Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 2

message: Note: Article not protected (16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, this is the best thing to do - there is no consensus, neither here, among editors, nor in the scientific community, about Jones's findings. There are ongoing discussion, and we are not able to present NPOV, what is VERY important in case of a living person. Better to say less in this case. --SalvNaut 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. This is no recondite area of research.  There are many experts who have published work dealing with the collapse. Jones' "contributions" to this area, and what actual experts think about those "contributions", are a matter of public record and will be included.   There absolutely is consensus in the scientific community: Jones' ideas are a "non-issue". Levi P. 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Show me wrong but: I haven't seen any academic paper in form of rebuttal of his findings. There is just a couple of statements (in form of a reported talk) - most of them are quite old, all of them are referenced in the article with scrutiny. This is supposed to be NPOV??--SalvNaut 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SalvNaut, that's because from an academician's point of view Jones has no "findings".  Do you not get the relevance of the fact that his "work" has not been published in a reputable journal?  He has no relevance.  No one cares.  It is "dead-on-the-vine", a "non-issue", "there is no disagreement".  How is it that you are missing that? Levi P. 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem quite obsessed with that. Yet, by repeating statements made by a couple of scientists(not in academic papers - during interviews) you won't change the way it is. I am 99% sure that his paper was peer-reviewed by someone from BYU (that's why the BYU statement was removed and he continues his work). The paper not being published in a reputable journal is because of it's utmost importance and extremity - no one wants to put his credibility in uncertainity.  Let's see what future brings. Rebuttals or maybe confirmations? --SalvNaut 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is amazing that you have read the statements comming out of that university and have somehow come to the conslusion that they 1) peer-reviewed his work; or 2) want anything to do with what he suggests. Perhaps you should re-read the actual statements that were put out by the involved colleges. They are not subtle in their criticism.  Levi P. 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BYU statement was made before subsequent rounds of peer-reviews. Then it was removed. After all it stated:"statements noted that Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners". There is nothing strange in controversial statements being questioned. "...involved colleges" - are you referring to D. Allan Firmage? If not only to him, please provide me with referrence - I would like to know and I will appreciate that. --SalvNaut 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this stuff come from??? What "subsequent rounds of peer-review"?  Every time this discussion comes up, the number of peer-reviews Jones' paper has gone through goes up.  This has got to be the most peer-reviewed-unpublished-uncitable-no-reputable source- having paper ever. Also, by some tortured logic you seem to be suggesting we should interpret BYU's removal of info from their website as an endorsement of Jones. It is startling that you continue to read "endorsement" in BYU's actions.  They have done everything but scream, "That man is crazy! We have nothing to do with him! I swear!." Levi P. 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What Levi says may be an argument for not giving pride of place to the WTC stuff. It is not an argument for dominating the article about a carreer physicist [added: with what may be a minor current pursuit] and making him look like he is, basically, foolish. But let me state again that these are core issues in the controversy, and are best removed until the matter is settled.--Thomas Basboll 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. That is why I agree with proposed cut. One or two senteces about his research, a reference to his paper and that's it.--SalvNaut 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My request, as this point, is to leave in the sentences: "Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". In his paper, Jones cites what he considers evidence which he believes supports the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down, not by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges and thermite." Sufficient perspective could be generated by adding the name of the journal (a political economy journal, if I recall), and the word "controversial" before the second instance of "paper". Anything else would be a bit like suggesting we write "But he must be crazy!" in the article.--Thomas Basboll 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with that, ok with "controversial". What journal are you refering to? The one his paper was published in? (http://www.journalof911studies.com) This one can be add under Affiliations as Jones is one of the editors. --SalvNaut 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I got it confused with Griffin's earlier paper. But the book that Griffin and Scott edited could be mentioned. Anyway, these issues go beyond the narrow scope of my request, which remains: to apply caution.--Thomas Basboll 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Most people who are looking him up these days would be confused to discover that his bio makes no mention of the WTC. They would wonder if it was the same guy. It's an important part of his biography, at least right now. But it may not be the most important in the long run. If he had run for senate, or won an olympic medal (even without turning pro), these things would be mentioned despite not being part of his "professional life". His university does not get to write his biography for him. Besides, it is menioned on his university homepage, etc., etc., but that's not what I want to get into in relation to this request.--Thomas Basboll 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here comes Morton - "the defender of the World against conspiracy theories" :-)) Don't get mad :-) No - it should be mentioned as he is notable for this paper (do Google Search - zounds of blogs mention him). No one will get hurt because of that. Information is essential (not opinions) --SalvNaut 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude.  I'm not relevant here.  Chill.  I am your Ambassador of Kwan.  Morton devonshire 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: From what you said I rather see you as mister "sweep it under the carpet". But it's good to know that you have good intentions. --SalvNaut 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". In his paper, Jones cites what he considers evidence supporting the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down, not by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges and thermite.  Jones has been cited or interviewed for his 9/11 work in the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and C-SPAN.  He is a co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and co-edits The Journal of 9/11 Studies."
bov 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that consensus on your version can be reached (although I slightly support it). Yet, the most important thing is not to vilify Jones in any way. That is why whole section has to be edited down for a start. It is still not known wheather he has been interviewed because of the values of his research or maybe because of controversy that surrounds it.--SalvNaut 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I don't think the article needs any serious changes at all.--Sloane 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Please adress at least some of those points raised in Thomas's first post. --SalvNaut 22:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that he is clearly seeking media attention and using his physics credentials to get such attention, there is not undue weight given to his research. E.g., on his own research page, his physics work is given one 12-point sentence; the bulk of it is dedicated toward his work in "archaeometry". It is readily apparent that his use of academic credentials to prop up his amateur work is a sham and such an observation should not be hidden out of consideration anymore than the Jonathan Zizmor should avoid mentioning that he's a doctor of chiropractic medicine, not dermatology. --Mmx1 00:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "he is clearly seeking media attention" -- fascinating, how our world views differ.--SalvNaut 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request II

