyist by independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. I think you are being deliberately obstreperous. Stop it! Since he's never worked as a lobbyist, never been trained as a lobbyist, and never called himself a lobbyist, he's not a lobbyist. He's a biostatistician, a lawyer, a journalist, and a scholar. He is not a lobbyist. NCdave 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you consider inserting verifiable material that's actually reliably sourced to be obstreperous, then guilty as charged. The idea that we should list every profession Milloy has laid claim to in the lead ignores the fact that he's notable only as a junk-science commentator, not as a lawyer, biostatistician, etc. The idea that we should suppress the documented fact that Milloy was a registered lobbyist is a violation of WP:NPOV, and actually of WP:BLP, which states that information "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources... belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." But I get the sense that your arguments are not grounded in policy here. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out, as the person who inserted the material about being a registered lobbyist, that I attempted to be very circumspect. I carefully specified which sourced list him as a registered lobbyist, and included Milloy's denial, though the sourcing is only so-so, in the interest of fairness. I don't feel the need to call him a "registered lobbyist" in the lead, unless we decide that we're going to include a laundry list of professions there. My preference is to call him a junk-science commentator in the lead, and leave it at that, since that's what he's notable for (not law, biostats, or lobbying). MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing a source that you know to be in error is no excuse for including the error in the article. We know that Milloy has never worked as a lobbyist, has never been trained as a lobbyist, and has never claimed to be a lobbyist. We know why he is erroneously included on the list of registered lobbyists, and we know that he has asked to be removed from it. To tell readers of Wikipedia that he is a lobbyist would be to deliberately mislead them. I don't have a problem with including in the article the fact that he is listed as a registered lobbyist, along with what he says about that. But it would not be truthful to list "lobbyist" as one of his professions. Being a "registered lobbyist" is not like being a "registered professional engineer." There are no qualifications. It just means that somebody (in Milloy's case, one of his consulting clients) filed a form, without even Milloy's knowledge or permission. If your boss were to file that form and list you as a registered lobbyist, perhaps without even telling you, it would not make you a lobbyist. Neither is Milloy a lobbyist. So please stop this obstreperous nonsense. NCdave 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not "false" to claim that Milloy is a registered lobbyist; it's a verifiable fact, so please stop with the accusations. The question is whether the fact that he's a registered lobbyist should go in the lead. Let's focus. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is false to claim that he is a lobbyist, when we know that he was not. The article claimed, incorrectly, that the Senate database listed him as a lobbyist for the API. I checked. It doesn't. It lists him only as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, and only for 1998-2000, and we know how that erroneous listing came to be. There is no evidence from any source to indicate that he has ever actually done any lobbying. So please stop pushing the POV-laden lobbyist nonsense. I've corrected the article (and corrected the incorrect Senate database link in the article). NCdave 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I think your corrections look good, other than an overly leading opening phrase which I've removed. I have no interest in presenting misleading information; however, as some primary sources do list Milloy as a lobbyist, and this status has been discussed extensively by reliable secondary sources, it would be unacceptable to fail to mention it. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is important for the sake of honesty that the article not leave anyone thinking that Milloy might ever have worked as a lobbyist. We all know that he never worked as a lobbyist. We have a perfectly reasonable explanation, from a primary source, of how he got to be registered as a lobbyist, and that explanation has not been anywhere disputed. His only registration as a lobbyist was by a company to which he sold consulting services, which routinely registered all their employees and consultants as lobbyists, regardless of whether or not they ever did any lobbying. Nobody has cited a source which disputes that explanation.

So, seeking consensus, I tried a different (shorter) wording, which I hoped might meet your approval, and for my trouble John Quiggin immediately reverted it. People, this is wrong! We all know the truth, why can't we agree to just put the truth in the article? Why do some editors insist that the article be made misleading, to make Milloy look bad?? NCdave 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently added 'Praise' section

The newly added section for 'praise' contained this single mention:

According to the junkscience.com site, Dr. Philip Abelson, the longtime editor of Science, wrote that, "Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of the truth of science."[47]

I've removed it because junkscience.com is Milloy's own site, and I didn't think a reworded, neutral and accurate passage saying "According to Milloy on his own website..." would be a meaningful addition to the article. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, and of course Abelson died before Milloy's tobacco and oil funding became widely known. On the other hand, there is so little good about the guy that even this somewhat dubiously-sourced praise is noteworthy. Its inclusion might help to assure readers that we are taking an NPOV approach, and that the prevalence of discreditable material is due to the the facts about him being discreditable, and not to the suppression of favourable material.JQ 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The original quote is not from Milloy's site, it is simply reproduced there. It is not a case of Milloy tooting his own horn, it is a case of Dr. Philip Abelson tooting Milloy's horn.

Moreover, the accuracy of the quote is not in doubt. That "according to the junkscience.com site" prefix that someone added is a transparently POV attempt to cast doubt on the accuracy of the quote, when, in truth, there is no doubt.

But it would take more than the inclusion of this quote to convince an informed reader that this atrocious hit piece is NPOV. A heavy dose of narcotics, perhaps? (There you go, John, that was a joke.) NCdave 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of other material on that very page (the AAAS judging thing) has been questioned; hence the attribution. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the AAAS judging thing, it turns out that the accusation against him is false, and he really was a judge. See below for proof. NCdave 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reincluded the section, with attribution to the blurbs of Milloy's books. I think it's reasonably safe to assume these are genuine. Milloy was quite well-regarded until a few years ago, when the information about TASSC came out, and his behavior in the Rall case became more widely known. I think it's likely that Abelson and Henderson would have taken him at face value. Conversely, I doubt that the publishers would have included unchecked quotes on their blurbs. JQ 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He is still well-respected, except by those whose oxen he has gored. NCdave 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, speaking personally NCdave, which do you respect most? His comments on Rall's death, his response to 9/11 or his work for the tobacco companies, while also acting as an independent commentator?JQ 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the sarcasm, John. You are playing fast and loose with a man's reputation. No matter how much you hate him, that is wrong.

Mr. Milloy's livelihood comes, in part, from his consulting business:

Mr. Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to food, beverage, and other consumer product businesses and organizations.

That's what he says he does for a living, and it is entirely consistent with all the available evidence. But you persist, without proof, in your uncharitable belief that he is really paid to shill for companies like RJR/Nabisco and Exxon. There is nothing in the available evidence to support that unkind view. Rather, examination of his copious opinions leads to the opposite conclusion: the payments he receives from his consulting clients are for consulting services, and the opinions he expresses are simply his honest, professional opinions.

His analyses and editorials, expressed in hundreds of columns, cover a very large number of topics, most of which have no connection to his consulting clients' interests. In none of them is there to be found any reason to believe that his expressed opinions are not honestly held. If Milloy were really a paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc., as you apparently believe, then why do you suppose he has devoted so much time to topic in which they have no business interest? Why, for instance, do you suppose he has exerted such extraordinary effort fighting the ban on DDT? Can't you even admit to the possibility that he just might care about the millions of lives that he says hang in the balance?

More importantly, do you care about those lives? What if Milloy is right about DDT? After all, he can cite an awful lot of scientific evidence that supports his view. If he is right, then trashing him and his reputation means, effectively, that you are working to thwart his efforts to save millions of lives. That is a weighty matter. Are you that sure that he can't possibly be right about DDT? NCdave 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've followed the DDT issue very closely, and Milloy's representation of it is false in a vast number of respects, as you can check at DDT. As regards you question, "If Milloy were really a paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc., as you apparently believe, then why do you suppose he has devoted so much time to topic in which they have no business interest? Why, for instance, do you suppose he has exerted such extraordinary effort fighting the ban on DDT? ", the article on Roger Bate gives a likely explanation.JQ 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no explanation in the Wikipedia article on Roger Bate for why a supposed paid shill for RJR, Exxon, etc. would campaign for an end to the ban on DDT, and, as you surely must know, Wikipedia articles (like this one!) on controversial subjects are notoriously unreliable. The fact is that Milloy is plainly vindicated about DDT:

“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

...and...

"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

...and...

“I anticipate that all 15 of the country programs of President Bush’s $1.2 billion commitment to cut malaria deaths in half will include substantial indoor residual spraying activities, including many that will use DDT,” said Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, Coordinator of the President’s Malaria Initiative. “Because it is relatively inexpensive and very effective, USAID supports the spraying of homes with insecticides as a part of a balanced, comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment program.”

...and...

“All development agencies and endemic countries need to act in accordance with WHO’s position on the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying,” said Richard Tren, Director of Africa Fighting Malaria. “Donors in particular need to help WHO provide technical and programmatic support to ensure these interventions are used properly.”

NCdave 04:02, 20 June 2007

<---You can cite the old WHO press release all you want, but it doesn't represent the WHO's current position. Yilloslime 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, Yilloslime. The press release I cited is the WHO's current position. I cite the WHO press release on the WHO web site, from just this last September. You cite only the anti-DDT spin found in a press release from an obscure environmentalist organization called "The Pesticide Action Network" (PAN) which claims its purpose is to "eliminate the dangers of toxic pesticides." The PAN press release was reproduced on another environmentalist web site (dedicated to "reducing pollution in the health care industry"), but not on the WHO web site. The quotes in the PAN press release are not to be found on the WHO web site, nor were they independently reported in any general news publication that I've been able to locate.

