Talk:Steven E. Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, per your blp concerns and for use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sensible disclaimer[edit]

The following comments were made in a deleted discussion, and may not make sense to the reader. These comments were once deleted by a claim of violating WP:BLP and soapboxing. I promptly restored them, as they were not in violation of either policy. They were subsequently removed again, stating that while they don't violate the policies referred to above, they don't make sense without the context of the deleted text. This is a disclaimer that the quotes below don't make much sense, since they are taken out of the context. I agree that much of the context was certainly violating soapboxing, and possibly WP:BLP (I really didn't read that much of it). If I had known that my comments would be deleted ahead of time, I would of placed them in a section on their own, or even asked the question on that users talk page. I personally believe that my comments were not malicious, or inappropriate. I believe that it would be a violation of WP:TPG for them to be deleted. Talk is supposed to be archived, not deleted. To help slightly with the context, the original removed comments had a sentence referring to a link that couldn't be posted here because wikipedia had blacklisted it. The following comments are in relation to that topic. Umeboshi 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a little on wikipedia blacklisting the link you discussed above? Please provide links to the actual act of blacklisting if possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC). sorry, forgot to sign: Umeboshi 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


See here.
Search page for this text: #Jon Harald Søby's list
Judy Wood's link is the 2nd in the list.
Kings 32 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I found it quite informative. Umeboshi 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon[edit]

I realize that Jones' work in this area is used to riducule him, but it's at minimum a very serious hobby for him. In addition to the cited paper (which is only reproduced because someone wanted to ridicule him), there is much more to suggest the seriousness of his interest. "For several years", he investiged possible pre-columbian North American horses (which the Book of Mormon writes about); Jones published an article in a Mormon apologetics journal. I doubt it's on par with the effort he put into regular physics, but LDS archaeology has been a major personal interest. Cool Hand Luke 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. IMHO, it's a POV attempt to smear Jones for standard Mormon beliefs. All Mormons believe Christ came to America, and BYU has spent decades trying to tie archeology to the book of Mormon. As a professor at BYU his one major (?) paper (over a decade ago, I believe) is much less notable than dozens of other professor's work in this area. I suggest you try adding this attempt to impugne Jones over standard Mormon beliefs to the Mitt Romney article. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I'm ignorant of LDS beliefs? Nonsense. Romney has not written and published articles defending LDS doctrine from archeological/scientific frameworks. As I've pointed out, Jones has worked on at least three different projects related to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I could find more if you wish. These works, and the comments from his former BYU associate in the first link above, suggest he was seriously interested in finding evidence to bolster the Book of Mormon. He's not a leader in the field, but the same could be said for his other non-Cold Fusion interests. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please find others then as a link to the archive of an email list is unnacceptable, and the other link is dead. I will agree to the inclusion of this info if it is also noted that BYU is the center of these studies, and his writings are not unusual for ANY Mormon professor teaching there. OK? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. But it should also be noted that not every BYU professor engages in Mormon apologetics either. Jones can be distinguished from the average Mormon (like Mitt Romney) because of the scholarly work he does on Mormonism.
Incidentally, I think the title of Jones' article should be confined to the footnotes. You're right that many people don't realize that it's a perfectly orthodox Mormon belief. The title might seem looney to non-Mormons; you have a good point here. I think it's sufficient to say he's researched archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, using this article as one example. I'll try to find a published citation for this article before I leave for Chicago on Tuesday (these sources are much easier to find in Utah). I think an apologetics newsletter or journal reproduced his paper, but I think the link is still important. It seems to be the only copy extant on the internet. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm coming a bit late to this discussion, but I notice someone's looking for a copy of Prof. Jones' article on Mormon archaeology on the Web. Will this one do?: http://web.archive.org/web/20051124053614/http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext+and+figures.htm --Lopakhin 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Discrediting Cold Fusion[edit]

Many believe Jones was a government plant to discredit Pons/Fleishman's original Cold Fusion work for the purpose of keeping the world addicted to oil energy. See the links I added and make any necessary additions to the cold fusion section. Watch the 45 minute google video Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion. Complete Truth 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been whispered in the marketplace that those videos are deliberately made to look like disinformation. Tom Harrison Talk 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be interesting if free/cheap/clean energy was real and the government/oil mafia didn't want it publicized. Those videos are only one piece of the evidence btw. Complete Truth 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to read this article in Infinite Energy Magazine about Cold Fusion scientists including Jones. The article and magazine was founded by Eugene Mallove, a strong proponent of Cold Fusion, who was brutally murdered a few years ago. Read his wiki page and note the "conspiracy theory" term!
Also note that Dr Judy Wood (the mechanical engineering professor who was released from her teaching position at Clemson University), had a student, Michael Zebuhr, who was killed as well. Not only was Michael doing 9/11 research with Dr Wood, but their research was to show that Steven Jones work was faulty. Complete Truth 11:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A new article details the many similarities between Jones' 9/11 and cold fusion work: [1] Complete Truth 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, what excellent examples of 9/11-Troofer lunacy.

