Talk:Paul Thompson (researcher)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was Merge and redirect.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Comments

--Why is this up for deletion--

Is it because the government doesn't like his research??

It's because he's "not notable", which I find hard to believe since he's had several articles written about him in major mainstream publications such as the Village Voice, and his mainstream-news-based 9/11 Timeline was part of the basis for the movie "9/11: Press for Truth", which I also understand is being considered "not notable", even though it has been reviewed by major mainstream movie critics such as Jay Carr. --Wigglestrue 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html --Wigglestrue 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are articles covering Paul Thompson the person that are linked on the Terror Timeline page, notably:

http://www.mediavillage.net/test/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=393&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

And of course, the FOX News interview: http://cooperativeresearch.org/091104foxnewsinterview.html

Article recreated

I have recreated the article after examining the previous AfD, and my own vote in that AfD. The general belief was Paul Thompson was not notable on his own. The previous article failed to mention some important facts:

A movie titled "9/11 Press For Truth" was based on Thompsons research.
Thompson has given over 100 interviews including on Fox News and Air America.
Thompson was featured in Esquire magazine in the "Genius Issue" where he was noted as a "terrorism expert"
He has testified to a Congressional Panel regarding the 9/11 commissions final report.

These are issues in which his research in general, not his just his book have come into play. It should also be noted the original reason for the AfD was that he was the author of a book that was going to fail its own AfD, however the book did not. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not concur that there is vastly more information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are listed above, they seem to disagree. There has since been a Congressional appearance, a law suit by the New York State Attorney Generals Office where his research was cited as important information to convene a grand jury, an Esquire appearance in their "Genius Issue", over 100 interviews including on Fox and Air America and finally a movie made based on his book which still remains in print. Then there is also the fact that the former terrorism chief uses his research to teach a class on terrorism and security. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get consensus from a wide variety of editors before determining the result of an AFD to be overturned based on a few reviews. The page is fine as a redirect while you work to achieve this consensus. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What reviews are you talking about? He appeared in Congress as a terrorism expert, was noted in Esquire as such, his research is used by the "anti-terrorism czar" Richard Clarke to teach courses in Harvard, he has given over 100 interviews including Fox News/Air America/Village Voice, his research even inspired a movie ... what reviews are you talking about? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did not appear in Congress, he was in a briefing for two congresspeople. Find reliable sources for your other claims (like the 100 interviews) before including them. Specifically, is he notable outside of his timeline? I think not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scoop article says over 100 =/ Did you read the sources? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I seem to have a hard time finding it. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediavillage source, I think this shows you haven't read over the sources, thank you though. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find your source, link it, and quote it, please? You said it was the Scoop article, but it wasn't. Now you say it's Mediavillage, but I don't see that in the references section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You arent looking if you cannot find it, thanks for playing. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I'm blind, but here's the current references section:

San Diego CityBEAT

The Village Voice

Santa Maria Sun

Scoop

The Sunday Star Times

Esquire

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

Buzz Magazine

Harvard University

Orb Standard

Could you tell me which of these is "mediavillage," so I can read your source? Providing a quote of the source would help me in finding it when you do point to the source. Thanks again! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a seperate note, this is an encyclopedia, not a game. If you are playing a game, I suggest you go elsewhere. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I thought you would be aware of links, when you click them you goto URL's (Uniform Resource Locator), the URL for the source you are hunting is mediavillage, hope that helps you in your search, the full source was given on the AN/I board. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, when someone asks you for a source of a statement, what you'll want to do is describe exactly what the source is. In this case, the domain name was "mediavillage" but the site was actualy labled as "The Sunday Star Times." If you has said "The Sunday Star Times," I would have found it immediately. Another option would be to present the link again - like this. Hope that helps! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great advice, I normally assume a person complaining about sources has actually read them, I guess that is a bad assumption. I will take your advice however when dealing with you in the future, since it seems you do not actually read the source presented before complaining about them. Happy New Year. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support recreation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I believe it should not be merged since its already been stated that 'The Terror Timeline' is deserving of its own article. The book has been the foundation of a website, used by the Attorney Generals Office, used by terrorism experts to teach others at Harvard, used as a basis for a movie, and published by a highly recognized publishing house. On top of that seperatly Paul Thompson has been regarded as a terrorism expert, called before Congress to testify on his knowledge, cited by Esquire in their "Genius Issue", is an established author who's work was published in a major publisher, and has participated in over 100 interviews on his personal research, only some of which went into the book, interview locations including Fox News and Air America. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False statements?

