Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 3

message: Inappropriate in English per NPOV: "Engineers have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis". This implies/states/pushes the POV that all engineers have dismissed this. Unless someone can find a source that says flatly that all engineers have dismissed it this needs to be changed. You cannot have it say "Most engineers", or anything similar either, unless you can source that. I am changing this again to "A variety of engineers", which is neutral and NPOV. Let the reader decide. None of us has that right for them. · XP · 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, none of us has to be mislead to believe that any respected engineers support his summary of the events either, so until you can demostrate that they have, the edit stays.--MONGO 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread how it works on policy please. You need to source that "all" engineers have dismissed him. · XP · 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck does a variety of engineers have any difference than just saying engineers...I want you to show me a single engineer that completely agrees with Jones's findings. Good luck.--MONGO 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to find you a single one that supports his views, because I'm not saying that even one supports his view. What I'm saying is thisw article shall not say that ALL engineers dismiss his views, nor shall it say anything to denote a majority, as that cannot be proven. All that can be proven from RS is that a "variety" of them dismiss it. The difference is just saying "Engineers" is the same in English as saying "All engineers", which cannot be proven and advocating a point of view--which we shall not and are not to do. Saying a variety of engineers instead leaves it up to the reader. We do not have any sources that say anything beyond "some" engineers. We do not have any RS that say all, most, nearly all, the majority of, lots of, gobs of, or anything related. Therefore, my version is appropriate per RS, NPOV, and usage of the English language. · XP · 15:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It does not say or imply 'all engineers.' It says 'engineers', which is correct - engineers generally dismiss the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. That is well supported by the references given. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV violation that will be fixed 

message: Please demonstrate where your citation supports this, or this will be coming back out as a policy vio. I contest that. · XP · 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not say or imply 'all engineers.' It says 'engineers', which is correct - engineers generally dismiss the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. That is well supported by the references given. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom's edit

message: Here is the main article: DesertNews. 
Jones's letter to the editor of the Deseret Morning News can be found here. On Scholars for 9/11 Truth page you can find Jones announcment to his Colleagues (right side, "Founder's Corner"). SalvNaut 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not using the "Scholars for Truth" as a reference base. The news report is satisfactory.--MONGO 19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as a reference in this matter of course. I've just given the link to provide broad look on this case for other editors. My edit was based solely on DesertNews article. SalvNaut 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones's elected retirement 

message: Violations of Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons (self-identification) policy are among the more serious policy vioalations. To use the term conspiracy theorist to describe Jones we need a credible and verifiable source quoting Jones refering to himself with that term. In that case it would not violate the Biography of Living Persons policy, but it would still violate the NPOV (neutral language) policy. It would probably just be best to avoid the term in reference to Jones. Cplot 07:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to suggest that a person's opinions about himself are not the ultimate source for who he is. External reliable sources are more relevant than how a person describes himsef. Weregerbil 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're in agreement then:  I think. We need to have a verifiable and reliable source that shows Steven Jones refering to himself as a conspiracy theorist. Then it would not be a potentially libelous categorization. However, I still think it's still non-neutral language, unencylopedic and violates the NPOV policy, so maybe it's just pointless and maliscious (and therefore potentially libelous again)  to try to track down such a source just to refer to him in that way. Cplot 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an encyclopedia should turn a blind eye to sources to avoid offending someone. A policy of self-censorship does not breed reliability. I think it would be really strange if an encyclopedia were to admit that the concept of a conspiracy theorist exists, yet systematically deny that anyone actually is a conspiracy theorist. Weregerbil 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you on about Cplot? Self identification isn't the only factor here. Jones is called a conspiracy theorist by others, and that is important in any Wikipedia article about him. Deliberately removing that information is censorship. Good heavens, at the end of the very first sentence in this article two references are given. The second of them goes to a Washington Post story headed "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young" which states  "Jones recently published theories about U.S. government involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001.....". It is accurate and valid for Wiki to say that others call him a conspiracy theorist. In fact, it is not only valid but our duty, if we want to present a balanced article. Moriori 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the article should report that he has been called so. One can't get a label stick to oneself on encyclopedia