Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 1

message: An editor deleted the mention of Jones coining the term cold fusion.  A serch turned up several sources that make the assertion.  
However, another site indicates Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.  Evidently, this matter needs to be sorted out.  Ombudsman 00:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am confused about it.  I put in an email to Jones and alerted him to this page.Bov 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who coined the term 'cold fusion'?

message: I think as a bare minimum criteria, for any links to "critics" of Jones, the page needs to at the very least mention Jones's name.  Of all the links in the first paragraph of the "Critics" section though, only one does this.  And a majority of them link to one site - 911myths.com.  WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia should not be a "link farm."  The readers are perfectly capable of navigating around that site for themselves, so we don't need to link to every single page on their site.  We should only link more than one specific page there if each one offers a unique commentary on Jones and his work.  Also, it's important to keep in mind that this article is about Jones and his work, not about "9/11 conspiracy theories" in general.  And it's original research if an editor here points people to a certain article which doesn't even mention Jones and basically says "I think this Rebuts Jones's arguments."  Unless the source specifically discusses Jones and his work then it's not appropriate for this page.  That said, I'm gonna remove all external links that don't mention Jones.  Blackcats 03:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: As I recently stated in my edit summaries, I have removed content that was based on sources which did not specifically address Jones.  That's original research in this context.  The article already links to "9/11 Conspiracy Theories," and if someone feels the need, an additional link can be posted to refer users there for a more general discussion of the overall issues which doesn't neccesarilly address Jones and his work.  Blackcats 03:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Jgm removed the following qualifier from the passage addressing criticism from faculty at BYU: "though none of these has addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU."  But it's neccesary for the reader's understanding to put criticism in context and to differentate between specific scientific critiques that would attempt to refute his work and those dismissals that did not cite evidence or were merely rhetorical.  Like I said above, adding an inference about what that lack of a scientific response might mean would be original research, unless a notable interpretation to that effect could be cited.  But it's perfectly apporpriate to state the facts and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. Blackcats 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism in context

message: Jgm also removed a passage from Jones's paper.  Since so much of his notability is due to that paper, and it is the focus of so much of the article, I think including a short passage from it is perfectly appropriate in order to give the readers some of the flavor of his work.  I agree that reposting large sections of it would not be appropriate, but this very short and relevant passage greatly aids the reader's understanding of his work.  Blackcats 08:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Passage from paper

message: Jones' paper is not (or no longer) scheduled for release in THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 
His paper now states: "The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews and has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott."
Regarding THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, Jones' paper now states "Prof. Griffin's paper is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006."
CB Brooklyn 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on Jones' WTC Collapse Hypothesis Being Published

message: I have viewed a taped lecture in which Jones states he is a "life long Republican" but the text seems to indicate has no affiliation at all.  I can make a link to the video but I am unsure of WP's policy on this.  Do I need to add a time index (the video is 2:13:00 long. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 ) 
Bpd1069 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliations 

message: prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/110406Physicist.htm --Striver 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is the purpose of this link? --mtz206 22:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: See here (scroll down about half way) for letter written to BYU concerning their statement:
"Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." 
BYU removed the above statement from their website after threat of an ethics complaint. The letter explains that Jones' paper was peer reviewed.
Is there still debate on whether Jones' paper was peer reviewed?
CB Brooklyn 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Status of WTC CD Hypothesis 

message: #I don't revert war.
#I really feel that this article makes him look more like a crackpot than even mmx would want him to. The links to 911truth and what not detract from everything - they fail WP:RS and all kinds of other things.
#Unlike P&F, Jones' cold fusion was theoretically predicted. It is imperitive we note this, otherwise it seems like the man is a HABITUAL crank.
#It is not appropriate to call a paper that MAY be published in the future peer reviewed. We have details on the review - 4 people two physicists. I apologize for my scare quotes and unnamed in my first edit - they were not NPOV.
I look forward to discussing substantive changes to this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think, and I mean really think, about if the article as it standing in my current, cut-down version relays all of the info we REALLY need to get across to the reader, and if the rest of it should go in the article about the alternative collapse theories. Think really hard on it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reiterate that this individual is a famous and notable experimental physicist who has also fallen for a couple of conspiracy theories and flies off the handle. Please review the CUT DOWN VERSION, and put the 9/11 conspiracy nonsence in an article about 9/11 conspiracy nonsence. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes 

