Talk:Henry I. Miller

primary sources

Hello - I'm a human being, named Cfulbright. Can you tell me the reason for the edits you made to the Henry I. Miller article?

The above message was on my talk page. Since it is about this page I moved it here.

Hello Cfulbright - I'm a human being, named Wuerzele. The reason for the edits I made are in the edit summary. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

third-party tag

I am removing the "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject," template, because six of the 11 references are links to independent 2nd and 3rd party articles about the subject. Of the other five are reference links to quotes from articles the subject wrote, and the other two are links to books published by the subject which are mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, You posted while I was writing the following and I didn't notice when I saved. Meters (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the third-party tag on this article twice.

1. [1] is Miller's writings on the Hoover Institution page.
2. [2] is a paper Miller coauthored.
3. [3] is Miller's writing on the Forbes' site. Fair enough, it's a cite to support what he said in that particular article.
4. [4] is fine (Obama speech).
5. [5] is Miller's writings on the Project Syndicate site. It seems to be a science blog with reader comments.
6. [6] is an Amazon link to one of Miller's books.
7. [7] was Miller's google e-book. The ref is now a dead link.
8. [8] is Barron's list of it's 25 best books of 2004, listing Miller's book.
9. [9] is Miller's posts to the Forbes web site.
10. [10] is fine. It documents Miller's award for Op-Ed writing from 2008.
11. [11] also is fine, but needs to be dated better in the text. It refers to Miller's prominence during the previous decade, but is from 2006, which is not clear from the Wikipedia article.

There are also two direct links to external urls in the article:

1. [12] which is the Miller writings on Forbes's site already referenced. This is not directly referencing his statements here and needs to be removed (not converted to a proper ref).
2. [13] which is the previously referenced link to Miller's writings on the Hoover Institution page. This is straight promotion and needs to be rewritten or removed (not converted to a proper ref).
3. Until earlier today there was a third direct link, to a non-existent article on one of Miller's books. I have converted this to a wikilink to the correct article name The Frankenfood Myth.

I'm not saying that all of the refs I didn't list as "fine" are a problem, but it appears to me that the third-party tag is well-justified. We really need more 3rd-party sources commenting on Miller's works and prominence. Opinions? Meters (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 00:14, October 27, 2014‎

I'd like some other opinions. There seems to be too much reliance on refs to Miller's blogs/posts/writings and not much 3rd-party analysis. Meters (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Meters is wrong in his characterization of some of the 11 references:

1. Is the Hoover Institution's page about Miller. It is not written by Miller. 5. Is Project Syndicate's page about Miller. It is not written by Miller. 7. Is not a dead link. I fixed it. 8. Is a Barron's article that mentions Miller. It is not written by Miller.

So in combination with #4, #10, and #11, which Meters says are fine, that's six of eleven references that are third party sources talking about the subject of the article.

As for the references that link to Miller's writing, it seems normal to me to provide the source for the subject's statements or opinions. There are four of those. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

Meters - perhaps you can help me fix the two two direct links to external urls. I couldn't figure out what was wrong in the source when I switched to Edit mode. Cfulbright (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, 1. is clearly Miller's writing. All 40 of the topics on the first 4 pages (I didn't bother checking any further) clearly state "by Henry I. Miller". They are articles written by Miller for various sources, but hosted on the Hoover Institution's page.

No, 5. is clearly Miller's writing. It's the Project Syndicate's hosting of Miller's comments. Note that the ref follows "His work has been widely published in many languages." but the ref does not support that statement (at least in the 40 articles I looked at). Not only is the ref not independent, but it does not seem to support the claim.

7. still doesn't seem to be a 3rd-party source. It was his e-book (that certainly was not an independent source) but it was a dead link and you've changed it to point to the Hoover Institution Press's | sales blurb for his book. Since Miller works for the Hoover Institution, it's not really an independent source, and all the current ref contains is the information that Miller wrote it, a brief excerpt (not independent) and a review by Michael H. Mellon M.D. From what I can find he's an allergist, so I'm not sure how relevant his review is.

