Talk:Steven Milloy - Knowledge (XXG)

1022:) and apart from not appreciating the lawyerly Latin inserts found much to criticise about the content. It appears he like Myron Ebel and others using the cover of exclusively right-wing think tanks and propoganda outlets gets a lot of respect from certain readers, who then themselves blog online to amplify incorrect and misleading conclusions. How is it that someone like this can end up quoted in the congressional record? As Runjmb notes above Myron Ebel and Steven Milloy and others that have been employed to spread doubts about sound science underpinning some of the greatest issues of this century have no training, experience or credentials in the fields they are constantly criticising as "junk science." Steven Milloy specifically states on the World Wide Web that he (junkscience.com) has done research that contradicts and refutes the findings of at least 97% of the world's actual climate scientists. Such false claims are an abuse of the medium and in my opinion must be called out as such. Because my views conform to the majority of people who have weighed in on climate change and Steven Milloy's clearly do not, in no way would I dare edit this article. But for the confusing mention of 2 withdrawn Nature articles (Steven Milloy has published none) it seems to fairly portray the living entity, thanks to the authors. Knowledge (XXG) is where I turned today when I wanted to know more about Steven Milloy from a less biased and more concise source than his own bio. -- 642: 204: 183: 2225:

self-published source has gone through no external editing at all, which is why we generally exclude such sources. The fact that this has been published in a major, mainstream publication gives it a considerably higher level of reliability than the PR Watch website probably has. The fact that it is written by someone who has published material on PR Watch isn't relevant - the question is whether the magazine has placed its editorial seal of approval on it, which it clearly has. --

4244:

site seems to be a committment to removing evidence of the excesses of scientists who reject the consensus in their fields. When I realized that, I added it back, with additional sources. It was then removed with a request to add "evidence that Venus is hot" with which I complied. I'm very confused by the parade of people trying to keep this off this page. I'll be re-adding unless I can get a more substantive removal reason than you don't like the vibes.

346: 214: 525: 724: 451: 674: 336: 315: 113: 95: 441: 420: 64: 607: 3166:

a clear agenda (as is shown by his article and blog posts) can edit this article then your cracked. His contributions to it have all been heavily biased to making the subject look bad. He has used suspect sources. He quite simply should not edit here. Not lets move onto actually clearing up the mess certain editors have made of this BLP

2773:

and/or Phillip Moris. One could make exactly the same argument against Mann and others for receiving funding primarily from government agencies and others favorable to pushing the AGW movement. The question one must ask is this an article to "prove" that Milloy's analysis is biased or is it a neutral presentation of his views?

893:

do. And I do think it's fair to say he popularized, or at least helped popularize, the term in the American media. I don't have references off hand, but later tonight I can try to find one. Actually the C&EN editorial hints at this, calling junkscience the "best known" example of the right-wing antiscience movement.

123: 4258:

A lot of twitter spats get publicity. That doesn't make them meaningful. The Daily Kos post you reference makes no claim about the tweet except that it is extremely stupid. The Indy100 article adds a little more about the insanity of referring to Venus as a comparison, but that article leads with and

3165:

This is what has happened in this article, there are no ad hom`s about it. If an editor is writing editorials about a subject they should not edit the persons BLP. This was said to richard tol when he wrote about pachauri, not to edit the article. Now if you actually think it is ok for an editor with

2787:

Ideally, the article is out to honestly and proportionately represent what independent, reliable sources have to say on the subject. It so happens that of the sources currently under discussion, several are quite critical of Milloy. I'd prefer not to use the talk page to argue about whether accepting

2772:

It would appear that this section is combining several sources together to provide a strong point of view against Milloy. What I find most interesting about this section, and the others, is not that his opinion is faulty, but that his opinion must be faulty because he has received funding from Exxon

2644:

says. Primary sources may be acceptable where their content has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, to augment those sources. It seems to me that several reliable secondary sources discuss Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, and cite specific documents linking Milloy to Philip Morris. In

2448:

Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS for the same reason as Knowledge (XXG) isn't - it's an encyclopedia. So, if we are using Sourcewatch, we should always go to the citations and not reproduce uncited claims. But that doesn't mean there is something bad about Sourcewatch or its editors, as Mark Nutley seems to

2247:

this site is highly opinionated; I'd argue that this, combined with the suspect reliability of the author undermines the overall reliability of the source. On a broader note; I'm feeling very uncomfortable with using ad-hominem attacks and articles designed to undermine their subject in BLP articles.

892:

I do think, however, that before the paragraph criticizing Milloy's use of the term, there needs to be an NPOV description of how Milloy uses the term--we can't just jump right in with criticism. I freely admit that what I wrote is not the best, and if you or someone else can do a better job, please

3119:

clearly states, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason." So, trying to harp on just the fact that such sources were used is pretty useless. If you think the sourcing is not reasonable, then we can focus on how you think policy is being violated, instead of

2895:

was far more permissive about primary sources; I think (though I don't feel like arguing at length) that my edits were in keeping with the policy as it stood at the time. Both then and now, the primary tobacco-industry documents are amply supported by secondary sources. I don't think that qualifies

1177:

Perhaps that's because there is precious little positive to say about someone who claims to point out "junk science" but fails to adhere to even the most rudimentary standards of disclosure of conflict of interest and of scientific evidence? Milloy chose his battlefield himself, no one forced it on

884:

I'm 100% fine removing any reference to the Science papers that were retracted. As I recall, someone long ago edit warred over including a reference to that Foxnews article, but I've never been convinced it was pertinent. And I don't think Milloy called them junk science before they were retracted,

3079:

The only reason I would support mark on this is that he mentioned that JQ has a) critiqued this person and b) one of the sources used in the article (I assume it is now removed based on marks language) was written by him. I'd encourage mark to be more explicit in those statements (i.e. link to the

2849:

Everyone who is neutral agrees that Milloy has a conflict of interest. Only extremely biased people deny it. (Also only extremely biased people claim that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money unless you are going to promote a certain point of view--the claim is not true.)

2098:

don't understand how objections to the prwatch site have any relevance on the RS for the cite to New Internationalist. That'd be like saying "You can't cite Stephen Hawking's claims on some obscure BLOG," and then when the findings are cited to a peer-reviewed journal, to say that "You can't cite

1835:

I'd say it's tenuous; possibly fails for being strongly opinion driven (I pick it up from time to time, articles usually consist of ad-hominems etc). On the other hand I would say they usually get facts right - just put massive spin on them (welcome to the media...). If it were one of the blogs or

4243:

I disagree. This was a well-sourced story. Do you think deleting it from wikipedia means it didn't happen? When I first added this several years ago, it was deleted by the user Peter Gulutzan, at whose history a very brief glance reveals is a climate change denying hack whose body of work on this

3455:

Fail to see how my incredibly accurate post about what the usual suspects would do to an article has any bearing here, were is your source to back the assertion that i consider milloy an ally? Better try and find a post by me praising him, which you won`t, as i think milloy is actually full of it

3410:

Knowledge (XXG)). On the other hand, he is an opponent of mine, and an ally of Mark Nutley's in a bunch of debates over science and the environment. In this case, the facts are pretty clear, and the only option available to Mark is to try to keep them out of the article by whatever means possible.