message: As in, when do we get to?  Morton devonshire 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it that some admins are looking at the arguments above and will make a decision?--Thomas Basboll 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merciless Editing

message: Article is unprotected...those that don't follow WP:BIO may be blocked. Let's not use this article as a platform to either push his theories or lampoon them either. Make simple, well referenced sentences that neither support or attack his positions. Please review WP:NPOV and the section there about undue weight. If an edit war resumes, the article will be reprotected.--MONGO 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I'm implementing the changes I've proposed above, for the reasons I've given (mainly to avoid, as Mongo rightly puts it, pushing and, especially, lampooning Jones. Please discuss anything you want to reinsert in the talk pages first and build consensus for them.--Thomas Basboll 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting with caution 

message: The criticism section places way too much emphasis on his critics (he has much more direct support than direct opposition). But to balance it would demand making it ten times longer, and Jones' WTC views are a minor part of professional life at this point. So it is best just to leave it out. Nobody reading the short version will think he has not been criticized, nor that his peers in physics endorse his views.--Thomas Basboll 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: * I have requested protection again. I think it's the best solution until consensus can be reached.--Sloane 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Was his paper really fully published in 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out? --Sloane 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: book

message: The significance of Jones' on-air guesses about the amount explosives escapes me. At the very least we should just say "Jones has suggested that..." and provide the source in the footnotes. It's a lot of words to devote to it. Or am I missing something?--Thomas Basboll 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Ross? 