8. is a perfectly good ref to the fact that Barrons chose Miller's book as one of their top 25 books of 2004, but nothing more. There may be more meat behind the paywall, but we can't see it. Similar to my concerns with 7., I'm not sure how relevant this is since Barrowns is a "mass-market investment publication." To me that's not nearly as compelling a ref as a top book listing from a science publication, or a solid review by one of Miller's peers would be.

Note that 4. is a solid ref, but it's not an independent source on Miller. It references what Obama said (more money for Ebola) and it's in the article because Miller had earlier written that there are better places to spend money other than on Ebola.

I'm not saying trying to run Miller down at all. I'm simply saying that the article needs more independent third-party sources about Miller and his work. The third pary tag is warranted. Meters (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the format of the external links. They work, but we don't use inline external links. One appears to have been replaced by a proper ref already, so I just deleted it. The second links to his works. It is already used as a ref in the lead, and the second use ("Links to his articles are at http://www.hoover.org/fellows/henry-i-miller" ) is rather promotional, so I've deleted it also. Meters (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't tell either why some appeared as links, or why the one didn't. Cfulbright (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Meters, that the third-party tag is well-justified and that the article needs more independent third-party sources about Miller and his work.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele - you've displayed your bias by making edits that just aren't true. For example, you changed the source of the Barron's Top 25 reference to be Henry I. Miller. He didn't write that. Someone at Barron's did. You clearly have an agenda here. Your previous edits suggest you have an anti-GMO bias. Please either provide 3rd party references for your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cfulbright my reply is below in a separate section, named Rhetoric questions and accusations in edit summaries by Cfulbright, since the above contributes nothing to the section under which you wrote (Third Party Tag). BTW please use filing etiquette and sign in your responses.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

rhetoric questions and accusations in edit summaries by Cfulbright

Cfulbright, I made an honest mistake adding Miller as author to what you call the Barrons article (but is a weirdo commercial authorless searchwebsite pseudosource). Good that you found my mistake. Hey, even better would be to find the ACTUAL Barrons reference, instead of this website ( not that Barrons doesnt have any..)

Now, please stop yelling bias and agenda in EDIT SUMMARIES at someone who's clearly trying to clean up andhas been correcting lousy/lazy incomplete refformats.

However, just reading through your contributions allows anyone to see that you do defend a really poor page, with puffery and stretched out, pompous sounding sentences, plus lousy sourcing, and getting mad at criticism of teh article, which will make anyone awake scratch their head and ask : Why is he doing that?

So why dont you hold your horses and stay cool? BTW: The sentence announcing removing of the 3rd party source label is totally off the (wikipedia) wall, and I will remove it. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I had already removed the talking in the article. I would have done it sooner had I noticed it. Meters (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I accused you of bias on this article because you've been making what I consider to be petty edits and deletions for months. I think it borders on obsession. But only you know whether that's true or not.

I'm sorry I don't always do the right Wikipedia protocol. I'm not a frequent or experienced Wikipedia editor. I've been learning as I go. I just learned about how to sign my posts on talk pages from Meters the other day. Cfulbright (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor title in wikipedia articles

Re "Wuerzele is making silly edits. Philip Leder is a medical doctor. MD. If you don't want to call him "Dr.", then accept "M.D." after his name."

Look, Cfulbright, we dont use Professor (which Leder is, yes) or Medical Doctor, which Leder is by training, (yes, thanks, I am aware), and such on wikipedia. I have indicated this in my edit summary referring to WP:MOS. you apparently didnt read it.