Oh, wait... You nuts are SERIOUS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.89.92 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 'hard science' group linked to archaeology hoax[edit]

read through this page [2] and make any appropriate additions to article. Complete Truth 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit warring over the templates?[edit]

As a semi-outsider to this article, I seriously don't understand why editors keep adding and removing these templates. Care to work it out on the talk page? Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being discussed on several pages: the template talk pages, other linked articles, and Templates for deletion. Join the discussion if you care to. Tom Harrison Talk 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, Tom doesnt believe there is a Truth Movement, or doesnt believe it has a membership. yet he keeps adding the template here. I am honestly very confused as well. Tom, can you please answer now, if you believe there is no truth movement group, then how is steven jones part of it? [3] --NuclearZer0 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was User:Bov who claimed the Truth Movement doesn't have a membership. Pay attention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[4] I appreciate your apology now. There is Tom denying a group exists, yet adding people to a template for it. So those people belong to a non-existent group? What exactly was the inclusion criteria that Tom was working with when he reverted others and added people? Maybe you can answer since you like to talk for Tom. --NuclearZer0 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I'm mistaken. What standard of membership do you apply? Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting you are wrong. I hope in the future you will cease adding or removing people since you admit to not knowing. I will agf and assume you were just ignorant to the topic and not purposely vandalizing it. --NuclearZer0 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting you are wrong. I hope in the future you will cease adding or removing people since you admit to not knowing. I will agf and assume you were just ignorant to the topic and not purposely vandalizing it. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will also be noted, unless you want to apologize for it. --NuclearZer0 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • group /grup/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[groop] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

    • 1. any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation: a group of protesters; a remarkable group of paintings.
    • 2. a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.

This is the definition from Dictionary.com, any objection to this Tom? Nto sure what definition of group you keep reffering to. I also dont get your redundant pointless arguement that a movement isnt a group unless they signed something or had a charter. Go argue on the Civil Rights Movement template about its list if you honestly feel that way, else I am done discussing the issue with you, you have grown quite rude and its already been noted your "incidents" regarding this template. --NuclearZer0 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I apologize for confusing the two. Neither seems to be making much sense lately. But the 911tm, by definition (at least as we recognize it in the 911tm article, quoted by Tom in the above reference), does not have "members". Change the article, if you want the template to reflect it.
But this is the wrong place to discuss it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a proper response, you shouldnt rush to the aid of people without fully researching the issue. --NuclearZer0 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized your clear and persistent error before. I did research the issue in regard the template. He's in the template, he should link to the template. Period. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since I can't revert your removal of the clearly appropriate template Template:911ct under WP:3RR, I'll put the link in here. I'll unwiki it when it reappears in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? Who said he doesn't belong in a 9/11 conspiracy template? Stop reinserting the personal attack please --NuclearZer0
I'm asking you to revert your removal of the clearly appropriate template from this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is being removed because its being edit warred over, making it unstable and its content not reliable. If you stopped edit warring on it I would not revert. Until then please stop your personal attacks. PS noone has stated the template isnt appropriate. Well it might possibly not be since its being edit war'd over and changing every 2 minutes I cannot say 100%--NuclearZer0 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus "Conspiracy Theory" version of the template is being actively edited, in spite of multiple reverts to "Alternate theory" and "controlled demolition" versions which are not being edited to correct the article lists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds liek you are saying there is an edit war on it? Not sure what your point is, I think I stated this already as well. --NuclearZer0 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an edit war against clear concensus that conspiracy theory should be used. Why should the template be different than anything else on Wikipedia? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I do not promote edit warring on all articles on Wikipedia, not sure why you would, but I guess it may explain other things. I guess this conversation is done unless you want to continue the battle of witty responses. --NuclearZer0 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is improper to fail to include an article because of an edit war on it; the correct thing to do is to stop the edit war. As you are one of the primary proponents for two non-concensus versions of the template, you are already promoting edit warring on those articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are not done with witty responses? please stop already, you are making this look like a joke. You are participating in the revert war, you want t ocontinue to do so fine, you want to be the bigger person, or actually use the talk page, those would be a great help. You have something more to say post it on my talk. --NuclearZer0 11
52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you mad at him for? Edit warring, or continually replying to your remarks? More importantly, shouldn't disputes about article content be on the article talk page instead of a user's? Why can't you resolve this on template talk? It seems likely that 911ct will be kept, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Why not resolve your disputes on the template first? Cool Hand Luke 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the attempt to do\this properly and by consensus [here. All constructive contributions towards building a consensus are welcome Fiddle Faddle 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsensical statements to serve the purpose of labelling[edit]

>>"Although his work is the basis of many 9/11 conspiracy theories, Jones himself maintains that more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about the collapses."

What "other" conspiracy theories is Jones' work the basis for??? And especially if he himself calls for more research? The demolition ht was around long before Jones was on the scene, so he didn't "create" that theory nor exclusively promote it, so how on earth could his work then be a "basis"? Which "conspiracy theories" - specifically, ones purporting a criminal conspiracy among individuals - are being referred to here? To say that someone else's "conspiracy theory" is using Jones's work as its basis would have to be a theory which came out after 2005 when Jones went public, and which involves a criminal conspiracy based on the use of thermite. Please provide a link to the new "conspiracy theory" which is based on Jones' work specifically. bov 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "used as justification" rather than "basis". Your revision is clearly biased. Perhaps we can still discuss this on the talk page before you get blocked for disruptive editing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above remark by Arthur Rubin was completely uncalled for, and his accompanying edit summary beyond the pale. Please adopt a more civil tone. Ombudsman 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revision in question was cited in the Nuclear arbcom enforcement procedings as being rejected by the community, so that any attempt to reinsert it should be considered vandalism. The edit summary is perhaps slightly less inappropriate than this section header. And User:Bov has been blocked for 3RR (and probably would have been more often if we'd kept track of his IP addresses; apparently he has trouble logging in. I'm not saying he's trying to avoid 3RR violations by failing to log in, but it does make it more difficult to detect which of the IP edits are by him and which by banned users.) But I shouldn't have done it, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Evidence's changes[edit]

A user named "Hardevidence" attempted to make some changes, most of which are corrections, and I happen to know this user is Dr. Jones himself, as he contacted me. Yet, these efforts were removed without any regard. For example, Dr. Jones attempted to correct that fact that Judy Woods' position is now "former." This was eliminated. No request for citation, just removed. He also attempted to clarify some of the scientific statements but again, just removed.