message: Tom B. asked editors for consensus for two edits.  The majority of editors weighed in against these changes.  These changes were made anyway. I have reverted back to the previous incarnation as there was nothing wrong with it and the "newest" incarnation demonstrates no noticeable improvements in any area. Levi P. 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I request for edition of this article as according to the discussion above, this article may misrepresnt the reality.
Repeating after Thomas:
I think we should keep this page protected. But I also think we should reduce the WTC section to an absolute minimum until a consensus can be reached and the page can be unprotected. My suggestion is as follows. The whole section, including the criticism subsection, should be replaced with the following text: (below I've changed a bit)
::Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks in which he outlines his hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down, not by the impact of the hijacked planes that struck them and the fires that followed, but by controlled demolition using pre-positioned cutter-charges and thermite. (Source: Jones' paper) The paper has been dismissed by engineers who have investigated the collapses but has had a significant impact on 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Source: Chronicle piece) 
After this change is made, we should reprotect the page and start discussing here. --SalvNaut 04:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please uncomment your above editprotected request once a consensus has been reached here. I have no power to review your changes in these matters since my role in editprotected is strictly clerical. --   Netsnipe  ►  06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're asking me to replace 8 paragraphs with 10 citations with a single paragraph that has 2. I'm a bit hesitant to do that in case I get accused of "censorship!" unless there's more consensus to back me up. --   Netsnipe  ►  06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no consensus to change this article in any way, with the majority of editors wishing to keep it as is. Levi P. 07:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if I may say, that is a load of crap, Tom.  The sourcing on the criticism is impeccable.  Do you have a source you're contesting? Levi P. 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've talked about this many times, Levi. The first two paragraphs use two sources to establish doubt about the peer-review of Jones' paper and its vetting by experts. But one of those sources -- the most recent one -- explicitly says that the paper has been peer-reviewed, probably in order to correct the impression that BYU's early doubts are just as relevant today (i.e., in accordance with good journalistic practice). The article completely ignores that qualification. That strikes me as a less than impeccable use of sources (displays lower standards than journalism). Since it is used to establish a negative proposition about Jones' work, WP:LIVING about "poor" sources applies. Or that, in any case, is what I am hoping an adminstrator will determine.--Thomas Basboll 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly Levi. Citations are "selective" - take a look at the discussion.--SalvNaut 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have been shown couple of times during discussion above, that your claims are mainly your beliefs and you have not given any more sources to support them, except those, already misproperly used in the article. Bringing "lunacy" argument is childish. Jones is a scientist, and he didn't just went mad one day as you trying to impose here, on a discussion page, and there, in the article. You have some kind of obsession Levi. None of us want's to fool the reader. Many editors before, me, and Thomas provided you with arguments that show it is mainly you who want to influence the reader's impression of Jones. You seem to be afraid of this article speaking neutraly of Jones. --SalvNaut 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hope we can finally have agreement here. I do not want give any unearned credibility to Jones'es findings. We just can't make him look like a fool,or liar if there is no indication of such claims. --SalvNaut 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I was characterizing your intimation that there was anything untoward in the criticism sourcing as " a load of crap."  Not your contributions in general.  I'm going to ignore your wiki-lawyering. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that Jones' paper has gone through anything resembling "peer-review". It is not relavent whether his article has been "fact-checked".  This article is about a scientist, that is the context.  The use of terms within the article, therefore, should be restricted to how they are used within the scientific community.  You are advocating the appropriation of a scientific term (peer-review), and the use of it in a colloquial way which garbles it's actual meaning (using it roughly as synonomous with "fact check" or "edit").  That is just not appropriate. This argument has been gone over ad nauseum.  It appears that you and I will not agree.  Happy editing.  Levi P. 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This response is ridiculous.--Thomas Basboll 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm looking over the controlled demolition section now.--MONGO 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply not correct. A Marxist is able to oversee the review of a paper by another Marxist, a supporter of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is able to oversee the review of a paper by another supporter of that interpretation. At whatever level you choose, there may be a great deal of intellectual agreement between editors and authors. The trick is to select reviewers that may be more likely to identify errors in reasoning. It is you and I, not Griffin, who lack insight into whether or not the paper was properly reviewed; and until we have good reason to doubt Griffin's academic integrity (and the Chronicle of Higher Education's journalism), to claim that he published a friend's paper without review is libelous. WP:LIVING applies, as the now very broken record goes.--Thomas Basboll 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific peer review and academic peer review are different things. Jones's work would need to be qualified by a team of experts to truly qualify as a peer review. We can certianly state that he claims it has been peer reviewed, but a counter argument supported by cited sources which dispute this claim are definitely within the scope of WP:LIVING.--MONGO 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point: there is no good source that says his paper has not been peer-reviewed. In the fall 2005, BYU "was not convinced" that it had. By June 23, 2006, as reported by the CHE, the paper "had been peer-reviewed by two phycisists". None of the sources we are using suggest the idea that the paper has passed proper "academic peer-review" that somehow does not "truly qualify as a peer review" (because not "scientific"). All of this is interpretation on the part of wikipedians.--Thomas Basboll 14:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both notes 17 and 18 link to valid comments that indicate that others do question that his 9/11 studies have been properly vetted. I am still debating on the last paragraph in the critcism section...sounds like two former associates of the group he is now involved with letting off steam.--MONGO 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 2 