2823:

It would carry more/some weight if those complaining that Milloy has a conflict of interest were neutral and independent, particularly when it comes to AGW research. It is well known that it is almost impossible to get any governmental research money in this day unless you are going to promote a

2806:

says of Milloy's corporate ties: "Not disclosing this is wrong." Even Milloy's employer, FoxNews, seems to recognize something amiss - they told Thacker: "Fox News was unaware of Milloy’s connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." In other words, from these

2167:

The SH example is poor; as an individual he does not fail reliability. In your example the venue is the problem. In this example I would have concerns about the writers and the content. It is critique of a thing the guy said (fair enough) design simply to attack (not so suitable in my mind). That

1444:

Hmm ... thought I posted this a while ago, but it looks like I an edit conflict might have happened. In any case, the statement of a notable advocacy group that criticizes Milloy by name seems like a pretty good citation for "Milloy receiving criticism", (although the web link would be better if

2031:

in light of the fact they also wrote the rejected prwatch material, that this holds similar material and the already tenuous reliability of the New Internationalist combine to undermine the source. Actually reading this article that statement seems out of place anyway. It really needs to be in a

3006:

Actually I would back up that request now Mark has pointed this out; JQ has been critical of the subject. I think it is reasonable to ask if he could avoid editing the article - especially considering it is a BLP. Hopefully that is not a judgement on JQ's criticisms (it isn't) etc. but, rather,

3409:

Let's be honest here, guys. Mark Nutley's relationship with Milloy is the mirror image of mine (and the same is true, I'm sure of quite a few others). Neither of us (I assume) has any personal relationship with him or any conflict of interest (in the sense in which COI is usually used, outside

2224:

The key to reliability is the editorial process that a source has gone through. A peer-reviewed source has gone through the most rigorous editing, so it's regarded as the most reliable. A book, newspaper or magazine has gone through a less rigorous but still substantial editing process. A

3297:(Coming here from the RSN discussion) I fully endorse the deletion of the sources discussed at RSN per BLP policy and would advise editors to stop edit-warring to add such sources to this BLP. We do not use activists' press releases and other self-published sources as BLP sources (see 948:

Regarding his education: It is not possible to get a masters in biostatistics from Johns Hopkins. They only offer a "generic" masters in public health. This should be edited since it is misleading to label him as having expertise in biostatistics when he clearly does not have any.

4222:

tweet criticizing the scientific consensus on the harmful effects of carbon dioxide on the earth's climate, specifically as referenced by Oregon congressman Peter DeFazio, claiming that the exponentially higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is proof that carbon dioxide is

3263:

with this article. And on that premise, coupled with the fact it is a contentious BLP and therefore problematic it seems reasonable to ask he limits his contribution to the article. He may choose to ignore that - which is fine by me. On the other hand we could stop the barging and

3486:

Mark, are you actually looking at the sourcing in the article, or simply tagging things and demanding others do the legwork? The Free Enterprise Action Fund press releases are a) not primary sources, and b) covered by an independent secondary source cited in the same paragraph

3319:

article, which comments on Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies, would be a suitable source. It directly references the UCS report. This is how such reports find entry into BLPs: through the filter of secondary sources. When press articles have been written about it,

2696:". So I would encourage you to look at the article again, the secondary sources must be there like MastCell says, otherwise someone would have removed the primary sources already as being original research, or non notable, or a BLP violation or somesuch commonly used term. 1003:

Is it worth mentioning that Milloy has never published any peer-reviewed papers on any of the scientific matters he criticizes. I worry that people see him as an "expert", when he really has no expertise or academic training in any of the fields he writes about.

2449:

think. Most of the time it's pretty accurate. In particular, reading the article on Milloy, there's nothing that looks to be unfair or inaccurate. Some of the details regarding Milloy's role in front organizations like TASSC probably would be regarded as

1688:{{Cite news | last = Stauber | first = John | last2 = Rampton | first2 = Sheldon | title = The Junkyard Dogs of Science | newspaper = ] | location = Oxford, England | publisher = New Internationalist Publications | date = July 1999 }} 1459:

Your reverting this disputed content into this BLP is in violation of multiple guidelines and likely policies, if you want to discuss it carry on and if you think these citations are wikipedia reliable then they are disputed and take them to the

1979:

When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of

862:

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

1788:

I don't get where you get the "self-published" from, or the "editorial".... It seems to be a focus magazine though, with a clear political stance, and where i have no idea about the reputation for fact-checking or editorial thoroughness.

554:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2478:

critique of it. The huge and compounding issue is that the only critique of him writing it is part of pieces written to undermine his character. It seems wildly problematic to repeat the attacks in a neutral BLP. Just because the source

1542:

Kim my 1R is on CC articles only, do you see a template on this page? Right, job done. None of those sources i removed which were edit warred back in are suitable for a BLP. UCS is an advocacy group and are not a decent source for a BLP

3140:

If you truly have an issue with JQ in this regard, the talk page is not the forum for you to try to tear the contributor down, and merely dismiss his edits instead of telling us exactly what policy basis you have for your objections.

2026:

Source reliability depends on three factors; article, publishers and writer. Any of then can undermine reliability. I disagree slightly with rob that them running prwatch and their lack of neutrality entirely affects this new source.

2798:. They're focused on the fact that he is presented as an impartial science journalist when in fact he has an undisclosed but highly relevant conflict of interest. People tend to think that crosses an ethical line - for example, in 3100:

JQ`s personal site feel free to peruse the other posts in that link. JQ most certainly has a COI, and looking through the history of this article he has purposefully used suspect sources and biased writing to make milloy look bad

1767:

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

2991:

Stephan this request is necessary, the articles and blog posts written by JQ are highly critical of this BLP. One if the sources was an article by JQ. This is a clear COI and JQ should recuse himself from editing this BLP

2947:

Looking at the deletions recently, the only inference I can draw is that, in the view of some editors, any reference to anything Milloy has done constitutes a BLP violation. I can understand why this is, but it's still

1638:

I was informed that this article falls under the probation. However my reverts do not count as reverts as this was an obvious BLP violation. I have finished filing the request, it is now for uninvolved admins to decide

1192:

Your inability to point out any error or missing positive content speaks for itself. The article is full of facts. Facts in and of themselves are neutral. It's interesting that you consider these facts to be negative.

2483:

proves reliable (and barely in my mind) does not automatically mean it is included (for the same reason that is a WP:RS newspaper relates that a subject was questioned over XYZ by the police we would not report it).

1982:... Is this content even noteworthy of reporting, just looks like an insult to me? And the section in the citation article that this content is included in is just a list of insults which I wont bother posting here. 4406: 3135:

use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

4199:

Milloy's tweet about Venus was dumb. Putting it in Knowledge (XXG) is dumber. The tweet was merely a childish taunt about the word "existential." Milloy trolled the Congressperson, making sport of his language

2469:

Quiggen; unfortunately there is a BLP problem here; using the original source is synthesis because we are picking a quote he has made about a report and critiquing it (or picking it as something of importance).

2444:

New Internationalist is generally a reliable source in this sense, and has proved so in this case (the quote is right there on Milloy's site). Editors who have suggested otherwise might want to reconsider their

1445:

linked to the report proper, as Mark had already been informed). I saw others used when they were merely reporting secondhand quotes of Milloy, which hardly seems contentious. But those uses can be updated.

1425:

I rv'd; BigK HeX please discuss it here before any further editing per policy. As it stands Mark may have a strong case - most of those look unreliable for a BLP article. Particularly the real climate blog.

1565:

Pretty obviously this article has a (probably better-than) tangential relationship to the climate change issue. And, in any case, the UCS is most certainly a decent source to cite for opinions of the UCS.

658: 2554:

Are you ever going to explain why you edit warred blogs back into a BLP ? JQ sorry i misread your statement, however i know whom you are and believe you should not edit BLP`s of those sceptical of AGW

1396:

Also, what is wrong user Big K hex in following bold, revert , discuss? in a BLP content you have added was disputed and that is fair enough but all you have done is edit war it back in? Why is that?

1115:

Kim i did, i followed the link and saw a copy and paste from this article being used as the source to cite that section, if you have a decent link then fine, but what i removed was not reliable was it

2896:

as a "disgrace", but YMMV. Does anyone feel like getting back to the question of whether secondary sources describe these documents, thus making it potentially appropriate to cite them directly per

2280:, which I'm sure you've heard of and would agree is a mainstream publication, has a circulation of less than a third of the New Internationalist. The NI's circulation is pretty close to that of 827:

I'm pretty sure globalwarming.org was a CEI property before Milloy got the push from Cato. By contrast, junkscience.com is definitely his baby, and I think the same is true for demanddebate.org

2626:

I`ve not looked. I am still finding unreliable sources all over the shop. I`ll look into secondary sources once the junk is out of the way. I am tagging as RS the primary sources i am finding

4228:

Save this for the encyclopedia of meaningless twitter spats. The following example in the article, where Milloy rushed to misinterpret some NOAA published data, is much more illustrative. --

2915:

The article doesn't say that Milloy's opinion must be faulty ... that's a conclusion that you have apparently inferred from the content. One cannot in good faith make that sort of complaint.