In particular he told me directly that the statement "His experiments initially used a diamond anvil to create high pressures" is completely false. His attempt to correct that was also removed.

Why would a statement without any source be preferred on wikipedia when someone is clearly attempting to remove that statement to correct it? Why is any change to the page treated as vandalism if someone is not a known official version promoter? It's a pathetic atmosphere on here -- protect the obvious and unsourced errors instead of bothering to even look at the content of the attempted corrections.

I'm going in revert the last reversion until someone can actually address the issues. bov 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Hardevidence really is Jones, he absolutely, positively should not be editing the article except to remove misstatements. Ask him to describe what he wants on this page, and we will consider whether his "corrections" are appropriate. Some of the ones you (User:Bov) added were attempts to bias the article to his POV, but some of the others may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>>Ask him to describe what he wants on this page
He obviously did, in his edits. I did mention to him that he isn't supposed to edit his own page and that I would start a discussion on his corrections on the discussion page. But simply reverting the corrections is not productive - why don't you do the research to show that statements made without any sources at all are actually supported in the sources if you are going to put them back in, rather than putting them back in and then tagging it as unsourced? They should be removed first if there are questions about them, not left in with tags to say the whole page is questionable. bov 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, one of those changes is to correct Judy Wood's title to FORMER. How hard is that to find out, Arthur? It not rocket science. Yet you just revert any changes and add tags to put the page in disarray, and then leave. That's hardly editing, that's just reverting any changes made at all by someone you don't agree with -- nothing more. I see zero editing work here, only a goal to block certain users from ever making a single change. Over and over I've seen you reverting to versions with completely incorrect links and efforts to associate people with hoaxes that you have no idea of what you are talking about. bov 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He added unsourced material, or material sourced only on his website. The present revision here seems more-or-less acceptable. As for the {{totallydisputed}} tag: I didn't revert the text from your reversion to Jones's edit. I just added the tag. If the edits which User:Tom harrison removed are reinserted, the tag goes back on, and you get blocked for 3RR again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "9-11 Truth Movement"[edit]

Let's get real, here. The first rule of an encyclopedia article is that it should be truthful. Nobody sane & honest calls 9-11 conspiracy nuts a "truth movement."

YES THEY DO.

Consider, for comparison, the KKK. The top of the Ku Klux Klan web page preposterously proclaims that it represents, "A Message of Love NOT Hate!" Does that mean that Wikipedia's article on the KKK should credulously describe it that way? Of course not! To do so would be dishonest, because that description is plainly wrong. If such a description were to be used, it necessarily should be accompanied by an indication (like "so-called") to warn readers that the description is deceptive, just as calling 9-11 conspiracy nuts a "truth movement" is deceptive, because that description is plainly wrong. NCdave 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits violate Wikipedia policies. But, because I think the sentences are more correct as you put it, I'm not going to argue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording to "self-described", as I think that carries the meaning without adding commentary. --Guinnog 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is reasonable, thank you. NCdave 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>"The first rule of an encyclopedia article is that it should be truthful. Nobody sane & honest calls 9-11 conspiracy nuts a "truth movement."

Actually, they do.
I said "sane." I didn't say nobody calls the conspiracy nuts a "truth movement." I said nobody sane and honest calls 9-11 conspiracy nuts a "truth movement," which is right. Anyone who honestly thinks that 9-11 was an "inside job" is most certainly not sane. (Also, Bov & 59.190.19.240, please sign your comments with four tildes.) NCdave 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming your opinion as a fact is not a proof of anything, its just plain arrogance.KevinFrom (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly irrelevant. No reliable source calls it a "truth movement". Even though there is (IMO) no truth to it, my opinion is irrelevant to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I would say that anyone who realizes that 9-11 was an inside job, they are extremely sane. it's becoming clearer with every new discovery that the evidence supports this conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.52.107 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of us started out believing the Bush regime's press releases when they were read on network news programs, it took a remarkable degree of honesty when we had to admit to ourselves that we had been deceived. I would opine that anyone who calls the 9/11 Truth Movement "conspiracy nuts" needs a lot of love.

Too bad none of the studies were done by the Bush Administration. Maybe read the reports yourself instead of letting other people tell you what they say? Wowest 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who think that collapse was a controled demolition ask for a new investigation. People who think that oficial conspiracy theory is true, do not ask for new investigations.

People who use the phrase "oficial conspiracy theory" have no idea what the first investigation said and are merely parroting other truthers. Start simple and get real studies published in real journals rather than using fake ones a la Dr. Jones, or posting on youtube. People who do not like investigations have something to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.203.125 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hypothesis vs. Theory[edit]

In ordinary speech, the word theory can mean any idea, including ideas that either have no validity or questionable validity. "That's just your theory," she said.

In science and engineering, a "theory" represents information that is accepted widely enough that it is treated as fact by mainstream professionals (but--to placate naysayers--yes, even science recognizes that nothing, not even the theories of Relativity and Quantum mechanics can be shown as 100% fact).

Mr. Jones' idea was merely a hypotheses.

I believe that the main article's reference to this as a theory is inappropriate given its claim to scientific accuracy. It was never peer reviewed and published, much less widely accepted by mainstream professionals (in the civil engineering world, in this case) and treated as fact.