The WHO press release says:

“Programmatic evidence shows that correct and timely use of indoor residual spraying can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90 percent. In the past, India was able to use DDT effectively in indoor residual spraying to cut dramatically the number of malaria cases and fatalities. South Africa has again re-introduced DDT for indoor residual spraying to keep malaria case and fatality numbers at all-time low levels and move towards malaria elimination.”

If you check the WHO web site you will find that what you called the "old press release" that I cited is the actually the most recent press release listed there on the topic of either DDT or malaria. The fact is that the WHO turnabout plainly vindicated Milloy about DDT. NCdave 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And your reliable, independent secondary source calling this a "vindication" or "triumph" is where? MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you, MastCell, are demanding that a reliable source be found for this obviously accurate characterization, but you seem to have no problem with Yilloslime using hearsay found in spin from a reprinted copy of an obscure environmentalist outfit's press release to refute the official WHO web site -- about what WHO's own position is!

Nevertheless, you have a point. But one thing at a time, please. Before I try to find a secondary source that actually says what seems so obvious, first, can we at least all agree that the WHO's new position, which they announced this last September, is a reversal of their policy of nearly 30 years (which is what they said in their press release), and that the new WHO position is a vindication of what Milloy has been saying for many years? That all seems indisputable (not that some here won't probably try to dispute it). NCdave 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting somewhere. For the record, the PAN press release is a reliable source, though one that should carry attribution (e.g. "A press release from the enivronmental group Pesticide Action Network...") given their obvious advocacy role. I don't see anyone claiming that they fabricated the quotes from WHO officials. Yes, I would feel better about claiming the DDT thing as a "vindication" for Milloy if we could find some independent secondary source drawing that conclusion. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that "the PAN press release is a reliable source." Neira's remarks were made at the Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). I can't find a transcript of her talk, but the website for the treaty has a summary of the meeting that corroborates the PAN press release: "Reference was made to the commitment of the World Health Organization to promote the reduction of reliance on DDT while strengthening malaria vector control." See the bottom of p5 of this document. Daily summaries of the conference provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development also corroborate the press release: "Delegates...who scurried off to the WHO lunchtime side event on DDT, buzzed positively throughout the afternoon about WHO’s renewed commitment to the eventual elimination of DDT." [6] and "Citing a national decree to discontinue DDT use, VENEZUELA expressed concern about the negative impact of World Health Organization (WHO) policy on DDT use, saying those countries that have banned DDT might resume using it...WHO clarified its position on DDT use, noting the organization’s commitment to reduction and eventual elimination of DDT while simultaneously minimizing the occurrence of vector-born diseases." [7]. Yilloslime 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The PAN press release does not even slightly resemble a reliable source. They do not have a reliable publication process and there is no way to verify the information given, the author is anonymous, and they are not generally regarded as trustworthy. Their position is that, "Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity,"[8] a belief that is entirely without scientific support. Note that they do not qualify their outlandish claim. They do not say "many pesticides" are hazardous, nor even "most pesticides." They are opposed to all pesticides. (Do you believe that?) They are, in other words, an extreme fringe group. Contrary to PAN's claim, the Washington Post reported that "DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings... its utility in malaria control... is undisputed." PAN is an advocacy organization with a disdain for science, and a political agenda that is contrary to the stated position of the WHO. There is no way to know whether the person at PAN who wrote their press release heard Niera's remarks himself, or heard of them second-hand. Nor is there any way to know whether he heard them correctly, or whether he honestly reported what he heard, in proper context. Nor is it even known whether Niera's actual remarks (if there were any, and whatever they really were) correctly reflected official WHO policy.

WHO's official policy is given on the WHO web site. To the extent that PAN claims the WHO's position is different from that, PAN's claims are untrue. NCdave 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting (from page 5 of the POPS report you found):

There was broad agreement, however, that efforts should be made to eliminate DDT use in the long term: among the widespread concerns about the dangers to human health and the environment was the fear that DDT, if used too liberally or for purposes unrelated to disease control, would lead to the resistance of vectors. Reference was made to the commitment of the World Health Organization to promote the reduction of reliance on DDT while strengthening malaria vector control.

And also: "several [delegates] suggested that climate change could increase reliance on DDT by contributing to the spread of malaria." Anthropogenic climate change is worsening the problem of malaria. Should it be claimed in the article that Milloy's stance as an anti-malaria crusader is undercut by his defense of carbon emitters and global warming denialism? I'm not saying it should, but that's at least as strong of a claim as the "vindication" one. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, MastCell. Please tell me you don't honestly believe that there is proof that "anthropogenic climate change is worsening the problem of malaria." No wonder you don't like JunkScience.com. Debunking junk science undermines the myths you hold dear. Perhals you should consider recusing yourself from commenting on this article due to your conflict of interest. NCdave 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Conflict of interest indeed. I have no intention of debating the global warming/malaria issue here; I brought it up as an example of a conclusion inappropriate for inclusion here without a supporting secondary source, analagous to the DDT/Milloy-triumph thing. Now if you would be so kind as to comment on content, and not the contributor... Yilloslime very diligently dug up a variety of sources supporting the PAN press release. Care to comment on those, instead of focusing on my misguided worldview? MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, please append your new comments to the end of threads, not in the middle. It makes it easier for everyone to follow the discussion, and it's also a wikipedia guideline. And editing comments--even your own--after they've been posted is also frowned upon. I almost missed your reply to my corroboration of the PAN press release because your disregard for this etiquette. Anyway, that's a pretty serious charge you make about PAN. Now, can you back it up? You say, they [PAN] are not generally regarded as trustworthy. Really? Can you provide a source for that? Or how about this one: They are opposed to all pesticides? Can you show me where PAN says they oppose all pesticides? Or this one PAN is an advocacy organization with a disdain for science? Or They are, in other words, an extreme fringe group. These serious charges you are making--you should back them up. Since this so far off topic, I suggest that if you want to continue this dscussion, we move it to my talk page. [If this violates a WP, someone please let me know.] And what about that corroborating evidence I brought up? Your comments on that would be more valuable to this discussion on Milloy than your unsourced attacks on PAN. Yilloslime 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, to address this comment of Ncdave There is no way to know whether the person at PAN who wrote their press release heard Niera's remarks himself, or heard of them second-hand, I provide this evidence: The press release is authored by Linda Craig, Monica Moore and Meriel Watts [9] and Moore and Watts attended the meeting at which Niera made her remarks.[10]. Oh, and here's yet more corroboration of the PAN press release: The World Health Organisation (WHO) also held a malaria side event where they recommitted to the joint goals of fighting malaria and eliminating DDT. It is now clearly on the record that the WHO has not given DDT a ‘Clean Bill of Health.’Yilloslime 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this tidbit from today's New England Journal of Medicine, which jumped out when I opened my mailbox today: "...although initially hailed as a panacea, spraying with DDT has not been effective at eradicating malaria worldwide. Well-publicized problems with environmental toxicity, the possibility of human carcinogenesis, and the development of resistance among insects have led to the withdrawal of DDT from widespread use." ([11]). The picture NCdave is trying to paint here, of Milloy being vindicated by a sea change in our understanding of DDT's risks and toxicities, just isn't coming together. It seems to be based on a single WHO press release, which has since been "clarified"/disowned by senior WHO officials, and seems to selectively ignore the wealth of evidence that DDT is still regarded as undesirably toxic. The fascinating coda is that Milloy actually cites the NEJM editorial on his website, though needless to say, he selectively quotes the part about the toll of parasitic disease and ignores the thrust of the editorial, which is that newer, more selective approaches will replace traditional insecticide spraying and such. And he doesn't mention the article's words about DDT, despite his demonstrated fascination with the subject. MastCell ^Talk 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, that's a different PAN press release, and I thank you for finding it. But I'm surprised that you asked the questions you asked about PAN:

You say... They [PAN] are opposed to all pesticides? Can you show me where PAN says they oppose all pesticides?

That's a strange question since I quoted the statement from PAN and included the link to it:

Their position is that, "Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity,"[12]...

That is the very first sentence on their "about us" page. It is the entire sentence, not a sentence fragment taken out of context. It is, in other words, who they say that they are: They are an organization which is opposed to pesticides, period. Not just to the misuse of pesticides. Not just to some pesticides. They oppose pesticides, in general. They go on, on their "about us" page to say that they "work to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives." I guess they think 70 million dead African children is an "ecologically sound and socially just alternative." Note that they say they want to replace pesticide use, in general. They don't want to replace bad pesticides with good ones. They oppose all pesticides. They do not encourage the use of any pesticide. They hate pesticides, period, even relatively innocuous insecticides like pyrethrum and rotenone, which plants produce. In other words, PAN are lunatic fringe. PAN's blanket claim that pesticides "are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity" proves their utter disdain for science. NCdave 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, that aside in the NEJM that you quoted is an accurate statement of why DDT was widely banned in the 1970s. The problem is that the science didn't then and doesn't now support that widespread negative publicity which DDT received back then. The claims of human carcinogenicity were just plain wrong, and the worries about environmental toxicity were exaggerated.

What's more, the fact is that the WHO position of last September has not been reversed or "disowned." One WHO official is claimed by an extreme anti-pesticide group to have said what they wanted to hear, but there's nothing on the WHO web site to document their claim. I don't know the process which WHO uses to arrive at their positions, but it certainly does not consist of having one of their officials make extemporaneous comments at some other organization's event. The official WHO position is that DDT has a "clean bill of health" for anti-malarial indoor spraying, and its use for indoor spraying on walls should be encouraged, not discouraged, for malaria control. NCdave 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell says, "It seems to be based on a single WHO press release." I think he must know better. But in case I am mistaken...

