User talk:John Quiggin

/archive1 /archive2

Junk science: Cato, Thacker and junk

Hello John. Your recent addition about the Cato Institute and its relation to junkscience.com helps the article become more factual. Is there any chance of a reference for this? EdJohnston 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. There was no public announcement of his departure, though it's easy enough to check that he was associated with Cato until the article came out, and departed not long after. I noted his going in my blog as did various other bloggers, and the same facts are reported in a little more detail in both the Cato Institute and Steven Milloy articles. Thanks for your work on this article, which has been helpful. JQ 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: iNic at the article on the St. Petersburg paradox

Possibly of interest to you:

• User talk:Luna Santin#Problem brewing at St. Petersburg paradox

—SlamDiego22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

John, thanks for the implicit tips in category usage on exponential utility. Sorry for the back-and-forth. Cheers, Jeremy Tobacman 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems. It's a nice article. If you're interested in categorising economics articles, check out JEL classification codes JQ 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert, or deletion?

Hi, John. Without prejudice to the issue of whether you should have made that deletion, I just wanted to let you know that your edit summary was ambiguous. It makes it appear that I was the deleter, and you were reverting my deletion. I refer to:

• rv large-scale deletion ←Undid revision 115927315 by Ed Poor [1]

I guess you meant that you were making a large deletion. (Not that large, really, just 80 words. But at some point you might want to say why you deleted it. Doesn't it give an example of scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous? --Uncle Ed 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on this one. I misread your change as deleting what was there before. I've reverted to your edit.JQ 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had to stare at the diff for a minute myself, before I saw the paragraph break. For an anxious moment, I thought I had accidentally overwritten the previous ref! :-) Well, now I really must return to the meat world. Good night. --Uncle Ed 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Global warming conspiracy theory

An editor has nominated Global warming conspiracy theory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming conspiracy theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Break after userbox

"I've created categories that match the main ones in JEL classification codes, namely Category:Cooperative game, Category:Non-cooperative games,Category:Evolutionary game theory and Category:Bargaining theory. It would be great if someone could take an hour or two to categorize the large number of articles currently under Category:Game theory into these subcategories. PS, I don't know how to get a line break after the userbox. Help appreciated!JQ 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"

Not sure if you meant userboxes on your userpage or not, but you can put a line break in a box by inserting |- in a line in between the lines your userboxes are on. Please see my userpage for an example if that is what you meant. Thanks! Muchris 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed my vote on Global Warming Conspiracy

Fine job you did on improving the article. Thanks! Noroton 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing me to do the necessary work! I tend to take words like "fraud" literally, but I was impressed by your point that, a lot of the time, this is just rhetorical overkill. I've added to the intro a sentence saying "In particular instances, it may be difficult to determine whether claims of a "hoax" or "fraud" are intended as serious accusations of concerted dishonesty, or as rhetorical flourishes, intended to emphasise a claim that proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory are in error." Not perfectly worded, and needs a supporting citation if I can find one, but it does respond to your point. Frustrating as it can be the Wikipedia process does work pretty well.JQ 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Gerschenkron effect

I think that might be Gerschenkron effect, as in Alexander Gerschenkron, not Gershchenkron effect, a misspelling.

p.s. Please archive your talk page. Some of us are on slow connections. --SueHay 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've right. I didn't check the spelling, just fixed the categories. I'm moving stuff to archives, and will do more.JQ 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Photo

It looks like giving permission for a photo "for Wikipedia use only" is no longer sufficient to allow it to be included in Wikipedia - unless it's also deemed to be "fair use" for some independent reason, and Wikipedia:Fair use is contradictory on whether a photo of a person for identification purposes is fair use. Seems like a very bizarre policy! In general, Wikipedia encourages image contributors to license their own work under a free license which has to be free enough to allow derivative works and commercial use. If you would be willing to so license one of them (e.g. the last photo in the set) I could include it with no difficulty. You can change the license field on Flickr by going to the specific photo page, and clicking "edit" next to All Rights Reserved, which is on the right under "Additional information".—greenrd 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. I've set my default license to Attr:Non-commercial:sharealike, but I've made the last photo just "Attribution", which should be enough.JQ 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WPs influence

Hey, I have a question about our previous discussion at the AfD for Arrovian uncertainty. You mentioned that WP seemed to be a part of why the term might grow in popularity, and as an ultimate source for some of the GS references. Is this a "bad thing" (not sure, but I think it might be) and is it likely (I think it isn't)? Now that WP is trying to cite more and more, it doesn't seem like it will need to be a reference for scholarly articles, as it is possible to trace the ideas to their originators. Anyway, is it then more responsible not to mention both uncertainties in the Knightian uncertainty article, which would give undue weight to a rarely used term? I was going to put in a sentence in Knightian, but then I realized what you meant, and figured I'd hold off. BTW, GB has another book mentioning the term (with reference, Rosenberg. "Uncertainty and Technological Change" (1996) ...) that I didn't see last time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on holiday at the moment, but I'll come back to this next week.JQ 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Duffy and Counterpoint