I will not WP:edit war and thus will not undo your reversion, hoping a third editor will. I'd appreciate if you stop your irrational personal attacks calling my edits silly.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of MD here seems fine per WP:CREDENTIAL. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees ... may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications" Meters (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Meters, I am aware of WP:CREDENTIAL. You are right that a one time use of MD to clarify if Philip Leder was an MD is ok. On the whole though, it is completely irrelevant for the article, and as such unnecessary, which was my point. If someone really wanted to know, whether the head of the NIH lab where Miller was at the end of teh 60's was an MD or not, they could click on Leders wikilink. In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD. enough said...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You cited WP:MOS as the reason for removing the "Dr." before Leder's name. I don't think that MOS link says anything about professional titles. When the other editor changed it to M.D. after his name you started this thread and claimed that Wikipedia does not use M.D. I really don't care if we use M.D., but the editor wants to, and I'm simply pointing out that in this case (not the subject of the article) it is perfectly acceptable, despite what you have said in the edit summary and in this thread. If you want to take the position that the information is irrelevant, we can discuss that, but that that was not the point you made in the edit summary when you removed the "Dr." or when you started this thread after "M.D." was added. If you are going to point someone to a policy, and then give them grief for apparently not reading it, you should probably point them to something that actually supports what you are claiming. Instead, the policy supports the other editor's latest version of the edit. There's no point in making a reader follow a link just to find out if Leder was an M.D., and not every reader would know that "In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD", and even if they did know that, they still wouldn't know if this was one of the cases where that wasn't true. So, this seems like a lot of hand waving to justify leaving out two letters that policy supports using in this case. Meters (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Miller a "tobacco danger sceptic"?

In connection with the fairly recent court decision (November 6, 2015) in Paris about a defamation case in the Séralini affair, it was claimed that the defendants' only source for the claim that Séralini had been fraudulent was Miller, in a Forbes article, and dismissed Miller as an "American lobbyist" known for having claimed that tobacco is "non-cancerogenic", for "the benefit of the industry" ([14], my translation). Is there some truth in these accusations? Has Miller really disclaimed the correlation between smoking and cancer? If so, has he ever retracted this? JoergenB (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Miller "an American lobbyist"? I can find no reference to him being a lobbyist at all. Being a research at a think tank doesn't make you a lobbyist, which has regulatory definition and requirements. Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Did Miller say that tobacco is non-carcinogenic, or did he say that nicotine is non-carcinogenic? Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversial positions

Hy! I am --Bongilles (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I introduced the section "Controversial position" in this article. My source for this section is . Henryimillermd deleted most of it claiming that it is "defamatory information gleaned from sources known to be inaccurate, defamatory and even libelous." Below are these different positions. I would like to have the opinion of other users whether or not each of this individual points should be included in some form in the article. Please comment separately for each point in the corresponding subsection below.

1. Defending the tobacco industry

In a 1994 APCO Associates PR strategy memo to help Phillip Morris organize a global campaign to fight tobacco regulations, Henry Miller was referred to as “a key supporter” of these pro-tobacco industry efforts. [Memorandum from Tom Hockaday and Neal Cohen of Apco Associates Inc. to Matt Winokur, “Thoughts on TASSC Europe.” March 25, 1994. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. Bates No. 2024233595-2024233602.]

In 2012, Miller wrote that “nicotine … is not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes or smokeless products.” [Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier, “The Cigarette Smokescreen.” Defining Ideas, March 21, 2012.]

2. Denying climate change

Miller is a member of the “scientific advisory board” of the George C. Marshall Institute,[Competitive Enterprise Institute, Henry Miller bio.] which is famous for its oil and gas industry funded denials of climate change.[See, for example, the profile of the George C. Marshall Institute in DeSmogBlog.]

3. Defending the pesticide industry

Miller defended the use of widely-criticized neonicotinoid pesticides and claimed that “the reality is that honeybee populations are not declining.”[Henry I. Miller, “Why the Buzz About a Bee-pocalypse Is a Honey Trap.” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2014.]

Miller has repeatedly argued for the re-introduction of DDT, a toxic pesticide banned in the United States since 1972, which has been linked to pre-term birth and fertility impairment in women.[Henry I. Miller, “Re-Booting DDT.” Project Syndicate, May 5, 2010. Henry I. Miller, “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies.” Forbes, September 5, 2012.]

