Jump to content

Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ArchiveĀ 1ArchiveĀ 2ArchiveĀ 3

Page protected

I have protected the page from editing. Please work out the disagreement here. The dispute seems to be whether or not there should be a seperate criticism section. Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I protected the page, I'm not going to take part in the dispute for now. Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tom's role was to lock it in favor of the Levi P. version which includes derogatory statements critical of Jones in an area which is not criticism. Why not just delete those phrases, Tom, so that you are not favoring one side in locking it? bov 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request unprotection, or request that an edit be made while the page is still protected, at Wikipedia:This page is protected. Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bov, since your insistence to move around passages has resulted in the page protection, how about you stop snipping at Tom and start forming a cogent argument for why we should break with precedent and put facts re: his WTC research under the heading of Criticism. Levi P. 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
>>Bov, since your insistence to move around passages has resulted in the page protection
I didn't act alone -- it was continually moved back out of the criticism area, which is why there is an issue. Why don't you break with precedent and let it move to where it belongs? bov 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. You are not presenting an argument in favor of your version. You want to change the status quo, you want, in your own words, to "break with precedent", yet you proffer no reasons why this should be done (beyond your repeated assertion that "it belongs" where you would like it to be). This is a complete waste of time. Levi P. 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not that wed to the KIRO interview. There is plenty of other criticism of Jones in the mainstream media that doesn't need to be paraphrased, but could be quoted directly. The fact is, the KIRO interview is the one I heard, so that's why I posted it -- unfortunately for the Truth Movement, he came off unprepared, sloppy, and stupid -- you could tell that Dave Ross felt embarassed for him, but I didn't include that observation in the article. If you are suggesting that no criticism is allowed, then perhaps you ought to consider whether the article should be here at all. Jones launched himself onto the world with his unsupportable ideas, and when the mainstream media criticizes those ideas, he should be prepared to see citations to that material too. I would be glad to delete the article if that would save him some grief. Morton devonshire 01:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Morton and Bov could edit the paragraph so that it is acceptable to the both of them. My only concern is that it is not shoved into the crit. section. Levi P. 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I find myself wondering why your 'only concern about the article' that it not be considered criticism when Morton devonshire clearly says, "he came off unprepared, sloppy, and stupid -- you could tell that Dave Ross felt embarassed for him"? 70.137.142.172 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's my characterization. Ross did not say that, nor did I say that in my summary. But he did present as unprepared, sloppy and stupid. Morton devonshire 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad, anon, that you are able to recognize criticism when you see it. Yes, saying, "he came off unprepared, sloppy, and stupid" is criticism. Now, if you'll just turn those same powers of perception to the actual paragraph in question, you will find that it contains only a summary of his radio appearance, and no such editorializing. I'm beginning to become concerned that so many editors seem to be incapable of distinguishing between criticism and simple expository writing. An absolutely necessary element in criticism, the controlling point, is that it contains some judgement. I truly have no idea what else to say; I've not the inclination to give basic instruction in rhetoric: perhaps certain editors would do well to work on their understanding of rhetorical terms instead of foisting their ignorance on the community at large. Levi P. 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Threats, and peer review information

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=thermite&hl=en In this video Jones explains the peer review process his paper has gone through (2 or 3 rounds, including peer review by PH Ds, according to him), and also details a series of threats made to him by someone with connections to the U.S. government. The still-unnamed engineer offered federal funds to Jones' university, BYU, if Jones agreed to shift the direction of his research. This, according to Jones, is the root cause of his issues with BYU early on. These issues have since been resolved, according to him, and the university agrees with him that his paper has been properly peer reviewed.

I think this information about both the peer review and the threats should be included in the article.

Yeah, it was "peer-reviewed" by David Griffin's staff -- another branch of the conspiracy theory religion. So much for peer review. Morton devonshire 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you know something that we don't? Because peer-review process is sort of secret and I couldn't find names of the persons that peer reviewed him second and third time. I would rather suspect that it was someone from his university and/or someone BYU asked to do it. Do you know that after those consecutive peer reviews BYU removed "disclaimer" about Jones's findings from their web page? It's meaningful and I think this fact could be somehow incorporated into the article, as there is info about BYU statement, yet there is none about it's removal. --SalvNaut 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Listen to the video tape cited above. He talks about it 15 minutes in. Morton devonshire 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
About who made consecutive peer-reviews? I couldn't find it. There is nothing about it 15 minutes in. He talks about threats made to him. But I'm ok - no need to discuss that now. --SalvNaut 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not listening to enough of the tape. He talks about the peer review in several portions, and about half-way through he reveals that the so-called peer review was done by Griffin's people, who are also conspiracy theorists. In addition, he is hardly a reliable source for determining whether or not his work has been peer reviewed. It would seem that his sponsoring academic institute is in the best position to determine whether his academic work has been peer reviewed. If this is not academic work, then it's not academic work, and peer review is not even relevant. Morton devonshire 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Morton: We are hearing what we want to hear. Listen for a minute or so starting 21:55 - he says about his relationship with BYU, that they have given him right to publish.He says about talks with his dean. Then he says "This question about peer review was settled" (with BYU college dean?). "My paper went to another publication, David Griffin's".(this only states who the publisher was) "It went through another set of peer reviews, this time by 4 Ph.Ds, and that settled the question. The college dean did...".
Look - first, this set of peer reviews apparently settled the case with his dean. Second - you don't know who were those 4 Ph.Ds (me neither) (Griffin's people? how do you know?) . All we know that it was enough for the dean to settle the "peer review question" and it seems that this was when BYU statements about Jones's work were removed from BYU site. (He referes to those statements couple of times in this video)
To state my opinnion clearly: I am absolutely against putting into an article information which suggests that a living person is a liar (contradiction with Jones's statement on his page - it would at least udermine Jones's credibility as a scientist), when the only reference,source that we cite to support it is an article which cites BYU statement, which since quite some time was removed! And guy has been quite a good scientist, so no other reason to do that, really. It does not follow WP:LIVING at all. I think we should name his paper controversial and that's it. What is your opinnion? --SalvNaut 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and I observed that you might see the "conspiracy theory" as a disease that eats human brain (although I agree that there might be cases like thatĀ :) and everyone who supports it in slightest way does no longer qualify as a scientist - that is wrong. It's just a point of view, and in every science there is a lot of disagreement like this one (official story vs CT). So even if some of those 4 Ph.Ds were "Griffin's people" they still were Ph.Ds (for sake!). --SalvNaut 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that Morton devonshire would keep such good track of professor Jones and others he calls Conspiracy Theorists, watching their videos, reading the books, listening to their radio interviews, etc. One would almost wonder if he wasn't . . . well, anyway. Locewtus 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't resort to personal attacks Locewtus. Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Sloane 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What, what, a false-flag-problem-reaction-solution-reptilian-agenda-Queen-of-England-loving-Heglian-dialectic-Bohemian-Grovist? Morton devonshire 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request I