message: Apparently, Steven E. Jones does not possess a doctorate degree.  ImplosionWorld has issued clarifications to its August paper , and now refers to him as "Professor Jones". Under the "Education" section of the article, "Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977)" is misleading and needs to clarify the fact that he does  not possess a doctorage degree. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged the doctorate claim as requiring citation. Guy 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's Jones vita, which says he has a PhD from Vanderbilt and conducted research and course work at Stanford. Mistakes do of course occur in a vita but I think we need more than one of his critics saying that he apparently doesn't have the degree he has listed on his vita to draw this fact into question. Anyone know where Protec got the idea from?--Thomas Basboll 13:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He certainly says he has a PhD. (See the Scholars for 9/11 truth site.). So if he doesn't have one then this is a real strike against his character. Again, people have lied about their credentials in academia before, sometimes even winning tenure on false credentials. Serious accusation. Serious source?--Thomas Basboll 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his clarifications, Brent uses "apparently" as a qualifier in making this statement.  I agree that more independent, reliable sources on this would be good to clairfy this one way or the other.  --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that even in their official statement about his leave, BYU refers to him as "Dr. Jones". ImplosionWorld, I think, and not Jones, has some 'splainin to do.--Thomas Basboll 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  academic credentials 

message: Jones's paper has disappeared from the BYU site. BYU had bandwith problems? ..or changed their standpoint? Jones's homepage has changed, too. --SalvNaut 06:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that the publisher of the Griffin and Scott volume has stipulated that the chapter not be available on line. The major change to the site was the just the removal of what would otherwise have been a dead link. But I wouldn't blame Jones if he decided that he's done what he can on this issue.--Thomas Basboll 09:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. According to Jones's "Answers to Objections and Questions" I would expect one more publication regarding expolosive's residues in WTC previously melted steel, (unless he changed his mind on this matter??). Would there be "more independent" publisher willing to publish it? --SalvNaut 11:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I bet they are going to be satisfied :) "third round of peer review" - wow. "...while we continue to review these matters." - this is very good news, as I suppose (hope) that many other scientists will have a close look on his paper and the case, and everything might get clarified. --SalvNaut 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "second round of peer review" - that's how Jones used to reffer to Griffin's one, and that's how it used to read on his page - that's what I recollect.--SalvNaut 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what's the first round? He used to talk about it being published in an elsevier publication, but that never happened. --Sloane 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappeared 

message: The paper is back online at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which also solves the "third review" mystery. It will not impress his critics. It was organized by Jones' own co-editor, Kevin Ryan. Still working on a summary of this saga. Perhaps the title of this section should actually be "WTC collapse controvery"?--Thomas Basboll 18:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is still protected and I hope that remains the case. I am not an admin, so I will just post the edit request here when I'm done. Soon. I hope I will be fair too.--Thomas Basboll 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this, which says that the review will be three-tiered, and that the review and the suspension are expected to last through the fall term.  Levi P. 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones has already noted that some BYU members purporting to review his work, have refused to provide substantial reasoning to their blanket statements about his work.  I would imagine that BYU is already polarized politically over this issue, so I wonder if impartiality is possible there. Locewtus 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-appearance! 