4. Defending exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants

In 2011, after the Japanese tsunami and radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear power plants, Miller argued in Forbes that “those … who were exposed to low levels of radiation could have actually benefitted from it.”[Henry I. Miller, “Can Tiny Amounts Of Poison Actually Be Good For You?” Forbes, December 21, 2011.] At that time, he even penned an article titled “Can radiation be good for you?”[Henry I. Miller, “Can Radiation Be Good For You?” Project Syndicate, April 8, 2011.]

5. Defending the plastics industry

In an article in Forbes, Miller defended the use of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA), which is banned in Europe and Canada for use in baby bottles.[Henry I. Miller, “BPA Is A-OK, Says FDA.” Forbes, March 12, 2014.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bongilles (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 March 2016

Hi Bongilles, welcome. I am replying to your points here- the usual etiquette on WP to respond is to keep it together and not separate.

First, I am glad you started to discuss this on the talk page. Clearly, Henryimillermd should respond here and not in an edit summary, and not by reverting a second time.

Secondly, I see you outlined Miller's positions by quoting his oped's in the mainstream press and I see no problem there . In fact, Miller should thank you, because you are only listing his work. If you take out what you call your source and everything should be acceptable to him.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thread copied from User_talk:Meters#Henry_I._Miller

I am not Wiki-literate and I have no interest in editing except to end the harassment from others, as manifested in recent (and previous) edits to my entry. You may not like the terminology, but additions such as "Tobacco industry" and "Climate change" are inaccurate, intentionally misleading and defamatory. I cannot tolerate the damage to my reputation that such misrepresentations cause.

See, for example, my discussion of the tobacco industry claims at http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/a-david-and-goliath-parable/, and also in http://www.hoover.org/research/cigarette-smokescreen, where I explain that the primary hazard from smoking is not the nicotine but the inhalation of smoke. I refer to smoking as a "scourge" and observe that, "Tobacco is an inherently, irredeemably dangerous product." Those sentiments are exactly the opposite of what the editors of my entry are trying to convey. I have never received any compensation of any kind, direct or indirect, from the tobacco industry or tobacco companies.

Similarly, with regards to climate change, I do not work on or write about climate change. My connection to the George Marshall Institute ended at least 15 years ago, and in any case had nothing at all to do with climate change. Once again, its mention in my entry is simply harassment and an attempt to defame me.

I have no interest in promoting myself via Wikipedia. I just want an end to the harassment and distractions.

Henryimillermd (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Henry Miller

User:Henryimillermd If the article is about you, as it appears to be, and there are issues with the content, the correct thing in most cases is to discuss the issues on that talk page so that editors without conflicts of interest can make the changes. See WP:BIOSELF. Whether it is about you or not, anything which is a WP:BLP violation should immediately be removed. If there is any disagreement about this the venues to raise the concern is WP:BLPN. The article needs to be balanced and written in a neutral tone. However, some of the material you are removing is well sourced and does not appear to be an issue. The article should not misinterpret anything and if Miller (you?) has changed his position then a balanced article should say so, but you don't get to remove material simply because you don't like it. Continuing to edit the article while ignoring the attempts to discuss COI and content issues with you on your talk page and on the article's talk page is not helping. That's why I've raised the issue at COIN. I'm asking for a consensus that you are a COI editor with respect to Henry I. Miller.