Note: Article not protected (16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Since the debate is not about whether or not Jones' work has been peer-reviewed (everyone agrees that it has), but about the quality of that review (about which much can be said), I request that the sentence that says his work "has not been peer-reviewed" be removed until the controversy is settled.--Thomas Basboll 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Support --SalvNaut 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Something is not peer reviewed if it is reviewed by partisan reviewers. Peer review means objective review by academic peers. Not conspiracy theory peers. No, it hasn't been peer-reviewed. Morton devonshire 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
His work has not been published or peer-reviewed. I do not know what would give you the impression that it has. Peer-review denotes that a reputable, independent journal oversaw a process whereby qualified experts vigerously investigated the methodology used and conclusions reached. Jones' paper has not been subjected to anything even approximating peer-review. Levi P. 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Peer-review is a not a simple notion. In this particular case it is highly controversial. Levi and Morton are restating the controversy. My request is to remove the controversial statement until the issue is settled. I.e., I think we should err on the side of not damaging Jones' reputation.--Thomas Basboll 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
PS - please note that I am not requesting we say that he has been peer-reviewed. I'm requesting that we don't say that he hasn't. That is, I am urging caution.--Thomas Basboll 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and nom the article for deletion, I will support. Morton devonshire 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's a perfectly good little article here about a minor physicist and a popular cult figure. Lot's of people interested the question "who is Steven E. Jones".--Thomas Basboll 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead and edit out all of the conspiracy theory stuff, and just stick to his academic career. Morton devonshire 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's basically what I'm suggesting at this stage. With my two requests, we just mention the reason for the current popular cult around him, but we don't (yet) make it a major event in his carreer as a physicist.--Thomas Basboll 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Excerpt from Peer review:
"How it works A publisher sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to others who are experts in the field (who serve as the referees). Usually, there are two or three referees. These referees each return an evaluation of the work, including suggestions for improvement, to one of the publisher's editors (typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author as well). Scientific journals observe this convention universally."
Prove me wrong, but universally does not mean necessarily? I suggest you all read that article with scrutiny. --SalvNaut 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless - not making any statement about it is NPOV. --SalvNaut 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
By saying so you completely undermine credibility of a scientist and simply a person(Jones), having no precedents in his life to do so. That's because you can read on his web page "The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews (successfully)".
He and some scientist (person that supports conspiracy theory is still a scientist! rember that) say it has been, other people say it hasn't (BYU only said "has not been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." from this sentence you can deduce that they are concerned about how rigorous the peer review was. Finally, this statement has been removed from BYU webpage.).
It's not up to us to decide about it - not me, not you. So we won't make any statements about peer review and we will report his paper as "controversial". This is most NPOV we can do now. --SalvNaut 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
SalvNaut has a good point. It can even be sharpened: given the remark on the paper's webpage that he cites, Sloane is in fact calling Jones a liar. I don't think we have any basis to do so at this point. It is too strong a tension between what Jones says and what the article says.--Thomas Basboll 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If you think it is peer reviewed then you'll have no problem telling me which reputable journal oversaw the process.--Sloane 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane, please read my last post up there under "Threats, and peer review information". I am not sure how well his paper was peer reviewed (it was well enough for BYU dean to remove the statement). That is why I think we shouldn't put it into the article. --SalvNaut 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
SalvNaut, you continue to suggest a relationship between Jones' fantasy peer-reviews and BYU's removal of a year-old statement from their website. There is absolutely no evidence of this. You are simply creating "facts" whenever you see fit. BYU never retracted anything they said, and there is absolutely positively no reason to think they have changed their stance at all. Levi P. 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Listen to the video. I agree - he never states it clearly this way. But Jones's talked with his dean about for sure.
"absolutely positively no reason" (except for the fact that statement was removed after second round of peer reviews. Jones clearly adresses BYU statements couple of times in the video - you can listen) - that is your POV, and neither you have any data to support it (or have you?), nor I have anything more than this video to support mine POV. And because our POV's vary - let's not include peer review info in the article. What do you say? --SalvNaut 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, peer review is crucial to scientific research, which Jones claims his work to be. Therefore it must stay. A video by Jones is not a reliable source. --Sloane 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, peer review is not crucial to do a research. It's crucial not to suggests that a living person is a liar (contradiction with Jones's statement on his page - is wikipedia to udermine Jones's credibility as a scientist?), when the only reference,source that we cite to support it is an article which cites BYU statement, which since quite some time has been removed (probably after peer review - my POV). Jones has been quite a good scientist, so video by him does mean something. Sloane: You suggest that Sloane's opinnion on peer review is more valuable than Jones's. Or, please give me something more than this BYU statement. --SalvNaut 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable from an academic point of view. Peer review is a precise academic term with no wriggle room. ("Scientific journals observe this convention universally."). To have two of your associates read the paper is not "peer review". If that were true, my breakup email to my girlfriend was "peer-reviewed". It is a universal scientific framework implemented to verify results in an impartial manner. The authority of the "peer review" comes from the reputation of the journal conducting it; essentially, you have "Nature's word" or "JAMA's word" that the results are true. That simply isn't the case. You have the author himself claiming they were verified, which is so far outside the pale it's laughable. --Mmx1 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
They were not two, but 4PhDs and not his associates (maybe they were sharing similiar POV? maybe not). I agree that this peer review has "questionable" reputation - it is still way different from what you want to put into the article. (BTW: those things are better handled with a talk, not a letter - my POV) --SalvNaut 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
SalvNaut, there seem to be diminishing returns in engaging you in discussion. Sloane and Morton have explained to you, quite clearly, their position ( as have I). You have no reputable sources to back up any of your assertions. Levi P. 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Diminishing returns - you are right. I think I won't discuss this matter much more - all I have are my "assertions" and good faith in Steven Jones as a person and as a scientist.(and WP:LIVING)
I just want to make it clear what are you Mmx1, Levi P. (and others?) standing here for:
"We, Mmx1, Levi.P and fellow Wikipedians report that S.Jones, good scientist with notable past publication in Nature has written a paper. Although Jones claims his paper has been peer reviewed, although there are videos (22m in) of him saying that after second round of peer reviews made by 4 Ph.Ds "the question of peer review" was settled between him and BYU college dean, we Wikipedians claim "His paper was not peer reviewed". As a proof of this claim, dear reader, we give you this The Chronicle article, in which they cite BYU statement from BYU page. This statement (in which BYU claimed of being not convinced about peer review) unfortunately has been removed some time ago. We present this article about Steven E. Jones to you, dear reader, as an objective reality."
Do you stand for this? Did I put it wrong? How easy is to discredit a person, given his claims are unpopular? All I ask you is not to include this statement about this peer review. (or if you can, try to back it up with some way better sources...?) That's all from me. --SalvNaut 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You could easily prove your point if you just provided a link to the journal which oversaw the peer-review. You are unable to do so because his paper has been neither peer-reviewed nor published. These are the facts. Levi P. 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request II

Note: Article not protected (16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

This is an article about a living physicist, whose reputation is at stake. The article very likely overemphasises the WTC investigation and, more worryingly, sets it in a largely negative light. There is by no means a consensus about this weighting of Jones' research interests among the editors working on the article, nor about the quality of this (possibly marginal, though currently spectacular) topic. It would therefore seem prudent to err on the side of neutrality. I request we delete everything from "Jones has compiled..." to "...critique leveled at them" until the controversy is resolved. It is not yet clear that he deserves to look like a fool.--Thomas Basboll 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I'm fine with you editing out the crazy stuff. But if any of the crazy stuff is left in, it has to be put in perspective. Levi P. 23:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Why not just eliminate all of the 9/11 stuff? After all, it's not like the U. has sanctioned any of that work, and it's not as if it's his area of expertise, as is the cold fusion work. As far as I can tell, it's not part of his professional life, but merely an unsanctioned hobby, like editing Wikipedia articles. Morton devonshire 00:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
Here comes Morton - "the defender of the World against conspiracy theories"Ā :-)) Don't get madĀ :-) 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)
Dude. I'm not relevant here. Chill. I am your Ambassador of Kwan. Morton devonshire 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

I don't support editing down the 9/11 section on Jones to Thomas Basboll's version because it is saying so little about his work that it seems absurd, given his popularity -- a google search on "Steven E. Jones" + "9/11" returns 198,000 cites.

How about this version:

"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)

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)
Oppose. I don't think the article needs any serious changes at all.--Sloane 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please adress at least some of those points raised in Thomas's first post. --SalvNaut 22:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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[1], 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)
"he is clearly seeking media attention" -- fascinating, how our world views differ.--SalvNaut 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I request that the offending paragraph be removed, regardless of what else is decided -- it's been up a long time and obviously the purpose of it is to vilify Jones, or to try to embarrass him, as has been shown in the discussion on this page. bov 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merciless Editing

As in, when do we get to? Morton devonshire 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unprotected

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)

Starting with caution

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)

As a side note of course...please adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is policy.--MONGO 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

Protection

Criticism section

Sloane does not follow WP:LIVING. He does not discuss his (major) changes.

From WP:LIVING: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."