message: At a seminar held on September 22, 2005, Jones presented the substance of the paper that would become "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"Jones, Steven E. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" in Griffin, David Ray and Peter Dale Scott, eds.  9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press, 2006. A version of the paper has also been published online in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol 3. to his department. His hypothesis is that on September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center towers and Seven World Trade Center collapsed as a result of controlled demolition, not the impact of the airplanes that hit them or the fires that followed. The paper does not claim to prove this hypothesis, but calls for further scientific investigation to test it along with the release of all relevant data by the government. It would eventually be published in a book of essays critical of the official version of the September 11, 2001 attacks, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.Griffin, David Ray and Peter Dale Scott, eds.  9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press, 2006. Shortly after the seminar Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University.
Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances, culminating with the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, which was organized by Alex Jones with the endorsement of Charlie Sheen and held in Los Angeles on June 24-25, 2006."9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda" Press Release While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions, his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of agents working within the U.S. government. His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigour. Engineers who have studied the collapses have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the broad consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the official explanation.  
Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. PDF Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' research.  They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." While the paper has been peer-reviewed before being published, it has not been published in a reputable scientific journal. This has been a source of much of the scepticism that has been aimed at it.
On Thursday, September 7, 2006. Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones's work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.Walch, Tad. "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave", Deseret Morning News, September 8, 2006. The review will be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.  
Maybe the BYU staff should be excused from this task - might be biased?
===Comments on draft of WTC collapse controversy section===
Alright, people. Have at it. Feel free to fix typos and spelling errors and reference formats directly in the text (on the list of things I must learn.) Otherwise make your views about the content known.--Thomas Basboll 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Feel free to put them in (some of the recent ones are at the end of) "Jones is often mentioned...".--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chronicle piece is just extra support and more accessible language. But the other source is Bazant and Verdure. I'm not sure they were involved in the official investigation, but Bazant is a recognized authority. I think it should stand as is.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One section up there, Levi posted link to the article with important info. I suppose one more sentence would be appropriate (I added it at end, simply copied from this article - is that ok?)--SalvNaut 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Bazant's paper has been peer-reviewed (in a sense that is not controversial), and peer-review, while it does not ensure the truth of a paper, does ensure that it conforms to "state of the art" assumptions. In the case of this "broad consensus" about the NIST report, all this means is that there has been no significant dissent in the engineering community. Consensus is never determined by a poll in science: it is detected, basically, by what people like Bazant can get away with saying "everybody knows" in a peer-reviewed journal. He is not neutral in one sense; but in the cited paper, with the respect to the claim cited, we can assume he has been, as it were, neutralized. Again, since the Chronicle's journalism only confirms his claim, I think we're covered here.--Thomas Basboll 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I regret putting it so flippantly. It is very difficult to get away with claiming that there is a consensus among a particular group of scientists in a journal that is peer-reviewed by that group. When that happens, we can be pretty sure Bazant's claim that NIST's conclusions are generally acceptable to engineers is sound. Especially on the point at issue: NIST vs. controlled demolition. The road you seem to be going down with Bazant here, is the one I have been trying to keep us from going down with Jones. It is not our task to judge them at that level of detail.--Thomas Basboll 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC collapse controversy (draft) 

message: Alright, people. Have at it. Feel free to fix typos and spelling errors and reference formats directly in the text (on the list of things I must learn.) Otherwise make your views about the content known.--Thomas Basboll 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Feel free to put them in (some of the recent ones are at the end of) "Jones is often mentioned...".--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chronicle piece is just extra support and more accessible language. But the other source is Bazant and Verdure. I'm not sure they were involved in the official investigation, but Bazant is a recognized authority. I think it should stand as is.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One section up there, Levi posted link to the article with important info. I suppose one more sentence would be appropriate (I added it at end, simply copied from this article - is that ok?)--SalvNaut 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Bazant's paper has been peer-reviewed (in a sense that is not controversial), and peer-review, while it does not ensure the truth of a paper, does ensure that it conforms to "state of the art" assumptions. In the case of this "broad consensus" about the NIST report, all this means is that there has been no significant dissent in the engineering community. Consensus is never determined by a poll in science: it is detected, basically, by what people like Bazant can get away with saying "everybody knows" in a peer-reviewed journal. He is not neutral in one sense; but in the cited paper, with the respect to the claim cited, we can assume he has been, as it were, neutralized. Again, since the Chronicle's journalism only confirms his claim, I think we're covered here.--Thomas Basboll 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I regret putting it so flippantly. It is very difficult to get away with claiming that there is a consensus among a particular group of scientists in a journal that is peer-reviewed by that group. When that happens, we can be pretty sure Bazant's claim that NIST's conclusions are generally acceptable to engineers is sound. Especially on the point at issue: NIST vs. controlled demolition. The road you seem to be going down with Bazant here, is the one I have been trying to keep us from going down with Jones. It is not our task to judge them at that level of detail.--Thomas Basboll 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on draft of WTC collapse controversy section