"A triumph for common sense in the fight against malaria.

The tide may be turning once more in the fight against malaria. In what surely must a triumph of commonsense and science over reactionary knee jerk politics, the news that the WHO has decided to endorse the use of DDT in combating malaria is yet another bright spot in the resurgent commitment to defeating the scourge. The WHO is not known for taking controversial, radical positions, let alone for it’s pioneering spirit, but in the face of overwhelming evidence, the venerable organization finally recognized what everyone else knew, and what experts having been saying for a few years, DDT works. Though a reluctant convert to the cause, (the WHO needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light), it seems to be firmly on the side of the good and the many. Said Dr. Marugasampillay “… these successes have helped guide the new WHO policy, which is based on scientific studies and advice from government and health officials…” The victory is all the more important, because it puts the lives of humans alive today at the forefront of the public health battle, rather than the future as yet unborn generations, the poster children of environmentalists that have so vehemently opposed the re-introduction of DDT. Well heeled environmental groups, mainly based in the west, with access to funds and well organised media campaigns have fought a rear-guard action for years against DDT, based on spurious research. Better late than never I say." -Midilinks Medlog editorial[13]

"Swaziland and Madagascar each had malaria epidemics after suspending DDT spraying, the latter's outbreak killing more than 100,000 people from 1986 to 1988. Both epidemics were stopped when DDT spraying resumed." -Washington Post[14]

"We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane -- DDT. ...after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do." -Dr. Sam Zaramba, Director General of Health Services for the Republic of Uganda[15]

Do you want more? NCdave 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, there is a difference between against pesticide use in general--which is PAN's position--and being catagorically against all pesticide use in every cases, which not PAN's position. For the record, PAN actually supports limited DDT use in malaria control: "We strongly support the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants’ call for the ultimate elimination of DDT, while allowing short term use of this persistent and bioaccumulative pesticide in countries that demonstrate an immediate need.[16]

Have you head back from Milloy yet? Yilloslime 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no difference between being against pesticide use in general and being categorically against all pesticides. PAN supports a proposed treaty which would phase out the use of certain pesticides because implementing that treaty would move matters in the direction they desire. But PAN's stated goal is the elimination of all pesticides, period. It's crazy, I know, but that's their position. NCdave 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been playing phone tag with his Milloy's assistant. She returned my call when I was on another call and couldn't speak with her. I called her back and left a voicemail message. NCdave 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "AAAS judging thing" (above), if you read the entire Thacker article that is cited to support he claim that Milloy wasn't really a judge, you'll find a link at the end, which points to an AAAS announcement of the contest winner, and quotes several of the judges who sang the praises of the contest winner -- and Milloy is one of the judges they quoted. So plainly Milloy was a judge in the contest, after all, but someone at AAAS later wished he had not been one. But once the judging had already been done, and the winner announced, it is obviously too late to change who the judges were. So the accusation against Milloy, that he lied about being a judge, is untrue. He was a judge. The accusation should be removed from the article. Agreed? NCdave 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He was not a judge. Look at the list. --TimLambert 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Milloy's claims (i.e. that he was an AAAS judge, or that he was not a lobbyist) deserve mention in the article, but when they are contradicted by reliably sourced information, then that conflict should also be noted, particularly when reliable secondary sources have pointed it out as well. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is proven, by a reliable source, beyond any legitimate dispute, that Milloy was a judge when the judging was done. The AAAS has removed his name from their web site, after the fact, presumably for political reasons, but that is just evidence of the politicization of the AAAS, it doesn't change the proven fact that he was a judge.

I am also getting very annoyed with MastCell's demands that the article contain the falsehood that Milloy was a lobbyist. Everyone here knows that there is not a speck of evidence that he ever worked as a lobbyist, or was ever trained as a lobbyist, or was ever hired as a lobbyist, or ever claimed to be a lobbyist. We all know exactly how his name got erroneously registered as a lobbyist, without his consent. So stop with this "lobbyist" nonsense, already!! NCdave 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. We have a reliable secondary source stating that Milloy was not a judge, based on interviews with AAAS personnel. The same AAAS personnel state that his opinion was not taken into account - ergo, not a judge. Your "reliable source" is an out-of-date web page (the current version is here - note the absence of Milloy's name). The contention meets WP:V. Trying to spread doubt about a well-supported conclusion by cherry-picking an outdated version of the AAAS webpage, before their error was corrected, is not going to work in this case. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As to lobbying, Milloy's name has been removed from the CRP database, so we should remove this when the article is unprotected. He remains listed in the U.S. Senate governmental database, and his status is discussed in a secondary source here. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Only for the years 1998-2000, and only for the EOP Group, not for the API. We know how he came to be listed for the EOP Group, despite NOT being a lobbyist. NCdave 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

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)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,

It is hard to imagine more flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy regarding the biographies of living persons than those which permeate this article, full, as it is, of poorly sourced controversial material about a living person, and dubious ad hominem attacks. But when someone like me or Peroxisome tries to follow the rules we are quickly reverted.

For example, right up at the top, in the section that is supposedly the definition of junk science, the article says, "Critics claim that, in practice, Milloy regularly criticises research suggesting that corporate activities harm the environment or public health as 'junk science,' while praising scientific analysis that supports his preferred positions." While it is certainly true that his critics say that, it is just as certainly true that the charge is without merit. There is no evidence at all (other than the histrionics of his critics) to support such a charge. On the contrary, Milloy consistently applies his expertise as a biostatistician to analyze and debunk faulty statistical conclusions and other bogus scientific claims. The charge that he, instead, characterizes science as "junk" based on whether or not he likes its conclusions, rather than based on its rigor, is an exact inversion of the truth. Like so many other attacks on Milloy in this article, that charge comes straight from the editorial comments of his most vehement critics. It is, in other words, both highly controversial and poorly sourced. According to Wikipedia rules, it "must be removed immediately." But when editors have tried here to either remove it or move it to the "criticism" section, we are promptly reverted by editors whose disdain for Wikipedia rules is exceeded only by their intense hatred of Mr. Milloy, a hatred they make no effort to conceal. That behavior, and this article, are shameful. NCdave 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty harsh accusation. Let's start with "poorly sourced". The critical information here is sourced from a blend of primary and reliable secondary sources. This is actually the standard for Wikipedia articles. I fully agree that any contentious info which is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed; but you have to realize that the tobacco document archive, Mother Jones, The New Republic, the American Chemical Society, the Washington Post, etc are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. You're welcome to dismiss any secondary source critical of Milloy as "histrionic", but that does not a BLP violation make. Criticism in this article is carefully referenced and cited.

Some useful points from WP:BLP:

• Presumption in favor of privacy. BLP mandates that we respect a subject's privacy. It would be inappropriate to insert a bunch of claims about Milloy's private life into this article. However, well-sourced criticism of him as a public figure, in his public role, doesn't fall under this stricture.
• "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Milloy's ties to tobacco and, to a lesser extent, oil companies are notable, relevant, and well-documented.
• "Material from primary sources should be used with great care... Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source." In this case, the primary-source material (tobacco-company documents, etc) have been presented repeatedly by the reliable secondary sources cited, to provide context and avoid undue weight.
• "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Obviously, we can discuss whether the criticism is properly presented or given too much weight, but claiming that BLP means the criticism should be dismissed is erroneous. Personally, since many of reliable secondary sources on Milloy are critical, I don't feel this is a case of undue weight; however, if you'd like to present some reliable secondary sources which could be added, then the article can be adjusted to reflect that.
• Regarding citing Milloy's website as a source, please see the guidelines here, from the BLP policy.
• "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." The article presents reliable third-party sources for the statements made, and we've been willing to do so here on the talk page as well.

I responded at length because you're making a pretty serious accusation, and one that I think is unfounded. If you'd like to get more eyes on the BLP issue, you can go to the BLP noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Content: DDT

Proposed Content

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)

DDT Triumph

Milloy has long campaigned for a reversal of the ban on 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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock, 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 discontinued) DDT "prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."

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.

In September, 2006, Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition. 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." One of the reasons the WHO gave was that, as Milloy has long maintained, "Extensive research and testing has... demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans."

