Talk:Roger Bate

WP:SYN problem
Specifically, the statement "implying that his real motivation in promoting DDT is to advance an anti-regulation agenda.[2]". I read the cited source, and the quote is there, but I don't see anything in the article that says anything about him promoting an anti-regulation agenda. While that may very well have been his intent, someone else has to say so in a reliable source before we can say such a thing here. There are several other similar statements in the article that appear to draw conclusions of their own. Wikipedia policies involving original research and biographies of living persons clearly state that this type of content is not acceptable. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've redrafted this to quote the Swartz article directly, including Swartz' references to Rabett and the Tobacco Legacy ArchivesJQ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article.
I deleted the following section from the article because we typically don't including listings of articles by people in their BLPs. Books would be a different story, but this is (an apparently random) selection of articles. Yilloslime T C  20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles

 * Roger Bate, "USAID’s Health Challenge: Improving US Foreign Assistance," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, January 1, 2007
 * Roger Bate, "The World Bank: false financial and statistical accounts and medical malpractice in malaria treatment," The Lancet, July 15, 2006
 * Roger Bate, "Is Nothing Worse Than Tobacco?," Wall Street Journal Europe, July 24, 1996
 * Roger Bate, "Eco-imperialism: Green Power; Black Death", Tech Central Station, January 21, 2004.
 * Roger Bate, "Moore Wisdom Needed", Tech Central Station, February 10, 2004.
 * Roger Bate, "WHO’s on Last?: A politicized and irrelevant global agency", National Review, April 19, 2004.
 * Roger Bate, "Moore Wisdom Needed", Tech Central Station, February 10, 2004.
 * Roger Bate, "WHO’s on Last?: A politicized and irrelevant global agency", National Review, April 19, 2004.

NPOV
Look, I'm as opposed to what corporations and their mouthpieces are doing to the world as anyone else, but even to my eye this article seems hideously biased, with deliberate and calculated focus on anything that appears to be "dirt", and little mention of his other activities, except when it's necessarily relevant to the dirt somehow.

I can't help but notice, however, that Roger Bate was called out in this article in a manner that implies he's a mouthpiece for Big Tobacco. No, it was general love of all profitable pollution - the article did open by mentioning an opposition to climate theories. Wait, no, the article says he's the mouthpiece for Big Pharma too, opposing counterfeits increases profits, right. ...and on and on...

.. or hey, maybe considering the drug in question he's actively opposing the counterfeiting of the most was an antimalarial, and considering the issue he raises with respect to pesticide regulation is the issue of DDT. HEY! Here's a thought: Maybe Roger Bate actually cares about the millions dying and suffering of malaria, but can't get his capitalist buddies to fund lifesaving research unless he phrases it in terms they understand. Seriously - I get that the fact this guy is a libertarian has not only altered his views on everything, and that he really is trying to push a world view with his research. The problem with this article is the part where the guy is a libertarian has also changed many people's views against him, perhaps rightly so. What is wrong is when these political judgments take on a greater importance than a scientists work.

Roger Bate decided to pursue science where it matched his ideology. His critics have not decided to pursue scientific criticism where it matches their own, which is why this article has become so incredibly biased it could even be classified as an attack piece. With a couple changes in punctuation and an extra sentence or two, it would even qualify for Encyclopedia Dramatica, for crying out loud!

Zaphraud (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)