Hi John,

I see that you have started the page on the ABC Radio National's Right-wing Libertarian Hour. Take a look at this example of an informal fallacy appearing on said programme. I documented approprimately 5 fallacies in the same segment about public transport including your garden variety ad hominems and association fallacies. There is enough material there to start the page List of informal fallacies appearing on Counterpoint. Grumpyyoungman01 10:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grumpy. I share your view, but I want to stick to an NPOV presentation of the facts. I'll try and list some of Duffy's guests and arguments when I get some time. I started the page because I wanted to link to Duffy's endorsement of The Great Global Warming Swindle, whic I've criticised.JQ 11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy

Looks like the Center for Security Policy found their article and made into PR. Leafyplant 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Money

Dear Professor Quiggin,

Thank you very much for taking interest in improving the article money. As I see most of your edits concentrate on the organization of the article, I just wanted to make sure you are aware that due to the article being subject to a larger improvement drive this week, the organization of sections and similar aspects of the article are likely to be changed many times in due course, so much of your work could be, in a way, lost. I believe at this early moment, it might be more beneficial to focus on adding references to reliable sources to information contained in the article (as well as new information, preferably referenced), as those will, most probably, not be removed from the article, perhaps only rearranged.

Thank you very much for your involvement again and I am looking forward to more of your valuable contributions to the article.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll look at improvements of this kind first. I hope the improvement drive goes well. JQ 09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing

I am about to undo your undo of my revision re: TCS Daily, Heritage and Cato.The paragraph is nearly incomprehensible, it's quoted entirely from another source, and most importantly, those are think tanks. See the Astroturfing Talk page here. --Loudon clear 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted without the reference to TCS (though this is an astroturf outfit - a lobbying firm disgusied as a discussion forum), Heritage and Cato. I agree it needs cleanup and will try to tackle this. JQ 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of money

I see you removed the entire types of money section as redundant - I'd like to put it back but would like discussion first - please see the Money talk page Egfrank 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misreading "decades old"

Re your edit summary here: I don't think you misread. UBeR corrected himself. --Stephan Schulz 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tricky!JQ 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

utterly unreliable

Since I am not in the habit of relying upon authority, they also don't become unreliable, when mistakes are uncovered. Whether they are right or wrong on any given point is based on the evidence. I trust McKitrick far more than Mann, because one was willing to open his work to scrutiny and the other was CYAing all the way. Are we to totally dismiss the summary work of the IPCC because they have deceptively used model attribution and projection that they know is inappropriate? Issues of integrity like this, certainly demand high levels of scrutiny and suspicion when reviewing their other work.--Africangenesis 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Enumerative induction

Hi John,

The activities of your one-editor fan club continue apace. See Enumerative induction. - Grumpyyoungman01 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a nice illustration. JQ 09:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm going to be on wikibreak for a few weeks while I catch up with various things.JQ 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Greenhouse Conspiracy

I've nominated The Greenhouse Conspiracy, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that The Greenhouse Conspiracy satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greenhouse Conspiracy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Greenhouse Conspiracy during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See this is what happens on Wikipedia JQ, as soon as you take a wikibreak, every Tom, Dick and Harry takes advantage of you.[2] - Grumpyyoungman01 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Carson

Hi. I've been a fan of your edits since I first got interested in wikipedia. Anyway, the Rachel Carson page currently under attack by the "rachel carson killed more people than hilter" POV pushers (IMHO). I could use your help! Yilloslime 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the kind words. I've added a subsection on the timely revelation that the whole thing was a setup by the tobacco industry. You may want to follow the links and develop this. I'll keep a general eye on things now, but I don't want to return from my Wikibreak just yet.JQ 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ya I noticed that info when you posted on the AFM page. Great stuff! Yilloslime 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen

Hi John, I only added a tag to that particular quote to see if other editors who work on the article regulary have an alternative weblink (one that doesn't require registration and payment) as I was interested in reading more of the interview. I have googled myself and couldn't find one. I don't doubt the quote itself (that it wasn't made up,) that is why I just added a tag. You're correct that I should have just asked on the talk page. Apologies. --Dean1970 13:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AFM and PR firm