Sloane: How about replacing "While the paper has won no support among engineers" with two criticizing sentences (with a citation maybe?) --SalvNaut 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I DID NOT CHANGE THE ARTICLE. The criticism section has been here for months and nobody objected to it. Recently however, an edit war started over a minor issue (whether he was currently researching the collapse) and the article was protected. After the unprotection you and User:Thomas Basboll hijacked the article and removed all critism without there being any consensus on the talk pages. --Sloane 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also the criticism does NOT overwhelm the article, it's not even 10% of the content. The critcism was perfectly sourced by the way.--Sloane 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I say, in order to balance the direct criticism with the overwhelming amount of direct support he has received from the CT community, at the same level of detail as the criticism that was there, the WTC section would become way too large. As you are trying to point out, Sloane, Jones has been largely ignored by the scientific community. That silence is noted in the article. The rest is noise.--Thomas Basboll 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that something has been here for months does not make any point here.
  • Uhm yes it is. Long time editors of the article (pro and contra his research) had no problems with the criticism section. Then suddenly you showed up and decided to remove it all. --Sloane 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue of Jones researching is not an issue. Please look in the archive. Please also note, that calling it a research does not make his claims any more valid (there are many researches that came to be invalid in their claims). It's just what he did - used his archaeometry and physics experience to write a paper.
  • Critcism section did overhelm the article.It's not article about his research into WTC but about Jones. And please try to understand what Thomas said about direct support and criticism. Engineers do not criticise his work (in their papers), except for some interviewed. You will probably say "that's because his claims are "non-issue"". Then OK - put the sentence that some claim so, into the article. Jones has very large support from people that surround him. --SalvNaut 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And his WTC research is currently one of his main occupations and is the reason he became notable in the media. No reason to turn it into a small section. Engineers don't criticise his work in "their papers" because Jones' paper was never peer reviewed or published. Jones has very large support ... from a crazy fringe group. --Sloane 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"crazy fringe group" - it is your POV, don't push it. There are many scientists there (but no engineers - we all agree on that).-SalvNaut 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to have it both ways, Sloane. You want to say that scientists consider the WTC hypothesis both a non-issue and something worth criticizing. I think the first way is the right one. If the section is not kept short, it will have to grow way too long. The only way to include your collection of sources (which includes a letter to the editor) would be to cite the wide range of supporters he has (in comparable sources) who are also not his peers. (If criticisms from engineers are relevant, then so is support from theologians, philosophers, and other intellectuals.) We would have to tell the whole story of the popular reception of his hypothesis (since, as you point out, it has virtually no scientific reception--Firmage's critique is very superficial, you must admit.) At this point, an article on Jones does not warrant telling that story, though an article on the controlled demolition hypothesis or the 9/11 CTs might.--Thomas Basboll 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Time magazine [2] now says that 9/11 CTs are "not a fringe phenomenon" and even "part of mainstream political reality".--Thomas Basboll 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean by having it both ways. Jones frames it as a problem of elementary physics. Engineers think that is painfully naive, i.e., that elementary physics is a non-issue. You, however, are calling it both an engineering issue and an engineering non-issue. I am granting that it is not an issue in engineering--certainly that Jones' work is not being criticized seriously (i.e., taken seriously) by engineers. The article says that, and the criticism your are suggesting amplifies it out of proportion.--Thomas Basboll 13:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why we would be linking to who published his book...see WP:SPAM. The critics section is referenced and will stay in the article. It does not overwhelm anything and is referenced so there is no reason this cannot stay.--MONGO 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making such strong, judging claims. Please try to convince us. What is wrong with Thomas's reasoning?
About the book - I am not sure. This is one of the reasons why he is notable. I don't know really. --SalvNaut 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a few points that are critical of his findings and they are all referenced. If you wish to add information that is not critical, then please do so, so long at it is reliably referenced.--MONGO 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
His book can be mentioned and even paraphrased, but only in terms of what it's immediate content is about. We don't generally recite someones book overall, just explain what it is generally about.--MONGO 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This way everything will go back to where it was. WTC section will be a place for POV pushing wars, selective citations, direct/undirect criticism vs direct/undirect support. I think this is what we want to avoid when it comes to a biography of a living person, right? --SalvNaut 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I hope that isn't the case. I have tried to deemphasize the critics section by removing italics and softening the wording a bit. Please do add supporting references of his work.--MONGO 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as most people, Jones is best known for his contributions to the theory of controlled demolition, not things like cold fusion...which would not make him a name we would have heard of, unless he could make it work. I think the section on his thories regarding controlled demolition could be expanded, leaving the critism section as it is, unless something else of great note pops up.--MONGO 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There would be nothing wrong with an encyclopedia article that corrected the reader's belief that what someone is currently famous for is all, or the most important thing, they've ever accomplished.--Thomas Basboll 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the criticism section accurate?

I think we may want to go at this another way. I certainly don't want to dig up a bunch of supportive remarks about Jones' work to balance with these loose remarks made by people who mainly refuse to engage with it. If you read the Chronicle piece, you will see that the following sentence in the article is misleading: "Some experts have dismissed Jones' paper as being a "non-issue", and containing "nothing to debunk", since Jones' paper has not been published in a scientific journal." The lack of publication is not the reason they offer. Sunder, Bazant and Corotis are quoted in a lead up to the idea that engineers are no longer puzzled by the collapses: i.e., they don't need another explanation. That's why Jones' hypothesis is "dead on the vine", and may be the reason it won't be published. (Bazant has actually taken people quite seriously even though they have not been published...but that's another story.) Moreover, a fair article would also cite Sunder's remark (quoted in NY magazine) that he is "sympathetic" to precisely Jones' paper, but "facts are facts". That is, the Chronicle piece does not say that Jones has been criticized by engineers; rather, it says that he has been largely ignored. Eagar, who "reluctantly" addresses a few points, ultimately "does not care to respond formally to Mr. Jones," reports the Chronicle. Finally, the article summarises the following paragraph:

Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." (Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press.)

Like this: "There are also academicians, including some from Jones' own university, who question whether the article has been properly vetted by other experts in the field." That is, the parenthetical remark that "Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists" is completely ignored, even though it is obvious that the journalists felt that they couldn't just leave the reader with the impression that the accusations were true. And all this is just the first paragraph!--Thomas Basboll 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are the physicists that have critiqued his book? To my knowledge, he asserts that two have, but doesn't name who they are. His book is also published as "peer reviewed" by whom? What is the peer reviewing organization? Is it from those that are knowledgable in the specifics of this type of research? We need to connect the dots...maybe shoot jones an email and ask him directly? You should be able to find it through the BYU website. If he can name those that have peer reviewed his work and this has been published as such, then no problem.--MONGO 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that after all this discussion I understand that Jones's paper is "dead on the vine" and if nothing more is published then the case will be too. I fully support what Thomas is bringing on - we can't make Jones look like a fool by adding every word of criticism (none of which adresses Jones paper in detail). What is Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds doing there?!(i am removing it) As to balance it with support we would have to cite everyone from Sholars of 911 Truth, every article from Journal of 911 Studies, Griffin's book etc etc. Do we really want to do that? Isn't it better to go along what Thomas is saying? That is point out that his paper is ignored and it's non issue among engineers.--SalvNaut 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you consider Jones' work to be valuable to the CT community, then shouldn't criticism from within that community be added? --Sloane 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)--~~
Please read more carefully! - It could have been added if balanced with support. We don't want to do that, not to overemphasises the WTC investigation so his article doesn't become POV-war arena again! --SalvNaut 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not required to "balance it with support", particularly when the scientific community rejects the validity of his findings. That his conclusions are legitimate scientific conclusions is a minority POV and ought not be given undue weight. Readded internal dissent in one sentence, and the qualifier "some" from "some experts have dismissed". "Experts have dismissed" is fully supported by the source, and the qualifier "some" implies a significant alternative POV among experts. --Mmx1 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you read the discussion above?
  • "scientific community rejects the validity of his findings" - as Thomas said it "mainly refuse to engage with it"
After rethinking the case I found out that it looks like Morgan and Woods paper is as far the most scientific critique of Jones's paper (whoa! what an irony! anyway,i don't find it correct) So maybe it might stay but shouldn't it be noted that they are proponents of no-plane theory? (it's important from who the critism comes)--SalvNaut 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, just so we're on the same page, what do you take to be the strongest source for the claim that "the scientific community rejects the validity of his findings"?--Thomas Basboll 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

book

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

Criticism section and Wikipedia:Criticism

As a foundation for subsequent, improving edits, I would like to humbly propose to all editors to get familiar with Wikipedia:Criticism, especially with the section Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section. I think that the problem, which Thomas has raised, of Jones's paper having "virtually no scientific reception" vs "loose words" criticism could be framed into Criticism vs Reception problem (hmm...do I make myself clear?). In future solid,direct critique which adresses Jones paper "page by page" (if such occurs) could be added under Criticism, and other loose remarks under Reception.

I know that some of you would like to point out, that Jones paper is not scientific, not a research, etc. etc. so it won't receive scientific criticism. No, I think it is wrong to think so because this paper is a piece of work by a scientist, who claims it's a research. Jones worked his life to be respected as a scientist. If his paper is to be proclaimed "not scientific" or "not a research", then it would have to be scientificaly proven so. Loose remarks, FAQs (NIST), opinions just won't do. --SalvNaut 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. There's no such thing as a "scientist" who's qualified to speak to all aspects of science. Jones worked to be respected as a particle physicist. That gives him little to no expertise in archaeometry or engineering. Anyone with any exposure to academia will tell you that. Just because a work is produced by a "scientist" does not make it "scientifically sound". --Mmx1 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What in the world brought you to the conclusion that he is not experienced in archaeometry? Do you know what it is, and that he has been working in this field from some time? You think that "particle physicists" knows nothing except about particles? Maybe you should apply more "exposure to academia" to yourself.
Did you read his paper? He very rarely brings arguments from the field of engineery. He writes about molten metal and elementary physics. He definately is an expert in most things he writes about. His conclusions reach beyond his field of experience - that's nothing unusual in science. --SalvNaut 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He's writing about a collapsing building. That falls under engineering. --Sloane 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The approach he takes falls under physics. I conclude you haven't read it.(or have you?)
Robert Penrose "The Emperor's New Mind": writes about mind - that falls under psychiatry?? or rather falls under phylosophy??; he writes about computers - that falls under programming??; he writes about conciousness - that falls under neuroscience?? Closer example: look, Steven E. Jones is a physicist and he works in the field of archeology - this is archaeometry. These are very often in science - interdisciplinary approaches. --SalvNaut 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Jones is a particle physicist, if you think that has any relevance to building collapse, you're being willfully obtuse. --Mmx1 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't read his paper I will tell you that it is mainly about basic kinetics, molten metals, erosion of steel, heat,fire, thermite. Those are all topics from physics. He works with this stuff every day. That is also why physicists were peer-reviewing the paper. What you are trying to tell me is like saying that...a mathematician can't solve an algorythmic problem - he at least could give many priceless clues! I also remind you that Jones's paper is not "the last word" - it only urges for close investigation of demolition hypothesis. And as for now, no engineer clearly adressed his claims and rejected them. --SalvNaut 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we present the controlled demolition hypothesis?