message: The article was vandalized a few days ago and is now being returned to its original state. Any users wishing to dispute the information should do so here. If sysops examine the network log files, they will discover that the vast majority of referers come from 9/11 Truth sites, and the vast majority of exit links go to 9/11 Truth sites. Therefore, removing that information was damaging wikipedia's reputation. Visitors are depending on wikipedia to cover the work that Jones is currently involved in, which of course includes everything relating to 9/11 that was on that page.
Using the CT term to describe 9/11 theories is ad hominem and also not NPOV, and therefore not civil. Anyone endorsing that type of thinking is not NPOV and ask them to not edit the 9/11 pages.
As the Zogby poll shows, 42% of America believes the government is covering up 9/11 and 45% want a new investigation including government officials possibly being involved.
For now on, any vandalism or ad hominem remarks will be dealt with via official complaints using Wikipedia protocol.
Also, even though my ad hominem remarks were direct retaliation, I do apologize for them. Anyone using these types of remarks should not be editing these pages. I expect anyone and everyone to be civil.
CB Brooklyn 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed some of the soap-boxing. Jones can present his theory in detail on his own site. We give a summary, and a summary of the criticism. I've left the links for now, but it looks like an excessive number. Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soap box. We should take care not to promote or advertise Jones' theories. We should, and do, summarize his position and that of his critics. I'm on my way out and may not reply promptly. Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is the article "promoting or advertising" Jones' theories? Is it not merely stating his own observations, and also information known to be factual? CB Brooklyn 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating an abstract of his findings is encyclopedic. Providing a recreation of his arguments, including evidence he cites, is soapboxing. E.g. Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica presents an abstract and highlights the main points, but does not recreate the arguments of the book. In fact, most of the article is talking "about" the book, not summarizing it. --Mmx1 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting to last known edit by me. 

message: "Some critics have claimed that Jones' analysis, which he presents as a hypothesis supported by the available evidence, is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they contend are quotes selectively edited from Bill Manning [1]and Stephen Gregory."
This paragraph is sloppy written, and contains very little information. If we are not able to name the critics why even mention it? I am sure we are able to find lots of loose ended critique, but this is an encyclopedia, not a soap box, right?? EyesAllMine 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics II 

message: All quoted remarks in the article text have to be referenced, otherwise it is plagerism...see Wikipedia:Verifiability in regards to sections on biographies, where we must take extra care to ensure anything, especially derogatory information is well referenced--MONGO 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: ::A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest findings. The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."
This sentence in the article is confusing.   Is this implying that the peer reviewers should have been more critical of Jones work, or that the peer reviewers were correct to be less critical?  I think it could be taken either way. The last sentence is a disconnect. Careful at what, performing experiments, interpreting results or both? I don't understand the point that is trying to be made here. I think it means that the reviewers were less critical of the papers from Jones, as he was known to be a careful scientist, but his work was flawed and the reviewers were caught off guard.  David D. (Talk) 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Jones' work was right, while P&F either were either clumsy or liars. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it probably needs to be more specific. It really does read like a cloaked criticism. David D. (Talk) 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People keep removing my added words - "theoretically supported" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed you added that.  Your wording seems a lot more coherent. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what does this mean?

message: The whole quote is, 
Chris Newman, a sophomore multimedia communications major at UVSC who signed the petition, is making a documentary about a possible 9/11 conspiracy.
"I used to be a hard-core Republican, pro-Bush and everything," he said. "I'm independent now. I have some major doubts about the Bush administration. Hopefully the truth will come out."
Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Chris Newman?

message: Mmx1 - please explain what defines a conspiracy theorist. I removed the category "conspiracy theorist" as Jones does not once in his paper, talks about who is behind this. He relates to the evidence, the physics, the reports from NIST and FEMA, which he questions. How does this make him a conpiracy theorist? EyesAllMine 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theorist