(successive versions written 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC), 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC), 02:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC), 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC), NCdave 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

I think it's appropriate to include Milloy's writing on DDT, with a balancing criticism section, drawing on the info in the DDT and Roger Bate articles. There was some stuff about DDT and it got removed, I think because it tried to combine statement and refutation in a single section. Also, when protection is removed, I'd like to add Milloy's proposal to abolish the position of Surgeon-General. JQ 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm curious to to see the reference for that one, but, like the creationism section, it really is outside Milloy's main focus, which is debunking faulty science. IMO, highest priority should be given to adding sections about the other areas he focuses on, such as dioxins, EMF health effects, etc. NCdave 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is a passing mention of Milloy's stance on DDT in the article, and Milloy's views on DDT are also discussed in the DDT entry. Having noted that, I'm not opposed to including an expanded discussion of his views about DDT in this article. Note that Milloy's debunking of DDT has itself been throughly debunked. If give more weight to Milloy's DDT views, then giving some space to critics of Milloy's DDT views will be in order. So my point is, it's fine if you want to flesh out Milloy's views on DDT, but be prepared for others (i.e. me) to include information that refutes of his views.Yilloslime 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, using the word "Triumph" certainly tells us you're neutral, doesn't it? BTW editing Talk page comments is frowned upon, even when they're your own comments -- see WP:TALK#Editing_comments. Raymond Arritt 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The WHO decision was unquestionably a triumph for Milloy. That's not POV, that's simple fact. Do you disagree? My first draft was simply entitled "DDT," but when I read the WHO press release I realized that it represented a complete triumph for Milloy. So I changed the title to reflect that fact. Really, the title could be "amazing triumph," considering the dominance of the anti-DDT conventional wisdom back when Milloy started his campaign to end the DDT ban. But Milloy's once-contrarian view is fast becoming the new conventional wisdom. If that doesn't represent a triumph (and a rare one at that) for a scientist, then what would? It isn't unheard of, of course. Ptolemaic cosmology reigned for 1400 years before Copernicus overturned it. But few people can claim to have had a key role in overturning generally accepted scientific wisdom of 30 years standing.

As for editing my own draft of the proposed DDT section, I'd not be editing it here if I could edit it on the article page, where it belongs. Unfortunately, certain people took to instantly reverting most constructive corrections to the article, so now it is frozen. The obvious alternative to editing the proposed section in place on the Talk is to post a series of entire versions, which I doubt would be well-received. Would you prefer that? Do you have a better idea? NCdave 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, "amazing triumph" is too modest. Milloy == Copernicus is more objective. And both are sourced, right? To someone besides Steven Milloy? We're not just using the talk page as a forum for general discussion, are we? MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, MastCell, I'm sure that you can tell the difference between contrasting (which is what I did) and equating (which is what you insinuate that I did). Or do you think that 30 years and 1400 years are about the same? NCdave 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously right about the time line. Bringing it into contemporary times, surely no one can doubt Milloy == Einstein. You can even cite my Talk page comments if you want attribution. Raymond Arritt 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eighty million (80,000,000) children under 5 years old and pregnant women died because of the DDT scare, and you guys are cracking jokes, and ridiculing the fellow who fought so long and hard (and, in the end, so effectively) to end that carnage. Unbelievable! I'm old enough to remember "bleeding heart liberals." Where did they all go? Now the liberals seem to have no hearts at all. NCdave 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I left my heart in San Francisco. It was on a Wednesday, I think, during the 2004 Fall AGU meeting. Raymond Arritt 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sure isn't in Africa. NCdave 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your knowledge of geography is impressive! Raymond Arritt 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<--Arata Kochi's press release, which you call a triumph for Milloy, despite its rhetoric, and despite it's reverberation in the conservative echo chamber, did not actually herald a change of course in the WHO's strategy against malaria, nor was it a change in their position on DDT specifically. See the DDT page and the recent remarks of the WHO's Dr. Neira for more details. In a nutshell, the WHO always has been--and remains--committed to the dual goals of eliminating both malaria and DDT. Yilloslime 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a productive thread of conversation. Getting into general debates is one thing; the talk-page guidelines caution against it, but it happens. Accusing the other editors on the article (all "liberals", apparently) of a disdain for human life is just not going to be an effective consensus-builder. Let's drop the claim that Milloy single-handedly overturned the DDT "ban", or even that he had any impact on the scientific debate, unless you can provide a reliable, non-Milloy-authored source to that effect. It's fine to say that Milloy has long argued in favor of DDT use, and that the WHO is now approving its wider use as well. I've always claimed that Smirnoff, despite its low price and lack of cachet, was the best vodka out there; recently a New York Times taste test endorsed it as well. A triumph, perhaps.

However, a heavy focus on DDT shouldn't distract from other issues on which Milloy has spent as much or more time (e.g. secondhand smoke and global warming), and on which his views have been criticized (by actual independent, reliable secondary sources). MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the "Triumph" part I think the section it is appropriate and even more could be detailed. If a bunch of space is devoted to him essentially being nothing more than rude (the criticism of the dead section and the WTC issue) then it seems a bit silly to limit something fairly major that he is somewhat vindicated on and involves more than people's feelings being hurt. --Theblog 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole business of a "triumph" or "vindication" rests on few key assumptions that are, in fact, false. Theblog, NCdave, Milloy himself no doubt, and others seem to believe the following:

• DDT use in malaria control has been banned/restricted
• DDT is a silver bullet that can cure the scourge of malaria
• DDT is the only, or at least "best" or "cheapest" way to stop malaria
• the WHO has changed recently changed it's position on DDT use.

All the above does indeed add up to a "triumph for" and "vindication of" Milloy, unfortunately all of the above is also false. DDT use in vector control has never been banned or significantly restricted; DDT isn't the only or best or even cheapest method for malaria control; and the WHO has not significantly changed it's position on DDT recently. Most experts (with the usual exceptions of Driessen, Bate, Tren, and other CEI-related folks) agree that best approach to malaria control is a multi-pronged one that includes some combination of: improved sanitation, elimination of mosquito breeding areas, improved diagnosis of malaria cases and prompt treatment, improved access to drugs, widespread deployment of bednets, and indoor residual spraying with various insecticides which, yes, may include DDT in some cases. Malaria strategies need to be tailored to local conditions to work most effectively, meaning DDT may have role to play in certain situations. The reason malaria continues to take such a huge tole even today is not b/c of restrictions on DDT or lack of funds for DDT. It's due to a lack funds in general. Developed countries have turned their backs on malaria control in the global south in general. Until very recently, little funding went towards any anti-malaria control measures. This isn't the place for a review of the state of malaria control today, and I certainly don't have the time write one. But reading DDT and Malaria ought to give some perspective. For the WHO's current position on DDT, see the remarks of Director of the World Health Organization Office on Public Health and Environment Dr Maria Neira. Some non-Milloy authored reading is also worthwhile if you really want a balanced view on DDT/Malaria. If can get access, there is this special issue of JAMA about malaria. And while not necessarily any more neutral than Milloy it's view on DDT, the DDT pages on the website of the Pesticide Action Network will provide some prespective and perhaps balance out Milloy's hardline views. Yilloslime 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something in your argument, but exactly which part of the proposed DDT section is inaccurate? That is what we're discussing here, I could care less about using bed nets and what not, if one of the cited quotes is wrong and/or you have an article stating otherwise, then lets have it, until some other specific information is turned up, then I say its good. We can find articles and quotes saying someone's feelings were hurt because he was rude after someone died, surely there is an article saying his greatest "triumph" is a sham. --Theblog 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you seem to believe that unverified hearsay from an obscure environmentalist organization's press release (not a reliable source) is a more reliable representation of current WHO policy than is the latest press release on the subject from the World Health Organization. It isn't.

You also say that it is untrue that the WHO have changed their position on the use of DDT. But WHO says:

15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease.

Obviously you were mistaken. Please, just admit it, and let's move on to other things. NCdave 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it was a triumph. Milloy, Bate and a handful of others managed to parlay a non-existent ban into a cause celebre on the political right, putting enough pressure on WHO that they had to instal a political operator like Kochi over the head, and over the objections, of the malaria professionals, then announce a marginal adjustment to their existing policy as if it was a big change. And it all helped to keep the heat off their clients in the tobacco industry, just as Bate promised it would. JQ 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: we don't have any reliable, independent secondary sources supporting a claim that a) Milloy had any impact on the scientific debate on DDT, and b) that the WHO's current stand is in any way a "triumph" or "vindication". We just have the assertions of an editor or two here, which falls under the policy against original synthesis. Specifically, you're synthesizing the claims that Milloy was pro-DDT, and that the WHO approved the limited use of DDT, into a "triumph" for Milloy. Without a source, it doesn't fly. By way of contrast, look at the tobacco industry/secondhand smoke and Exxon/global warming issues (or even the "rudeness" issue). Both of these are supported by reliable secondary sources connecting the dots and synthesizing the primary sources. It's an important difference, for Wikipedia's purposes. MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask certain editors here to please cease using strawmen such as:

• "Theblog, NCdave, Milloy... seem to believe... DDT is a silver bullet that can cure the scourge of malaria" (Yilloslime)
• "drop the claim that Milloy single-handedly overturned the DDT 'ban'" (MastCell)
• "surely no one can doubt Milloy == Einstein" (Raymond Arritt)

That behavior is not the way to build consensus. NCdave 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to User:Theblog's comments, and amplifying on mine above, what's needed is some sort of reliable, independent secondary source drawing a connection between Milloy and the WHO's policies on DDT use. The burden of proof rests with those who want content included. So far I've not seen an independent, reliable source claiming that Milloy's stance on DDT had any impact on the scientific debate or WHO policy. Theblog is asking us to produce a source denying Milloy's role, when said role has not yet been verified to exist. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can reach consensus on something along these lines:

• A section on his views on DDT called DDT (i.e. not something loaded like DDT Triumph)
• Paraphrase, or better yet quote Milloys position on DDT/Malaria. I think NCDave's suggested first paragraph is a good start, with following change (in bold):

  Milloy has long campaigned for a reversal of the alleged ban on 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." "Our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT," he says, is "the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time." Rachel Carson, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."