JQ, not sure what (if anything) to make of this, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention just in case. It looks like AFM's website, www.fightingmalaria.org, (and possibly AFM itself) was originally administrated by a Christopher Klose from the DC based PR company John Adams Associates. The evidence is here at archive.org. Looks like sometime between May 16 and July 21, 2001, AFM wised up and changed the contact email from cklose@johnadams.com to info@fightingmalaria.org. A brief Google search shows that Klose has worked for various PR groups, and also the American Crop Protection Association (now CropLife). It's interesting, but I'm not sure what it might mean. Yilloslime 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Klose has worked for the tobacco companies, specifically the "Smokeless Tobacco Council," but I haven't found any specific info to link him to Roger Bate and the AFM plot to undermine the WHO. Legacy Tobacco Docs search here.Yilloslime 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. I guess we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, since most of the business would have been done by voice or email. Note that there are multiple bodies, and the website /www.fightingmalaria.org is that of "Save Children from Malaria Campaign", purportedly a joint effort of AFM, CEI and others, but that Tren and Bate have @fightingmalaria.org email addresses.JQ 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're likely only seeing the tip of an iceberg. I just wish I knew how to see the whole thing. I think "Save Children from Malaria" and AFM are essentially the same thing. Checking www.archive.org, it looks like sometime between Jan 19, 2002 and May 25, 2002 the banner at the top of www.fightingmalaria changed from "Save Children from Malaria" to "Africa Fighting Malaria" and the sentence We created this site to educate our visitors about the scourge of Malaria and the effectiveness of the pesticide DDT... was changed to Africa Fighting Malaria is an NGO which seeks to educate people about the scourge of Malaria and the effectiveness of the pesticide DDT... The rest of website is unchanged as far as i can tell, though I haven't crawled through every page. At any rate, given the close connection that Bate, Tren, Milloy, and the rest have to the tobacco industry, it's no surprise that the orginal contact on the fightingmalaria.org website is another guy with ties to the tobacco industry.Yilloslime 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

EW

I've blocked the IP address for a while. At least this guy is easy to spot. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards do change often always. The standards for biographies of living people get stricter every day. It wouldn't surprise me if the boundaries have shifted to make sites that were previously considered worthwhile to link to, like Sourcewatch, no longer adequate. Jayjg is a respectable, long-time editor so if he removes links I'd presume he's doing so to be consistent with current guidelines and policies. If there's a specific link or instance that you think is questionable let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no "bulk revert" function, but there is a "revert button" which makes the work go quickly. I'll drop a note to Jayjg asking about the links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecological economics - categorisation

Dear Professor Quiggin: Thanks for helping out with categorising ecological economics. I have just categorised it as a Wikiproject: Economics article. I hope that's suitable. Feel free to fix if I got it wrong. Regards, AppleJuggler 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

You had the following edit comment on your recent edit to WP:EL:

"delete FA crit - no significant discussion before this radical change came in, no response to criticism of it"

Which is really quite bizarre, as the sentence you removed is NOT a radical change at all, but has been there for years and discussed multiple times on the talk page as a long-standing consensus approved criteria. I see someone beat me to reverting your deletion of it, which should give you a clue about how much broad support that phrase has. Please do not remove it again without forming a firm consensus on the talk page that it should be removed. DreamGuy 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be this version [3] or [4] for example. Can you point me to the discussion when it was introduced.JQ 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give it another week or so, but if he keeps it up I think an RfC may be necessary. I had hoped he was giving up and going away. Like you I suspect, I'd assumed he was a particularly annoying newbie but I checked his history and found the war over Terri Schiavo. JQ 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Author of National Geographic piece on Malaria just got fired...

JQ, I though I'd bring this interesting tidbit to your attention just in case you missed it:

• Michael Finkel wrote this article about malaria for National Geographic which, IMHO, presented pro-DDT anti-Carson POV as fact:

  Malaria is a confounding disease—often, it seems, contradictory to logic. Curing almost all malaria cases can be worse than curing none. Destroying fragile wetlands, in the world of malaria, is a noble act. Rachel Carson, the environmental icon, is a villain; her three-letter devil, DDT, is a savior…"The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."

  On the whole, the article is not nearly as bad as stuff written by Bate or Tren or Milloy, but it's pretty unbalanced in my view. Anyways, Finkel, the author, just got fired by the NYT Magazine for presenting information as factual that wasn't quite.

Found this interesting; thought you would, too. Yilloslime 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd seen the NYMag piece, but not the news on FinkelJQ 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, my bad! It's turns out Finkel was fired back in 2002, not this year as I originally thought. I'm not sure how I made that mistake. It's still interesting, though not as timely. Yilloslime 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Link for assessment

[| Assessment project]

Notability of Gio Batta Gori

A tag has been placed on Gio Batta Gori, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ROGER ^TALK 12:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Junk Science

you reverted a piece on Junk science/ milloy which has two demonstrable errors.

Firstly, Fox News is an established journalistic source. You can't just ignore it because you don't like what it says. If you wish to dispute this further, I am quite happy to include further references to the ORI pages, and Nature pages, where these findings are also reported.