Please highlight what you feel is a false statement in the article, provide the quote and attached source. If this is not done in 3 days I will remove the tag. Please note the tag tells you to start a talk page discussion. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" over 100 interviews across various media outlets," is misleading. It's 100 radio interviews and two tv appearances. "congressional briefing" is inaccurate. It was not a congressional briefing, which has a specific meaning. Your enforced removal of "though he has no done no studies or training," which is a near quote from the Esquire article you state says that "recognition by some as "an authority on terrorism," though that quote is unsupported by the text (the full quote reads "He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism."). Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but source states its a congressional briefing, you said so yourself as well when complaining it wasnt a hearing. Various outlets ... lets see we have radio, tv and print .. sounds like various. You removed the authority for the no training, why not add the full quote, that I would support. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a briefing for members of congress, not a congressional breifing, as it was not conducted by a recognized comittee or subcomittee. If you support my version with minor changes, instead of reverting, and falling afoul of the 3rr rule, please reinstate my version with whatever changes, not reversions, you wish to make. I am happy to hash it out on the article page as opposed to the talk page, and will even consent to file no reversion reports if you consent to do the same, and at the same time consent to not revert my edits in whole or part, but rather to modify. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you attempting to blackmail me with the 3RR? please stop. Says congressional briefing, get over it. The title is "July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?" --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blackmailing anyone, I'm offering you a way out. If you include that McKinney was the sponsor of the so-called briefing, I would be willing to pass on the innacurate language. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You havent proven anything to be inaccurate. The source says its a congressional briefing, if you have a source that states otherwise please present it, then we will weigh them against eachother. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this - "No." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you have a source let me know. Till then you will be removing sourced information and that is vandalism, consider this a notice. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village voice interview?

The village voice article does not appear to be an interview. Why do we believe it was? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, noted its not an interview, but an article about him and his research, thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improperly Re-Created

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination), the closing Admin stated as follows: "The result was Merge and redirect to his book." This article was improperly re-created in open defiance of the closing Admin's directive. Morton devonshire 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are wrong. [1] Admins say otherwise. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future please do not remove evidence contrary to your point, someone assuming bad faith would think you were trying to hide it. Luckily I know you as an editor and am aware you wouldn't. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I was right. See the re-re-redirect of Paul Thompson (researcher) -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29. The Illuminated Master 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but now Terror Timeline will never fail a AfD. =), so easy, I guess you took the wrong cup. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you eat an elephant? Small bites. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

There really is a problem if the only sources of critical (in the sense of analytical) review are magazines like Esquire and the Village Voice. Like many articles in the "truther" walled garden, we are treating as an academic treatise something which has absolutely no academic peer review, and for which the majority of coverage comes from people looking for ways to avoid the bulk of the evidence and thus bolster predefined conclusions. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt about a conspiracy so I am not sure what you are talking about, also he is not noted as a academic but as a researcher. As for comments like ""truther" walled garden" I think your bias is clearly showing now. How do you peer review a person anyway? The book was a collection of articles etc, it wasnt proposing anything ... Do you know about this topic? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In "truthertalk", anybody can be a "researcher". Paul Thompson isn't even his real name. Morton devonshire 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the WP:RS sources seem to think otherwise. Lucky we do not practice WP:OR here to write something other then our sources say. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think those are WP:RS? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are from newspapers and major publications. Feel free to read over WP:RS. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 04:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that supermarket tabloids are WP:RS? If not, explain why these sources are different. If so, the problem is with WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket tabloid? Sorry but you are not being specific, last I checked Congress people did not have their own supermarket tabloids. Reffering to Esquire (magazine)? I wikilinked it so you can read about it if you were honestly complaining about Esquire. What exactly are you talking about? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Congressional "committee" reports should not be considered WP:RS, except as to the intent of the committee. They frequently lie about what they actually do. As for Esquire (magazine), I'm not certain. I do know that Omni (magazine) frequently confused fact with fiction, and should not be consdered a WP:RS except as to what they actually said. The Village Voice is not known for researching their articles — but, neither is the New York Times, so I suppose we shouldn't hold it against them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with WP:RS sources being WP:RS you need to take it to WP:RS and discuss there and when the whole Wiki community decides to make exceptions because of the evidence I am sure you have and will present, then this discussion can continue, you not liking a certain paper and promising they lie, is really not good enough. Again, if you feel a source doesnt meet WP:RS then make a post there about the paper you have issues with and post a link here. Thanks. And stating congressional commitee reports lie ... just wow. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I noticed

These are the sources listed: San Diego CityBEAT, The Village Voice, Santa Maria Sun, Esquire, Scoop, The Sunday Star Times, House.gov, Buzz Magazine, Harvard University, and Orb Standard. All of them meet RS it seems --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]