for a reason of newspaper article. SalvNaut 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It has everything to do with censorship. It also has absolutely nothing to do with how this person considers himself. Timothy McVeigh considered himself to not be a mass murderer. Should wikipedia not say that he was a mass murderer? Of course we should. It's the same in this case. You are advocating that Wikipeda not mention that this person has been widely referred to as a conspiracy theorist. Moriori 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The other uses of the term 'conspiracy theories' are a bit of a grey area, though I am opposed to those on the grounds that it is unencylopeic. I'm not now going to take issue with them or try to rmove them, but I will say I don't think they belong. Calling Jones a 'conpiracy theories' is not up for debate without a verifiable reliable source showing Jones self-identifies as such. You could add to the article that "Jones has been associated with  others whom the Washington Post labels as 'conspiracy theorists'" In this way there is a clear attribution (with a verifiable and reliable source) that shows who is referring to Jones in that way and that it's not Wikipedia. --Cplot 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave the Washington Post as an example because it already exists in the intro as a reference. The media generally says this person is a conspiracy theorist, and points to his own writings as evidence.  It is legitimate to say so in the article.  Moriori 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make such statements, please give sources - I've read many articleas about him and I've seen only 1 or 2 examples of this label used directly to him. SalvNaut 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I must say that Cplot's last two posts are very convincing. I agree with them, and yes, it should be either removed from the first paragraph or put the way Cplot has proposed. I remind, that one argument for calling him conspiracy theorist in the first paragraph was that he is notable thanks to it. So, let it be "Jones has been associated..." or "...has been labeled..". SalvNaut 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, "...has been labeled.."' is weasely but compromise is better than nothing if it helps give Wikipedia some semblance of professionalism. Moriori 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Can't be weasely Then, "has been labeled..." by who? I propose "mainstram media". Opinions? SalvNaut 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh my -- "politically motivated dismisals of his work"! You really should disqualify yourself from editing this article. Moriori 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, indeed present version is shapely. The fact, he has been labeled conspiracy theorist could find its way somewhere else in this article. SalvNaut 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't been 'labeled' a conspiracy theorist - ABC news and the Washington Post have noted that he is one. Without this coverage, he would not be notable enough for a biography at all, and that suggests another possibility: delete this page and leave him with just a section in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, you're wrong about this notability issue. Jones is a notable phycisist even if no one at WP noticed him til the 9/11 stuff. The cold fusion stuff simply isn't trivial. It is not enough for ABC and Wash Post to say he is one thing or another. I think Cplot's line on this is entirely reasonable. It is very clear in the article that Jones is a conspiracy theorist (for those who like to apply that label.) Wikipedia, however, has no basis for saying that he is one. That's an important distinction. We simply can't let anything that a mainstream news source prints be treated as citable fact in WP. The consequences of such a policy are staggering to imagine.--Thomas Basboll 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But for this he would be just one of many professors (and there's nothing wrong with that). His only claim to encyclopedic notability is his work on the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If he is not here as a conspiracy theorist, he does not belong here. Of course that is a judgement call, and that is what AfD is for. I think deletion may be appropriate, with a section in Researchers questioning..., and coverage in Scholars for truth, 9/11 conspiracy theories and cold fusion as appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I say, I think you're wrong about that. The cold fusion section is enough to warrant an article for Jones.--Thomas Basboll 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. I think that people who are mentioned in other articles (especially articles like cold fusion) deserve their own articles more or less automatically. And if there are, say, 10 conspiracy theorists who deserve an article on that notability alone, the Jones must surely be one of them.--Thomas Basboll 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So he is a notable conspiracy theorist, but we mustn't say so? Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I know what we mean "conspiracy theorist". In any case, yes, at bottom, we must not say so. The fact that two editors can agree that there is a sense in which a particular label applies does not entitle them to put that in the article.--Thomas Basboll 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that it is not our agreement. It is ABC news and the Washington Post. There are conspiracy theorists, and Jones is one, per citation to reliable sources. That's not all he is, but it is one important thing - important enough for those sources to mention it. Tom Harrison Talk 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is pretty simple. Not everything that newspapers say about people is true. In the case of biographies about living people, Wikipedia seems to have pretty clear policy. Use caution. I've gotta run, please don't AfD this until next year. ;-) --Thomas Basboll 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify, this means editors should be carul in naming articles with pejorative pahrses and even using pejorative terms within the article to describe a group. Instead I think the safe approach is to use the same BLP policy approach of self-identification and then provide direct inline attribution of pejorative statements made about the group. I'm not intimately familiar with the caselaw on this, but I imagine even an ortanization can bring a libel suit. --Cplot 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cplot, are you User:Zen-master? Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I am not a zen master. I don't even go to tample. But seriously no. Why do you ask?. --Cplot 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your writing and some of the pages you edit are similar. But I will take you at your word that you are not him. Thanks for the direct answer. Tom Harrison Talk 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  violations of Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons 