At this point, there is more space devoted to criticizing Jones' hypothesis than is devoted to presenting it. I went over and had another look at the 9/11 CT section and his version of the hypothesis is not given separate attention. He offers thirteen reasons to investigate the collapses again, including specific criticisms of the NIST report. He argues that scientists should look specifically for evidence for and against controlled demolition. These reasons could be itemized here, so the reader can get a sense of what all the fuss is about among those who want to dismiss him. Before making that summary, however, I wanted to hear if there is a consensus behind it. Like I say, I suspect it is making a mountain out of a molehill in a biographical article. But with the quantity of criticism that is being proposed, it seems necessary to flesh out the views that are being criticized. An easier way would be to say, in a nutshell, he has offered thirteen reasons to investigate controlled demolition but is being largely ignored by the engineering community.--Thomas Basboll 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I would prefer a single paragraph criticisms (as of my last edit) to a lengthy discussion of both the hypothesis and criticisms.--Mmx1 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but for the sake of balance I have expanded a bit on the ideas in paper. We can start reducing both section simultaneously if you like. In writing it, it occured to me that we should be better at distinguishing between Jones' personal opinion (I think he has said he's pretty sure it was demolition) and the claims he presents in the paper. He makes a stronger case for investigating the collapses again than for controlled demolition itself.--Thomas Basboll 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Single paragraph should also be balanced with short description of his paper (..presented 13 points...etc).
From what we have seen here there are many who would like to critisize him so keeping single paragraph probably won't work.Summarizing would be really helpful for those who would like to get familiar with his findings (both critics and proponents) - that is what Wikipedia is for.
Those 13 points should be written in a way that does not violate NPOV. This raises the question how to handle the criticism. According to Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section it's better to have criticism integrated into article than a seperate section. So each point could have to have it's own place for it. This might work - critique could be less ambiguos and more accurate. Then we might create "Reception" section, too.
As for "making a mountain out of a molehill": could we add a line "Because of large ammount of interest and criticism [reference to Times article, Guardian article and other that put him in the light] main claims of Jones's paper are presented below:" (or something similiar)? --SalvNaut 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


What a novel idea - to present an outline of his arguments ( are you sure this idea has been "peer reviewed"). His original paper asked for an investigation of the technical details. It seems strange that so many "educated" engineers are so easily satisfied without even seeing any evidence - not the way engineers usually think or operate. The "expert" engineers supporting the government's 911 report I hope don't go out in the field doing real work. Think of all the new knowledge that would come from a thorough investigation - 1. how to melt steel with kerosene and paper ( worth $$billions and very energy efficient - makes cold fusion seem tame by comparison), 2. etc ). It appears BYU is under extreme pressure from someone - it would be a good start to try and find out who is interested in a professor ( a metal expert by the way ) and his opinions. I see several attempts to try to link him with other people - maybe he is an anti-Semite ( well worth a try ) or gay ( well that's really not PC ) or some other ad homimin attack - maybe that Duke guy ( that's always a good one).

Dave Ross?

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)

Unnamed or anonymous?

Sloane has qualified the remark about the two physicists who peer-reviewed his work (according to the Chronicle article) as "unnamed". Mongo (above) suggests that Jones' should be able to "name those that have peer reviewed his work". Again, I may have missed something, but isn't the assumption here that if Jones' work has been properly peer-reviewed then it has been anonymously peer-reviewed. I assume that is why he is not forthcoming with the names. He doesn't know them. Only his editors do, and they are duty-bound not to tell. That's certainly a common way of doing peer-review.--Thomas Basboll 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They are frequently done anonymously (although earlier this year I was involved in a publication where we were asked for recomendations for referees). Editors are certainly not "duty-bound" to do anything ( one frequently knows who the referees are even if they are not named specificaly). The point here is that "peer-review", as understood among academics, is something which is supervised by an impartial, reputable third party. Jones, his editor, and anyone associated with Jones do not approach this standard. Frankly, Jones is being quite disingenuous with his talk of "peer-review", and, as an academic, truly should be ashamed of himself. Levi P. 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
But the notion of peer review rests on the impartial third party that knows the reviewers. As the reviewer in this case is David Ray Griffin, that's hardly an impartial or qualified party to be conducting a review.--Mmx1 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1: Griffin is the editor, not the reviewer (unless you know something I don't). Certainly Griffin is not one of the two physicists mentioned in the Chronicle piece, which is the source for the sentence in question.
Levi: I meant simply that if the review was anonymous, then the editor should not reveal the name of the reviewer as a matter of course, for obvious reasons; but you are of course free to guess, ask around, let it slip, etc. I take it that in this case we don't know who the reviewers are. So we have no basis for saying that they are not impartial, and certainly far from having a source to show that Jones is being disingenuous (this was my point from the start: we are close to calling him a liar and that demands a very strong source). Finally, editors often have deep relations with their authors, i.e., are "associated" with them. Impartiality lies in the careful selection of reviewers and anonymisation of the texts reviewed.--Thomas Basboll 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant that Grffin was the reviewing body; he in this case is functioning like the journal (Nature, for example), that provides the "anonymous" referees. --Mmx1 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas: you are missing the entire point. Impartiality lies in the careful selection of reviewers and anonymisation of the texts reviewed- that is the point. The editor of the impartial, reputable journal is the one who picks the referees. That is how one can be assured that it has been properly vetted. Jones or his friends "editing" his paper has absolutely no relation to "peer-review" as it is understood and practiced in academia. This is not confusing; you either are ignoring the facts or have no idea what you are talking about. (No offense). Levi P. 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage here: you know that the two "unnamed physicists" are Jones' friends? Where do you have that from?--Thomas Basboll 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Who chose the referees? Not an editor from a reputable journal. The only thing that makes a 'peer-review' worth the paper it is written on is the assurance that the referees are truly experts in the subject of the paper and that they have vigerously investigated the conclusion reached and methodologies used. What grants that assurance is the reputation of the journal that oversaw the review. This article will not artificially inflate Jones' "work" by granting it the credibility that comes with introducing one's work to "peer-review". Jones has chosen not to avail himself of that opportunity (why should he; his sophistry seems to get him more than a few gullible followers). There is no way that this article is going to read as if he has. Levi P. 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We know who chose the referees (or can safely assume it): Griffin and Scott. Books, especially anthologies, often undergo peer-review. It is not a very impressive publisher, perhaps, but neither are all journals that offer perfectly respectable peer-review processes very presitigious on that basis alone. A journal's first issue will normally be peer-reviewed, but it will not, of course, be "reputable". Please keep in mind that my baseline position on this that no mention of peer review should be made, neither for nor against. But since you insist on claiming that it has not been peer-reviewed, we need a source for that. The most recent source of BYU's disclaimer is the Chronicle piece. It is careful to add, immediately afterward, that the paper has been "peer-reviewed by two physicists". You are suggesting we conveniently ignore that remark. I don't know how the Chronicle satisfied itself about it. But unless you have a better source that says the review did not happen, we can't let this article present Jones as a liar.--Thomas Basboll 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article does not currently say anything about peer-review and I am fine with that. If you look through the archives you will find that I advocated that position long ago. Levi P. 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I count three references to reviewing or vetting. If you remove them, much would be won. But I'm not sure there's consensus for that. (What does Sloane think?)--Thomas Basboll 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh what? You said you prefer the article to be silent on whether it was "peer-reviewed" or not. I agreed. That doesn't mean that I think we should edit out all questions re: the robustness of his "research". Levi P. 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The words "peer review" appear twice in the criticism section. Or are we looking at two different articles?--Thomas Basboll 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. I am fine with the article not stating, "His article has not been PR". We are not going to censor the statement put out by his college- that would just be stupid. Levi P. 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is all I've got time for tonight. Strange edit you made there. You left in the remarks that questioned the peer-review process, removed the Chronicles corrective, and say that there are no longer any references to to peer-review in the article. Looking forward to seeing what's happened to it in the morning.--Thomas Basboll 00:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
One last thing: Note the historical order here. The BYU statements, which only expressed doubt, not certainty about an improper review, were made in Nov. of 2005. They have not been reasserted. Since that time many things have happened. And in June of 2006, the Chronicle reports that "two physicists have peer-reviewed" the paper. Jones' college's doubts are a historical fact, not a current situation. Anyway, that's it for now.--Thomas Basboll 00:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing issues. What makes you think the Chronicle article functions as some sort of "corrective" to the statement put out by the college? I was unaware that once a statement has been made, and never qualified much less retracted, that the statement need be "reasserted" in order for it to maintain its relavence. You're grasping at straws here. Levi P. 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If I may have my three words here. You Levi seem to be deaf to some issues. I already made this case and we had a discussion. There is a video of Jones adressing his relation with BYU, talking about BYU statements couple of times. Particulary 22m in he speaks about how his BYU college dean handled the case of publishing his paper with him and that then his paper "went through another set of peer reviews, this time by 4 Ph.Ds, and that settled the question of peer review". In this video Jones also points out that BYU statement were removed from their web page. You can see for yourself. Please do not point out that video of Jones is not a reliable source, since we haven't got any other information why would we assume something else? Would he lie on this video about his BYU dean? I agree with Thomas that everything indicates that: "Jones' college's doubts are a historical fact, not a current situation.". I am not sure how exactly this should affect the article in its current state, but I think it should affect the way you keep thinking of this. --SalvNaut 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Jones can say all he wants. As long as he can't say which reputable engineer reviewed his paper or at least point out which independent editor organised the peer reviewing, his claims are worthless. --Sloane 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it really for an engineer only to peer review a paper which analyses physical phenomenons like molten metal, steel being heated, thermite reaction and logical phenomens like NIST report inconsistence?. I agree that an engineer would add some credibility to Jones. Yet, lack of one does not validate us to put into the article an unconfirmed accussations, or previous statements, while formulating them as undeniable facts. --SalvNaut 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
He's writing about a building collapse, that's engineering territory. --Sloane 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So once again, I note, the people on here who speak of how disgusted they are by the loony 'conspiracy theories,' how foolish this professor is, etc., are now pumping up the criticism section to be double the size of the actual section it is supposed to be criticizing. I guess that speaks volumes about the supposed legitimacy of wikipedia as an 'encyclopedia.' Don't like someone or their theories? Trash them as hard as you can and create sock puppets to enforce your will all day long, arguing nonsense with anyone who tries to keep things balanced. bov 01:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Complete revert? What kind of behavior is this?