RainOfSteel 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly correct, RainOfSteel. Unfortunately I see that your three one-word edits to the article were reverted without so much as a comment here on the talk page. I will restore your contribution. If someone has a problem with that, please discuss it here. NCdave 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he calles it a theory. It's not correct, even in science and engineering, that a theory is necessarily supported by facts. The person reverting it should have commented, I suppose. (And you should be consistent. The "theory" that Jesus Christ visited the Mayans is also unsupported by fact.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In common usage, an hypothesis requires some basis in fact, while a theory may be totally bogus. Hence, it would be wrong to call them hypotheses in common usage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly right about my lack of consistency. Oops!
Regarding the words theory and hypothesis, I checked the American Heritage dictionary, and it appears that we're both right about the word "theory." Your use is consistent with definition 6, and RainOfSteel's/mine is consistent with definition 1. As compared to those two definitions of "theory," it appears that the word "hypothesis" implies less support for the belief than definition 1 of "theory," but not less than definition 6. I still prefer the word "hypothesis" in this case, but my science/math background is probably biasing me. NCdave 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
definition 1 beats definition 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. That's how dictionaries work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.52.107 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

No evidence has been presented that the book is "peer-reviewed". In fact, books, even scientfic books (which this is not), are rarely "peer-reviewed". They may be reviewed by the editor.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone in here actualy read his paper ? Evadinggrid (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid[reply]

Peer review, again[edit]

The topic discussed over and over. Arthur, if your argument is there is no source for peer review - here is one: [5] It's cached because original article needs subsription to read. I remember reading about this in 2 or 3 articles in serious newspapers. It was stated that Jones's paper was peer reviewed by 4 PhD's, 2 of them physicists. I'm sure more can be found. SalvNaut 23:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That asserts it's peer-reviewed, but doesn't indicate its source. It could have come from Jones. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the chronicle article says "Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press." the olive branch press mission statement says "We endeavor to glorify and serve God, by educating, edifying and entertaining His people. We will do this by providing quality materials that help to develop a Biblical worldview. We desire to be used by God to draw non-believers into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and believers to a closer walk with Him." it does not seem likely to me that olive branch press conducted the kind of peer review that is ordinarily applied by scientific societies. Peterhoneyman 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"That asserts it's peer-reviewed, but doesn't indicate its source. It could have come from Jones." This is remarkably nit-picky. Dr. Jones is a remarkably honest, careful and under-stated man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why he retired instead of having BYU complete his audit? Is that why he created his own peer review system, sort of like creationists do? Is that why they published in a pay for publish journal? Is that why he "welcomed" Griscom to the 9/11 Truth community when Griscom was published in the Jo9/11S years earlier & was acknowledged in the very study he was supposed to be anonymously reviewing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.98.196 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an academic peer review and a Web page that the author's friends have endorsed on digg.com. Prof. Jones has written a number of papers for peer-reviewed journals (though probably many fewer than Prof. Honeyman) so he knows the difference. Please pardon my cynicism for suspecting Prof. Jones's motives for publishing pseudoscience in a non-scientific venue and then allowing it to be described as a peer-reviewed paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karish c (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a person had actualy read the paper they would realise that your arguing over Galeilo's Law of Falling Bodies.... I think that is accepted by most scientists and a paper centred on that law is not really subject to peer review. Evadinggrid (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid[reply]

Major Edits Without Discussion[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of massive non-neutral editing of content on here without discussion by anonymous sources. It looks like the page should be reverted to a much earlier version. I will implement this soon if no one else corrects the new edits. bov 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a lot of prominent displays of the phrase "conspiracy theory" and its variations. This is an ad hominim attack, using the widespread meme "paranoid conspiracy theory" to implicitly defame anyone who questions the official Bush regime legends regarding 9/11. A statement is neither invalid nor indicative of mental illness if it suggests that a false flag operation is taking place. There have been numerous such operations in modern history. Our CIA has overthrown numerous legitimate governments since World War Two

Please learn what ad hom is. Nowhere in the article does it say "x person has such characteristic, therefore they are wrong". Before further commenting on anything regarding 9/11 read the studies yourself instead of proving you never did by baselessly claiming they "Bush Regime Legends". It only proves you never even cracked a single study on the topic.

How about if you discuss which "non-neutral" content you wish to remove before you do so? I'd like to see the terms "conspiracy theory" and "9/11 Truth Movement" given equal prominence since the number of Americans who would support either term is about equal.

Wowest 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're waiting, I propose changing the opening sentence from Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. to Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist, inventor, retired physics professor, philanthropist and independent 9/11 researcher. He is also a devout, lifelong Mormon. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There's still no credible evidence that 9/11 conspiracy theory is not used significantly more often than 9/11 Truth Movement. The polls used to indicate that a majority or near-majority do not believe the official theories are usually written to count those who disbelieve any part of the official report. I might believe that the US military detected the flights being off course and didn't get the information to the appropriate people in time. If that's not part of the official report, that would put me in the 9/11 Truth camp. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, there's no reason for those other pieces of information to be in the first sentence. In fact, I'm not sure there's need for much of it in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said "There's still no credible evidence that 9/11 conspiracy theory is not used significantly more often than 9/11 Truth Movement." That's true. There is also no credible evidence that "nigger" is not used significantly more often than "black." However, black Americans do not like other people calling them "niggers." It is pejorative. Adherents of the 9-11 Truth Movement, including people who "might believe that the US military detected the flights being off course and didn't get the information to the appropriate people in time" do not like being called "conspiracy theorists." It is pejorative. It is exactly the same issue. Wowest 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THAT being said, I'm noticing that far too much space in the article is devoted to a tedious and distorted discussion of events leading Dr. Jones to retire from BYU. He was asked "whodunnit" in a radio interview. He replied that that was outside his area of expertise. He was pressured to guess and replied by naming two neocons and an "international banking cabal." Based upon that, he was falsely accused of being anti-Semitic, and the ADL demanded an investigation into whether he made anti-Semitic statements in his classes. Two days later, he was placed on paid leave from his teaching duties pending an investigation of his speculative conjectures. The whole discussion is irrelevant, inconsequential and non-NPV and should be deleted. Wowest 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There's not much evidence that people call themselves associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, either. I still think that article needs to be renamed. But that's another issue. If I believe the theory mentioned, I'd neither be a 9/11 conspiracy theorists nor a 9/11 Truth Movement adherant, but I'd be counted as such by the polls.
  2. We've established that "conspiracy theorist" is not pejorative as used here. You may not accept it, but consensus has been reached.
  3. As far as I can tell, most of the people who use Jones's theories are clearly 9/11 conspiracy theorists under any definition, and are not clearly 9/11 Truth Movement adherants. But that may be WP:OR.
  4. We can add text to indicate that Jones, himself may be more-or-less sane. (The lead does not say he's a conspiracist, only that his theories are used by conspiracists.)
  5. As for his resignation from BYU, it's a signifcant fact that he was asked to resign. If we can determine the real reasons he was asked to resign (probably not what is presently in the article, but certainly not what you wrote), it should be included in the article.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion HERE, partly quoted below:

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=116439&forum_id=87

Posted: Sat Sep 16th, 2006 08:50 Soon after BYU asked Professor Jones to remove his paper speculating on the causes of the WTC collapse from the university server due to lack of peer review, Jones was suspended with pay, with little explanation beyond the 'speculative' and 'accusatory' nature of some of his claims, and some hints that it may be examining whether any of this was entering his classroom. I initially felt it likely that his suspension would turn out to be another example of BYU's strict and allegedly moral codes impinging on academic freedom. Turns out...not so much.

From here: 

   The action came two days after Jones appeared on KUER-FM 90.1's respected news talk show "Radio West." On the show, he said it appeared responsibility for the attacks rested with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and an "international banking cartel."
         The statement drew immediate response from Jews who said they were offended because references to international banking have for decades been used by anti-Semitic groups as codespeak to blame Jews for various problems. Hitler often blamed "international financiers" for Germany's debt after World War I.
         A spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League said he will recommend in a committee meeting tomorrow that the ADL send a letter to BYU complaining about the comments and expressing concern that such comments might be made by Jones in his classes. BYU relieved Jones of his teaching load this semester while it conducts a formal review of his research and statements.
         "Wow, I don't know if he could be any clearer," said Jonathan Bernstein, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League for California, Utah and Hawaii. "This is the language we hear from David Duke and other hatemongers who want to scapegoat Jews."

Professor Jones claims ignorance about the term's significance, and came out with a brilliant 'but I'm just repeating the lies of others!' comment: 

   He wasn't sure where he got the phrase because he was referring to the work of Webster Tarpley, a historian and member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group co-founded by Jones. Tarpley refers only to a shadowy, rogue network, not to international bankers.

Given the noted antisemitism which has pervaded the 9/11 denial movement from its early origins; Messrs Wolfowitz and Perles' ethnicities, and conspiracy nuts' penchant for claiming coincidence necessitates collusion and lies, will conspiracy theorists conclude that Professor Jones is not being completely frank with his explanation?

In all honesty it's likely he genuinely did pick up the term from one of his fellows in the movement without having any idea that his fellow nutjob was a Jew hating racist scumbag -- God knows enough lies propagate throughout the movement without being critically examined. There's plenty of potential candidates, so we may never track down where he picked it up. And BYU is still retarded, it just hasn't acted improperly in this instance.

I'll finish with a brilliant money quote, my bold: 

   "In the past, numerous times I deferred to those experts," Jones said. "This time I said, in my opinion, (Tarpley's) right. But I also think that's way outside the research I specialize in. I think it's smarter to leave the tasks of who should be investigated to those who specialize in those things."

Posted: Sat Sep 16th, 2006 05:56 pm

"In all honesty it's likely he genuinely did pick up the term from one of his fellows in the movement without having any idea that his fellow nutjob was a Jew hating racist scumbag"

You're probably right. I can easily see someone being unaware of the historical antisemitic baggage that a description like "international banking cartel" would have. That didn't send up read flags for me when I read it.

But Jones has moved from "asking questions" to slandering specific people without anything resembling serious evidence, so I don't blame BYU for being concerned. Any company would be concerned if an employee repeatedly associated with the company starts off on a public obsession with slandering public officials with accusations of mass murder based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Posted: Sun Sep 17th, 2006 08:28 pm

So the term "international banking cartel" is somehow deemed "anti-semitic"??

That's quite a reach, since there are probably hundreds of "international banking cartels". Just so happens that perle and wolfowitz are jews, along with the majority of the PNAC membership. They could just as easily have been Irish catholics, or Chinese buddhists.

"Anti-semite" is a whopper in itself, since the only true "semites" are the native Arabs, not the European jews who moved in with them.

We live in a bizarre world of lies, half-truths, warped realities, politically-correct misnomers, and ever-deepening bullsh!t. No need to take much of it seriously.

(end of quotation) Wowest 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from your argument, Arthur, ....[edit]

Because of your errors in Wikiformat, it's difficult to read, but your source appears to be a blog, which cannot be used as a reference, or even an external link, without evidence that the individual bloggers are separately reliable sources. From the disclaimer at the bottom of the page "Content is responsibility of authors & is not necessarily fact." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously new to this side of Wikipedia, Arthur. I don't even know for sure how to start a new section here, which I think we need. I may be misreading you, but it appears to me that saying that "content is responsibility of authors & is not necessarily fact" sounds like a bit of a cop out. Don't people read encyclopedias to obtain factual information?

Yes, it's a simple cut-and-paste from a blog. It is not presented as proposed content, but merely to point out to you that sources which appear to be more reliable than you have been in this discussion disagree with your assessment that it was not about the unfounded accusation of antisemitism. I say more reliable because they cite station call-letters, dates and the names of people who have made public comments.