  This change--or something like it--is necessary since there is not a ban DDT use in malaria. We could maybe include more quotes by him, including somemore stuff that NCdave has already identified in his proposed content.
• A paragraph or two that reviews the arguements made my Milloy's critics.
• Since there is no citable evidence that Milloy's efforts have actually contributed to any real or perceived changes in WHO policy, I think we should leave out the statement In September, 2006, Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition, but we can note the Sept 06 press release: 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."[11][12] One of the reasons the WHO gave was that, as Milloy has long maintained, "Extensive research and testing has... demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans." We should also point to Neira's comments--either the PAN press release or the corroborating documentation I cited above--and note that in the last year WHO officials have made conflicting statements about it's position on DDT use.

Do you all think we could start reaching some consensus along these lines perhaps?Yilloslime 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that by juxtaposing Milloy's views with the WHO, this implies an unwarranted association. WHO's limited endorsement of indoor-only use of DDT is utterly irrelevant to Milloy's central argument, which is that concerns over the use of DDT are "junk science." Raymond Arritt 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Yilloslime's proposal:

1a) You don't know there's no citable evidence that Milloy contributed to the WHO's policy reversal. I've said, "one thing at a time." I asked can we first at least all acknowledge consensus that the WHO did change its policy? That fact is well-documented by reliable sources, including the WHO's own web site, the JunkScience.com web site, and news stories in publications like the Washington Post.

1b) With regard to Milloy's influence on the WHO policy change, there is good reason to believe he had some effect. Note that:

* Milloy has a very high profile and considerable influence on public opinion in the USA. I don't know whether he coined the term "junk science," but he practically owns the trademark on it.

* One of the most prominent Americans in the fight to curb malaria in Africa is U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D (R-OK).

* Sen. Coburn recently called Rachel Carson's work "junk science", and said that Silent Spring "was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT."

* Sen. Coburn, himself, was prominently quoted in the WHO press release.

* Sen. Coburn not only expressed views shared by Milloy, he used Milloy's own language to do so. Look what the WHO press release quoted Sen. Coburn as saying:

“Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts. “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”

It would be a most remarkable coincidence if Milloy's long crusade had nothing to do with Coburn's views and phrasing, which the WHO quoted in their press release.

2) Why do you want to delete the phrase "nearly thirty years after phasing it out"? That's straight from the WHO press release. Its from my memory, but if it isn't an exact quote it is at least a very close paraphrase. What's more, it, too, is reported in the Washington Post article that I cited -- in the headline, even!

3) Unproven extemporaneous remarks allegedly made by one WHO official, which seem to contradict the official WHO position found on the WHO web site, are not from a reliable source, and do not belong in the article. We have an official statement of the WHO's position, from the WHO, itself. Unless you can find a WHO document that shows that the WHO has actually reversed itself again since last September, then that PAN press release is just obfuscation, and it certainly does not belong in the article. You are attempting to cast doubt upon that which is not in doubt. The WHO's position is what the WHO web site says it is. NCdave 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, regarding your observation about Milloy's main motivation, you appear to be correct that it is usually the science, except for this one issue: DDT and malaria. On that issue, which is Milloy's original signature issue, his passion seems fueled even more by the enormous human cost of the DDT ban than by the junk science that led to it. Take a look at his malaria clock web page, and see whether you still doubt that is the case. NCdave 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there are fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. All of your arguments here seem to revolve around circumstantial evidence which you've pieced together. You've got it backwards: you have to present sources that draw these conclusions, not claim that because we don't "know" that no such sources exist, it goes in the article. You claim that because Tom Coburn and Steven Milloy have used the same phrases, and Coburn was quoted in the WHO's press release, ergo Milloy had an influence; this is a textbook violation of WP:SYN. "I think it would be a most remarkable coincidence if X were not so, therefore we should include it" does not square with WP:V. These are basic, simple, uncomplicated policy issues. There's a lot of heat and remarkably little acceptable sourcing in your posts. Speculation about Milloy's motivation is not really germane to the content issues here, so I'm not going to respond to that. The PAN press release is a reliable source, provided its provenance to an activist group is made clear; if you are unable to accept the consensus on that here, go to the reliable sources noticeboard with it. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems the we can agree on the following, all of which conform to WP:V while avoiding WP:OR, including WP:SYN:

• Milloy is a journalist and "junk science expert"

Agreed. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Milloy has degrees in law and biostatistics

• (Expect for NCdave, we all agree that he doesn't claim to have ever practiced law or been a statistician, nor is there evidence to suggest he ever used these degrees in a professional capacity.)

• Yilloslime, do you bother to ever click on the links I post, or even take 30 seconds to do a simple google search? I've posted links refuting that nonsense about him never calling himself a biostatistician or lawyer, etc. If we can't at the very least all agree on the well-documented fact that he is a lawyer & biostatistician, but not a lobbyist, then there's truly no hope for consensus. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Milloy is listed in several sources as a registered lobbyist.

• Whether he actually lobbied (i.e. met with folks in gov't) is unclear.

• No, it is not unclear. We know that he has never been a lobbyist, period. We also know exactly why he is erroneously listed as a lobbyist. The statement that he is a lobbyist is false, plain and simple. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• We agree on his position on DDT

• I hope so. However, the current article falsely accuses Milloy of believing that "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution [is] harmless." That's "reliably sourced" from a (now apparently defunct) extreme environmentalist group called CLEAR. Can well all agree that such misrepresentations of Milloy's beliefs needs to be removed from the article? NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• We agree that many people are critical of his position on DDT.

• And that many more agree with him, including (finally!) the WHO. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some things we don't agree on:

• Whether he has had any effect on the decisions by the WHO or other officials regarding DDT.

• So far we've only seen original research to suggest that he has. If there is real 3rd party evidence out there, let's see it, otherwise lets drop the whole WHO thing. (If Milloy himself has claimed he had an effect, I suppose we could quote this.)

• I told you, "one thing at a time." We at least ought to agree that the WHO's position did change. PAN insists that the WHO is still against DDT, and Schapira says that the WHO hasn't actually been against DDT for years, but the W.H.O. says that they changed their position, and WHO's own official statements on their own web site are dispositive regarding the issue of what their own position is.
• However, since you insist on delving into the argument over whether Milloy actually had any effect on the WHO position, here's the proof. The fact is that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn played a major role in the WHO's change of position; for documentation, see this column from the Wall Street Journal which called him a "hero" in that victory. Plus, on Coburn's senate.gov web site, to support his pro-DDT viewpoint he reprints (you guessed it!) a Steven Milloy article on DDT. Now that does not prove that Milloy helped Dr. Coburn form his opinion, but it does prove that Coburn found Milloy's information helpful when making the case for resuming the use of DDT. Q.E.D. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• The WHO's current position on DDT.

• If we end up mentioning the WHO's position, we should represent it accurately. I'd argue that this means including a disclaimer that the WHO has made conflicting statements in recent months, and citing both Kochi's Sept 2006 press release and Neira's remarks at the POPS conference.

Ridiculous! The WHO's position is spelled out fully on the WHO web site. There can be no question about it. The WHO has not made any conflicting statements. Unproven hearsay about the supposed extemporaneous remarks of a WHO official, as "spun" in the press release of an obscure extremist organization that is hostile to the WHO's official position, does NOT constitute "conflicting statements by the WHO." NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also of relevance is Allan Schapira's letter to the Lancet stating that the WHO was just re-iterating WHO's endorsement of DDT. --TimLambert 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Schapira's letter is, indeed, informative, and I thank you for the link. He was associated with WHO's anti-malaria programs until late last year, and his remarks are not being filtered through some unreliable third party, so I have no objection to referencing his letter. (Note that he wrote his letter to refute the false implication by PAN that he resigned because of disagreement with the new policy promoting DDT use -- do y'all still think PAN is a reliable source??) However, the WHO's position is what the WHO says it is. Schapira argues that the WHO has actually been supportive of DDT use for years, but, even if he is right, it just means that the WHO's shift in position was gradual, and it does not mean that the WHO's announcement of that change was incorrect. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the WHO has not gradually shifted its position on DDT -- it always endorsed its use against malaria. But folks like Coburn and Milloy kept saying that WHO opposed its use. So the press release was misleading, but got Coburn off their backs, because whenever they tried to get US support for their Roll Back Malaria program, they'd get sidetracked by folks like Coburn wanting them to use DDT to solve the malaria problem. (Schapira called these people DDT fetishists.) --TimLambert 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it humorous that PAN (and the editors here who think PAN is a reliable source) insist that the W.H.O. still wants to end the use of DDT, but Schapira claims just the opposite: that the W.H.O. has supported DDT use "For many years," and only stepped up the "promotion" of it last September. I say we just take the W.H.O. at their word. NCdave 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can all agree on this stuff, maybe we can hammer out some text that reflects it.Yilloslime 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the lobbying thing, the article doesn't claim he's done any actual lobbying - it hews very carefully to the reliable sources available in stating exactly where he's registered as a lobbyist (which can be verified by anyone), and even quotes Milloy's denial that he's ever done any lobbying work. Otherwise, I agree with your points. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that he has never been a lobbyist, period. We also know exactly why he is erroneously listed as a lobbyist. The claim that he is a lobbyist is false, plain and simple. NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Milloy and the WHO's endorsement of DDT, note that Coburn is credited with a big role in bringing about the change, and Coburn cites Milloy:

Doctor Tom's DDT Victory

The Wall Street Journal

September 18, 2006

An unsung hero in last week's rehabilitation of the pesticide DDT is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a medical doctor and freethinker who makes even fellow Republicans uncomfortable with his habit of speaking unwelcome truths.