Secondly, you have changed the text about AJPH. The text you have used is demonstrably wrong, and I set out why on the discussion page. Yet again, you have deliberately changed a text to a form where you know that it is wrong.

Peroxisome 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Several other editors have already pointed out your error reagrdign Fox News. Rather than violating WP:3RR why don't you read their comments. It's perfectly OK to cite claims made by Fox News, but not to endorse its reports as factually true.JQ 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source. Milloy is reporting on a finding by others (the ORI, Nature), and this is what reliable sources do. You have changed the text so that it misrepresents what is at issue; that several papers have been found to be fraudulent. Your claim that Fox News reports can not be relied upon for factual accuracy displays a certain bias. In the case in point, it is a ridiculous claim. Peroxisome 11:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discssion of this issue is at Talk:Steven Milloy, but briefly, the point is that Milloy claims these were examples of "junk science". Yes, they are indisuptably well-known examples of research fraud (and there are many others), but "junk science" is a much more nebulous term which means... whatever one wants it to mean, it seems. Hence, it is appropriate to note that Milloy claims these as examples of "junk science". MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JEL codes

Thx, John. Your contribution of the JEL codes has so helped keep things straighter than they otherwise could be. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx, John. It's the "doubting" part of me who done it. BW, Thomasmeeks 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

religion and global warming

I was peeking at your edit history and noticed this, which prompted me to stop and read Global_warming_controversy#Analogies_by_Skeptics. I'm very tempted to delete the whole section. The Religion subsection cites the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise website and a blog, neither which seem to qualify as Reliable Sources; and the Phlogiston and Miasma subsections aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion. In fact the whole section is of dubious notability. My question to you—someone who I assume has had his eye this ball for a while—is why is this junk in there in the first place? Is this the result of some sort of compromise or consensus? I ask simply because I don't want to reopen a settled debate. Yilloslime 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up for discussion now, and I think deletion of the entire section is a good option.JQ 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Information, knowledge, and uncertainty

Hi John: A few of us have had an extensive discussion about the article on information economics. We seem to have arrived at something of an agreement about what a resulting article should probably look like, but aren't on the same page about what it should be called. More input would be useful, and I thought of you. Most of the recent discussion is here. Would be much obliged if you could have a quick look. Thanks! Jeremy Tobacman 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming over nowJQ 07:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As a participant on said article, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John

Thanks for your comments about merging - I just posted another on the History of economics page, asking whether people thought there was anything that needs to be retained, which isn't already in the new page, and would be happy for you to recommend anything. Also, you are probably quite well suited to help out (to put it mildly) if you have any more comments on the HoET page itself. It'd be good to get it up to scratch, because there are surprisingly few featured pages in the Business and economics category of Wikipedia articles. :) Wikidea 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration regarding the passive smoking article. You are listed as a party in this request. Thanks. Chido6d 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in ArbCom requests, users don't comment in the statements of other users; they have a statement of their own. Per that custom, I have moved your endorsement of MastCell's statement to a new section. I am notifying you since I had to make a slight adjustment to the comment to specify whose statement you were endorsing. Adam 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Regulatory Impact Analysis Project

JQ, the hits from my google search imply that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project is just another front group of Milloy's, but his webpage, and your update to Steven Milloy imply (at least my reading of it) that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project is/was an official government project. Kinda makes it sound a lot more legit than it probably was... Yilloslime (t) 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you're right. I did say "According to his website", and that will teach me not to believe anything written there. JQ 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Denialism connections

I know you're interested in the substantial overlap between passive-smoking denialism and global warming denialism. So I thought you'd appreciate this edit to passive smoking, which according to WHOIS comes directly from the Chevron Corporation in San Ramon. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I should try and put some of this material into denialism.

POV accusations

Edits which are relevant to the topic and supported by reliable sources are most proper. You should not make a blanket (and false) POV accusaion simply because you disagree with what a source says or if the source does not agree with your agenda. Focus on the content, not the editor. As far as "consensus", I'm not yet convinced that a small group of activist editors should be able to "bully" the article into one of their own liking. Chido6d 11:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Bate

Did you see that Bate has [responded] to the revelation (by you and others) of the tobacco documents linking AFM to PM? Yilloslime (t) 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful.JQ 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I love how the picture that goes with the article is of someone spraying a swamp--I thought they were only talking about IRS! Sloppy. Yilloslime (t) 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your threat

You have threatened to block me, but clearly this user's vanity page has been compromised by his own editing of it, no? Is Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit who agree with a certain cabal of administrators? --71.232.157.145 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Margret RoadKnight