2441:

is not whether a source is biased, but whether it is reliable as regards factual claims. In this case, what matters is that the quote attributed to Milloy should be accurate and in context.

4351: 3361: 856:

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

244: 889:, and AAAS had been highly critical of the Bush admin, OMB, and climate change denialists. So I think he's trying to make Kennedy look bad by publicizing some retractions in his journal. 2540:

Secondly, I've seen your reading of policy and you may not the best authority to lecture others. Seems there are sanctions against you that have prompted others to question the same.

2262:

I am also unconvinced by the claim of mainstream; I have to order it where I live when I want to read a piece - the only place I have seen it directly on sale is in Central London :) --

4396: 2887:

Is that the point? I made those edits in October 2006, a couple of months into my Knowledge (XXG) editing career. I don't think I'd make those edits again today. On the other hand,

1162:

This page appears to have been edited line by line by detractors. As near as I can tell, nobody has anything to say about him that is even remotely positive or even mildly neutral.

579: 1213:

Steven Milloy seems to be promoting himself as a science expert. This article should include a list of his science qualifications (or a statement about the lack of such, if none).

1046: 926:

bit and some excess verbosity, and the result isn't as non-NPOV as I thought it might be. Still, I think it probably needs work. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with...

43: 1811:

Well, it looks like a non neutral site publishing its own peoples articles to me, self published, advocacy, call it what you like it is not a mainstream neutral publication imo.

689: 585: 261: 2276:

Maybe your local newsagents don't stock it - mine do. *shrug* But a publication with a circulation of 75,000 is most certainly a significant player in the UK media market. The

3346:

commenting on Milloy's involvement with ExxonMobil. Both the review and the book, which likely contains further information, are unequivocally suitable sources for this BLP.

2502:

read it. The source has to be rock solid, the use of primary documents and blogs and advocacy sites in this BLP is insane, i am not surprised to see you here defending them

3617: 885:

and we certainly shouldn't imply that he did. He's just flaming Donald Kennedy (who he mistakenly calls David Kennedy) in that FoxNews.com article presumably b/c Kennedy,

3765: 1580:

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

4141: 4137: 4123: 3923: 3919: 3905: 3815: 3811: 3797: 3657: 3653: 3639: 812:

is supposed to be their "climate change" guy. Either way, Milloy has lots of stuff on globalwarming.org and sure seems to be the primary actor. Please post opinions.

297: 4001: 507: 4401: 543: 4021: 555: 48: 4346: 287: 3050:

Actually, it's fairly defamatory to make all of these bare assertions that JQ is engaged in COI editing, just because he happens to write about the field. Even

402: 251: 4381: 1325:

I had remove a bunch of unreliable sources, Bigk seems to think reverting them back in is suitable so i have reverted him again, BK please explain your actions

1133:

reliable - and it was not a "copy and paste from this article" (i have no idea where you get that one from) - check it again - this time try to more than glance

497: 3539:

Mastcell, i am tagging things only. I am not allowed to add content to a BLP per my sanctions. John, you have a deal, i will also recuse from editing this BLP

3080:

source that was used). I think it is reasonable to say that where an editor has been critical about a BLP subject directly in the media may constitute a COI --

1620:, you can't have it both ways - you can't say that 1RR doesn't apply because this isn't a CC article, then bring an enforcement request to the CC probation.-- 4326: 4268:

There are plenty of examples that Milloy is a climate change denier. If you add more that could be fine. Breathlessly covering meaningless twitter spats is

1410:

You forgot to sign O2RR, those sources are nowere near good enough for a BLP, what is worse is BK has edit warred them back in and broken 3r in the process

4391: 4366: 4356: 392: 31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3065:. More importantly, here, these charges merely serve as useless ad hominems, when we can easily limit discussion to the content and not the contributor. 256: 4386: 4217:

No doubt the communicative intent of this tweet was climate change denial. But as an example of Milloy's climate denialism, it illustrates very little.

550: 530: 473: 141: 23: 3251:

Just to point out that it is not ad-hominem if the issue is related - which in this case it is. Besides what you pointed out isn't ad-hominem - if it

1494: 4371: 3775: 368: 4341: 4336: 3357: 145: 3440: 1232:

M.Sc., and no further scientific qualifications. However, it's usually hard to find reliable sources about the lack of formal qualifications. --

4376: 2794:

I think you're missing the point, though. The critical sources are not focused on Milloy's receipt of money from Philip Morris and ExxonMobil

2726:

Regardless of whether you're being sarcastic, you are correct in that the existing secondary sources reference the tobacco documents library.

2113:

As for the placement of the attacks, it might just be better to clarify the section headings, than to try to compartmentalize criticisms, per

1067:

Cool, it looked to me like it had been copied and pasted from here, you know what with all the ref`s still in there, are you sure about this?

227: 188: 2537:

Firstly, John Quiggin should probably be commended for coming up with a far less contentious approach for the specific issue of concern here.

1163: 1101:

It takes around 1 minute to verify. You shouldn't remove references, when you do not know what it is, and aren't going actually check it. --

464: 425: 4361: 3266:

go back to discussing JN's contributions below - some of the sources he posted look pretty good for shoring up that part of the article! --

2803: 956: 859:"but more generally he applies the term to climate change and certain health controversies including those detailed in the sections below" 3618:

https://web.archive.org/20070928192547/http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm

3163:, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. 2430:

A minute with Google finds the quote on Milloy's Junk Science site, and I've therefore used this as the source. A couple of observations

2416:(od) Pr Watch run by the same guys who run source watch, anyone who thinks this is a reliable source for a BLP needs to reread WP policy 2239:

Incorrect; the content of the article and the authors are an important part of it being a reliable source. This is explicitly stated ast

140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 4331: 3022: 2916: 2851: 2738:

similarly uses the documents to illustrate Milloy's work on behalf of Philip Morris. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (

2569: 1616:, Mark was not blocked for violating 1RR. That's not what the block log says, and NW specifically denied that it was for 1RR. However, 1247: 1194: 3368:

are the sources that should be cited; if there aren't any, then the matter does not deserve to be added to the biography. Thank you. --

359: 320: 3766:

https://web.archive.org/20050123004011/http://sopr.senate.gov:80/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL==

3472:

And John, stop removing RS tags from primary sources. Either find reliable secondary sources to support them or they shall have to go

1019: 239: 149: 3621: 136: 100: 4119:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4002:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080522051743/http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF

3901:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3054:

plainly states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."

2645:

that context, it would seem that the actual documents themselves may be acceptable, where they are referenced by secondary sources.

1179: 1048:. Btinternet is a webhosting service, and the original site for IBAS (but anyways the ref can also be found on the new site, here: 1246:

Editorial comments in wikivoice are against policy. A reliable source commenting on his expertise or lack of it could be included.

805: 635: 235:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

4022:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082118/http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html

631: 3769: 2963:

Given the highly critical articles and blog posts you have written about this subject i would ask to not edit this BLP, thanks

2873:

I have also seen that JQ has added junk sources in and WMC used timmy lamberts blog, what has been going on here is a disgrace

1794: 1533: 1141: 1106: 1057: 4095: 4075: 4031: 1729:

Looks exactly like an opinionated self published editorial to me. It is clearly not a mainstream neutral publication is it?

1385: 708: 681: 75: 4065: 3491:). Please remove those tags. The Philip Morris memos on using TASSC as a tool to influence legislative decisions is cited by 2799: 2727: 1274: 4005: 3312:

However, there is no dearth of BLP-compatible sources referring to Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies. I believe

1866:

Yes, the two guys attributed to writing it run another site that BikK Hex added in a citation during the edit war earlier

4085: 2692:

secondary sources in articles where there are reliable secondary sources to be had, as that would only beg the question "

704: 627: 4184: 4025: 3966: 2298:

Honestly; those others are barely mainstream. But that's only my opinion - I shouldn't really have mentioned it sorry --

747: 742: 3755: 3339: 2373:

is not a reliable source for a BLP, at least not the one in this article. It is an Op-Ed and as such has no place here

1269:, characteristically without troubling to discuss on talk. It is not clear that his judgemetn on refs is 100% reliable 3891: 2824:

certain point of view. Unfortunately that is just the way it works, and it is not just limited to climate sciences.