message: Who was Jones 9/11 article peer-reviewed by? The referenced articles contains no names, only that it was peer-reviewed by a few unnamed persons in a 9/11 conspiracy book.
::"Traditionally reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this is slowly changing. In some academic fields most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not; published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to (anonymous or named) referees who helped improve the paper." It seems to be the norm that peer reviewers are anonymous EyesAllMine 21:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling Prof. Jones' article "peer reviewed" is highly misleading.  As far as I can tell (following the links), his paper has in no way been subject to the type of review which "peer review" entails.  That term denotes that an independent, reputable scientific journal has subjected his paper to rigorous review prior to publishing it.  This is not the case.  His paper has not been published in a reputable journal.  The fact that, according to a publishing house, "two physicists" have reviewed it, is, frankly, risible.  That in no way rises to the level of peer review.  Publishing houses publish books.  They do so to make money.  They are not in the business (nor should they be) of fact checking highly specialized scientific hypotheses.  There are, however, plenty of outlets where this "peer review" is done.  Jones has not been able to make use of these outlets, and this article should not read as if he has.70.191.50.181 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the other posts re: peer review, which were under a different heading, and wanted to make my point clear.  It is quite true that most "peer reviews" are anonymous.  But the term denotes that a disinterested, credible third party ( usually a journal) oversaw the process.  So when one asks, "Who did the peer review", one doesn't answer, "Drs. Jim, Bob, Jen", but with the journal that initiated and oversaw the process. This is the ONLY way it is done in academia.  If this is not the way Prof. Jones' paper was reviewed, then it is not "peer reviewed" as the term is usually understood.  This needs to be made clear in the article; as it stands now, people would either be mislead, or, if they knew all the facts of the matter, would be aware that we are bestowing a credibility onto Jones' paper which it has not earned.70.191.50.181 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones claims his work has been peer reviewed and we are not able to determine more than that without knowing more than that. While I agree that the peer review performed may not have been done in a standard methodology as one would expect from a scientific paper, unless we have something we can cite, we can't add our own opinions on the matter.--MONGO 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding, Mongo. I confess that I am still confused. I understand that we can not add our opinion on the matter, but then why is Prof. Jones' opinion being cited as if it were fact.  As the article currently reads it says that his paper was peer reviewed.  The citation backing this up merely leads to articles about him where he says his article was peer reviewed.  The citation should go to the journal that peer reviewed his work. If that link can not be produced, then the article should just say that he says his article is PR, and keep the citation it currently has.  It is confusing enough for the reader that we are talking about a theoretical physicist publishing about structural engineering in a political economy journal.  We need real citations that back up what we are citing as fact, do we not?Levi P. 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and I concur with you...just be bold and edit it to comply with the reference.--MONGO 08:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done so. I kept the same citations but changed the article to more properly reflect what is said in those citations.  I also streamlined it by removing the part about the economic journal ( since it had no citation) and merely stated that it was not published in a scientific journal.  I'll keep an eye on the talk page so as to address any concerns about the changes.Levi P. 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. We have to remember that this is a biography, so anything negative or complex such as this type of work is properly sourced and it appears you have done that.--MONGO 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: excerpt from email Jones sent to 911Blogger:
:"The use of thermite in arson has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in many cases already: Fire investigators have developed techniques to pin down the use of thermite, as I discussed in my LA talk. The signature residues of thermite are so distinctive -- when one uses EDS, XRF and other methods -- that it is indeed possible to prove arson by thermite. This gives me hope that this approach can be effectively used to prove thermite use on 9/11."
CB Brooklyn 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones Hopes To Prove "Arson By Thermite" 

message: Okay, go for it Jones.  Get a hold of this non-existent evidence and blow the lid off this thing!  I dare ya! (But what relevance is this to this article, because it hasn't happened -- Wikipedia is not a place for original research).  Morton devonshire 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Challenge

message: In the cited article, Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion, I see two references to Jones that bear on his credibility:
*"Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."
*"Some critics, however, continued to insist that Dr. Jones's results also stem from experimental error rather than fusion."
I have restored the version of Lenbrazil, which is an accurate summary, and included these quotes in the footnote. Are there other quotes from the article that anyone thinks address Jones' credibility? 
Tom Harrison Talk 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold fusion 

message: Regarding the scientific journal statement: The statement cites the Chronicle of Higher Education as the source, but the CHE article says nothing about a scientific journal. Also for a paper to be peer reviewed, it does not necessarily need to be published in a scientific journal. His paper was peer reviewed by two physicists, as the CHE article says. Scientific journals are only for new discoveries in the scientific field. Jones' paper does not fit in that category. CB Brooklyn 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CB. I am going to add the statement back in, unless you have a cogent reason why I should not. Our article is about a scientist.  That section is about his most notable (in pop culture) scientific paper.  It is certainly relevant where the paper was (or, was not) published.  It is my understanding that I do not need a citation that says, "His paper was not published in a journal" ( how would I cite a negative?).  I'm fine with you deleting the statement, but only if you can prove that it was published in a scientific journal.  Since we both know, for a fact, that his paper has not been published in a scientific journal, I am concerned with your seeming intention to keep this relevant fact out of the article.  And, as for your assertion that "journals are only for new discoveries", I can only say that you are laboring under an acute misapprehension.  I don't know exactly what you mean by that statement (i.e., what constitutes new) but I can assure you, you are misinformed. Levi P. 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Levi - you are setting up a strawman argument. As CB pointed out his paper is not about new discoveries in the scientific field. If im wrong please show me: where in the paper does he come up with breaking new scietific dicoveries in the engineering field? EyesAllMine 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyes- Please go to Google Scholar, look up any subject and peruse the different articles which have been published. You will find that scholarly articles are not limited to "new scientific discoveries".  If this were the case, I suppose there would only be articles on newly discovered comets, stars, animals, etc.  Journals are replete with new interpretations of old data.  I have not set up a "strawman argument" before, and I have no intention of doing so now. Any fuzziness in my argumentation is a result of truly having no idea what you and CB are talking about with regards to "new scientific discoveries". Levi P. 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense...the cited link clearly states that Firmage read the information that Jones had written, and since Firmage is not only a former educator from the same univiersity that Jones but also has many decades of background in the field, his witness is reliable.--MONGO 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do.  Just be sure to link to the journal that oversaw the PR. Levi P. 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Journal