Er..., according to the log at Margret RoadKnight, I had nothing to do with its deletion. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I found this [5] but that was probably just deletion of a redirect page.JQ (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Well, Dr. Quiggin, I hope see why putting references in the appropriate places (i.e. after the argument) is helpful--some people will miss it otherwise! Thank you for pointing it out though. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair point and I apologise for snarking. But it would be helpful to the project if you did a bit more checking of obvious references before tagging their absence. That way, we only take one edit to make the improvement, and we don't have the annoying tag in the interim.JQ (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol ratification

Your recent edit to Politics of global warming claimed that the Clinton administration ratified the Kyoto protocol. I believe that Al Gore signed the protocol, but that it was never ratified. See Politics_of_global_warming#Federal_government and Kyoto_protocol#United_States. Wdfarmer (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right of course, and I could have sworn I wrote "signed", but the edit history doesn't lie. Fixed now, thanks. JQ (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

African American Environmentalist Association

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article African American Environmentalist Association, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of African American Environmentalist Association. TheRingess (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of African American Environmentalist Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, African American Environmentalist Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African American Environmentalist Association. Thank you. TheRingess (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split DDT into sub articles

There is a proposal to split DDT into several sub-articles. As someone who has contributed regulary to this article, your input would be appreciated. Yilloslime (t) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

1. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
2. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The above is an extract from WP:WEIGHT.

I don't think you're saying that Driessen is not a prominent adherent or that his pro-DDT views are held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Am I detecting your thoughts correctly here?

If so, perhaps we writers at Wikipedia should cover both sides of the "anti-malarial use of DDT" controversy, by summarizing (and possibly even detailing) the names, political affiliations (?), and arguments of each side. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said over at DDT, I think we should do this. The difficulty is to separate the political controversy, largely part of US domestic debate, from debates among those actually dealing with malaria.JQ (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (If I understand your positions correctly): DDT can and should cover the controversy over DDT use in IRS. And I don't think the views of Driessen (or others with similar opinions) have been excluded in article—Driessen is already specifically mentioned, as are Steven Milloy, Roger Bate, Africa Fighting Malaria, and others, and their arguments are well represented, if not always attributed clearly. I think it would be fabulous if we could have an article that clearly delineates what the scientific literature says, what the WHO and other governmental and intergovernmental bodies say, what the arguments of the environmentalists are, and what the arguments of the likes of Driessen and Bate are. I think that would be great, but I also have to agree with JQ that it's going to be difficult to separate all these things out, especially with respect to WP:WEIGHT. For example, how seriously does the scientific community take are the views of Bate, Milloy, Don Roberts, or J Gordon Edwards? How seriously are their views taken in other circles? How relavant are these other circles to this article? All this has bearing on how much WP:WEIGHT we give their views (obviously—I know you guys know this), but I don't think teasing this appart is going to be easy. Given the paucity of actual contributions to the scientific literature by these guys (the notable exception being DOn Roberts) I think we can safely say they aren't taken very seriously in that circle. But their influence on policy and the public more generally is (for me at least) much harder to quantify, and regardless of how much influence they've had, the question still looms as to how much space to accord the public perception of DDT and IRS vis a vis the scientific perception. Yilloslime (t) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brisbane Ladies

An editor has nominated Brisbane Ladies, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Ladies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Data Quality Act Shinanigans

Hi John, I'm thinking this might be of interest to you and your blog, though I'm contacting you here simply because it's the easiest way for me. Anyways, did you happen to see this letter in the January 11th issue of Science by William G. Kelly Jr. of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness? In it he claims that "Neither Phillip Morris (a multiproduct company) nor any other tobacco company (or nontobacco company for that matter) played a leadership role in the genesis of the DQA." Interestingly, he then goes on to say that "While working with the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness in Washington, DC, I was personally involved with the development of the DQA." You may, of course, recognize the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness as the "watchdog group" founded by the legendary Phillip Morris lobbyist Jim Tozzi.... Yilloslime (t) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the key words are probably "leadership role". In the current political milieu, it's not necessary for industry to play a leadership role in gutting regulation (that's the EPA's job). Of course, as you point out, the letter also seems to position the CRE as somehow independent of industry. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough: PM and other corporations didn't play "leadership roles" themselves, they simply set up and/or funded front groups and lobbyists who then played the leadership roles. Yilloslime (t) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, but at a glance that may be the operative semantic dodge being employed. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks to be a classic non-denial denial. I'll try and write a blog post when I get some time (travelling at present). JQ (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Could you send me the text of the letter at---. I don't have easy access to Science at present.15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it...Yilloslime (t) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it should come as a surprise, but the US Lobby Disclosure Page shows that Kelly was a lobbyist with Multinational Business Services from 1998-2003, representing mostly agrichemical companies. (MBS is Jim Tozzi's firm.) See this list—Kelly is listed at "William G Kelly, Jr." on some, but not all, forms. Clearly, its the same guy that wrote the Science letter. Yilloslime (t) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Category for Merge