I agree that some of your concerns over the material you removed are valid, but my talk page is not the place to discuss the particulars of your edits. Please take this to the article's talk page where the discussion has already started so other editors will see your concerns and participate in the discussion. Meters (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Starting with issue 1. The coverage is unbalanced and it needs to be reworked. The exact quote from the memo stating that Miller is a key supporter is that he "might assist in the project". The quote that nicotine from cigarettes or e-cigs is not particularly dangerous is accurate, but Miller also states in the same source that "Cigarette smoking is one of the major preventable scourges of human health." and "Tobacco is an inherently, irredeemably dangerous product." That's not Miller defending the tobacco industry, He's discussing the usefulness of nicotine delivery systems that are (while still not ideal) healthier than smoking. Meters (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Item 2 also needs clarification at least, or possibly removal. The sourced bio is from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and states that Miller is an adjunct scholar there, and a member of the scientific advisory board of the George C. Marshall Institute. It seems odd that a group would host an incorrect bio for one of their own, but User:Henryimillermd states "My connection to the George Marshall Institute ended at least 15 years ago." There is an implication that Miller worked on climate change denial, but no sources to support this, and the George Marshall Institute is now defunct. Meters (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The George C. Marshall Institute is defunct, and Miller claims that he had no association with the organization since 2002. Cfulbright (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and already removed form the article. Meters (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Item 3 is accurate, but it needs more explanation of how this proposed use would differ from how it was used in the past. Note that the DDT coverage in the current version of this section is already much improved by Henryimillermd; however, the neonicotinide pesticide and bee population crash issue which was removed should be re-evaluated. Meters (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Item 4 is much improved in the current version. The direct URLs need to be wikified into refs. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The "Can Tiny Amounts of Poison Actually Be Good for You?" article limits the possible positive impact only to those "outside the immediate area". It also cites Hormesis, which is an accepted scientific principle. [15] Cfulbright (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and also already removed from the article. Meters (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Item 5 has been removed from the current article. I don't see any reason a balanced version of this (one that explains why he takes this position) cannot be restored. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at each of the items, I have to say that the coverage (and even the original topic titles) does appear to have been unfairly biased. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Removed paragraph, saved here - + Bibliography

I turned the writings section into a partial bibliography with proper citations and ISBNs. I also added articles from Google scholar (all of which are highly cited). This paragraph was in the writings section, where it did not belong. I save it here in case someone has an idea for it. (ps I'm not sure that Heartland News is a stellar source for this.) LaMona (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Miller said at a forum organized by the George C. Marshall Institute that environmental groups such as Greenpeace use the precautionary principle to oppose development of products that would improve agricultural productivity not because they are dangerous, but because those groups manifest a social vision that is "anti-business, anti-technology, and anti-American."

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry I. Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150606063854/http://www.systemsbiology.org/download/BitechWhosWho.pdf to http://www.systemsbiology.org/download/BitechWhosWho.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Meters (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Selecting articles

Miller writes for a handful of newspapers and magazines, and it makes sense to me to include some representative articles here in the bibliography. However, I don't have a method for selecting them. For the research articles I was able to select those with the highest number of citations in G-Scholar -- imperfect, undoubtedly, but at least a method with some criterion. He has written dozens of articles for the New York Times, for instance -- does anyone know of a metric I could use to select a small number of those for inclusion? LaMona (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry I. Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417125128/http://www.saworldview.com/worldview-100/ to http://www.saworldview.com/worldview-100/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Contributions on Public Policy Issues

Cfulbright (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)I added a section on positions Miller has taken in the area of public policy issues. Each has a valid link to a reference citation. Meter deleted these additions the first time I made them, claiming I have a COI. I had previously stated I've met the subject a few times, but I am NOT a friend, family, colleague, etc.

I added a few additional Articles and Op-Eds with valid links to reference citations. Again, Meter deleted the, when I first added these. They are factual and can be confirmed by anyone clicking on the reference.

I edited a statement that "Miller regularly appears on the nationally syndicated radio programs of John Batchelor and Lars Larson." to accurate reflect his appearance at least once on those programs, and included a valid reference citation.

None of these edits should be controversial.

Does CFulbright Have a Conflict of Interest?

Cfulbright (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)There is a statement at the top of this Talk page that I "may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article.". I have stated previously and again now that though I have met the subject of the article a few times, I am NOT a friend, family, colleague, paid or otherwise. The allegation has been used as an excuse to delete my recent additions, most of which were simple factual statements with valid citations. No effort was made by that person to edit or correct my additions; rather they were completely Undone with an "Obvious POV" comment. I've added back the article and position citations and links, and hope that the person in question review them dispassionately and accept them.