message: The article is using two differnt styles of linking...stop using embedded links while I convert them to the proper format.--MONGO 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop using embedded linhks 

message: MONGO just happened to start adjusting the links right in the middle of a content dispute. Then he (and tom harrison) threatened me. MONGO removed a lot of information I just put into the article. If I add it back in again, he'll accuse me of disruption. The article is a biography of a living person and MONGO (and tom harrison as well) are not being respectful. They should keep clear of these pages. CB Brooklyn 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm watching this and you do have a point. Why not show them an example and remain civil yourself? Also, there's no reason to assume bad faith on MONGO's part; give him a reasonable time to finish the maintenance he is doing and then come back to the content dispute. Just a thought. --Guinnog 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is this page is not really being written about the man, but about his theory. His biography is being used as a vehicle to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11. Then to keep it balanced, the opposing view has to be presented, and we have yet another 9/11 page. Tom Harrison Talk 12:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that the theory contents are only allowed to be seen on one page of the entire wikipedia project, so if people don't get to that one page, they don't even know what the man is talking about!  Whereas if they are looking at Newton's bio they already have a good idea of what his theory of gravity is about.  At the very least the man's ideas should be allowed to be on his own page, which didn't exist until he was working on 9/11.  198.207.168.65 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be respectful 

message: Would B3X11 please explain why they keep adding unsourced material to the article, reverting corrections by other editors, and censoring comments on their talk page?  Levi P. 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: B3X11 was blocked for 24 hours beginning 10:20, 3 August 2006 UTC for violating 3RR --teb728 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: I ask for a protection of this page. There is not reached consensus about the critique section. And there are revert wars going on from both sides here. I object to the wording of the critiques, and the whole article - as stated earlier - is painting a false picture of Steven E. Jones standing in the world of academics. A link from BYUs own website with a presentation from proff. Jones himself is of cause appropriate here - but is being removed by Sloane without discussion, with a fancy wording in hthe edit summary as only explanation. I object to this (again). Remember this is a Biography! EyesAllMine 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A request can be put in at WP:RFPP and that will get a neutral party to protect the page if they feel it warrants protection.--MONGO 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pdf file is a new link and - as far I can tell - is not already on the page, so please do not remove it unless it is already posted elsewhere.  It contains different info from his paper. 198.207.168.65 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection please

message: Could someone please clarify this sentence-He also suggests that non-symmetrical damage and random fires would not have led to the near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, cites published accounts of molten metal found at Ground Zero long after the collapses, and his own analyses on WTC Steel samples. [3]- It is a bit clumsy.  I am unsure whether it is just listing 3 disparate ideas ( collapse of WTC 7, molten metal, own analysis), or if it is "citing" the latter two to support his theory re WTC 7's collapse.  In any case, I was hoping one of the editors more familiar with the intricacies of his argument could clarify it.  Also, I intend to delete the paragraph that deals with Mayan myths unless someone has a good argument for why we should keep it. Levi P. 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse hypotheses

message: Why would anyone use thermite for the hypothetical "cutter charges"? As the name implies, thermite's primary effect is heat, not an "explosion", so I'm not sure why one would consider it for use in "cutting". Welding, sure...
Maury 12:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know about thermAte, but thermite is generally not considered an explosive. It is an incendiary device. Although the reaction energy is high, in general the reaction rate is quite slow. It has no effective explosive velocity. In fact, let me quote one such conspiracy page, "Because thermite melting is a slower reaction than explosives...."Maury 12:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thermite / thermate - can be explosive and is incendiary. 198.207.168.65 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermite? 