The related Category:Ozone hole skeptics has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--RedShiftPA (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User degree/BEc

A tag has been placed on Template:User degree/BEc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Passive smoking

Hi John - I hope you don't mind, but I removed from Talk:Passive smoking both the off-topic comment by 159.105.80.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as your brief and reasonable response. This particular IP editor has a long and storied history of endless general debate and argumentation on talk pages, centering around Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and the like. I've actually blocked him for remarkably persistent talk page abuse in the past. Currently I'm thinking that the best approach is just to remove any posts from him which clearly abuse article talk pages, and leave any which suggest specific or concrete improvements to said articles, in an effort to improve the situation. Anyhow, a long-winded explanation in case you were wondering why I did what I did there. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I checked his talk page after replying and realised I'd given the benefit of the doubt to a troll.JQ (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, always better to err in that direction. If not for my long experience with this editor, I'd have done the same. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated topic: thanks for rewriting the passive smoking section to remove POV and put it more in accordance with verifiable sources :) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for your suggestions JQ (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

nice find...

"There is only one possible conclusion: an antismoking operative is in control of the tobacco issue – probably planted there by some pharmaceutical-funded antismoking gang." Is it you? It's not me, but I could sure use the money... Yilloslime (t) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Chido6d acting as an agent provocateur. Those pharmaceutical-funded antismoking gangs are pretty wily. JQ (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do like how the only possible reason that someone could think smoking is a bad idea is because they are being handsomely paid by the drug industry. Of course, an interest in accurately representing scientific opinion, or even a concern for public health, could not possibly be at play - the one possible conclusion is that the drug industry offered us more than the tobacco industry to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps Freud had the right idea.

As usual, even these supposed economic incentives are ridiculously nonsensical and ignorant. A single dose of pemetrexed, docetaxel, or (especially) bevacizumab for lung cancer, or a course of abciximab, a drug-eluting stent, and a lifetime of atorvastatin and clopidogrel for a heart attack, bring in much more money than a few nicotine patches. It's in the pharmaceutical industry's financial interest to keep people smoking, and keep them developing all of the complications for which they produce expensive drugs. But then, rationality is generally not a conspicuous characteristic of half-baked astroturfed conspiracism, is it? MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, there's a nice new nugget over at Lambert's blog: Just how many astroturf groups did tobacco fund?. Yilloslime (t) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we can't just edit the list. However, I think the current state of the page [6] with a footnote on Shell's domicile, is fine.JQ (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JPANDS

You know, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is always worthwhile reading. This issue corrects misinformation published in the New England Journal of Medicine recently (PMID 18046031), with the news that radiation is good for you and prevents cancer (courtesy of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd). They're also still beating the drum about the discredited abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, comparing the National Cancer Institute's finding that there is no such link to be "reminiscent of an event that occurred in Nazi Germany in the 1930s." (I wish I could make this stuff up). That's on top of the paen to AIDS denialism in the last issue. No doubt these "reliable, peer-reviewed sources" are working their way into Wikipedia articles as we speak. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a blacklist of sources like these. The bar should be pretty freaking high for blacklisting a journal, but still, there should be a list, and I think minimally JPANDS, 21st Century Science and Technology, and perhaps some tobacco industry house journals should be on it. Oh wait, 21CS&T already is blacklisted. But still, I think you see the point. Yilloslime (t) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to draw the link between this group and the Oregon Petition a little more closely. But I can't see a one-step link. JQ (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Weinberg Group

I just created Weinberg Group. It's largely a cleaned up cut-and-paste from here (covered under GNU of course), though there is some info in the original which I did not bring over. Anyways, I invite you to take a look, improve it, etc

A nice piece. I clarified a couple of things, and went for more NPOV phrasing. There's a response in the linked ABC article that might be worth quoting somewhere. Also, I think the Sourcewatch template is now deprecated. You might want to check on this.JQ (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll checkout the ABC link. The article definitely needs some work on NPOV, but I figured that that would get sorted out faster by simply putting it in article space, rather than continuing to work on it alone in my user space. As for the sourcewatch template, MastCell added that, and I defer to him on these issues... Yilloslime (t) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Friends of Science

Newish info has come to light. Check these Odds& Ends. Yilloslime (t) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I Googled to find this story [7] from a WP:RS, which could be used in the article. There's some interesting references to law enforcement action that is supposed to be under way.

