Talk:Joel Moskowitz

Cited as an expert
The introduction to this article states that "Moskowitz has been repeatedly cited as an expert and quoted in national news media about the health risks of mobile phones, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and related technologies.", followed by 11 citations from various newspapers. That seems like an obvious case of WP:OVERCITE to me, so most of these citation should probably be removed. This is also apparent in later sections of the article.

Another problem with this introduction is that it misrepresents what kind of scientist Moskowitz is and what he is known for. Being quoted in national media is not an achievement in and of itself and should not be mentioned in the introduction of a Wikipedia article. This is especially true in the cases where he is merely acting as an expert source and not discussing his own research. The bigger issue at hand here is that Moskowitz is a mathematician and psychologist, but not a medical health expert or doctor. Writing that he has been 'cited as an expert' on a number of different telecom-related health risks paints the picture that he actually is one, even though he doesn't have any formal qualification in this area.

His only relevant qualification appears to be a directorship at the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health, which holds as of 2019. This seems like a dubious qualification since the center's website has been defunct since 2014 and it has long since stopped its publications. The only extant mentions of it are in a number of Moskowitz' social media profiles and articles where he is quoted as a source.

I think someone needs to take a long and objective look at this page to determine what is true and relevant, and what can go.

Swaggernagger (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading through it again, I also noticed several violations of WP:NPOV. For example, Devra Davis (who holds similar opinions to Moskowitz) is described as being a prominent epidemiologist, even though her works are highly controversial and run contrary to the mainstream scientific consensus. When detractors are mentioned, such as the Daily Mail, they are described using terms like 'misleadingly'. More generally, there is a large focus on risks from radiation without mentioning the opposite (and scientifically dominant) view, which holds that there is virtually no evidence for any health hazards.


 * Also, coming back to my previous post about the absurd amount of citations, large parts of the article are filled with similar clutter. For some reason, every newspaper article that has ever been written about Moskowitz seems to be cited, as well as everything he is featured in. This all comes across as some sort of ploy to promote his legitimacy. I do not think it is necessary to mention any of this, at least not as often as it is now, besides maybe a comment that he has received media attention. This would greatly reduce the amount of clutter currently in here. Swaggernagger (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is who he really is: https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologist-joel-moskowitz-cell-phone-wi-fi-truther-10928 Someone really needs to edit the article as it makes him sound credible and completely truthful, when in the opinion of many, the opposite is more strikingly evident. Jimthing (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute.
This man is a conspiracy theorist. There should at least be a section criticising him to provide some balance to the article. Friendly Engineer (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)