message: I would be glad to source the radio interview at KIRO -- what is the correct Wikipedia citation format?  Can you provide me a Wikipedia link?  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure which one to use...maybe the cite video if it was a video link...look here for a possible citation template.--MONGO 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but I didn't hear those interviews, so I can't say.  This one's important, because it's by a mainstream, and very well regarded host.  Ross is a moderate, non-political host, with no axe to grind, with lots of credibility.  Based upon that, one could conclude that these kinds of theories are now getting a fair hearing in the mainstream press -- no longer confined to the realm of Coast-to-Coast AM/Art Bell.  That's why it's notable.  Morton devonshire 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think the mention is POV, hear this:  Jones does not present well for your cause, at least not in this Ross interview.  The guy sounds like a bumbling idiot on the radio, and in less-professional hands than Ross the host would have been inclined to mock Jones, and rightfully so.  Jones was completely unable to present a coherent case for the controlled-demolition-theory -- not even having facts at his disposal that you would expect him to be able to explain, or to piece together the argument in a logical fashion, given that he's THE EXPERT for this theory.  That, of course, is not going into this article.  If this is the face of your cause, you've lost already.  Just thought you should know.  Morton devonshire 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the broadcast itself is worthy to include, but the subject line is fairly POV in it's sound and tone... for what its worth, I googled his group just now, Google News, and there are apparently scores of new articles on it in the past 48-72 hours. Might be a lot of info to parse through for this article. rootology (T) 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Radio Interviews

message: Why does this keep getting removed? He's clearly one of the 'main' members of this group, so I put forward this this belongs as a clear link under the "see also" section. Unless the reason it's excluded is because he's listed further up in the paragraph as chair of the group with a direct link, but it was my impression that See also sections generally are of articles that are significant relation to the article they're placed on. Please let me know... rootology (T) 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "See also" sections shouldn't repeat links already included in the article text.  See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, regarding see also sections.  --Aude (talk contribs) 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure. rootology (T) 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also - [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] 

message: So apparently Jones has written a bunch of religious papers. Maybe something to include in the article?  --Sloane 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them are interesting enough, but it looks like they aren't all written by him--maybe part of a syllabus he's teaching? Dunno... I'd guess leave it out unless one or more of them strikes you are particularly important. rootology (T) 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious papers

message: Would anyone be willing to pitch in? Morton Devonshire appears to be causing vandalism/disruption of this article. rootology (T) 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloane, this was the version from before the WP:DIS wave. rootology (T) 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption of article 

message: Going forward, we cannot label them in the lead with pejorative labels. You can after call them a conspiracy theorist, if such a statement/observation is sourced, but not in the lead at all. Also, you need to say "Is considered a conspiracy theorist by xyz", not doing that is a violation of original research policies as well, by playing a "Connect the dots" game to try to bypass the no original research rules, as some might say. See also WP:LIVING. rootology (T) 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term conspiracy theorist is not necessarily pejorative...it's just a term and your opinion is noted.--MONGO 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. However, it's still negative in tone and shouldn't be in the lead (plus someone calling the subject that needs to be sourced). It can remain, if sourced, but not in the lead. rootology (T) 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is noted.--MONGO 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my opinion. The issue is being discussed on the policy page. rootology (T) 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my opinion either. "Conspiracy theorist" is appropriate when accurate and supported. That said, your edit is still in place. If you want to discuss it in general, it looks like you've chosen the correct venue at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "conspiracy theorist" 

message: having reviewed http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm I have noticed that the source does not contain any quotes from Stephen Jones referring to himself as either a Mormon or a former bush supporter. This is also an unofficial source which does not possess raw material for us to review and thus defies wikipedias policy. In future I suggest you find something like a quote from the man himselfor or some sort of recorded evidence. However since this does not exist I have removed reference 3 and the corresponding information under this subheading "affiliations"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.31.11 (talk • contribs) .
:It looks to me like a reliable secondary source per WP:RS. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reference 3 is doubtful

message: Why is there a question whether Jones is currently studying the demolition hypothesis?  Clearly it's what his paper is about, clearly his efforts are ongoing.  I guess I'll insert more links to his work, since apparently it's needed to show evidence for his ongoing efforts.  Everyone goes around saying they don't want a 'link farm' but then they are asking for links over and over.  Fine.  bov 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... for any kind of controversial or contested article more rather than less citations is a good thing, as it keeps all aspects of the article that are live and "in play" crystal clear for all involved, and all readers. It's better to use referenced citations rather that plain inline links as well, so people can review them more easily too. rootology (T) 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see you added more content/citations, just not referenced. Got it, I'll ref them for you. rootology (T) 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citation removal at top of page

message: Why does Levi P. delete the link to Jones' CV page which I put in so that now, again, the section has a citation request?  I'll put it in again but please stop making wholesale reversions when you have an issue with a single phrase about CT or researcher. bov 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requests already on the page or deleted after posting