Talk:Steven E. Jones

message: ::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)
replies: text: I removed it, per your blp concerns and for use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: read through this page  and make any appropriate additions to article. Complete Truth 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 'hard science' group linked to archaeology hoax 

message: >>"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More nonsensical statements to serve the purpose of labelling

message: 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)
replies: text: Has anyone in here actualy read his paper ? Evadinggrid (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The topic discussed over and over. Arthur, if your argument is there is no source for peer review - here is one: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review, again 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Continuing from your argument, Arthur, .... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ... back to the article 

message: 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. 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=. 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. http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.htmlhttp://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html  —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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Quality of Bentham Open Publication

message: The Open Chemical Physics Journal now has a new editor-in-chief: 
Prof. Lucio Frydman, Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 
  Cs32en  21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Chemical Physics Journal article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It seems unnecessary, as the editor resigned because of publication.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article on Bentham Publishing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed, changed "explosive" in the tag to "controlled".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wtc Demolition Theory 

message: 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)
thread_title: Resignation of Professor Marie-Paule Pileni

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Steven E. Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826183748/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070901063540/http://www.pnacitizen.org:80/41407event.php to http://www.pnacitizen.org/41407event.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111211701/http://solarcooking.org:80/plans/funnel.htm to http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208174930/http://farms.byu.edu:80/display.php?table=jbms&id=246 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=246
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828113846/http://blake.montclair.edu:80/~kowalskil/cf/131history.html to http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/131history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304145947/http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM to http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111211701/http://solarcooking.org:80/plans/funnel.htm to http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902044813/http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#18 to http://projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#18
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108034019/http://www.911podcasts.com:80/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3 to http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212210153/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2bcf9f07-6407-4b2c-9f4e-7d4a15afcb98&k=46273 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2bcf9f07-6407-4b2c-9f4e-7d4a15afcb98&k=46273
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114223828/http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf to http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828124553/http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf to http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ%2F2009%2F00000002%2F00000001%2F7TOCPJ.SGM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210441/http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment to http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418153431/http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e to http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507180506/http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724 to http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ%2F2008%2F00000002%2F00000001%2F35TOCIEJ.SGM
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5tmFOBanU?url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf to http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501150348/http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/cv-pileni.htm to http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/cv-pileni.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201114804/http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911 to http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.The Theory vs. the Facts, Slate, Jeremy Stahl, September 7, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
Researcher2022 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence with no basis in citation removed