Levi. P made a complete revert of everything edited. As an explanation he gave "I'm restoring "original"- Tom B. asked for consensus of editors-majority of editors liked status quo-He edited anyway-dozens of edits have resulted in an artilce filled w/ inaccuracies + weasel words)"

I completely disagree with that. Shall we have a vote on this "majority of editors"?

Is this some kind of policy I am not aware of? Discussing, making changes whole day and then revert everything as it was?

Isn't this kind of behavior to be reported somewhere? --SalvNaut 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Myself, Morton, Sloane, MMmx1, and even Bov, all spoke up, at one time or another, against these edits. (One could perhaps put Mongo in that camp as well.) The only editors who have voiced support are you and Tom B. Levi P. 02:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Bov belongs there. And Morton hasn't spoken since some time. Anyway, aren't all those discussion for agreeing on something? For each subsequent questions about the edits, you were provided with arguments. You could provide yours and you did so in many cases. Wikipedia is not democracy so it is not about how many oppose but whether which option has better arguments (for example putting "has not been peer-reviewed" into the article has almost none and no sources). Please, have a step back and check your willing of how you would like the article to look like against Wikipedia guidelines and reliably sourced facts. I myself, try to do this often. --SalvNaut 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
And you needn't get all upset. The latest page is restorable if the majority of editors wish to return to that 1. 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I just reacted. I am ok now.--SalvNaut 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point: Wp is not a democracy. But the thing is, in controversial subjects it is preferable for editors to work stuff out on the talk page so as to not unnecessarily disrupt the article by carrying an argument out through edits. So, if you come to a talk page and say: "Lets take out the part that says his work wasn't peer-reviewed." And the majority of other editors answer: "No". Then it is not sporting to make dozens of edits, the end result of which is an article that not only has taken out that sentence, but added, "However, it has been reviewed by two physicists etc...". So, as it stands right this moment, we have an article that grants unearned legitimacy and credence to his "work" by suggesting (through weasel words) that it has been subjected to something like "peer-review". Levi P. 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand that voices count but you can't bring "majority of editors" as your only argument. What are yours (and Mmx1's, Sloane's) sources for these claims: "the scientific community rejects the validity of his findings", "paper has not been peer reviewed", "he clearly seeks media attention", "his "friends" peer-reviewed his paper", "what he did was not a research"(check talk archive). Thomas, I and many other editors provided you with arguments and sources which show that those claims are not true, or at least not backed up well enough to put them into Wikipedia biography. On the other hand you keep bringing your beliefs, very poorly sourced. I must assume that you are doing it in a good faith. You just have this notion in your minds that Jones's paper can't be correct. So you follow the mainstream critique and keep bashing Jones with unconfirmed accusations. Stop it, step back, try to confront what you think with what you can prove.
Or maybe try to look at those things this way: Jones'es paper does not prove the controlled demolition, it just presents facts, physical data that make this hypothesis more probable. Engineers might keep ignoring him because some of their community made their own studies and they think that, confronting with those studies, Jones'es paper is not enough to start an investigation. On the other hand - is every engineer qualified well enough to properly assess physical data which Jones has presented in his paper? (about molten metal, about white ash smoke, etc.)
To make myself clear: I would like to be far from granting "unearned legitimacy and credence" to his work. Still, what you keep doing here is granting Jones "unearned discredibility" and taking away his legitymacy for no other reason, but your (and many others) disbelief in his claims. --SalvNaut 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We're not taking away anything. We're just stating the facts. Engineers have criticised Jones work and his paper has not been properly peer reviewed. --Sloane 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
>>what you keep doing here is granting Jones "unearned discredibility"
I strongly agree. The outcome of inserting disparaging paragraphs into sections which are not criticism sections is to create the appearance of equal coverage while actually keeping the page unbalanced and biased against Jones' research and credibility. bov 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane: I understand that this is your point of view and you don't want to take anything away. Please have a closer look at those facts again:
  • paper has not been properly peer reviewed - I appreciate you've added properly. What sources do we have to back it up? BYU statement - quite old, and there is Jones, who apparently solved peer review case with his dean. No engineer has peer reviewed his paper. True - this fact can be pointed out in the article. Please, take a look at my answer to you up there. As Jones's paper takes mostly physical approach, then it does not invalidate the peer review process automatically. It seems that BYU dean apparently didn't mind the lack of an engineer, so who are we to claim the opposite? That is why I think that sources are too weak to openly confront Jones's statement about this peer review in a Wikipedia article.("...questions whether it had been properly vetted" - i think it is OK).
  • Engineers criticised Jones - absolutely right and it should be included (and is). Still, to be more honest, it should be stated that they just mainly refused to engage with his paper not to confuse the reader that some engineer made page by page critique of his findings (maybe you have a source of something like that? NIST FAQ tries to follow this path more or less but it's very general and rebuttals from Jones, other 911Scholars already showed up - wouldn't we have to include them too?) Saying that some engineers described his paper as non-issue and giving citations is ok for me.
Important thing to note is the way you are stating those facts Bov is right here. And if you keep growing the criticism section by adding citations (sometimes very selectively, as with The Chronicle about peer review), adding loosy criticism, adding previously issued statements describing them and citing (selectively too - "not convinced" part is omitted), then every honest editor has to react. We have to give the man a right to defend himself. That is why Thomas wrote a short summary of Jones's paper and I am not sure if it's not too short now. I remind you, that a short introduction to his WTC research has been previously advocated here. Well, longer version is not so bad, given wide interest.
I cannot pass over your claims (and edits) of Jones's work on WTC not being a research. Would you like to present your arguments again? I thought it has been settled. Is Jones a 911 conspiracy theorist? I've read that this is a pejorative description and that is why I oppose it to be in the article header. I am not sure what is the exact meaning of it. --SalvNaut 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, just because the statement isn't present on the website anymore, doesn't mean the BYU has retracted their statement or considers the paper to be peer-reviewed. The reason why engineers haven't issued a "page by page" critique is because they consider the paper completely worthless. Jones advocates conspiracy theories and has been described as a CT, so yes he is a CT. You might consider that pejorative but it those are simply the facts. The criticism is also NOT constantly growing. The only thing that has been added recently was the Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds paragraph. --Sloane 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the Chronicle, which is our most recent (and all-around best) source of BYU's original concerns, says that the paper has been peer-reviewed.--Thomas Basboll 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request

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:

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 largely dismissed by engineers who have investigated the collapses but has had a significant impact on 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Source: Chronicle piece)

I think everyone agrees that this way of putting it is true. We differ on what more there is to say, and whenever we start to elaborate, we get into edit conflicts. The result is a page that is too often too messy to be of use to a reader who doesn't already have an opinion on the matter.--Thomas Basboll 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