Mr. Coburn serves as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, a perch he used to press international organizations to recommend DDT once again as a way to fight the mosquito-borne diseases that kill millions of people. Last week, the World Health Organization finally put DDT back in its arsenal. "The new WHO position paper on house spraying for malaria control is a revolutionary document," Sen. Coburn applauded. "The junk science and stigma surrounding DDT -- the cheapest and most effective insecticide on the planet -- have finally been jettisoned." ...

Ending the DDT ban is a victory for human life, sound science, and compassionate conservatism. Bravo, Dr. Coburn.

-- Stephen Moore, The Wall Street Journal, "Doctor Tom's DDT Victory"

coburn.senate.gov

Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High

By Steven Milloy

Fox News

July 6, 2006

... NCdave 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So the Wall Street Journal praised Tom Coburn, and Tom Coburn cites a Milloy essay on his website. Not to be flippant, but a few more degrees of separation and you can link them to Kevin Bacon. I see this as original synthesis in linking Milloy to having an influence on the WHO's policies. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The WSJ didn't just praise Dr. Coburn, it credited him with playing a key role in getting the W.H.O. to reverse its position. Coburn used Milloy's material to make his case. Q.E.D. NCdave 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's something that everyone should be able to agree on, I hope. The article needs to include this link: http://rbm.who.int/globaladvocacy/ddtdebate.html NCdave 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be an excellent link for the DDT article. But come on - this is the Steven Milloy article. You have yet to provide a source demonstrating that Milloy's opinion on DDT has had any impact on the scientific debate, on the WHO's position. Can we start with a reliable secondary source claiming that Milloy has had any impact deserving of mention (one which doesn't require a multi-step, six-degrees-of-separation, original-synthesis "QED" from NCdave)? This is a very simple request. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an original-synthesis, MastCell, that's simple, direct, documentary proof that one of the key players in getting the W.H.O. to change its position used Milloy's material to make the case for DDT. QED. (Which is not surprising, since DDT was Milloy's original signature issue.) NCdave 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN states, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Also impermissible is synthesis which "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." You're proving A (that the WSJ thinks Coburn's role was important) and B (that Coburn cites Milloy's article on his website) to advance your favored position C (that Milloy had an impact on the WHO's DDT policy. Unless C is somehow, somewhere presented as an argument by an independent, reliable source, it is original synthesis and impermissible. Really, repeating the same arguments is not convincing anyone; if you're unclear on this policy point, consider posting to the Village Pump to get outside input. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If this phrase is removed: Milloy's efforts finally came to fruition Do you agree with the proposed addition? It is getting hard to keep track of. The second hand smoke section details Milloy's writtings, then states scientific group's current position, couldn't something similar be done here, just with more history discussed due to the "chang in position"? --Theblog 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that. NCdave 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Centralizing duplicate discussions and responding at the thread below. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ban

Regarding the use of the word "ban" (which one editor here wants to call an "alleged ban") I would not object to using, instead of ban, the term used in the WHO press release, which was "phasing out." Can we agree on that? NCdave 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's clear that it was a proposed phaseout, never adopted, I don't have a problem with that.JQ 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, John, it needs to be truthful. This is how the WHO press release begins:

Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa. “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

NCdave 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, what was phased out in the 1970s wasn't IRS, it was attempts to eradicate mosquitoes through broad-area spraying. WHO is responding to political pressure from people like Milloy and Coburn by dressing up a small change in policy (more emphasis on IRS) as a big one. This is all covered at length in DDT. But this point has been made by plenty of reliable sources, and can be spelt out in the criticism section. JQ 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe NCdave's proposal on the "phase out" terminology is good. If there is a quote or citation supporting John Quiggin's view as described above, that can be noted. Without one, I believe it would be considered original research to go against WHO's own statements. The only citation (in the DDT article) supporting this view is a blog entry that quotes a letter to the editor which doesn't mention the WHO at all, what other "reliable" sources are there JQ? --Theblog 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The letter to the Lancet mentioned by Tim Lambert (above) makes the point quite clearly. And you don't need OR to show that what was phased out in the 1970s was broad-area spraying, not IRS.JQ 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Theblog, the blog entry apparently copies the entire letter to Lancet. Now, considering Lancet's recent endorsement of junk science for use as political propaganda,[17] I wouldn't normally consider a letter to Lancet to be much in the way of evidence. However, the letter-writer, in this case, is a former WHO malaria expert, who left the W.H.O. shortly before they announced their change of position. That means he was probably privy to many of the internal W.H.O. deliberations and debates about DDT. The PAN anti-pesticide extremists suggested that he had left WHO because he disagreed with their change of position. He wrote the letter to Lancet to refute PAN's false suggestion: he has supported DDT use for years, apparently (more evidence that PAN is an unreliable source of information, btw). The other two interesting things about his letter were the references he included, and his claim that W.H.O. hasn't really changed their policies as much as their press release might lead you to believe. The W.H.O., he claimed, has been fighting the anti-DDT folks "for years" to ensure that DDT is available where needed. However, he concedes that the W.H.O. statement does represent a very "promotional" new emphasis on the use of DDT. NCdave 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is presumably that the malaria folks at the W.H.O. have been divided on DDT use for years. The different "spins" of different W.H.O. officials and former officials are evidence of that. But for the "WHO position" on DDT, we should rely on official WHO documents, not on the personal remarks of single individuals. It is clear, from the WHO documents, that the pro-DDT folks have finally won the day at W.H.O.. NCdave 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Broad-area?" Where did that come from, John? What part of "Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT" is unclear? John, are you suggesting that the W.H.O. document is flat-out lying? Everyone pushing for expanded DDT use (W.H.O., Coburn, Milloy, etc.) seem to be talking mainly or exclusively about IRS (indoor use). NCdave 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If the official WHO website says they changed their position, you do need original research to claim that their policies haven't changed. Assuming the blog post is accurate, then I believe the letter fits the bill, although it would be nice to directly source it. I get nervous about contradicting a solid source (in this case the WHO release) with an unverified blog entry from a former employee. (That blog post is actually different from the one in the DDT article that I was talking about before, which is much weaker IMO) Use the phase out line as on the WHO website and say the newly announced position is subject to some controversy then link to the DDT article section that describes the controversy and leave it at that? There is probably a source that says the who policy change is a bad idea, throw that in the DDT article as well so both sides are covered. This is not the DDT article so we should keep it basic.--Theblog 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern about citing a blog without double-checking its accuracy. Here's the PubMed ID for the Lancet letter by Schapira: PMID 17174693. The full text requires you have access to the Lancet online, but having looked at it I can tell you that the letter appears accurately reproduced. It would not be OR to say something along the lines of "...A WHO press release indicated that the WHO had approved the use of limited indoor spraying of DDT for vector control, though several high-ranking WHO officials have since downplayed that message." Or somesuch. But I agree - this is all pointless until we have some indication, from a reliable, independent secondary source, that the WHO's policy decisions have some connection to Milloy. So far we're getting Lancet-bashing but nothing usable. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Lancet -- Agreed that Lancet's black eye w/r/t junk science is irrelevant, since they just published the letter. Schapira was the actual source.

re: Milloy's influence on the W.H.O. decision -- The fact that Milloy was vindicated by the W.H.O.'s policy change is the primary point. The extent to which he influenced that change is secondary.

re: "say something along the lines of" -- It is not true that "several high-ranking WHO officials" have downplayed the WHO press release. So far we have hearsay evidence from a press release from a very dubious source (PAN) claiming that one (1) W.H.O. official made extemporaneous remarks to the effect that the W.H.O. still wants to end DDT use. We also have a letter from one former W.H.O. official, Schapira, which contradicted PAN's claim, and says that the W.H.O. has been striving for "years" to make DDT available for use against malaria. That same letter also contests another PAN document, which had wrongly suggested that Schapira opposed the W.H.O.'s endorsement of DDT for use "throughout Africa" and wherever malaria is prevalent. It would be very misleading to use wording which suggest unity of opinion by "several" WHO officials when, actually, there are only two sources, and they are in strong disagreement, and one of them was no longer a WHO official when he wrote his letter (so he obviously couldn't speak for the WHO), and the other claim was not even directly or verifiably from the WHO official that it named.

re: "say something along the lines of" -- Why would you write an article which says the WHO had approved "limited" indoor spraying, when what the W.H.O. press release actually endorsed is "widespread" use of DDT "throughout Africa" and wherever DDT is prevalent? How do you get "limited" from "widespread?" That's not even spin, that's complete inversion.

We've strayed from the question, however. Some editors here objected to the use of the word "ban," which is the word that Milloy uses and most press reports seem to use. So, seeking consensus, I asked whether we could all agree to substitute "phase out" for "ban," since that is how the W.H.O. put it. Is the answer to that question "yes, we can say phase-out"? Or, to be perfectly precise, since the ban wasn't total in every country, how about "phase-out of widespread use"? NCdave 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, and consistent with changing "ban" to "phase-out" in the proposed "DDT Triumph" section, I would also be fine with changing:

"(before its use was discontinued) DDT..."

to:

"DDT (before its use was largely discontinued)..."