2498:

Quiggen, you should not be editing this BLP. The fact that you think sourcewatch can be used in a blp tells me that.

4011: 3745: 3607: 2046:

Yep, its just a valueless off the cuff insult type comment that does nothing to inform our readers about anything.

1790: 1529: 1137: 1102: 1053: 2474:

is what must be sourced - not that he said it. The problem here is not whether he wrote what he did but finding a

32: 4041: 1391: 1270: 1167: 4140:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3922:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3814:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3776:

https://web.archive.org/20060308231250/http://business.bostonherald.com:80/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681

3656:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2807:

sources' perspectives, it's not about taking oil money - it's about failing to disclose a conflict of interest.

2595: 2453:

here, but it's obvious that this organization (registered address, Milloy's House) is pretty much as described.

1289: 757: 696: 2982: 1587:

a number of virtual advocacy groups attributed to Steven Milloy in direct opposition to ucs, don't you think?--

1528:

Someone should give Mark a real hiding for breaking 1RR within a day of him being blocked for much the same. --

1237: 960: 3354:

go to activists' press releases and self-published websites when you are editing biographies of living persons

2612:

That looks like the definition of original research. Is there a secondary source that makes this arguement?

81: 2838:

Thanks; I think your personal opinion on the subject has now been amply expressed on this article talk page.

4175: 3993: 3957: 3883: 3343: 3026: 2920: 2855: 2573: 1251: 1198: 817: 1183: 952: 3989: 3558: 3529: 3446: 3415: 3330: 2953: 2458: 992: 832: 3779: 2739: 2114: 707:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

700: 4159:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4147: 3941:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3929: 3853: 3833:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3821: 3695: 3675:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3663: 472:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

367:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4265:

This isn't about climate change, this is about Milloy trolling the other team with a really dumb tweet.

4245: 3992:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3882:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3219:...if you actually think it is ok for an editor with a clear agenda ... can edit this article then your 2289: 2230: 2032:

section about the way he attacks reports rather than a section on his views on tobacco science. No? --

1773: 1718: 1042: 646: 3544: 3477: 3461: 3430: 3227: 3171: 3106: 2997: 2968: 2878: 2731: 2701: 2661: 2631: 2602: 2559: 2507: 2421: 2378: 2051: 1987: 1918: 1874: 1816: 1734: 1710: 1675: 1644: 1627: 1592: 1548: 1472: 1415: 1401: 1363: 1330: 1310: 1120: 1086: 1072: 1027: 977: 930: 897: 219: 42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3255:

bad rhetoric then it is just attack, nothing more. Anyway; I'm not going to go as far as mark but I

1018:

Wow, I just read one of Steven Milloy's opinion articles originating from the junkscience web site (

63: 3316: 2978: 1233: 1134: 1020:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/models_not_climate_are_hypersensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html

456: 3622:

http://www.lastvideo.net/video/izQz4I0DgO0/Tom_Borelli_Joins_TYT_for_an_Embarrassing_Interview.htm

3302: 3094: 2243:. True an extremely solid peer-reviewed publisher pretty much removes any issues with authorship. 4303: 4295: 4273: 4229: 4107: 4053: 3397: 3375: 3242: 3146: 3098:

Tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy, looking for a stick with which to beat the environmental movement

3070: 2684:

Per MastCells description, those secondary sources should be in the article already. That's the "

2545: 2285: 2226: 2122: 2104: 1940: 1904: 1769: 1752: 1714: 1698: 1571: 1502: 1450: 1349: 1218: 1005: 813: 763: 46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 4144:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3926:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3818:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3660:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3306: 1913:

Well they are clearly not neutrals are they, attribution, neutral reports, that kind of thing..

203: 182: 39: 4160: 4113: 3942: 3834: 3676: 3237:

In any case, yes ... let's proceed with any specific objections you may have with the article.

3226:," given your own declared interests. Were it the case, I'm not sure how one would be able to 1836:

online columns 100% no. As it was published... possibly ok. But a more neutral source would be

1049: 3727: 3589: 3554: 3525: 3492: 3442: 3411: 3364:

to see whether there are reliable third-party sources commenting on the matter. If there are,

2949: 2454: 1899:

That has almost no relevance to the charges you're leveling against the New Internationalist.

988: 910: 871: 849: 828: 804:

I'm not 100% sure that it's correct to say that Milloy "runs" this site as well. It's run by

351: 4277: 4233: 3849: 3770:

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL==

3691: 3524:

I'm going to withdraw from editing this article now. I think Mark Nutley should do likewise.

3231: 1935:. I'll have to leave you to clarify your objections against this long-running publication. 1295: 1009: 800:, which are dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis." 759: 723: 128: 4167: 4096:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003204/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html

4076:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185012/http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html

4032:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184936/http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html

3949: 3841: 3683: 3387: 3335: 3298: 3260: 3155: 3125: 3116: 3062: 3051: 2897: 2892: 2641: 2499: 1465: 1461: 1386:

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

4066:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070704050040/http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF

3735: 3597: 3540: 3473: 3457: 3426: 3342:

another source that I think could be used without falling foul of BLP concerns. Here is a

3271: 3167: 3102: 3085: 3058: 3012: 2993: 2964: 2874: 2829: 2778: 2697: 2657: 2627: 2617: 2598: 2555: 2503: 2489: 2417: 2374: 2303: 2267: 2253: 2173: 2047: 2037: 1983: 1914: 1870: 1845: 1812: 1730: 1671: 1640: 1622: 1588: 1544: 1468: 1431: 1411: 1397: 1359: 1326: 1306: 1116: 1082: 1068: 1023: 973: 927: 894: 4006:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C69753A-99E2-4CBC-9F11-5FDFCFAC75FF

3217:

Also, I may point out the poetic irony in your statement about a person's stances, that "

2450: 2438: 2240: 1667: 2099:

the claims from a journal when we already objected to them being in that obscure blog."

4126:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3908:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3800:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3642:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3499: 1379: 685: 542: 524: 4166:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4133: 4086:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184419/http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html

3948:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3915: 3840:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3807: 3682:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3649: 2792:

prefer that you don't try to open additional fronts in the AGW war if you can help it.

4320: 4299: 4026:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html

3985: 3875: 3717: 3579: 3504: 3392: 3370: 3238: 3142: 3066: 2902: 2870:

I think the point here Mastcell is that you inserted some of these primary documents

2840: 2809: 2743: 2688:" part. Of course MastCell knows as well as anyone that we don't use primary sources 2647: 2541: 2522: 2281: 2277: 2118: 2100: 1936: 1900: 1748: 1694: 1567: 1498: 1446: 1345: 1214: 232: 3756:

https://web.archive.org/20070609102545/http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

3325: 3061:

reconsider these remarks suggesting biased editing, as they are easily construed as

673: 4099: 4079: 4035: 3892:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060511210047/http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm

867: 847:"Milloy has labeled specific studies junk science, such as two papers published in 785: 469: 4069: 4059: 2117:. Might work either way, though this sort of compartmentalization usually fails. 1178:

him. If he wants to fight outside his league, that's his own, personal problem. --

3259:

say that considering that JQ has been openly critical about Milloy then he has a

2741:) similarly references the tobacco documents in linking Milloy to Philip Morris. 1713:). It's politically slanted, to be sure, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- 1709:

Why do you think that? It's a well-established and prominent UK publication (see

1358:

No, you should. You reverted unreliable sources into a BLP twice. Explain please

4012:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060103071613/http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm

3759: 3746:

https://web.archive.org/20061203112904/http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html

3611: 3608:

https://web.archive.org/20061106043720/http://junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html

2656:

Well please supply the secondary sources which also cover the primary documents

1291: 809: 3313: 112: 94: 4132:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4089: 4042:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101125080948/http://junkscience.com/decem98.html

3914:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3806:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3648:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2825: 2774: 2613: 2371: 1663: 1392:

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

446: 440: 419: 364: 341: 335: 314: 209: 118: 4259:

correctly characterizes Milloy's tweet, mostly noting its juvenile stupidity.