The fact that, according to various professional organizations, BYU acted in a way which violated Steven Jones's right to academic freedom, and their excuses for doing so are not particularly relevant to an article about Steven Jones, but might be relevant to an article about BYU.

I don't have enough time remaining in my life for deprogramming every True Believer in whatever-the-administration-puts-in-its-news-releases-to -their-captive-media. You believe whatever you are told to believe unless you have reason to believe otherwise. I believed the official story about 9/11 for a number of months. If I had never in my life recognized that I had had unexamined beliefs that were, in fact, not true -- if I believed that I believed whatever I believed because it was true -- it would have been more difficult for me to snap out of it. However, if you weren't convinced that I and people like me are wrong about this issue you wouldn't take the positions you do.

The 9/11 Truth Movement involves a lot of people with differing opinions. We recognize that we have been lied to by our government, and we believe that we have a right to be told the truth. Beyond that, we pick and choose which alternative explanations we will tentatively embrace as seeming the most likely to lead to the truth. Or to truth and justice, if that is a person's bent. Some members of our community embrace impossible theories. No, the twin towers were NOT brought down by Star Wars particle beams from outer space. That sort of thing only works, at this point in time, in Science Fiction.

You have every right to hold an opinion about all of this, of course, and you have a right to be emotional about your opinion, although that will tend to make you less objective about it. Right after 9/11, when everyone was in shock, people were sticking American flags on their cars and speeding up and down Reseda Blvd. Somehow that was going to fix things. The more of that sort of thing someone did, the more stuck they will be. That's called cognitive dissonance. Wowest 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... back to the article[edit]

This article still distorts the life of Steven Jones, to date. I assert that it is equally important that he is (1) a physicist, (2) a retired professor, (3) an inventor, (4) a philanthropist, (5) an independent expert researching the WTC collapse, (6) a person with a controversial opinion about 9/11 and (7) a devout, lifelong Mormon, whose behavior is consistent with his epistemlogy and ethics.

Wowest 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is by far best known for his goal-driven non-scientific conspiracy theory physics. What is "equally important" to him personally is not encyclopedically equally important. If he wishes to expose personal trivia maybe he could get a MySpace page. Weregerbil 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Is is best known for his completely scientific analysis of formerly molten metal retrieved from the WTC and of the iron rich spheroids found in the dust from the WTC. The fact that this information is better explained by the "controlled demolition" hypothesis than by the "19 insane hijacker conspirators did it all by themselves" hypothesis is not the fault of the data. Neither is the fact that the controlled demolition hypothesis is better explained by one of numerous conspiracy theories than by anything in the mainstream corporate media. THAT is the fault of the once-reliable mainstream corporate media. Jones is much better known among people interested in refugee relief and feeding the hungry for the solar funnel cooker/refrigerator he invented.

The only purely goal-driven pseudo-science comes from the NIST, FEMA and others with tweaked, unrealistic computer-model explanations and their intellectual heirs, the 9/11 Commission. A whistleblower has now leaked the blueprints for the twin towers, exposing more of the lies in the 9/11 Commission/Omission report. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by me, he is best known for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion, with major papers in nature and scientific american. go figure. Peterhoneyman 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... what we fail to grasp ...[edit]

What you fail to grasp, is the motivation inherent to these luminaries of the 911 conspiracy theorists movement. With the money that has flowed into the 911 'truthmovement'; many of its cult leaders (including retired Prof. Jones) are making some serious money out of selling their unproven and unsubstantiated theories to the gullible. Perhaps Prof. Jones and the others would like to explain why they haven't contributed any of the literally tens of millions of dollars they have generated and donated them to the relatives of the victims, or better still used their profits to start a legal case to bring about a judicial review of their allegations and claims? Every time they are challenged to do so, the same old lame excuses start to flow from their supporters. Perhaps, it’s about time that they showed the courage of their convictions and stopped throwing stones from the protection they hide behind by bringing accusations unencumbered by any fear of retribution for making such wild claims which are devoid of any tangible forensic or engineering evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.41.130 (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know something, anonymous poster? This post doesn't tell us much about anyone but you. It tells us quite a lot about you. Professor Jones is making serious money? From the royalties on one chapter of a book which is probably not a best seller? From his websites, which are free? He doesn't sell tee shirts or DVD's. Maybe you're confusing him with Alex Jones, who has quite a few products for sale.
Cult leaders? Surely you're talking about Bush and Cheney.
Who is making "wild claims" ... "from the protection they hide behind?" I only see one anonymous poster doing that right now.

Wowest 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually editing under an IP is less anonymous than editing under a username. And please comment on the editor and not the edit and try to be a little more civil. Thanks. RxS 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. -- the edit is pointlessly derogatory, ascribing some petty motive to Steven Jones, and probably without a bit of truth to the accusation. Whatever became of WP:BLP ? Wowest 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... back to the article again ? ...[edit]

I would risk a claim that using the "conspiracy theory" concept without "" is violation of NPOV, since it's such a heavily emotionaly biased description. Mik1984 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could risk it, but you would be wrong. His 9/11 theories are clearly what are commonly known as conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then a meritorious discussion is made significantly harder. There is more than enough evidence to consider the JFK or 911 theories(yes this evidence exists, some people do not simply have the ability to choose the right link to click at at Google results.)at least as an justified opinion, whereas UFO theories have been well disproved by multiple, clearly independent sources, whereas the only thing looking like something scientific to prove the 911 official story of WTC "collapses" is made by an organization that has its boss appointed by the Dubya and it's not even peer reviewed, never defended in a debate and announced almost solely on press conferences. What would you think about an expertise under a trial of some Don Gambini and as evidence of his innocence a ballistic expertize made by his son in law? Or would you have called someone crazy if he demands an independent one.Mik1984 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm not attempting to defend the mainstream analyses, just to point out the Jones's theories are conspiracy theories as commonly understood. Defending the mainstream analyses would be over there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Jones's theories are "conspiracy theories," as commonly understood. However, the term "conspiracy theories," as commonly understood, includes the connotation "paranoid," which is a key part of the meme, as witness the frequent anonymous edits including words like "wingnut" and "bullshit." The term has been inherently defamatory since the mid-to-late 1960's, although it was seen in print, rarely, decades earlier.

