Talk:Paul Thompson (researcher)

message: I believe it should not be merged since its already been stated that 'The Terror Timeline' is deserving of its own article. The book has been the foundation of a website, used by the Attorney Generals Office, used by terrorism experts to teach others at Harvard, used as a basis for a movie, and published by a highly recognized publishing house. On top of that seperatly Paul Thompson has been regarded as a terrorism expert, called before Congress to testify on his knowledge, cited by Esquire in their "Genius Issue", is an established author who's work was published in a major publisher, and has participated in over 100 interviews on his personal research, only some of which went into the book, interview locations including Fox News and Air America. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: Please highlight what you feel is a false statement in the article, provide the quote and attached source. If this is not done in 3 days I will remove the tag. Please note the tag tells you to start a talk page discussion. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: " over 100 interviews across various media outlets," is misleading. It's 100 radio interviews and two tv appearances. "congressional briefing" is inaccurate. It was not a congressional briefing, which has a specific meaning. Your enforced removal of "though he has no done no studies or training," which is a near quote from the Esquire article you state says that "recognition by some as "an authority on terrorism," though that quote is unsupported by the text (the full quote reads "He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism."). Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but source states its a congressional briefing, you said so yourself as well when complaining it wasnt a hearing. Various outlets ... lets see we have radio, tv and print .. sounds like various. You removed the authority for the no training, why not add the full quote, that I would support. --NuclearZer0 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a briefing for members of congress, not a congressional breifing, as it was not conducted by a recognized comittee or subcomittee. If you support my version with minor changes, instead of reverting, and falling afoul of the 3rr rule, please reinstate my version with whatever changes, not reversions, you wish to make. I am happy to hash it out on the article page as opposed to the talk page, and will even consent to file no reversion reports if you consent to do the same, and at the same time consent to not revert my edits in whole or part, but rather to modify. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you attempting to blackmail me with the 3RR? please stop. Says congressional briefing, get over it. The title is "July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?" --NuclearZer0 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not blackmailing anyone, I'm offering you a way out. If you include that McKinney was the sponsor of the so-called briefing, I would be willing to pass on the innacurate language.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You havent proven anything to be inaccurate. The source says its a congressional briefing, if you have a source that states otherwise please present it, then we will weigh them against eachother. --NuclearZer0 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about this - "No." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when you have a source let me know. Till then you will be removing sourced information and that is vandalism, consider this a notice. --NuclearZer0 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False statements?

message: The village voice article does not appear to be an interview. Why do we believe it was? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, noted its not an interview, but an article about him and his research, thank you. --NuclearZer0 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village voice interview? 

message: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination), the closing Admin stated as follows:  "The result was Merge and redirect to his book."  This article was improperly re-created in open defiance of the closing Admin's directive.  Morton devonshire 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you are wrong.  Admins say otherwise. --NuclearZer0 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future please do not remove evidence contrary to your point, someone assuming bad faith would think you were trying to hide it. Luckily I know you as an editor and am aware you wouldn't. --NuclearZer0 13:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I was right.  See the re-re-redirect of Paul Thompson (researcher) -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29.  The Illuminated Master 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but now Terror Timeline will never fail a AfD. =), so easy, I guess you took the wrong cup. --NuclearZer0 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you eat an elephant?  Small bites.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improperly Re-Created

message: There really is a problem if the only sources of critical (in the sense of analytical) review are magazines like Esquire and the Village Voice.  Like many articles in the "truther" walled garden, we are treating as an academic treatise something which has absolutely no academic peer review, and for which the majority of coverage comes from people looking for ways to avoid the bulk of the evidence and thus bolster predefined conclusions. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt about a conspiracy so I am not sure what you are talking about, also he is not noted as a academic but as a researcher. As for comments like ""truther" walled garden" I think your bias is clearly showing now. How do you peer review a person anyway? The book was a collection of articles etc, it wasnt proposing anything ... Do you know about this topic? --NuclearZer0 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "truthertalk", anybody can be a "researcher".  Paul Thompson isn't even his real name.  Morton devonshire 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the WP:RS sources seem to think otherwise. Lucky we do not practice WP:OR here to write something other then our sources say. --NuclearZer0 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think those are WP:RS?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are from newspapers and major publications. Feel free to read over WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 04:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that supermarket tabloids are WP:RS?  If not, explain why these sources are different.  If so, the problem is with WP:RS.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supermarket tabloid? Sorry but you are not being specific, last I checked Congress people did not have their own supermarket tabloids. Reffering to Esquire (magazine)? I wikilinked it so you can read about it if you were honestly complaining about Esquire. What exactly are you talking about? --NuclearZer0 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unofficial Congressional "committee" reports should not be considered WP:RS, except as to the intent of the committee.  They frequently lie about what they actually do.  As for Esquire (magazine), I'm not certain.  I do know that Omni (magazine) frequently confused fact with fiction, and should not be consdered a WP:RS except as to what they actually said.  The Village Voice is not known for researching their articles — but, neither is the New York Times, so I suppose we shouldn't hold it against them.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with WP:RS sources being WP:RS you need to take it to WP:RS and discuss there and when the whole Wiki community decides to make exceptions because of the evidence I am sure you have and will present, then this discussion can continue, you not liking a certain paper and promising they lie, is really not good enough. Again, if you feel a source doesnt meet WP:RS then make a post there about the paper you have issues with and post a link here. Thanks. And stating congressional commitee reports lie ... just wow. --NuclearZer0 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: These are the sources listed: San Diego CityBEAT, The Village Voice, Santa Maria Sun, Esquire, Scoop, The Sunday Star Times, House.gov, Buzz Magazine, Harvard University, and Orb Standard. All of them meet RS it seems --NuclearZer0 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something I noticed