What? Not Friends of Science! It must be fun to sit around and come up with Orwellian, ironic names for astroturf groups... MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Hey - you're probably already aware of this, but it was recently profiled in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently there's currently an effort underway to sue a collection of energy and oil companies for conspiracy on the basis of their efforts to mislead the public about the risks of global warming, taking a page from the playbook used against the tobacco industry ([8]). As someone interested in the overlap between tobacco- and oil-company research efforts and tactics, I thought you might be interested. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I saw this one being debated somewhere else, I think. BTW, I have an article on DDT and Rachel Carson in the latest online edition of Prospect [9]. Comments appreciated

Have you read Michael Finkel's article published in National Geographic? It is one the more moving stories I've read in that magazine. In it, he's kind enough to Carson, but I noticed, "In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Sptring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. 'The ban on DDT,' says [Robert] Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, 'may have killed some 20 million children.'" ~ UBeR (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the article and at great length on Tim's blog, the claim that "DDT became nearly impossible to procure" is incorrect. The US exported it for years after the 1972 ban, and when it stopped, India took over. Looking at the article as a whole, the Gwadz quote seems to be out of context.JQ (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

JQ, I'm loving the article! Since you asked for comments, here are a couple:

• "Kochi saw the need to placate the critics of the Bush administration..." Did you really mean to say critics of the administration? I see Kochi's announcement as trying to placate the far right in general, including the Bushies. Afterall, as I recall he made his Sept 2006 announcement in DC (or at least in the US) flanked by Admiral Zeimer (Ziemer?) and others from the Bush Administration, rather than from Geneva flanked by WHO staff. You could have also mentioned how like 50% of the malaria department quit when he took over including Allan Shapira, but I realize that there is only so much detail you can put into a few page article.

"of" is a typo, which hit me in the face as soon as I read the article. I'll try and change this. As regards limits, the article was cut from about 3000 words, including some references to Kochi's abrasive nature.JQ (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm your longer version right now, and I see that you've covered all this and that "of" is typo....Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it might be an over simplification to rest all, or even most, of the blame for the Carson-Hitler-myth at the feet of Big Tobacco. They certainly seem to have played a big role, but I think "Free Market" think tanks (e.g. Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, etc.) share a big part of the blame as well. I see their promulgation of the myth as a part of a strategy to undermine the environmental movement in general, since it poses a threat to corporate profits (C.f. their positions on Climate Change, Endangered Species, ozone, etc.) and specifically as part of a strategy to undermined the tightening of chemical regulation, especially REACH and SAICM. Just take a look at http://rachelwaswrong.org, which was set up by CEI. Once you get past all the DDT/Malaria misinformation, there's all this stuff on the Stockholm Convention, REACH, etc. And of course just look at who's funding CEI and their ilk. (Yes tobacco, but also the oil and chemicals companies--basically anyone whose profits might be hurt by environmental or public health regulations.)

Agreed that this has taken on a life of its own. Still, it's all just a recapitulation of strategies (and personnel) originating with Big Tobacco.JQ (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, these are minor points, and my reading of the bones might be 100% wrong. It's a great article, and I've been waiting for something like this to come out for a while. Kudos. Yilloslime (t) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, just found this interview with the junkman himself. Yilloslime (t) 04:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where I'm going with this...

...but if you have anything to add (or remove), please do. Yilloslime (t) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith

Hi, you left a lot of empty fields when you were formatting the references, just FYI. Also, I'm guessing you are using something to prefill the fields; if you can, I suggest including only accessdate, url, title, and publisher as the default fields as those are the crucial ones. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using the template here [10] I'll make sure at least to include access date.JQ (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics, and unrelated question

Hi, I saw your recent edits to Adam Smith; I'm not sure if you want to devote a lot of effort, but WikiProject Economics is working on getting the Adam Smith article featured. After this collaboration, I want WP:ECON to focus on improving other articles that are core to economics. If you're interested I know you could be a big help. I see from your Wikipedia article that you're a pretty serious academic economist, and I figured I should ask how interested you are in playing an active role in WikiProject Economics, for future reference.

Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm an undergraduate studying economics and I've been thinking about writing my senior thesis on a topic related to utility theory. But I only know the basics of utility theory that they teach in micro and managerial economics. Can you suggest a few academic papers or authors that I should read to get a basic understanding of the utility theory literature? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I actually started WikiProject Economics, but it didn't do much for a while and I get overloaded with work from time to time. However, I hope to do more work on Adam Smith and other joint projects in the future. On your other question, are you mainly interested in utility and preference, or uncertainty, expected utility and generalizations (I'm better on the latter, but I can give you some pointers on the former also).JQ (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, sorry for the late response. Congrats / good work on starting WP:ECON, I'm glad to have somewhere worthy to focus my time on the 'pedia. I think I'm more interested in utility and preference, though expected utility also looks interesting. Then again, it could go either way as my understanding of utility theory gets deeper. Any general pointers you can give would be most appreciated. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Great Editorial