.

People have sent Jones samples of formerly molten metal and WTC dust, which he has had analyzed. The microspheres in the dust, like the formerly molten metal, contain significant amounts of sulphur, aluminum, iron and various trace elements. The trace elements indicate that the iron in the sample was never structural steel, but the entire mixture is consistent with some variants of thermite. So far, no conspiracy theory. He has, however, stated publicly that, in his opinion, certain individuals and organizations were secretly behind the controlled demolition on 9/11. That, according to popular "wisdom" is a conspiracy theory. Wowest (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright to be completely rigid, we could assume that the theory that explosives were used is not a conspiracy theory by any way in itself. However given the assumption that those towers were destroyed by explosives, the claim that 911 is an inside job(which already can be called a conspiracy theory)is a logical 1 to 1 chance follow up. And that's the reason why those two things blend together, because of inescapable logical interconnection.
Secondly most of his activity concerns the first part of this duality, which can be called "alternative collapse theory" or similarly, however most of the stress is usually placed on the second one, which can be called "conspiracy theory". Can be, but should it be? You can call black people niggers, but should you?
My idea is to revolt against the concept itself. After all Nietsche has said that every concept is in fact a simplification overlooking the information which is unique about every single existing event it describes. This concept simply doesn't pass the test of usefulness. It puts JFK and Elvis is alive in one box and is very defamatory. It should rather IMHO be replaced by more accurate synonyms that are not as emotionally aggressive and act as a "thoughtstopper".
PS sorry it was me, I forgot to log in before commenting:)Mik1984 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are real conspiracies and real coverups. I reserve use of the term "conspiracy theorist" for someone who uses readers' fear and mistrust to get them to believe things that don't stand up to normal scrutiny. My discussions with a number of true believers suggest that the lever that tips them over into wingnuttery is the knowledge that they're being lied to by their government. They look for another authority they can believe completely, and organizations like 911truth.org present themselves for this role. Because some of what the government tells them is false they reject everything that comes from the government or from anyone who has any connection with the government. People feel a need for an authority they can trust completely, so they don't have to make their own judgments about individual issues.
Steven E. Jones panders to this mentality. He uses a favorite tactic of creation "science": come up with a little bit of evidence that seems to fit his own hypothesis better than it fits an accepted theory, then claim that he has falsified the accepted theory and that his hypothesis must therefore be the correct explanation. I heard him on the radio some months ago presenting his thermate hypothesis to an interviewer who was friendly and credulous. When she asked him how all that stuff was brought into the buildings he changed the subject by pretending not to understand the question. I can cite plenty of other howlers from his writings. He's a charlatan who uses fear of conspiracies to build his reputation.
The reason conspiracy theorists don't want to be called that is that they're trying to pretend that they're doing science and that they're providing useful ways to advance their readers' knowledge. There's no ethical reason for the reality-based community to defer to their preference not to be called on their bullshit. It's not an ad hominem argument to describe someone's actions using precise terms. Karish c (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please restrain from judging people's inner motives. Your post is full of generalizations and you haven't proved in anyway that Jones is "a charlatan".
Jones never responds to questions about "how all that stuff was brought into the buildings" because it's not a scientific question in his field - there is not enough data (at the moment) to put forward any testable hypothesis. What he claims is simply that it could have been done somehow (if this claim itself is too wild for you then you should use more imagination). Why would he start discussing topics on which there is no data (or rather little data, since there are reports of power downs and other strange events shortly before 9/11 in WTC), when he has a lot of other topics with data to discuss: wtc dust spectronometry, wtc7 collapse time, wtc fire temperatures, blac body radiation of material streaming from WTC before collapse, etc.
For the same reason you should restrain from judging Jones inner motives. Better read more into his claims[6][7].salVNaut (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jones did estimate the amount of explosives needed for demolition of the buildings, something around 550 kg per tower, which can be brought in one van, as well as the fact that all of the core colums were perfectly accessible from the elevator shafts, as well as the fact that the director of the security company was Marvin Bush.
You have to take into consideration that this were office buildings, nobody sleeps there. At night you have only security and maintenance personel. If the watchdogs are run by an insider, it's easy to work at night pretending you are "repairing the elevator".Mik1984 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Bentham Open Publication[edit]

I tried to update the article with this recent news but it keeps being reverted for no good reason:

However the quality of Bentham Open publications has recently been called into question, suggesting that no valid peer review of Jone's paper actually took place. The Chief Editor of the journal Jones published the paper in has resigned saying that she never authorized the publication of the paper and did not consider it worthy of publication in the Journal and that its publication may have been politically motivated; other editors have also resigned from the Journal. The validity and rigour of the results in the Bentham Open paper is thus questionable. [1]. Bentham Open is a publisher based in the United Arab Emirates and apparently managed by personell in Pakistan leading to speculation that it is biased on 9/11 topics; further other Bentham Open publications have been accused by academics of 'spamming' researchers with offers to publish or edit the journal, even where those researchers have no background in the field of study. [2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.91.35.75 (talk • contribs) 01:47, April 29, 2009