message: BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave.  See .  Morton devonshire 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what -- that he now won't be able to hide his kooky "research" behind academic credentials anymore?  Morton devonshire 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Steven Earl Jones has become widely known for his 9/11 conspiracy theories. He is a professor of physics on paid leave from Brigham Young University.[1][2]
Tom Harrison Talk 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should just add a sentence to the last paragraph: "On Thursday, September 7, 2006, Jones was place on paid leave while his university reviewed his work in this area." They have explicitly allowed him to continue his research, especially in the areas already mentioned in the lead. (Maybe I got you wrong, but it sounded like you wanted to remove his past accomplishments.)--Thomas Basboll 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's better. He is, after all, still a professor. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jones' Paid Leave

message: As you can see, Mongo has gone ahead and inserted the draft I proposed. But he did not remove the criticism section, which is now redundant. I propose renaming the section "WTC collapse controversy" and, I think hope you will all agree that there section is now largely a summary of the criticism that he has received. This is because it explains the background of what really is a significant biographical event: being placed on leave and being subjected to academic review.--Thomas Basboll 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the critic section just a few minutes ago--MONGO 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You rock.--Thomas Basboll 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with the statement we discussed, which I feel is still significant, I appreciate the rest of the outcome. Locewtus 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete criticism section in light of new WTC section 

message: I'm afraid Jones' university and college, who said in explanation of his suspension, ""BYU has a policy of academic freedom, but what's expected is that professors submit their work to academic peer reviews so it can be challenged and debated by experts," will be interested to find that our humble encyclopedia asserts that Jones' paper has "been peer-reviewed". The fact that this assertion is sourced to a parenthetical comment made in a newspaper, and not a more robust source, is only revealed if one looks into it further. Levi P. 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I struggled with that sentence for awhile, and it isn't perfect. The trick is to get it to say both that his paper was peer-reviewed for publication in Griffin's book AND that this form of peer-review has not gotten the paper into a forum where it can be challenged by experts (like a physics or, better, an engineering journal). What the Chronicle piece says is probably true, but the standing tension with what BYU wants to see happen to the paper can be improved. Suggestions?--Thomas Basboll 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is not just Jones' word here. It's a reported fact.--Thomas Basboll 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree more than I think you realize. As I read BYU's concerns they are specifically concerned that his work has not been published (nor even submitted for review) in a scientific journal. That is, they would like to see scientists criticize his findings, not simply review his paper (which does not involve testing findings). The paper has very likely been reviewed even according to BYU: they are careful to qualify their statement with reference to "technical expertise" and "appropriate venues". I would like the article to acknowledge the review that Griffin and Scott supervised. Perhaps we should say some like: While the paper seems to have been peer-reviewed for publication in the Griffin and Scott volume (source: Chronicle), scepticism about its scientific quality remains because it is has not been published in a recognized scientific journal on the topic.--Thomas Basboll 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griffin?  As in David Griffin?  You can't seriously believe that having one conspiracy theorist review another conspiracy theorist's article consitutes "peer review".  Morton devonshire 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: I would like the article to acknowledge the review that Griffin and Scott supervised- but do you want to acknowledge it as "review" or "peer-review"?  If it is the latter, then you know how I feel; if it is the former, then is it even notable?  I mean, every book gets "reviewed" by numerous people before publication, these people are never noted in an encyclopedia article on the author/book. But, on the other hand, this is a unique situation... Levi P. 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'm going to plead no contest with that last source. It definitely grants your point and is more recent than the Chronicle. I'm adding an edit request to the end of this talk page. You can continue the discussion there, if I'm still not getting it right.--Thomas Basboll 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Done. --   Netsnipe  ►  01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks okay to me. Tom Harrison Talk 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not support using some legitimizing euphemism to describe what is in fact a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand the concern about CT's pejorative meaning. But look at the many quite balanced pieces that have emerged over the past months, all of which use the phrase as shorthand. People now know what it means, and the label, I believe, has come to be a pretty straight designator. Looking at the coverage in the Washington Post and Time Magazine, while they (obviously) don't make the theories look true, they are (to use Sunder's phrase) "sympathetic". I think you would have to say "conspiracy nut" these days to really be pejorative. I actually think a number of 9/11 CTs have been legitimized as possible political attitudes (probably out of sheer necessity). No need for euphemisms, anymore. I enjoyed Mike Ruppert's quip, "I don't deal in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact" (or something like that). I.e., it was not "conspiracy" that he thought was pejorative. That's more or less the mood out there if you ask me. Finally, Jones' overall take on 9/11, beyond the scope of the paper, involves at least some of the standard (unscientific) speculations (or so it certainly seems).--Thomas Basboll 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I think the sort of coverage that Griffin (and his audience) gets is far from "loony". It is true that many of the articles do express suprise at the appearance of non-nuts in the movement. But they do express that surprise. Also, while they all find an obligatory nutjob or two (i.e., someone they can describe or quote who fit the stereotype) those people are actually out there. That's all I meant by "rather balanced". There was as time when they wouldn't show you the obviously sane proponents. Like I say, paranoid, nutty, loony, and kooky are all pejorative. But conspiracy theory has become less so. I'm not a historian of PC terminology, but I think we might looking at something like the re-appropriation of a word like "queer" or "chick". I.e., the movement is now strong enough to describe itself as conspiracist and to let others do the same. Though I won't presume to speak for them. Keep Griffin's take on this in mind too: he says that the phrase "conspiracy theory" should be applied to both sides. He does not ask to be called something else. (But this is about Jones, I know.)--Thomas Basboll 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request removal of disputed neutrality tag 