THey will never go for this, due to the fact that they worked for ages to get even visual weight to the critcisms of him in place--anything to discredit someone they disagree with. My work on this was resolute to make it all NPOV, but it's hopeless--certain people will never go for it. See the criticisms section, how they included all the quotes en masse from the crticism pages? Similar attempts to put comments from Jones into the article were routinely removed with comments like "this isn't Jones' platform". However, it's OK to go the other way, apparently. Of course, NONE of them will address what I'm saying here. Systemic bias. Leave the article protected. rootology (T) 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding "physicists" in "dismissed by physicists and engineers". The Chronicle says nothing about that (or I missed something). Any other sources to support "physicists"? How do we know that? --SalvNaut 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've made the change.--Thomas Basboll 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I support. I understand that we are to replace the WTC section and protect again, right? Then things could be settled here. I see that Rootology has an experienceĀ :-). But let's try to have some WP:FAITH, ok? --SalvNaut 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am not requesting unprotection. I am requesting that an admin make the edit and leave the article protected.--Thomas Basboll 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion on "911 conspiracy theorist" in the first paragraph? For me it sounds pejoratively and I'd preffer it to be removed. --SalvNaut 00:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perjorative and insulting term that should be removed per BIO. Right wingers will object, but they are welcome to their opinions. However, policy is on our side. rootology (T) 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, guys. Sloane is the good guy from the 'other side', as it were--be nice to him. Don't push it into an pro alternative theory side of things, but do NOT let them tar and feather the article for being about someone with views that are grossly unpopular to any pov pushers. And yes, I will happily call them that, and they can't ban over it. Why? Because they use it endlessly. No one should POV push EITHER side. Anyway. Good luck. I'm tired and have more entertaining fights to wage than vs. intractable and unreasonable POV Pushers. Cheers. rootology (T) 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The CT question will have to wait for another day, I think.--Thomas Basboll 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If one has to wait, waits. I can wait. --SalvNaut 00:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that labeling someone as a "conspiracy theorist" depicts a strong negative POV and should be removed, perhaps delineating how he's proposing "alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center," and how these aforementioned theories are being disregarded solely on the basis of it being "conspiratorial" in nature; not for, as I deduce, its scientific validity of evidence of thermite usage at the World Trade Center. It's an ad hominom attack to call someone a "conspiracy theorist,' in my humble opinion. --Carcinogen

What is it we are trying to accomplish? It seems you are suggesting that we should 'start over' and see how it goes (perhaps a good idea, perhaps not; I'm not going to weigh in at this exact time). But what does that accomplish? In one day there will be editors all over this article re-storing the same info we just took out, starting the same arguments, etc. I would imagine it is the natural state of all articles to expand, so what is gained by us colluding to inhibit that? I wish that someone familiar with his hypothesis could explicate it, clearly and in a couple of paragraphs, and add any other experts who agree with him under the section titled WTC Hypoth. The criticism section is already fairly tight and well-sourced. But, as we all know, what will then happen is 'pro conspiracy'(PC) people will be unable to find any experts to buttress his claims, and will then ask that the criticism section be shortened, so as to not "make him look bad". I don't see how any of this will change. It has been five years and, despite the fact that hundreds of engineers have studied the collapse, there is not one single solitary expert who shares Jones' opinion. The PC's will continue to parade a bunch of linguists, philosophers, software developers, etc., and then argue that the article should not cite too many structural engineers, materials Profs, etc. because it makes Jones look bad to have his amateur research ripped to shreds (or, even worse, ignored) by actual experts. And we will be right back here. Anyway, "Talk of the Nation" will be discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories (their words, not mine) tomorrow (9/7) if anyone is interested. Levi P. 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You might have a point in saying that the article will grow anyways. To be quick:
"The criticism section is already fairly tight and well-sourced" -- could you read the last response I gave to Sloane in the section above? I think it uses a bit of "selective citation". I agree it is not so bad.
I've never argued that article should not cite actual experts. Could you provide me with some references/citation of those hundreds of engineers criticising Jones (other than in the article)?. Because when I started to look for some, first I've found

..and then... my jaw simply dropped:

Some (many many more scholars there) of the members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth from this page:
  • David Griscom (FM)-- Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications
  • Joseph M. Phelps (FM)--Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
  • Jean-Pierre Petit (FM)--Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
  • Doyle Winterton (FM)--Civil Engineering Structural Engineering
  • Dominic Dudzik (AM)--Physics simulations, Electrical engineering
  • Brian Duncan (AM)--Fire Protection Engineering; Art and Creative Director; The Flywire, theflywire.com
  • Eric Hermanson (AM)--Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect
  • Paul Landis (AM)--Industrial engineering, Author of "A Real 9/11 Commission"
  • Michael Maguire (AM)--Mechanical engineering, Aeronatutical engineering, Prognostic Health Monitoring
  • Michael Lovingier (AM)--Information technology manager , Structural/Environmental Engineering
  • Ted Muga (AM) -- Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering
  • Gordon Ross (AM)--Mechanical engineering, Production engineering
  • Judson Witham (AM) --Civil Rights Laws High Rise/Mid Rise/Low Rise Construction/demolition
  • Tom Spellman (AM)--Civil engineering, architecture, non-profits, activism

...--SalvNaut 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I have not seen anything published where any structural engineer who would be qualified as an expert (i.e., has published extensively, holds a professorship, works for a reputable firm, etc.) supported the controlled demolition notion. I don't know anything about the people posted above (and am unsure what some of their "qualifications" you listed next to their names are supposed to mean), but I will quickly admit my error if you show me to be incorrect. Regardless, the point I was attempting to make (as I'm sure you know) was that the overwhelming and vast majority of experts who have been involved think Jones is full of crap...and so on. Oh, and I think you misread me, I don't think I said anything about hundreds of people criticizing him (but I'm sure there areĀ :) Levi P. 05:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked up some of the "experts" you mentioned, and found some pretty interesting things. For instance, Jean-Pierre Petit, "claims that aliens from Ummo have sent letters to selected people, including himself[1]. He contends that the US Air Force now has incredibly fast aircraft, Aurora, due to secretly conducted research on magnetohydrodynamics. Aurora would use a conventional turbofan propulsion system, fed by a MHD controlled hypersonic air inlet[1]. And he claims that the US military has a powerful antimatter bomb that they successfully detonated on planet Jupiter[1]. Because of these views, he is not taken seriously by many French scientists" - I'd say he's a keeper! Levi P. 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that's a good one reallyĀ :). Any others? --SalvNaut 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't have to check - he has bachelor degree. (but still experience) --SalvNaut 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've seen only Gordon Ross on Journal of 911 Studies, (but that doesn't count). As for qualifications, I don't know, too. I quickly checked David Griscom on Google Scholar, and indeed he has a lot of publications. You are also right, that we don't know what do they exactly think about CD theory. Still, you must understand my amazement.
Maybe you are right that those who were involved think of Jones as you described. I am not sure if there are really "hundreds" of them. I know about NIST, 2 or 3 profs from MIT, Bazant&Zhou...
I think, that given this list (and Charles Pegelow), we must be very careful describing Jones's findings as dismissed by whole engineering community.--SalvNaut 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I cant believe I just spent a half an hour looking up the "experts" you provided. I didn't quite make it to the guy who is apparently both a lawyer specializing in civil rights and an...um..."highrise/midrise/lowrise construction/demolition"- but I did find 1 guy who talks to aliens, 0 people affiliated w/ a University, 0 people who hold any type of position which grants them credibility (and trust me, I wasn't being picky) and, maybe, just maybe, 1 engineer ( but no one is really sure as he has never published anything related, no known position, no university affiliations, has never issued any type of public statement, but he may be around 70 years of age and live in California). Holy crap, 45 minutes I'll never get back- I have to give it to you though, that was entertaining.Ā :) Levi P. 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad you had fun. Griscom, Phelps (82yrs old), Ross are notable. others - rather not, still I how this applies to "engineers community".--SalvNaut 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the {{editprotected}} tag as there clearly does not seem to be consensus for any change at this time. Please continue to discuss, or present an explanation of why the change should be applied without consensus, and re-add the tag. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request 2

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)

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. -- Ā NetsnipeĀ Ā ā–ŗĀ  06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to JesseW's comment above: I think the changes should be made according to the guidelines WP:LIVING, without first establishing consensus. In a biographical article about a living person, as I undertand the guidelines, negative material must have very good sources. The criticism sections draws Jones' honesty into question along with his abilities as as scientist. There is no consensus among us to present him in this way and the disagreement extends to both the quality of the sources (for the purpose) and the selective way in which they have quoted. WP must here exercise caution, and the proposed edit does just that. I leave it to an administrator to make the call.--Thomas Basboll 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Ā NetsnipeĀ Ā ā–ŗĀ  06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Exactly Levi. Citations are "selective" - take a look at the discussion.--SalvNaut 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to sign off for the evening, but I am all for any reasonable persons imput on this. This is a paper that has not been published in any journal, from a man whose own university and college say his work hasn't been reviewed, and whose supposed "peer-review" was overseen, not by a reputable journal, but by his friend and co-chair in a conspiracy theory group. This is lunacy and you will not appropriate terminology and misuse it in order to fool the reader. And that is exactly what you are trying to do. But anyway, listen to NPR tom. (if you live somewhere where you can get it). Maybe they will report they have found pictures of Dick Cheney in a cat suit, pockets filled with thermite, slinking around the WTC. Levi P. 07:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

-Levi says, "This is a paper that has not been published in any journal, from a man whose own university and college say his work hasn't been reviewed, and whose supposed "peer-review" was overseen, not by a reputable journal, but by his friend and co-chair in a conspiracy theory group." It would be more accurate to say: this is a paper from a man whose own university and college said his work may not have been properly reviewed. It was since "peer-reviewed" (according to the same source that tells us his college had doubts), not by a reputable journal, but for an anthology edited by two people, one of whom has no identifiable relation to Jones other than that book itself.