Hmmm. I don't think it's relevent to Jones; however, if adequately sourced, it's relevant to the CDT (Controlled demolition theory) article, and any other article where Bentham Open publications are quoted as a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, shocking. It is worse than I thought. Good work to the OP (Isn't a bot supposed insert someone's name or IP address if they forget the four tildes?). I would think that if there are any articles that use Bentham as a cite, we probably need to remove both the article content as well as the cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not suitable for Jones' bio. A few pages already link to Bentham Science Publishers. I don't know if there are enough reliable sources to support an article. Tom Harrison Talk 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Sorry about that. I was responding to the second paragraph and missed the first. This wouldn't be appropriate for Jones' bio. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvidenskab.dk%2Fcontent%2Fdk%2Fnaturvidenskab%2Fchefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911&sl=da&tl=en&history_state0=
  2. ^ http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html
  3. ^ http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

Open Chemical Physics Journal article[edit]

The Open Chemical Physics Journal now has a new editor-in-chief: [8]

Prof. Lucio Frydman, Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

  Cs32en  21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Bentham Publishing[edit]

Hi Arthur,

I do not agree with your recent edit. The author of the article that is being used as a source here is Norman Oder (not Phil Davis). Norman Oder describes the person who makes the statement which is the main focus of his article as "Cornell University librarian and graduate student Phil Davis". We should always state the source of criticism if we include criticism in WP articles. The source of the criticism is Phil Davis (and others), and Norman Oder is reporting on him (and other). Norman Oder is not drawing conclusions of his own in the article. Therefore, we cannot report on the "drawing into question" as some kind of fact, but we can report on the statements by Phil Davis and others, and we should follow the language of the our sources when doing so. I am looking forward to hearing about your further thoughts on this issue.  Cs32en  00:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He reports it was drawn into question. The fact that it's been questioned by many others, including the editor of one of the journals, seems we shouldn't mininize the degree of question, even if we don't presently have adequate reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot synthesize the conclusion that Bentham Publishing's peer review process was drawn into question from a report on critical statements about journals published by Bentham Publishing. The only statements that the WP:RS source itself makes are, as far as I see: (a) it accepted a hoax article (b) it has an ambitious strategy (c) there was a negative reaction to its recruitment of contributors.  Cs32en  01:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. However, the the multiple usenet threads commenting on this, although (mostly) not individually reliable, clearly indicate that the journals peer-review process is called into question. That is not synthesis, but just observation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does report, however, that a paper (which seems to be Jones' paper, although the article only specifies it by reference to a blog) was published without the knowledge of the journal's editor. That seems stronger than a statement that the peer-review process is questioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unnecessary, as the editor resigned because of publication. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be an observation based on non-reliable sources. We do not accept such observations elsewhere, and we shouldn't do so in this case. Aside from that, I am pretty sure that the author of the article based his statement that the journal's editor did not know about the article solely on her (the editor's) statement on this matter, and does not have any independent evidence that would corroborate that statement.  Cs32en  13:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the new editor-in-chief of the journal, Lucio Frydman (see section above) apparently chose not to remove the paper from the journal's website, which would not be difficult to do if the review process of the paper would have been indeed seriously flawed. (He might have other reasons not to remove the paper even if the review process was flawed, but it would be interesting to know these other reasons in that case.)  Cs32en  13:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

There is objection to the following sentence in the lede:

In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University.

Although it's clear to any rational observer, and supported by some newspaper articles (as noted in the body), that the leave was due to the controversy, we're not saying that. We're only saying that the controversy and the leave occurred at the same time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the "objection" is an objection raised by Arthur Rubin. I think that this issue is undue in the lead section, and it is described in more detail in the body of the article (including the causal relationship). The lead section overall needs to be rewritten, as, for example, the wording "Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion" does not give factual description of his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. It simply states that he was known for it, as if there would be nothing more to say about it other than that it drew the attention of the public.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wtc Demolition Theory[edit]

one thing: this part says: "Jones suggested that the evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors explosive demolition, possibly by the use of thermite or nanothermite." But "thermite or nanothermite" are not explosives. Not at all. It's a contradiction in itself.Idonthavetimeforthiscrap (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscrap (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, changed "explosive" in the tag to "controlled". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that raw thermite and nanothermite are incendiaries; not explosives. Jones has quoted various authoritative sources on nanothermite who have written that nanothermite can be tailored to function as an explosive by introducing additives which rapidly release gas when the thermitic material burns. Page 29 of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper, to which Jones was a contributor reads: "The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration." Since Jones has acknowledged that the exact formulation of the alleged thermitic material (with regards to the carbon content) has not been established, Arthur Rubin's change from "explosive" to "controlled" appears to be appropriate. Wildbear (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pretty big ignorance of how demolitions work in my book, but hey, original research is not allowed, so... well i just wanted to underline how such a claim is completely absurd. Cya.Idonthavetimeforthiscrap (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Professor Marie-Paule Pileni[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_destruction_controversy

These two sentences:

"The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[40][41] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[42][43]"

Seem to be orphaned. Why did she resign? and when asked for her assessment, what did she say? The article leaves us hanging.

Sojambi Pinola (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site explains it better: She resigned because the article was published without her permission. And she was supposedly the editor in chief of the publication:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

Perhaps someone can fix this? Maybe it was better explained in an earlier version of the page, and it has been damaged over time. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Steven E. Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Steven E. Jones. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Steven E. Jones. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence with no basis in citation removed[edit]

I've removed the below sentence, which has no basis in the sourced citation. The sentence itself is also confusing and poorly written, i.e., "still more ostensible", "efficacy of the review process", etc. The article makes no mention of Jones or his papers.

Skepticism arose as to the efficacy of the peer-review process, and conspiracy theorists responded to refutations by positing still more ostensible cover-ups.[1] Researcher2022 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Theory vs. the Facts, Slate, Jeremy Stahl, September 7, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_E._Jones&oldid=1207856573"