2694:

Where are these secondary sources you speak of, I don't see em in the article

2434:

For direct quotes attributed to the subject, the initial publication is best.

3749: 866:

And is it fair to say "Junk Science" was popularised by Milloy? Reading the

3895: 3495: 1747:

Self-published?? It's very unclear where you are getting these charges...

231:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 4045: 3097: 789: 761: 4298:, there is no need to include Milloy´s tweet/nonsense in this article. 4015: 3732:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

3594:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2730:

extensively references primary documents from the UCSF tobacco library.

4307: 4281: 4253: 4237: 4189: 3971: 3861: 3780:

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=122681

3703: 3562: 3548: 3533: 3508: 3481: 3465: 3450: 3434: 3419: 3403: 3381: 3275: 3246: 3175: 3150: 3110: 3089: 3074: 3030: 3021:

That's like complaining that historians have been critical of Hitler.

3016: 3001: 2986: 2972: 2957: 2924: 2906: 2882: 2859: 2844: 2833: 2813: 2782: 2747: 2705: 2665: 2651: 2635: 2621: 2606: 2577: 2563: 2549: 2526: 2511: 2493: 2462: 2425: 2382: 2307: 2293: 2271: 2257: 2234: 2177: 2126: 2108: 2055: 2041: 1991: 1944: 1922: 1908: 1878: 1849: 1820: 1798: 1777: 1756: 1738: 1722: 1702: 1679: 1648: 1633: 1596: 1575: 1552: 1537: 1506: 1476: 1454: 1435: 1419: 1405: 1367: 1353: 1334: 1314: 1299: 1278: 1255: 1241: 1222: 1202: 1187: 1171: 1145: 1124: 1110: 1090: 1076: 1061: 1031: 1013: 996: 981: 964: 937: 917: 904: 878: 836: 821: 650: 970:

The anon above was wrong, you can get a masters in biostats from JH

4206:

the atmosphere Venus is 96.5% CO2 -- and the planet is still there.

3488: 1043:

http://www.unep.org/civil_society/Registration/index2.asp?idno=1345

148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 4225:

No. The tweet was a childish taunt about the word "existential."

3740:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

3602:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1583:"No the ucs is an advocacy group" is kind of funny for an article 1375:

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

909:

OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow.

971: 4407:

Knowledge (XXG) requested images of people of the United States

2568:

It makes sense that mark nutley has been blocked indefinitely.

764: 717: 668: 601: 57: 38:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

15: 2516:

Unless I'm mistaken, John was saying that Sourcewatch should

4114:

http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm

3785:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3627:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1050:

http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka_science_not_as_we_know.php

605: 4262:

What is "well-sourced" is that it was a dumb tweet. Period.

4220:

In fact, the addition to this article was inaccurate, viz:

3356:. It is not compatible with BLP policy. Instead, check the 3187:

FYI: Your statement there is followed by basically nothing

797: 3996:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3886:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

695:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

4272:

what makes Knowledge (XXG) a valuable reference work. --

1867: 793: 3386:

Note: To cite a book found in google books, you can use

3230:

taking such a decisive stand and also still justify the

1693:

It might help if you elaborate a bit on how it "looks".

1464:

if you like but do not edit war disputed content into a

684:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

3879: 3721: 3716:

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on

3583: 3578:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

2888: 2871: 1267: 3210:

I don't see actual objection detailed in there, but a

2788:

money from ExxonMobil is "right" or "wrong", and I'd

2248:

I wouldn't consider them overly critical or fair. --

1380:

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

634:. Please replace this template with a more specific 468:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 363:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4136:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3918:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3810:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3652:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3390:

webcitation tool. It makes the job a lot easier. --

1045:, as well as the publication record of the author: 584:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2594:Are all over this article, ref 18 is another one 4352:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 4100:http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.html 4080:http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html 4036:http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.html 4202:existential threat to the future of the planet. 4070:http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046847121_7137_0.PDF 4060:http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2045655935_5937_0.PDF 4122:This message was posted before February 2018. 3904:This message was posted before February 2018. 3796:This message was posted before February 2018. 3638:This message was posted before February 2018. 808:, of which Milloy is a staff member, although 4397:Unknown-importance Alternative Views articles 3760:http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html 3612:http://www.junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html 564:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views 8: 1927:I'm not sure, but you seem to be conflating 4090:http://www.junkscience.com/news/sgoped.html 3324:we have a basis for including it in a BLP. 3214:lot of noise about the contributor himself. 1664:http://www.newint.org/issue314/junkyard.htm 1522:Realclimate - possibly (depends on context) 3874:I have just modified one external link on 1666:what about this one? It doesn't look very 519: 414: 309: 177: 89: 3984:I have just modified 9 external links on 3750:http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/feb98d.html 2520:be used ("Sourcewatch isn't a WP:RS...") 649:may be able to locate suitable images on 272:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 3896:http://www.undueinfluence.com/milloy.htm 1977:You added it to support this content .. 1288:What's wrong with this primary source? 1158:Anons Comments, posted in the wrong spot 1081:O and the link you posted is broken kim 482:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Conservatism 4046:http://www.junkscience.com/decem98.html 2977:Mark, this request is inappropriate. -- 521: 416: 311: 179: 91: 61: 4402:WikiProject Alternative Views articles 4221: 567:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views 377:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Journalism 4347:Low-importance United States articles 4016:http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm 158:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 4382:Low-importance Conservatism articles 2804:Project for Excellence in Journalism 2597:So is nobody going to remove these? 1305:The fact that it`s a primary source 777:I propose the new opening sentence: 548:This article is within the scope of 462:This article is within the scope of 357:This article is within the scope of 225:This article is within the scope of 134:This article is within the scope of 4327:Biography articles of living people 3553:OK, a good thing all round, I think 3096:This was a source in this article. 1266:MN has stripped out a pile of refs 870:, he isn't really a center figure. 80:It is of interest to the following 4392:C-Class Alternative Views articles 4367:Low-importance Journalism articles 4357:WikiProject United States articles 3502:. Please remove that tag as well. 275:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 4387:WikiProject Conservatism articles 3988:. Please take a moment to review 3878:. Please take a moment to review 3720:. Please take a moment to review 3582:. Please take a moment to review 987:OK, thanks for nailing this down. 647:Openverse Creative Commons Search 485:Template:WikiProject Conservatism 3328:is another press article in the 806:Competitive_Enterprise_Institute 722: 672: 541: 523: 449: 439: 418: 344: 334: 313: 212: 202: 181: 121: 111: 93: 62: 21:This article must adhere to the 4372:WikiProject Journalism articles 502:This article has been rated as 397:This article has been rated as 380:Template:WikiProject Journalism 292:This article has been rated as 4342:C-Class United States articles 4337:WikiProject Biography articles 3972:13:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC) 3182:there are no ad hom`s about it 1597:16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 1032:15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 161:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 4377:C-Class Conservatism articles 4213:Venus exists. So there! Nyah! 4190:15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 3862:06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC) 2168:sort of source concerns me -- 837:10:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 822:09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 709:contentious topics procedures 551:WikiProject Alternative views 476:and see a list of open tasks. 371:and see a list of open tasks. 24:biographies of living persons 4308:00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 4282:00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 4254:00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 4238:00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 3704:04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) 3334:that will pass muster under 1228:As far as I know, he has an 965:14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 146:contribute to the discussion 4362:C-Class Journalism articles 3161:promote their own interests 2686:...to augment those sources 1659:another additional citation 853:that were later retracted" 36:must be removed immediately 4423: 4332:C-Class biography articles 4153:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3981:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3935:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3871:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3827:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3738:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 3713:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3669:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3600:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 3575:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3344:USA Today review of a book 3124:against JQ with it. FYI, 1014:01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 697:purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 586:project's importance scale 570:Alternative Views articles 508:project's importance scale 403:project's importance scale 298:project's importance scale 3563:05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 3549:23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3534:23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3509:19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3482:11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3466:08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3451:02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 3435:23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3420:23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3404:13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3382:13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3276:18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3247:18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3198:is writing editorials..." 3176:17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3151:17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3111:17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3090:16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3075:16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3017:15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 3002:15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2987:14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2973:08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2958:08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2907:03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 2883:11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2845:03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 2834:13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2814:03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2783:03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2748:18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2706:18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2666:18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2652:18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2636:15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2622:15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2607:00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2564:08:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2550:06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2527:00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2512:23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2494:13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2463:23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2426:22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2383:13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2370:The New Internationalist 2308:22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2294:21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2272:21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2258:21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2235:21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2178:21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2127:21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2109:21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2056:21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2042:21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1992:20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1945:20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1923:20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1909:20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1879:20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1850:20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1840:preferable to my mind. -- 1821:20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1799:20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1778:20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1757:20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1739:20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1723:20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1703:20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1680:20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1649:13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 1634:13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 