-If I had used the words "peer review" in the edit I am requesting, then the issue of "appropriating terminology" might be be relevant. But I have not. I take it the "friend" you mention is David Ray Griffin. Well, I have not been able to find a source that makes him Jones' co-chair (of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I take it, though DRG is a member). That's Jim Fetzer you may be thinking of, and I haven't been able to find anything on his involvement in the review process (certainly not among the sources in the article.) I also have not been able to confirm any friendships that may have existed prior to their collaboration on the book in question. Please document this accusation. You are accusing a number of people of academic incompetence and corruption. Technically, WP:LIVING demands that such accusations be removed even from the talk pages. Again, I wait for an adminstrator to carry out the relevant acts of disciplining. Finally, characterising my contributions to this discussion here as "lunacy" and "a load of crap" is uncalled for.--Thomas Basboll 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
This response is ridiculous.--Thomas Basboll 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking over the controlled demolition section now.--MONGO 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

The Chroncle's assessment of the review issue

'Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." (Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press.)'
(Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006)


'The BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences previously issued a statement in which they distanced themselves from Jones' research. A similar statement was issued by BYU's structural engineering faculty, the "Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology." The statements noted that Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners, and that his analyses and hypotheses had not been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."'
(Wikipedia Article on Steven E. Jones.)

There are two important errors in the Wikipedia article. First, it leaves us with impression that BYU said that the paper had not been properly reviewed, when the statement in fact said merely that it was not convinced that it had. Second, it does not inform the reader that, as of June 23, 2006 at least, the paper had been peer-reviewed. I.e., that whatever the BYU adminstration had thought in the fall of 2005, by the summer of 2006, the paper had been peer-reviewed. There are no reports of further concerns from BYU, and Jones's dean even said at the time that he was awaiting the results of the peer-review process. The CHE reports that those reviews then took place, and no subsequent doubts about that issue have been raised. I really don't know what else to say.--Thomas Basboll 14:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at an article in any scientific medium and then demonstrate that his work has been properly peer reviewed. Can you also provide the link to the Guardian article?--MONGO 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what is your point here exactly Mongo, with "any scientific medium". It is no suprise that Jones paper has questionable "reception" in (not only) scientific community. The question we are discussing here is strictly an academic matter (even you pointed it out before) - "peer-reviewed or not". If there is any source that clearly claims it has not been peer reviewed, then let's bring it on. Questionable "reception" has nothing to do here.
The Guardian article--SalvNaut 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You ask me to prove a negative? I made adjustments in keeping with most of you two complaints...any better?--MONGO 15:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You should add it's a griffin book. --Sloane 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You definately said it very well Thomas. No need, really, to add more. Maybe I could remind that there are clear statements from Jones (on the video I posted about several times above) who claims that the "peer review" question has been settled with BYU dean after second rounds of peer reviews (that's when the paper was published by Griffin). That indicates that all those statements are, indeed, history and should be at least rephrased to put emphasis on this. --SalvNaut 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Not settled. BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See [3]. Morton devonshire 21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

academic credentials

Apparently, Steven E. Jones does not possess a doctorate degree. ImplosionWorld has issued clarifications to its August paper [4], 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)

I have tagged the doctorate claim as requiring citation. Guy 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's Jones vita, which says he has a PhD from Vanderbilt and conducted research and course work at Stanford.[5] 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)
He certainly says he has a PhD. (See the Scholars for 9/11 truth site.[6]). 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)
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)
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)

In light of this discussion, can we have the citation need tag removed? The sentence is already sourced to Jones's CV.--Thomas Basboll 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Ā NetsnipeĀ Ā ā–ŗĀ  05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disappeared

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)

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)
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)


Jones has been currently put on paid leave from BYU http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html 

"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by 
individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned
about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these 
statements by Dr. Jones."
     Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site 
that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer 
review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from 
BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request.
     Efforts to reach Jones Thursday night were not successful. Jones told 
the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday that his paper had gone through an 
unusual third round of peer review in what is now an apparently unsuccessful 
effort to quell concerns on campus.
     "BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not 
been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.
     Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too.
     "It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own 
personal matters of concern," she said.

ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottS (talk ā€¢ contribs)

Here's the official statement from BYU. [7] 

"Physics professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the 
collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it 
does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty. We are, however, 
concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these 
statements by Dr. Jones. Furthermore, BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones'
work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues. 
Owing to these issues, as well as others, the university has placed Dr. Jones 
on leave while we continue to review these matters."

Something needs to be added to the article to reflect these latest developments. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, this may settle many of our disagreements here. A capsule history of the reception of this paper now has a kind of closure, with the BYU reasserting its suspicions about the scientific quality of this part of Jones' work (and explicitly interpreting in terms of his professorship). I'll try to write a few hundred words to that effect this evening (i.e., over the next few hours). I think Sloane and Levi, etc. will be satisfied since the facts, right now, raise very serious questions about the seriousness of Jones' work.--Thomas Basboll 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I bet they are going to be satisfiedĀ :) "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)

When he says third round of peer-review, does he refer to the Elsevier and Griffin review? Or is there a review we missed? --Sloane 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"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)
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)

"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," Has it been submitted? If BYU had a concern, shouldn't they have tried to help Jones submit to the appropriate venues? I think it's time some with credentials took a look at the details of Jones' assertions besides the very same people Jones is making assertions against, or those working for those people. There needs to be an independent panel of academic engineers/scientists to assess the points in the paper who are not interested parties already, i.e., the State Department, the Commission, Popular Mechanics, etc. Locewtus 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-appearance!

The paper is back online at the Journal of 9/11 Studies,[8] 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)

Tom, I'm concerned that someone who sees the professor as 'inept' and essentially just wrong, is writing this section on him. I hope you will be fair. Please post here and discuss. Locewtus 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

WTC collapse controversy (draft)

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?"[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[4] 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.[5] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[6][7]

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. [8][9] Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[10] 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."[11] While the paper has been peer-reviewed before being published[8], 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.[12] The review will be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[13]


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)

Thanks Tom. My comments.

Already shortly after the seminar, however, Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University. // How about we take the charge out of that and simply say, // Shortly after the seminar Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University. // This way, it remains as a fact for the reader and does not insert a POV about the timing which has no ref. Locewtus 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources

I recommend citing some. There are many. I recommend the earliest ones out of Utah, the MSNBC one, and a couple of recent newspaper ones, at the very least. Locewtus 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

While Jones sometimes urges caution in drawing conclusions,[4] his public comments suggested increasing certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of agents working within the U.S. government // We don't actually know how many times he has urged caution. I think it is more fair to say, // While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[4] his public comments have also suggested some degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the potential culpability of agents working within the U.S. governmentLocewtus 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Thomas Basboll 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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. [8].

How about being more accurate on who these engineers have been -

Engineers who have studied the collapses for the NIST and FEMA reports have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the broad consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the official explanation. [8]. what is this reference to? Locewtus 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Professors of paranoia can constitute a 'broad consensus among engineers.' We really have no way to know that given that ad hoc polls of engineers at universities suggest that extremely few have read the reports closely or with reference to the controlled demolition ht. If ANY references about broad agreements among an entire field are going to be made they need to be backed up with polling data and a question on whether or not they read the reports themselves, not the NOVA defense on tv Locewtus 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Bazant is an important party to the conflict -- he cannot stand as a neutral source for this claim. He is recognized but he has not conducted a poll. A personal view on the views of all engineers is not valid. Only a poll would tell us what most or all engineers think. Locewtus 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. That's not a standard that wikipedia should embrace.

As one person has noted about Bazant, Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses: They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it just two days.

There was no dissent at that time either, but that didn't make them correct.