message: Netsnipe, thanks for making those edits.  The article provides a nice neutral description of the nature of Jones' 9/11 work, including the TM and BYU's perspective.  Thanks again.  Morton devonshire 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Job

message: Note: In future, please propose, highlight the fact a consensus has been reached AND THEN use the editprotected tag or else it clogs up proposed edits list with requests that aren't ready. Thanks --   Netsnipe  ►  15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Jones has always maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, doubts about this remain. On Thursday, September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones's work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.[21] The review will be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[22][23]
Note that I'm proposing we not cite the Chronicle, which says that the paper was peer-reviewed. I am hoping that the BYU review process will eventually settle this issue unambiguously.--Thomas Basboll 11:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 3

message: There is a new presentation by Jones available at http://www.journalof911studies.com . Some new expirements, previous data from electron microprobe and new data from Wave-dispersive X-ray Fluorescence analysis are presented there. It does constitutes as a research, doesn't it?
 
This kind of data deserves accurate response from NIST, not just some FAQs and unconfirmed theories (the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. - doesn't it sound like the same ball park as CTs?). Evidence should also be released for further analysis. Apart from that, if it were so obvious that Jones's research is "kooky", as some like to think, BYU wouldn't put it under extensive three-tiered review, would they? --SalvNaut 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I'am sorry for releasing my NIST-directed anger here. We'll wait and see.--SalvNaut 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I can think of another reason they might put his research under three-tiered review:  consideration of termination of a tenured professor.  Morton devonshire 17:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It might end so. I am so glad for you, that you already know all about it.--SalvNaut 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research by Jones 

message: Very minor, but if someone could add 2 commas in the first paragraph, my life would be great.  Twice in the paragraph the "September 11, 2001 attacks" are mentioned in the middle of the sentence.  Both times we would do well to insert a comma after the 2001: September 11, 2001, ...  BTW, as Thomas B. took the time to rewrite that section and did a fine job, I think he and our accommodating admins all deserve a round of applause...(applause).  Levi P. 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request 4

message: I have semi-protected this page...the first sign of edit warring, and it goes back to full protection. Hash out all changes here on this talk page first and get a concensus before making and changes...everyone reread WP:LIVING.--MONGO 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now semi-protected 

message: From what I've heard, Dr. Jones removed this paper for completely different reasons.  I'll be trying to find a valid source to substantiate this.  In the meantime, I believe there should be a "citation needed" after the aforementioned claim. --Carcinogen
:I've moved the source of that claim right up to the sentence.--Thomas Basboll 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper removed because of BYU's request? I don't think so.