1576:22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1553:22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1538:20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1507:20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1477:19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1455:19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1436:19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1420:19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1406:19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1368:19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1354:19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1335:19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1315:14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1300:14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1284:Letter from Margery Kraus 1279:09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1242:09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1223:08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1188:06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1172:19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 1146:03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 1125:18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 1111:18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 1091:18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 1077:18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 1062:18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 997:06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 982:23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 938:17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 918:16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 905:16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 879:16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 711:before editing this page. 583: 536: 501: 434: 396: 329: 291: 228:WikiProject United States 197: 106: 88: 3031:20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 2925:20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 2860:20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 2578:20:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 2437:The central point about 1256:20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 1203:20:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 705:normal editorial process 614:It is requested that an 465:WikiProject Conservatism 233:United States of America 3977:External links modified 3867:External links modified 3709:External links modified 3571:External links modified 3007:simple practicality. -- 2640:Let's be clear on what 792:and runs the Web sites 692:as a contentious topic. 3331:Waterloo Region Record 3159:When editors write to 3137: 1868:http://www.prwatch.org 1690: 1209:Science qualifications 802: 701:standards of behaviour 643:Free Image Search Tool 636:media request template 610: 360:WikiProject Journalism 278:United States articles 70:This article is rated 3500:Ong & Glantz 2001 3205:with a clear agenda"' 3129: 3128:also clearly directs 3115:What is your point? 1686: 1340:You care to actually 779: 609: 488:Conservatism articles 137:WikiProject Biography 74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 4134:regular verification 3916:regular verification 3808:regular verification 3793:to let others know. 3724:. If necessary, add 3650:regular verification 3635:to let others know. 3586:. If necessary, add 1711:New Internationalist 1271:William M. Connolley 653:and other web sites. 220:United States portal 4124:After February 2018 3906:After February 2018 3798:After February 2018 3789:parameter below to 3640:After February 2018 3631:parameter below to 3358:google news archive 3317:Inter Press Service 632:improve its quality 630:in this article to 457:Conservatism portal 383:Journalism articles 246:Articles Requested! 4178:InternetArchiveBot 4129:InternetArchiveBot 3960:InternetArchiveBot 3911:InternetArchiveBot 3803:InternetArchiveBot 3645:InternetArchiveBot 3350:Please, please do 1929:political leanings 788:" commentator for 743:Inception—mid-2007 682:contentious topics 611: 164:biography articles 76:content assessment 4154: 3936: 3860: 3828: 3702: 3670: 3274: 3088: 3015: 2943:Deletions and BLP 2590:primary documents 2492: 2306: 2270: 2256: 2176: 2040: 1848: 1434: 1129:What you removed 955:comment added by 922:Just excised the 798:globalwarming.org 773:globalwarming.org 770: 769: 716: 715: 688:, which has been 667: 666: 654: 600: 599: 596: 595: 592: 591: 561:Alternative Views 531:Alternative Views 518: 517: 514: 513: 413: 412: 409: 408: 352:Journalism portal 308: 307: 304: 303: 176: 175: 172: 171: 56: 55: 4414: 4211:In other words, 4204:" Milloy wrote " 4195:Dumb Venus tweet 4188: 4179: 4152: 4151: 4130: 4111: 4057: 3970: 3961: 3934: 3933: 3912: 3856: 3855:Talk to my owner 3851: 3826: 3825: 3804: 3739: 3731: 3698: 3697:Talk to my owner 3693: 3668: 3667: 3646: 3601: 3593: 3439:happy to oblige 3400: 3395: 3378: 3373: 3270: 3120:trying to build 3084: 3063:personal attacks 3011: 2488: 2302: 2266: 2252: 2172: 2036: 1844: 1632: 1630: 1625: 1430: 967: 915: 876: 782:Steven J. Milloy 765: 748:Mid-2007—present 726: 718: 676: 669: 663: 661: 640: 638:where possible. 608: 602: 572: 571: 568: 565: 562: 545: 538: 537: 527: 520: 490: 489: 486: 483: 480: 459: 454: 453: 452: 443: 436: 435: 430: 422: 415: 385: 384: 381: 378: 375: 354: 349: 348: 347: 338: 331: 330: 325: 317: 310: 280: 279: 276: 273: 270: 222: 217: 216: 215: 206: 199: 198: 193: 185: 178: 166: 165: 162: 159: 156: 142:join the project 131: 129:Biography portal 126: 125: 124: 115: 108: 107: 97: 90: 73: 67: 66: 58: 44:this noticeboard 16: 4422: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4317: 4316: 4197: 4182: 4177: 4145: 4138:have permission 4128: 4105: 4051: 3994:this simple FaQ 3979: 3964: 3959: 3927: 3920:have permission 3910: 3884:this simple FaQ 3869: 3859: 3854: 3819: 3812:have permission 3802: 3733: 3725: 3711: 3701: 3696: 3661: 3654:have permission 3644: 3595: 3587: 3573: 3398: 3393: 3376: 3371: 3222: 3059:User:Marknutley 2945: 2592: 1791:Kim D. Petersen 1661: 1628: 1623: 1621: 1530:Kim D. Petersen 1525:UCS - bad call. 1519:PRWatch agreed. 1323: 1286: 1264: 1211: 1164:206.169.197.222 1160: 1138:Kim D. Petersen 1103:Kim D. Petersen 1054:Kim D. Petersen 1039: 950: 911: 872: 845: 794:junkscience.com 775: 766: 760: 731: 699:, any expected 659: 657: 606: 569: 566: 563: 560: 559: 487: 484: 481: 478: 477: 455: 450: 448: 428: 382: 379: 376: 373: 372: 350: 345: 343: 323: 277: 274: 271: 268: 267: 266: 252:Become a Member 218: 213: 211: 191: 163: 160: 157: 154: 153: 127: 122: 120: 71: 12: 11: 5: 4420: 4418: 4410: 4409: 4404: 4399: 4394: 4389: 4384: 4379: 4374: 4369: 4364: 4359: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4319: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4266: 4263: 4260: 4196: 4193: 4172: 4171: 4164: 4117: 4116: 4102: 4094:Added archive 4092: 4084:Added archive 4082: 4074:Added archive 4072: 4064:Added archive 4062: 4048: 4040:Added archive 4038: 4030:Added archive 4028: 4020:Added archive 4018: 4010:Added archive 4008: 4000:Added archive 3978: 3975: 3954: 3953: 3946: 3899: 3898: 3890:Added archive 3868: 3865: 3852: 3846: 3845: 3838: 3783: 3782: 3774:Added archive 3772: 3764:Added archive 3762: 3754:Added archive 3752: 3744:Added archive 3710: 3707: 3694: 3688: 3687: 3680: 3625: 3624: 3616:Added archive 3614: 3606:Added archive 3572: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3407: 3406: 3384: 3347: 3310: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3235: 3221: 3215: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3199: 3185: 3138: 3055: 3042: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3004: 2979:Stephan Schulz 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2847: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2538: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2496: 2466: 2465: 2446: 2442: 2435: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2260: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2111: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1742: 1741: 1726: 1725: 1706: 1705: 1691: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1439: 1438: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1344:your actions? 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1285: 1282: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1244: 1234:Stephan Schulz 1210: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1190: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1038: 1035: 1002: 1000: 999: 957:24.162.231.137 947: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 890: 844: 841: 840: 839: 774: 771: 768: 767: 762: 758: 756: 753: 752: 751: 750: 745: 737: 736: 733: 732: 727: 721: 714: 713: 686:climate change 677: 665: 664: 655: 639: 612: 598: 597: 594: 593: 590: 589: 582: 576: 575: 573: 546: 534: 533: 528: 516: 515: 512: 511: 504:Low-importance 500: 494: 493: 491: 474:the discussion 461: 460: 444: 432: 431: 429:Low‑importance 423: 411: 410: 407: 406: 399:Low-importance 395: 389: 388: 386: 369:the discussion 356: 355: 339: 327: 326: 324:Low‑importance 318: 306: 305: 302: 301: 294:Low-importance 290: 284: 283: 281: 265: 264: 259: 254: 249: 242: 240:Template Usage 236: 224: 223: 207: 195: 194: 192:Low‑importance 186: 174: 173: 170: 169: 167: 133: 132: 116: 104: 103: 98: 86: 85: 79: 68: 54: 53: 49:this help page 33:poorly sourced 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4419: 4408: 4405: 4403: 4400: 4398: 4395: 4393: 4390: 4388: 4385: 4383: 4380: 4378: 4375: 4373: 4370: 4368: 4365: 4363: 4360: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4350: 4348: 4345: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4335: 4333: 4330: 4328: 4325: 4324: 4322: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4294:I agree with 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4252: 4251: 4248: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4226: 4224: 4218: 4215: 4214: 4209: 4207: 4203: 4194: 4192: 4191: 4186: 4181: 4180: 4169: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4149: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4125: 4120: 4115: 4109: 4103: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4061: 4055: 4049: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3986:Steven Milloy 3982: 3976: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3962: 3951: 3947: 3944: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3931: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3907: 3902: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3876:Steven Milloy 3872: 3866: 3864: 3863: 3857: 3850: 3843: 3839: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3823: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3799: 3794: 3792: 3788: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3737: 3729: 3723: 3719: 3718:Steven Milloy 3714: 3708: 3706: 3705: 3699: 3692: 3685: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3665: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3641: 3636: 3634: 3630: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3591: 3585: 3581: 3580:Steven Milloy 3576: 3570: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3510: 3507: 3506: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3490: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3441: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3396: 