Check out http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/86/8623editor.html, I think you'll like it. I don't think it's paywalled, at least not yet. Milloy, OISM, and JPANDS are taken to task. In case you are not familiar with the source, C&E News, let me explain: it is the weekly newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society, the professional society which virtually all chemists in the US are members of. It also publishes some of the most prestigious chemical journals. In other words, the ACS is hardly a bunch of hacks, and it ain't that liberal either, and neither is C&E News. Yilloslime (t) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Let's hear it for Rudy Baum! For a society journal, that's ferocious stuff. And, as you say, Chemical and Engineering News doesn't exactly sound like a liberal hotbed.JQ (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who suggests that there might be an ideological effort to abuse science in the service of a narrowly defined right-wing political agenda is automatically a raving liberal. You know, like Richard Carmona. Actually, the neat thing about that editorial is how closely its description of JPandS mirrors our article on the subject. Maybe this site is actually a useful aggregator of reliable information after all? MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too, actually. I keep a close eye on news articles on DDT, and I've actually seen whole sentences from the DDT article which I wrote end up in news articles verbatim without quotation marks and without attribution! Yilloslime (t)

More from Bate

Perhaps you've already seen it, but Roger Bate has another pro-DDT piece here today. While admitting, finally, that DDT isn't a panacea in the last paragraph (it seems only since your Prospect piece that he has toned down his rhetoric slightly), he none-the-less names the piece "An invaluable Insecticide" and implies that the choice facing Uganda is between spraying DDT or letting 300+ people a day die from malaria. There are a lot of other interesting things he touches on, including claiming that BAT's current opposition to DDT somehow proves that Big Tobacco never had anything to due with the modern pro-DDT disinformation campaign, but the most interesting thing, to me, is his playing fast and loose with the facts. He claims, or at least strongly implies, that recent declines in malaria incidence in Lubombo are due to new DDT use: "But the Lubombo Project succeeded because of indoor house spraying with DDT and other insecticides and the distribution of the best new anti-malaria medicines. It was a triumph of everything that many on the political left want to despise: DDT, mining companies, and aid-rejecting Southern African nations. " But the paper that he cites to back this up reaches different conclusions. It notes that there was no new DDT spraying in the region. Yes, DDT spraying had already been going on in the region for quite some time, but, according to the paper, it was the introduction of IRS with bendiocarb—not more spraying with DDT—that caused the decrease in malaria. Furthermore, the whole point of the paper was not to demonstrate the effectiveness of IRS or one particular insecticide, but rather to highlight the need for for trans-border cooperation for malaria interventions to be successful. You can have all the elements of a great malaria program on one side of the border, but it'll only get you so far if malaria is rampant on the other side, and mosquitoes and people can travel back and forth. Long story shot: Bate caught misrepresenting science again. Yilloslime (t) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion attempt of small Canadian foreign policy think-tank

Hi there,

We need your help: Filemon, a Warsaw-based Neocon activist wants to delete the Wikipedia entry on The Canadian European Council.

It defies logic how a lone amateur Polish contributor with little knowledge of Canada can single-handedly decide to delete a small (yet real and relatively influential) Canadian think-tank.

The Canadian European Council is a real/legitimate think-tank- these guys have published several pieces (some referenced in the Wikipedia entry) in:

- The San Francisco Chronicle: one of the top 5 US newspapers - The Daily Star: the Middle-East’s leading English language newspaper

They’re amongst twelve (only!) Canadian political think-tanks listed in Wikipedia …

Granted they’re not a very large/active organization, but that doesn’t constitute in itself a valid reason for removal.

I suspect Filemon wants to remove them just because he doesn’t like their anti-neocon stance… I hope I’m wrong!

Anyways, I think this entry must be kept: it’s clear, well –written, concise and abides fully by Wikpidedia guidelines.

Please help us in countering Filemon’s abuse.

Cordially,

Moorehaus (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 

Where'd you go?

Quiggin--what happened? Did your WP-editing stipend from Big Pharma run out or something? I'm missing your blog and your editing here at the 'pedia. I hope your just off getting an award or something. Yilloslime (t) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The blog had all sorts of hosting problems, now resolved, I hope. I also copped an off-wiki attack for my editing of Fred Singer, which led me to take a bit of a break while I thought about things, but I plan to be back on deck soon.JQ (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full-reserve banking

Please engage in talk rather than edit-warring in this article. The term hypothetical does not seem to have consensus support. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being abrupt. But there doesn't seem to be any claim that a system of full reserve banking actually exists anywhere, so "hypothetical" is consistent with the consensus.JQ (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abruptness is persisting

Please read the talk pages before making edits. It is annoying if edits have already been discussed and a latecomer then makes edits that have already been discussed. This has occurred on a number of recent edits in DBMS and FRB. It is important to check the archived talk pages as well, before editing.