Okay? NCdave 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We still have no reliable, independent source claiming that the WHO's policy is, in any way, shape, or form, a vindication for Steven Milloy. We're going around in circles. I'm not going to take the bait regarding the Lancet, and it's pointless to quibble about phrasing when we haven't even established that anything beyond a simple statement of Milloy's views on DDT belongs in the article at all. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. To everybody else: do you agree with these two changes? (Insert "largely" before "discontinued," and replace "ban" by "phase-out"?)

To MastCell: The new policy which the W.H.O. announced is exactly what Milloy's been calling for. You don't have to like it, but you know that is true. It is a triumph, a victory, a vindication for Milloy -- all those words are apt. But we don't need to make up a description of the W.H.O.'s position, or find some third party to spin it. Their own press release is sufficiently succinct, so let's just quote it. Agreed? NCdave 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this AFM report indicates that Milloy rejects the WHO policy. He's calling for a reversal of the 1972 ban on agricultural use, and for the resumption of broad area spraying. As far as I can tell, he's written little or nothing on IRS. JQ 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I cannot understand how you can write, "As far as I can tell, [Milloy]'s written little or nothing on IRS." Have you read anything he has written about DDT? Milloy harps on the need for IRS incessantly! If you do a Google site search for it on his junkscience.com web site, you find 87(!) hits! That's 87 different web pages on junkscience.com which mention indoor spraying with DDT. Many of them are reprints of articles that other people have written, but all of Milloy's mentions of IRS are supportive. In contrast, ff you do a google site search of junkscience.com for broad area spraying you get zero (0) hits.

That link you gave points to a good article, but you don't seem to have read it. It doesn't say that Milloy rejects the WHO policy, it doesn't say Milloy wants DDT used in agriculture, and it doesn't say Milloy supports broad area spraying with DDT. It does contain some good info, which ought to give the PAN folks pause, such has:

"According to WHO, views about DDT have changed in recent years, with the Sierra Club, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, and Environmental Defense (formerly the Environmental Defense Fund, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the '60s and '70s) now endorsing its indoor use."

and:

"In a lot of places, people have a very simple choice... They can either spray DDT, or lose someone to malaria."

and:

"The environmentalists really tout the ban on DDT as their greatest accomplishment," said Milloy. "But it really ranks them among some of the top mass murderers in the world."

If you look on Milloy's web site, at the links I've given you, or just by going to junkscience.com and searching for DDT, you'll see that Milloy is focused very heavily on getting DDT used for Indoor Residual Spraying against malaria. There is absolutely nothing there that I've found that promotes DDT use in agriculture. He does say that Carson, Ruckelshaus, et al were wrong about the environmental and health concerns about DDT. But (though, off the top of my head, I can't recall where) I remember reading criticism by Milloy of at least some agricultural use of DDT, not for environmental or health reasons, but because it promoted resistance, and thereby threatened to reduce the effectiveness of DDT against disease vectors. NCdave 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article, so there's no need to quote it selectively. I've also checked junkscience website. Most of the indoor spraying hits are to external links, not to material written by Milloy. JQ 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you've read the article and the junkscience.com articles, then why did you claim that the article indicates that "Milloy rejects the WHO policy," and that Milloy is "calling for a reversal of the 1972 ban on agricultural use," and that Milloy seeks "the resumption of broad area spraying?" None of those statements are true. Why did you write that Milloy has "written little or nothing on IRS?" That's not true, either. It is all over his site. His Malaria Clock page says, "spraying DDT inside dwellings presents no discernable human or environmental hazard." His Terrible Cost of Malaria page says, "Part of the reason some one-third of the world's population remains at risk of malarial infection is the appalling indifference of coddled, self-indulgent European consumers with a chemical fetish. So removed now from real-world risk, so pampered by State-funded health care that they obsess over pretend risks, European consumers essentially preclude affordable, effective malarial defence in impoverished regions by threatening desperately needed hard currency flows from agricultural exports from any country that dare use safe and effective DDT in Indoor Residual Spray programs. Most development and aid grants or loans preclude the use of DDT, regardless of health need." I could go on and on and on with citations like these. Milloy pounded incessantly on the need for IRS. If you think he hasn't, it just means that you don't read what he writes -- and shouldn't be editing his biography. NCdave 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Instead of arguing about how Milloy influenced the WHO decision, and how to describe it,how about simply quoting what the W.H.O. said, and then quoting what Milloy said about that WHO decision? Can we all agree on that? NCdave 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, "let's be reasonable and do it my way." Sorry, no. Raymond Arritt 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, focus on the article, and not on the editors. What objection do you have to simply quoting what the WHO said, and then quoting what Milloy said in response? NCdave 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is User:Yilloslime jumping in after a weekend away from the ole compruta. In terms of "ban" vs "alleged ban" vs "phase out" I think it's important to not lose sight of who is saying what. There has never been a worldwide ban on DDT use in malaria, so the article should never refer to a DDT ban. I.e., the article shouldn't say something like "Milloy opposes the ban on DDT" since there isn't such a ban. Nor has the WHO has never banned DDT use in IRS either, although I admit if you are only looking at the WHO press release you might get that impression. So the article shouldn't say things like "Milloy opposes the WHO's ban on DDT" either. Quoting Milloy refering to "bans" is fine, provided that we balance those quotes with accurate info about the legal status of DDT.

I think best way to flesh out a section on Milloy's views on DDT is to simply quote/paraphrase/summarize them, and also include some criticism of his views that is sourced to--or better yet quoted from --reliable third party sources. I think this is our best shot at writing a balanced, WP:NPOV discussion of his views while avoiding WP:OR.

A long these lines, since we've got no evidence of him influencing the WHO (other than tenuous WP:SYN) let's just leave this out. And as I've said before, if we do manage to drag the WHO into the article, let's represent their current position on DDT accurately, which means noting that WHO officials have made conflicting statements. On the one hand we've got the WHO press release (Sept 06), and on the other Dr Neira's remarks, quoted in this press release (and corroborated here, here, and here) and Schapira's letter to the editor of Lancet reproduced here (and I've checked the original source and it's accurate.) Yilloslime 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is this: if we juxtapose Milloy's stance with the WHO press release, we're implicitly making a case. We could just as easily juxtapose his stance (support for DDT, environmentalist-bashing, disdain for the many other methods of fighting malaria) with evidence that DDT "failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working", that the most successful malaria eradication efforts (in the Panama Canal zone and southeastern US) were accomplished completely or largely without DDT, that the WHO recognizes that DDT is at best a small part of an overall solution, etc., saying, "Milloy's avowed concern for malaria focuses solely on the use of DDT, despite evidence that it is at best a partial and temporary solution to the problem." Then run it all under a title saying, "Milloy's use of DDT controversy to attack environmental concerns". That's a synthesis of primary sources that might seem obvious to some; yet I wouldn't propose it, because it violates WP:SYN. Same with stacking the sources to create the illusion of a "triumph" or vindication here. The fact that we're going through the contortions to mask the lack of a reliable secondary source is telling. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that Washington Post article, I thank you, MastCell, for the link. It is a useful article, and would be a useful addition to the references. I note that this author estimates the number of annual deaths due to malaria at 3 million, which is slightly higher than the figure that Milloy uses. However, the author makes a couple of mistakes, such as ignoring the protection conferred by DDT IRS which results from DDT's repellant effects, even on DDT-resistant mosquitoes; and this: Spraying DDT on the interior walls of houses -- the form of chemical use advocated as the solution to Africa's malaria problem -- led to the evolution of resistance 40 years ago. In fact, most scientists believe that agricultural use, rather than IRS, was the main contributor to DDT resistance. That's why Milloy does not advocate agricultural use of DDT. NCdave 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ban of DDT, the W.H.O. phased it out (their words), and well over 100 countries banned it completely. That's not a uniform, total, worldwide ban. But it is a lot of bans. I proposed using the W.H.O.'s terminology, which is "phase out." That is the question for which I created this section to solicit an answer. So, returning to the topic at hand, can we all agree on that? Or, if not, we could just use the plural: "bans." Nobody can dispute that there were (and are) many DDT bans. NCdave 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the position of the W.H.O., there is no ambiguity or inconsistency. Two supposed contradictory sources have been pointed out, but they contradict each other, and neither is from a current W.H.O. official. One of the two (Schapira) is from a former WHO official, who left the WHO shortly before the WHO's announcement. The other is spin from a press release from an extremist organization (PAN) that opposes the WHO's position, and that conveniently claims (but cannot prove) that one (1) WHO official made extemporaneous verbal remarks that were consistent with the PAN position and inconsistent with the WHO position.