3389: 3385: 3383: 3380: 3379: 3374: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3353: 3348: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3332: 3327: 3323: 3318: 3315: 3311: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3204: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3190: 3186: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3164: 3162: 3157: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3136: 3134: 3127: 3123: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3099: 3095: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3023:72.205.126.89 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2942: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917:72.205.126.89 2914: 2908: 2905: 2904: 2899: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2869: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2852:72.205.126.89 2848: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2811: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2791: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2749: 2746: 2745: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2649: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2589: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570:72.205.126.89 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2482: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282:The Spectator 2279: 2278:New Statesman 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1685:For the ref: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1658: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1387: 1383: 1381: 1376: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1290: 1283: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1248:72.205.126.89 1245: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1215:Andrew Oakley 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195:72.205.126.89 1191: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1157: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1036: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 998: 994: 990: 986: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 972: 968: 966: 962: 958: 954: 939: 936: 934: 929: 925: 921: 920: 919: 916: 914: 908: 907: 906: 903: 901: 896: 891: 888: 883: 882: 881: 880: 877: 875: 869: 864: 860: 857: 854: 852: 851: 843:Steven Milloy 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 814:Daniel Santos 811: 807: 801: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 778: 772: 755: 754: 749: 746: 744: 741: 740: 739: 738: 735: 734: 730: 725: 720: 719: 712: 710: 706: 702: 698: 693: 691: 687: 683: 678: 675: 671: 670: 662: 656: 652: 648: 644: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624:Steven Milloy 621: 617: 613: 604: 603: 587: 581: 578: 577: 574: 557: 553: 552: 547: 544: 540: 539: 535: 532: 529: 526: 522: 509: 505: 499: 496: 495: 492: 475: 471: 467: 466: 458: 447: 445: 442: 438: 437: 433: 427: 424: 421: 417: 404: 400: 394: 391: 390: 387: 370: 366: 362: 361: 353: 342: 340: 337: 333: 332: 328: 322: 319: 316: 312: 299: 295: 289: 286: 285: 282: 269:United States 263: 260: 258: 255: 253: 250: 248: 247: 243: 241: 238: 237: 234: 230: 229: 221: 210: 208: 205: 201: 200: 196: 190: 189:United States 187: 184: 180: 168: 151: 150:documentation 147: 143: 139: 138: 130: 119: 117: 114: 110: 109: 105: 102: 99: 96: 92: 87: 83: 77: 69: 65: 60: 59: 51: 50: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 26: 25: 20: 18: 17: 4269: 4249: 4246: 4227: 4219: 4216: 4212: 4210: 4205: 4201: 4198: 4176: 4173: 4148:source check 4127: 4121: 4118: 3983: 3980: 3958: 3955: 3930:source check 3909: 3903: 3900: 3873: 3870: 3847: 3822:source check 3801: 3795: 3790: 3786: 3784: 3715: 3712: 3689: 3664:source check 3643: 3637: 3632: 3628: 3626: 3577: 3574: 3523: 3503: 3408: 3391: 3369: 3365: 3362:google books 3351: 3349: 3329: 3321: 3267: 3265: 3256: 3252: 3234:for oneself. 3223: 3218: 3211: 3202: 3195: 3191:ad hominem. 3188: 3181: 3160: 3158: 3132: 3130: 3121: 3081: 3041: 3008: 2946: 2901: 2839: 2808: 2800:Thacker 2006 2795: 2793: 2789: 2742: 2735: 2728:Thacker 2006 2693: 2689: 2685: 2646: 2593: 2521: 2517: 2485: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2429: 2415: 2299: 2263: 2249: 2244: 2169: 2115:WP:STRUCTURE 2095: 2033: 2028: 1978: 1932: 1928: 1841: 1837: 1687: 1662: 1617: 1613: 1584: 1427: 1409: 1395: 1390: 1384: 1377: 1374: 1341: 1324: 1287: 1265: 1229: 1212: 1161: 1130: 1040: 1017: 1001: 969: 946: 932: 923: 912: 899: 886: 873: 865: 861: 858: 855: 848: 846: 803: 786:Junk Science 781: 780: 776: 728: 694: 679: 623: 619: 615: 549: 503: 479:Conservatism 470:conservatism 463: 426:Conservatism 398: 358: 293: 257:Project Talk 245: 226: 135: 82:WikiProjects 47: 35: 28: 22: 3541:mark nutley 3474:mark nutley 3458:mark nutley 3427:mark nutley 3425:there john 3168:mark nutley 3122:ad hominems 3103:mark nutley 2994:mark nutley 2965:mark nutley 2889:at the time 2875:mark nutley 2690:in place of 2658:mark nutley 2628:mark nutley 2599:mark nutley 2556:mark nutley 2504:mark nutley 2418:mark nutley 2375:mark nutley 1641:mark nutley 1545:mark nutley 1412:mark nutley 1360:mark nutley 1327:mark nutley 1307:mark nutley 1180:84.46.25.14 1117:mark nutley 1083:mark nutley 1069:mark nutley 974:mark nutley 951:—Preceding 810:Myron Ebell 790:FoxNews.com 4321:Categories 4185:Report bug 3967:Report bug 3489:Gross 2006 3272:Tmorton166 3086:Tmorton166 3057:I suggest 3013:Tmorton166 2732:This piece 2698:Weakopedia 2490:Tmorton166 2304:Tmorton166 2268:Tmorton166 2254:Tmorton166 2174:Tmorton166 2048:Off2riorob 2038:Tmorton166 1984:Off2riorob 1933:distortion 1915:Off2riorob 1871:Off2riorob 1846:Tmorton166 1813:Off2riorob 1731:Off2riorob 1672:Off2riorob 1624:SPhilbrick 1589:Paulsuckow 1493:Listed at 1469:Off2riorob 1432:Tmorton166 1398:Off2riorob 1024:Paulsuckow 928:Yilloslime 895:Yilloslime 690:designated 620:photograph 556:discussion 374:Journalism 365:journalism 321:Journalism 4168:this tool 4161:this tool 4108:dead link 4054:dead link 3950:this tool 3943:this tool 3842:this tool 3835:this tool 3684:this tool 3677:this tool 3303:WP:BLPSPS 3232:exception 3228:reconcile 2734:from the 1262:PR watch? 703:, or any 155:Biography 101:Biography 40:libellous 4300:JimRenge 4174:Cheers.— 3956:Cheers.— 3848:Cheers.— 3728:cbignore 3690:Cheers.— 3590:cbignore 3505:MastCell 3496:11684593 3309:, etc.). 3307:WP:ELBLP 3239:BigK HeX 3143:BigK HeX 3067:BigK HeX 2948:amusing. 2903:MastCell 2841:MastCell 2810:MastCell 2744:MastCell 2736:Guardian 2648:MastCell 2542:BigK HeX 2523:MastCell 2476:reliable 2119:BigK HeX 2101:BigK HeX 1937:BigK HeX 1901:BigK HeX 1749:BigK HeX 1695:BigK HeX 1568:BigK HeX 1499:BigK HeX 1447:BigK HeX 1346:BigK HeX 953:unsigned 784:is the " 729:Archives 628:included 4250:Mariner 4112:tag to 4058:tag to 3990:my edit 3880:my edit 3858::Online 3787:checked 3722:my edit 3700::Online 3629:checked 3584:my edit 3224:cracked 3194:"If an 1342:explain 1037:rv: Why 924:Science 913:yandman 887:Science 874:yandman 868:article 850:Science 506:on the 401:on the 296:on the 72:C-class 4296:M.boli 4274:M.boli 4230:M.boli 4104:Added 4050:Added 3736:nobots 3598:nobots 3336:WP:BLP 3299:WP:SPS 3268:Errant 3261:WP:COI 3203:editor 3196:editor 3156:WP:COI 3126:WP:COI 3117:WP:COI 3082:Errant 3052:WP:COI 3009:Errant 2898:WP:BLP 2893:WP:BLP 2802:, the 2796:per se 2790:really 2642:WP:BLP 2500:wp:blp 2486:Errant 2445:views. 2300:Errant 2286:ChrisO 2264:Errant 2250:Errant 2227:ChrisO 2170:Errant 2096:really 2034:Errant 1842:Errant 1770:ChrisO 1715:ChrisO 1670:to me. 1466:WP:BLP 1462:WP:RSN 1428:Errant 1321:rv Why 1292:A13ean 1006:Runjmb 660:Upload 651:Flickr 262:Alerts 78:scale. 4247:Steel 4223:safe. 3366:those 3212:whole 3180:Re: " 2826:Arzel 2775:Arzel 2614:Arzel 2451:WP:OR 2439:WP:RS 2284:. -- 2241:WP:RS 1668:WP:RS 1585:about 1041:See: 616:image 4304:talk 4278:talk 4234:talk 3791:true 3633:true 3559:talk 3545:talk 3530:talk 3493:PMID 3478:talk 3462:talk 3447:talk 3431:talk 3416:talk 3388:this 3360:and 3340:Here 3326:Here 3322:then 3314:this 3257:will 3243:talk 3201:"an 3172:talk 3147:talk 3131:"Do 3107:talk 3071:talk 3027:talk 2998:talk 2983:talk 2969:talk 2954:talk 2921:talk 2879:talk 2856:talk 2830:talk 2779:talk 2702:talk 2662:talk 2632:talk 2618:talk 2603:talk 2574:talk 2560:talk 2546:talk 2508:talk 2481:just 2472:That 2459:talk 2422:talk 2379:talk 2290:talk 2231:talk 2123:talk 2105:talk 2052:talk 1988:talk 1980:day? 1941:talk 1931:and 1919:talk 1905:talk 1875:talk 1838:much 1817:talk 1795:talk 1774:talk 1753:talk 1735:talk 1719:talk 1699:talk 1676:talk 1645:talk 1618:Mark 1593:talk 1572:talk 1549:talk 1534:talk 1503:talk 1473:talk 1451:talk 1416:talk 1402:talk 1388:... 1364:talk 1350:talk 1331:talk 1311:talk 1296:talk 1275:talk 1252:talk 1238:talk 1219:talk 1199:talk 1184:talk 1168:talk 1142:talk 1121:talk 1107:talk 1087:talk 1073:talk 1058:talk 1028:talk 1010:talk 993:talk 978:talk 961:talk 833:talk 818:talk 796:and 680:The 641:The 144:and 4270:not 4208:" 4142:RfC 4098:to 4088:to 4078:to 4068:to 4044:to 4034:to 4024:to 4014:to 4004:to 3924:RfC 3894:to 3816:RfC 3778:to 3768:to 3758:to 3748:to 3658:RfC 3620:to 3610:to 3399:466 3377:466 3352:not 3189:but 3133:not 2518:not 2245:But 2029:But 1614:Kim 1495:RSN 1382:.. 1131:was 645:or 626:be 622:of 618:or 580:??? 498:Low 393:Low 288:Low 29:BLP 4323:: 4306:) 4280:) 4236:) 4155:. 4150:}} 4146:{{ 4110:}} 4106:{{ 4056:}} 4052:{{ 3937:. 3932:}} 3928:{{ 3829:. 3824:}} 3820:{{ 3734:{{ 3730:}} 3726:{{ 3671:. 3666:}} 3662:{{ 3596:{{ 3592:}} 3588:{{ 3561:) 3555:JQ 3547:) 3532:) 3526:JQ 3498:, 3480:) 3464:) 3449:) 3443:JQ 3433:) 3418:) 3412:JQ 3394:JN 3372:JN 3338:. 3305:, 3301:, 3253:is 3245:) 3174:) 3149:) 3109:) 3073:) 3029:) 3000:) 2985:) 2971:) 2956:) 2950:JQ 2923:) 2900:? 2891:, 2881:) 2858:) 2832:) 2781:) 2704:) 2664:) 2634:) 2620:) 2605:) 2576:) 2562:) 2548:) 2510:) 2484:-- 2461:) 2455:JQ 2424:) 2381:) 2292:) 2233:) 2125:) 2107:) 2094:I 2054:) 1990:) 1943:) 1921:) 1907:) 1877:) 1819:) 1797:) 1789:-- 1776:) 1755:) 1737:) 1721:) 1701:) 1678:) 1647:) 1595:) 1574:) 1551:) 1536:) 1505:) 1497:. 1475:) 1453:) 1426:-- 1418:) 1404:) 1366:) 1352:) 1333:) 1313:) 1298:) 1277:) 1254:) 1240:) 1230:MD 1221:) 1201:) 1186:) 1170:) 1144:) 1136:-- 1123:) 1109:) 1089:) 1075:) 1060:) 1052:-- 1030:) 1012:) 995:) 989:JQ 980:) 963:) 835:) 829:JQ 820:) 4302:( 4276:( 4232:( 4200:" 4187:) 4183:( 4170:. 4163:. 3969:) 3965:( 3952:. 3945:. 3844:. 3837:. 3686:. 3679:. 3557:( 3543:( 3528:( 3487:( 3476:( 3460:( 3445:( 3429:( 3414:( 3241:( 3184:" 3170:( 3145:( 3105:( 3069:( 3025:( 2996:( 2981:( 2967:( 2952:( 2919:( 2877:( 2854:( 2828:( 2777:( 2700:( 2660:( 2630:( 2616:( 2601:( 2572:( 2558:( 2544:( 2506:( 2457:( 2420:( 2377:( 2288:( 2229:( 2121:( 2103:( 2050:( 1986:( 1939:( 1917:( 1903:( 1873:( 1815:( 1793:( 1772:( 1751:( 1733:( 1717:( 1697:( 1674:( 1643:( 1629:T 1591:( 1570:( 1547:( 1532:( 1501:( 1471:( 1449:( 1414:( 1400:( 1362:( 1348:( 1329:( 1309:( 1294:( 1273:( 1250:( 1236:( 1217:( 1197:( 1182:( 1166:( 1140:( 1119:( 1105:( 1085:( 1071:( 1056:( 1026:( 1008:( 991:( 976:( 959:( 935:) 933:t 931:( 902:) 900:t 898:( 831:( 816:( 588:. 558:. 510:. 405:. 300:. 152:. 84:: 52:. 27:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index