message: I have protected this page due to a disagreement regarding WP:BLP...dicuss here and reach a realistic finalization on that policy as it pertains to this page.--MONGO 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: I have added a sentence in the affiliations section that I think reaches a compromise. Even on the boldest reading of Fetzer's remark, Jones's removal from his co-chair is temporary. So so say that his future with the organization is uncertain is certainly true. Beyond that, I think reporting the dispute with Fetzer needs both more biographical study (and would constitute a kind of OR, I think) and more hindsight (i.e., time). So I think we should delete the whole "conflict" section.--Thomas Basboll 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about outlining the esential facts here, and discussing at length in 9/11 Truth Movement? Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: I hope we can all agree that the paper which has now been removed from BYU's webpage, and doesn't seem to have been published anywhere else (an is therefore unavailable in any reliable form), and can be found mentioned on the web only to ridicule him, has served whatever purpose it may have had, and can now be removed. Even if it has been published in newsletter somewhere (which is my recollection of its original publication data) this paper is absolutely peripheral to Jones's bio. Right?--Thomas Basboll 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is a person's religious beliefs peripheral to his Bio? --Tbeatty 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas, with this, and your earlier reticence to allow the Schism material, it's starting to feel like you've taken on the role of protector of Jones' wiki reputation.  That's not going to work.  The article can't make him out to be a fool, or a saint -- just the facts ma'am, unvarnished.  No spin allowed.  That's the Wikipedia way.  Morton devonshire 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormons believe that Jesus other biblical figures came to the America. This is standard Mormon belief. Mormons are also the most politically conservative major religion in the US, and vote GOP more than any other major religion.- F.A.A.F.A. 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mormons are the most politically conservative? More conservative than Clowns???!!! Clowns want to see America become the 4th Reich. How much more conservativve can you get? Do you have any verifiable source to back up your claim about mormons. I have a source to back up my claims. --Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know Clowns had their own religion! Are they all Pentacostalists like John Ashcroft - who think Satan walks among them, talk in tongues, and roll around on the ground in fits? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure that "protecting Jones's reputation" (not just "wiki reputation"), at least from unnecessary ridicule, is not only allowed, but required, by WP:BLP. But my edits here have been mainly to keep the artical in a neutral, informative, tone. Jones' religious belief are mentioned in the bio, but his "work" on Christ's possible visit to America cannot, IMHO, accurately be counted among his "research interests" on par with fusion and solar energy. There is also nothing to suggest he has taken it nearly as seriously (scientifically) as he is currently taking his WTC research. If we look at the spin that the "Behold my Hands" paper has received on the internet, it seems pretty clear that its inclusion here has had the effect of making a fool of Jones. Right now, there is no reliable way of sourcing it. And even if we could find the source text, I suspect that even mentioning (let alone writing a whole paragraph on it) gives it undue weight. (I don't think any of us actually know how to weigh it.) So, yes, in the interest of Jones's reputation and biographical accuracy, I'm trying to assess the relative importance of the many things that Jones, like anyone else, is interested in.--Thomas Basboll 07:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ's visit to America 

message: Tom has re-introduced the idea that Jones "is a physicist and conspiracy theorist" in the lead. I disagree with this way of putting it. I am not suggesting he not a conspiracy theorist, nor even that he might not self-identify with that label. (Though the last question is certainly also important.) Even if he were a conspiracy theorist by his own repeated admission he would not be an conspiracy theorist in the same sense that he is a physicist. The version Tom changed had very clear indications of his involvement with CTs but it did not put these labels on the same level. One day, his article may read, "Jones was a famous American conspiracy theorist. He abandoned his career as a physicist to..."  But I think it is too early to go down that road. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mongo summarizes a particular attitude to this article when he says Jones would only get a stub if not for his 9/11 work. I really hope that isn't how Wikipedia works. Imagine the hypothetical case of some high school student getting interested in cold fusion around, say, 2003. And suppose he sought info on Wikipedia. Now, suppose he found Jones's work to be really intersting and contacted Jones and read all his papers and ... and ... and ... and suppose he kept track of his discoveries by contributing to a rich, detailed article about Steven E. Jones the cold fusion expert. Would you keep cutting that guy's efforts back to a stub? The trouble with the "he's nothing without 9/11" approach is that it ignores the fact that Wikipedia articles develop out of the interest that Wikipedians take in whatever topics they take an interest in. They are not here to affect the reputations of people or topics; they are here to inform readers. So I think some of you are making too much out of how Jones got on Wikipedia's radar. I think you should think in terms of writing an accurate, informative and interesting biographical article. And then the question of the relative overall importance of Jones's career as a phycisist and his recent "notability" as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist can be taken more seriously.--Thomas Basboll 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think Mongo summarizes a particular attitude to this article when he says Jones would only get a stub if not for his 9/11 work."...is incivil...if you have a comment to make, do so about the message and not the messenger. My point is that Jones would get about a stub article only if he hadn't been involved in conspiracy theories regarding the WTC. His work on cold fusion is of minor importance, and if an article was written regarding his research there it would probably be only a stub since there isn;t much to write about. He is notable for most people for his conspiracy theories.--MONGO 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongo, that's ridiculous. Obviously "he would only get a stub" is a summary of a particular attitude or approach to this article. One that I disagree with but which is a particular POV on the article, that should be respected but cannot, IMHO, be endorsed. You make it sound like attributing an attitude to someone is an insult. My comments were about the message; you have taken the fact that they were about your message personally. My point is that the interest in Jones is only an occasion for working on this article. We still need to apply ordinary encyclopic standards to its content. The cold fusion section could be about 100K longer and not violate any policy. But the WTC stuff is about maxed out, I'd think.--Thomas Basboll 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I encourage you to add more about his cold fusion efforts to help him gain further credibility. Yes, I'm sorry, but your allusion that I was somehow biased that this article would get a stub only had it not been for his CT efforts, is a personal attack on my character, and I felt very hurt by it...as have probably a number of other editors. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If there is more to add about his cold fusion research, then please do so. I personally disagree with you on the issues revolving his WTC studies and think that, especially since that infomratuiion is more recent, we could come up with 200, maybe 300k of information...but that wouldn't be in keeping with summary style, and since it makes him possiblly look bad, it might violate WP:BLP.--MONGO 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's move this personal issue over to my talk page (or yours if you prefer). About expanding the cold-fusion section to balance this excessive emphasis on 9/11: well, that's the whole point, Mongo. I'm not especially interested in cold fusion and know very little about it. But the fact that no one who can contribute to that section is around right now does not give us license to skew the whole thing in the direction of his WTC work. That's bad biography. I believe Tom Harrison's edit overemphasizes Jones connection to CT's when compared to his lifelong career as a perfectly respectable physicist. It insists at looking at his whole life through the lens of a current controversy. That approach is full of problems. My argument was not that your bias would cut back the article to a stub were it not for the 9/11 issues, by the way; I assumed you would not cut the article back under the hypothetical conditions I described. By that means I was trying to show you a flaw in my your [!] argument. Anyway, come on over to my place and we'll work it out.--Thomas Basboll 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Content disputes are discussed in article space, not userspace, thanks. His work on cold fusion could be expanded and I encourage you to do so, but since he is better known due to the issues revolving around his insinuations that there were conspiracy theories at play in the collapse of the WTC, and that these arguments he has presented are current...then that is the emphasis. I don't doubt he has done fine work as a physicist, and that needs to be expanded, but there is no reason to inaccurately describe what he is best known for by attempting to minimize these issues.--MONGO 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I say, I don't know how to expand on his cold fusion work, I just know that it's a hell of a lot more important biographically at this point than his WTC work, which, as you keep pointing out, is "what he's best known for". There was a time when Paris Hilton was "best known" for amateur porn. Don't get me started. I'm not trying to minimize anything, I'm trying to keep things in perspective. Since some editors are pushing to maximize this issue, restraint may look like minimization. It's just accuracy, IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing a contemporary "best known" definition with a notability "best knowm" definition. In this case, SJ is known to the public for his CT work. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and a peanut farmer and a governor. At one time, he was "best known" for all those things yet over the span of his life, he is best known for being President of the United State. Jones, over the span of his life is most widely known for his CT work. This is patently obvious by the volumes of information including books, newspapers, movies, etc available on his CT work and the relatively dearth amount of information available on his work as a physicist. --Tbeatty 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicist ''and'' conspiracy theorist?