The PAN press release is particularly suspect. In fact, the Schapira letter was prompted by misleading information in the PAN press release! What's more, even if there were reliable evidence of the WHO official's extemporaneous verbal remarks (such as a transcript), the W.H.O. does not determine its official policies via the mechanism of its employees making extemporaneous remarks, on their own, in non-WHO venues, so the question of what (if anything) she actually said is moot. The WHO's position is what the WHO's web site says it is, period. NCdave 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also distressed that MastCell keeps trying to "spin" Milloy's and the WHO's words to insert his own POV. For instance:

• MastCell would have the article say that "WHO recognizes that DDT is at best a small part of an overall solution," when actually the WHO said DDT should have a "major role" int the efforts to combat malaria whereever malaria is prevalent, including "throughout Africa." How on earth can you translate phrases like "major role" and "widespread use" into "at best a small part?"
• MastCell would have the article report Milloy's "disdain for the many other methods of fighting malaria." But there's no evidence of such disdain. That's just a gratuitous and unsubstantiated attack on the subject of this biography.
• MastCell would insert POV-heavy weasel words ("avowed concern") along with false ("it is at best a... temporary solution") and irrelevant ("it is at best a partial... solution") remarks about the science of DDT's use against malaria: "Milloy's avowed concern for malaria focuses solely on the use of DDT, despite evidence that it is at best a partial and temporary solution to the problem." The truth of the matter is that Milloy focuses on the carnage which has resulted from the bans on DDT, which, in turn, resulted from junk science. That doesn't translate into "disdain" for complementary methods of fighting malaria. Milloy has never suggested that other methods be dropped. Indeed, he praised the W.H.O. when it endorsed the use of three complementary methods, one of which uses no insecticides at all.
• MastCell proposes a title which imputes uncharitable ulterior motives to Mr. Milloy, without any evidence of such motives: "Milloy's use of DDT controversy to attack environmental concerns." Such a title would be unfair POV, and inaccurate. The fact that Milloy accuses anti-DDT environmentalists of "genocide" and "junk science" is not evidence that Milloy is motivated by anything other than the millions of innocents who died and the abuse of science. If you could justify a section with that title in this article, then you could equally justify a section in Simon Wiesenthal's article entitled, "Wiesenthal's use of Holocaust controversy to attack German concerns."

NCdave 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding MastCell's new suggestion that the article report the fact that malaria eradication was successfully accomplished by the USA without the use of DDT, in the Panama Canal zone and the SE USA: I wonder what that has to do with Milloy, since that was long before either DDT or Milloy existed? I also wonder if MastCell knows how those eradication programs achieved their successes? Does anyone think that the methods which the USA used in those eradication programs should be used again today, in preference to DDT and other insecticides? I won't keep you in suspense: those eradication programs achieved success largely by permanently draining wetlands, and by pouring petroleum slicks onto standing bodies of water. Is that how you think we should fight malaria, MastCell, and are you sure you want this article about Milloy to advocate those approaches? NCdave 01:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is this: if we juxtapose Milloy's stance with the WHO press release, we're implicitly making a case. Isn't this exactly what we're doing in the second hand smoking section when we say: Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the United States Surgeon General and the World Health Organization as a clear cause of lung cancer and other health problems. ?? --Theblog 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, please re-read my comments. You're going off on my "proposal" as if it were something I want in the article. In fact, I held it up as an alternate interpretation of the primary sources, which a reasonable person might arrive at, to point up the fundamental problems with WP:SYN in your proposed paragraph. My "proposal", like yours, draws on primary sources and synthesizes them in a way which might appear quite logical to some, but is inappropriate for Wikipedia. My fault - I shouldn't employ such overly complicated rhetorical devices. Forget it - just please re-read my comments, and realize I'm not proposing we add that to the article - I'm pointing out the reason why WP:SYN is a vital part of policy, and why your proposed paragraph violates it. MastCell ^Talk 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As to Theblog, you make a reasonable point. I'd be fine with removing the sentence on the Surgeon General/WHO findings from the secondhand smoke paragraph - it's covered at the passive smoking article anyway, and you're right, it probably is guiding the reader a little too much. MastCell ^Talk 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, I think its fine as it is, as long as it is consistent, it seems to me to work a bit better with the summaries. I'm not really sold on leaving them out or putting them in, both ways are somewhat unsatisfactory, maybe there is a better way we haven't thought of. --Theblog 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond arritt, do you have constructive input? All I have seen so far is snarkiness on your part while others try to come up with something that is at least a better article. I've reread the input twice now and besides a two minor issues I think it is factually correct and devoid of OR. (I think the word signature is subjective, and a link to the phaseout controversy section of the DDT article is warranted.)--Theblog 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, we had an enormous amount of discussion here on the Talk page, trying to hammer out a consensus on the DDT section. I modified it to accomdate numerous objections: I deleted what MastCell thought was WP:SYN (though I still disagree with his opinion about that). I removed all mention of "triumph" or "vindication." I changed "ban" to "phaseout." Everything in the section was copiously documented with reliable sources. But how did you respond? You reverted/deleted the whole thing, without so much as even a comment here on the Talk page. What are we to make of that? You are making it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. NCdave 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose the section be readded since Raymond has decided not to reply despite a couple dozen edits since the question was asked, if he truly has issues, then he can post them later. The section doesn't really do anyone any good sitting on the sidelines. --Theblog 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While agree that it's unfortunate that Raymond hasn't yet replied and did not leave any comment here in the first place, I disagree with the proposal to put the section back in. Other than for perhaps Milloy's stated position on DDT, we were far from reaching anything even approximating a consensus on what this section should look like, and much of it is WP:OR and WP:SYN as Raymond reminded us in his edit summary when he removed it. I would support inclusion of the just the first paragraph for now while we work on the rest, though I think we should hear from the other editors who have been involved in this before sticking anything in.Yilloslime 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime summarized my concerns well. There was no point in adding to what was plainly stated in my edit summary. What passes for "discussion" here is for the most part simply determination on the part of Milloy's partisans to wear down other editors (see also WP:WORD.) Adding bulk to the talk page when there is no true discussion is pointless. Raymond Arritt 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Yilloslime. Before adding the DDT section to the article, I deleted everything which had been accused of being WP:OR and WP:SYN by anyone, even through I strongly disagree with that complaint. I also changed "ban" to "phaseout," even though DDT was banned completely in over 100 countries. W/r/t the WHO's position, I gave up trying to summarize it, and just quoted their own position paper. I also removed all mention of "triumph" or "vindication," though the WHO turnaround was surely both for Milloy. Seeking consensus, I did all those things to accommodate the objections of other editors. Everything in the section was copiously documented with reliable sources, and thoroughly discussed beforehand here, on the Talk page. I bent over backwards to address every objection. And what is the result? An instant total revert, deleting the entire section that covers Milloy's original signature issue, an issue which is touched on by more than eighty web pages on his junkscience.com web site. In the meantime, often-misleading, POV-charged sections on minutia like a remark he once made about evolution, his service as an AAAS juror, and his erroneous listing as a lobbyist remain in the article. NCdave 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please spell out exactly which part of the current edit you believe to be OR or SYN, I do not see it. Also, Raymond Arritt, please stop making false accusations. --Theblog 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And for everyone's convenience, here's Raymondd Arritt's revert. Where's the WP:OR or WP:SYN, Yillowslime & Raymond? NCdave 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Creationism is a major issue of controversy as regards science in the US 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)

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)

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)

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)

Surgeon General

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)

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"[18] so if your problem is with the specific source cited, we could easily use another one. Yilloslime 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to be more accurate, a direct quote would be great. --Theblog 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

FeloniousMonk has now reverted my correction, without explanation. NCdave 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mad Cow

Mad cow disease gets a mention in the intro, but not in the body of the article. A quick search found this [19] which gives some criticism. When I get time, I'll chase the original. JQ 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Surgeon General and WHO

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)

American Petroleum Institute

Please, guys, stop adding that false information about Milloy "representing" or lobbying for the the American Petroleum Institute. I fixed the link in the article to make it easy to find the information. So take advantage of that, and click on it, please! NCdave 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards the lobbying stuff, I find Milloy's explanation at best a quibble. He was registered as a lobbyist on behalf of particular clients, and pretty clearly produced material used by EOP in their lobbying efforts, but (he says) did not personally lobby any officials. However, there's no need for us to judge whether he's credible or not on this. Just report the fact of his registration and his denial that he was really a lobbyist, without making a judgement either way.JQ 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, Numbers 3 through 15, 1998 through 2000: EOP GROUP AMERICAN PETROLEUM INST MILLOY, STEVE Unless you've got some convincing evidence the senate is way off the mark, you're beating a dead horse. FeloniousMonk 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Click on the links!!! You obviously don't know what you are looking at. That is the result of a search on the SOPR database for Milloy. The significance of the list is that it shows that the EOP Group was the only company that ever registered Milloy as a lobbyist. Do you think that the "client" column is Milloy's clients? It isn't. That's not a list of who Milloy lobbied for, it is the list of who the EOP Group lobbied for. Those are EOP Group's clients. Milloy didn't lobby for any of them. Look at the details, if you don't believe me. Click, for example, on the link for FMC Corp. If you truly believe that those reports represent lobbying by Milloy, then you must believe that Milloy earned $1.8 million lobbying for FMC Corp. in the last half of 1999! Come on, I know you aren't that silly! Do you even believe that any single lobbyist earned that kind of money in six months? That's not a list of who Milloy lobbied for, it is the list of who the EOP Group lobbied for. Milloy sold the EOP Group consulting services, not lobbying. The EOP Group registered all their employees and all the consultants they used as lobbyists, because of some lawyer's interpretation of a 1995 law. That link (which I put in the article!) shows that Milloy was not a lobbyist, because it corroborates Milloy's statement that he was only registered as a lobbyist by that one firm (EOP Group), which registered all their employees and consultants, not just the actual lobbyists. NCdave 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NCDave is correct, if you click on the links it details why the report is filed, the API ones do not list Milloy as a lobbyist. --Theblog 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's revert, which substitutes false information for true - three times!

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)

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)