I think any claim to 'all engineers' is wrong. But at the least, we need to note that Bazant is behind the claim overtly, not just in a reference. He is very involved. Locewtus 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have added Basboll's wording as shown above to the article. Let me know if any changes are needed.--MONGO 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)



I would like to see a report by the "consensus of engineers" where they gave their reasons and calculations about kerosene ( jet fuel ) and paper collapsing the two largest ( or nearly largest building in the world ) in about a hour - to say nothing of the third building that wasn't even exposed to the kerosene ( that part of their report I will really enjoy ). After they write their report I would like to see them sign it - this nebulous group - "consensus of engineers" - should step forward and educate us all, don't forget the signatures. Then we can have their report "peer reviewed" - see if it first passes the "laugh test". PS One of Jones's first questions in his paper is where did the molten metal come form - remember the heat, etc coming from the basements of the 3 buildings. Where did it come from? Sagging from heat is a longggggg way from pools of molten metal - Jones is lucky that he hasn't had a truck hit him on the way to work. Just an aside - if Jones is totally wrong ( maybe, maybe not ) then how come we never hear a Sloane about the quality - or lack therof - of the engineering done on the WTC1,2,7? For a set of buildings extrememly overdesigned for safety these structures hit the ground really quickly and oddly ( vertical drops - 3 out of 3 - must have caused ever poker player in Las Vegas to say BS ). Remember these buildings were designed to take hits like a passenger plane and fires. All their fireproofing failed totally - and symmetrically and simultaneously. No part of the buildings even resisted the collapse - absolute total symmetrical structural failure - even the building that wasn't hit. You anti-conspiracy guys have a tough one, and it ain't going to go away or get better - hope you are well financed. If I was an engineer who worked on any of these building I would be sweating that the focus didn't shift from conspiracy to research on my design or the contractors material.

Jones' Paid Leave

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See [9]. Morton devonshire 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know. Locewtus 21:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

We will need to change the lead to something like:

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)

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)
Yes, that's better. He is, after all, still a professor. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete criticism section in light of new WTC section

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)

I have removed the critic section just a few minutes ago--MONGO 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. You rock.--Thomas Basboll 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

I see a point above from Locewtus about adding references to the statement about Jones being in the media. Will MONGO also do this, or will someone unprotect the page so others can? bov 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

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)

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)

I think we should say that "Prof. Jones describes his paper as having been P.R, but since it has not been published in a reputable scientific journal many question whether it has been submited to relavent..." This way, we as editors are not taking a stand on the issue, either way. Levi P. 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

It is reported as fact, you are right. And we are amplifying it "as fact" even though it contradicts other sources which are specifically involved with the question of P.R. (unlike the Chronicle). It also contradicts common sense, which would hold that if peer-review, by definition, need be done by an independent, reputable and qualified third party, then whatever has been done to Jones' paper by Kevin Ryan, et al., fails all three of the criteria and is hence not P.R. I don't know what happens when we as editors run up against a problem like this; but I would think that due weight would hold that sources more in the "know" (his own college and university) would be given more weight. If not, then, as I said, I'm sure those who have relieved him of his professional duties because of this matter will be interested to find that, according to us, they are mistaken (and thus owe him a BIG apology). Levi P. 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

First off, interesting article here. It suggests the "peer-review question" as central to his suspension. I really think the simplest and least clumsy way to deal with the whole thing is to stick with what we know is undeniably true and verifiable: Jones says his paper is P.R.; BYU and others are not convinced as it has not been published in a reputable journal. That way we are not putting the weight of wikipedia behind any dubious claims- let he and BYU figure it out, we'll report the result then. Levi P. 07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Request removal of disputed neutrality tag

Done. -- Ā NetsnipeĀ Ā ā–ŗĀ  01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling all consensus-like and wanted to celebrate. What do you say, people? Isn't it pretty neutral now?--Thomas Basboll 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. Tom Harrison Talk 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better but . . . I find it sad and inaccurate that his 9/11 research work can ONLY be referred to as a 'conspiracy theory,' which does not separate ihis work from people who did nothing but say they thought the Commission lied. Jones has obviously done real research involving lab testing of WTC materials, creating an online journal which publishes both official and alternative views, facilitating a community of other academic researchers, etc. To describe all this as just 'conspiracy theory' work with no difference from people like Morgan Reynolds, or almost all of the 9/11 truth movement community who have none no such scientific research work, is not encyclopedic but rather just another way to smear him with a mainstream media label. It acts as though his 9/11 work is just a bunch of 'conspiracist thoughts' and does not involve research. His paper involves lab work and science, not flippant speculation without a basis. He has questions and calls for an investigation and reports his results. The CT label paints him as otherwise. bov

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)
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)

>>But look at the many quite balanced pieces that have emerged over the past months, all of which use the phrase as shorthand.

The news articles are hardly balanced - they virtually scream 'Look at the kooks everyone!'

The NIST FAQ, on the otherhand, never used the phrase 'conspiracy theory,' despite speaking directly to demolition theories. Similarly, the early balanced coverage of Steven Jones out of Utah also never used such a term. When politically charged articles started appearing, shackling tenured professors with this label was a good way to turn them into the nutty and 'paranoid professors.' Saying that the pejorative label is now 'popular' among publications describing the work as loony, should not be a reason to continue with it.bov 00:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Positives and negative statements on Jones 9/11 work - the numbers

I took a closer look at the review so far and I do think it is far too negative. The numbers have it. Things don't need to be perfectly balanced, but a SINGLE positive, and EIGHT negatives is just not appropriate. I expect Thomas Basboll is not aware of every aspects of Jones' research. I would like to be allowed to contribute one or two positives.

Neutral statements:

1. 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?"[10] to his department.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.[11]
5. Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University.
6. His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[15][16]
7. The review will be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[22]

Positive statements about Jonesā€™s theories

1. 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.[12]

Negative statements about Jonesā€™s theories

1. While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[13] 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.[14]
2. 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. [17][18]
3. Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[19] 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.
4. 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."[20]
5. While the paper has been peer-reviewed before being published[17], it has not been published in a reputable scientific journal.
6. This has been a source of much of the scepticism that has been aimed at it.
7. On Thursday, September 7, 2006. Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administators and was placed on paid leave.
8. 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]

bov 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for good order: your fifth negative is half a positive. The sixth is neutral (it explains the consequences of a criticism it doesn't state a new criticism). The first is actually not negative (unless you believe it is nuts to think the government would do something bad or to be somewhat certain that your theory is true.) But even if the summary is a bit negative, there is a good reason for it. It is trying to account for a critical (and, unfortunately, negative) event in his professional life. If it presented the controversy as going 50/50 for and against him, BYU's actions would be difficult to understand. The section, as it stands, says basically that Jones hypothesis was a success in some circles and a failure in others, and its failings made a bigger impression (for now) on his employers than its successes. Those are pretty much the facts.--Thomas Basboll 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That said, a sentence that does mention that he has been something of a star in the 9/11 turht movement might be in order. I.e., that he has a good deal of support in those circles.--Thomas Basboll 23:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my above list per your comment.

>>It is trying to account for a critical (and, unfortunately, negative) event in his professional life. If it presented the controversy as going 50/50 for and against him, BYU's actions would be difficult to understand.

The article isn't only about his professional life. Exposing potentially false information in government reports is meaningful well beyond BYU and Jones' physics peers, particularly politically.

How about this sentence. I realize that the term 'peer-reviewed' will be questioned - I could leave that term out until it is determined exactly what type of peer review it is. I'm open to rewording.

Jones, along with former Underwriters Laboratories employee, Kevin Ryan, is a co-editor of the first open-access, peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal publishing research related to 9/11/2001, called the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Contributors have included engineers and BYU professors.

bov 23:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance is not having one positive item for each negative, it's accurately characterising what the reliable sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. I think the page does that pretty well. If anything, we are more generous toward his theories than are the mainstream sources. And again, this page is supposed to be a biography of Jones, not a pov fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 23:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

>>without giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. Time.com has already determined they are not fringe beliefs, so people on here need to stop claiming this is true as their defense. bov 23:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

From an objective point of view, only time will tell whether Jones has been rash or courageous, or even both. (It may have been stupid to go around speaking the truth, if that is what it turns out to be, as many people discover on all kinds of issues all the time.) This article reports that Jones had some marginal beliefs (defining the cultural fringe and the scientific fringe are different matters) and that he made them public. He was celebrated by some and reprimanded by others. So far it has gotten him a paid leave from his university. It's an interesting story, and really isn't about positive and negative impressions. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
>>It may have been stupid to go around speaking the truth, if that is what it turns out to be, as many people discover on all kinds of issues all the time.
Or it may put someone in the history books, as painful as it's consequences are to their present-day life.
I still want to add this sentence:
Jones, along with former Underwriters Laboratories employee, Kevin Ryan, is a co-editor of the first open-access, peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal publishing research related to 9/11/2001, called the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Contributors have included engineers and BYU professors.bov 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Already something about it in there: "Jones is also the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[25]". --Sloane 11:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job

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)

Edit request 3

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 -- Ā NetsnipeĀ Ā ā–ŗĀ  15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}}

Levi has brought a good source about the peer-review issue to our attention. In line with it, I propose the following change to the WTC section. First it should be renamed "WTC collapse controversy". Second, the last two paragraphs should be changed as follows.

  • Delete the last sentence of the second to last paragraph.
  • Rewrite the last paragraph to read:
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)

Research by Jones

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)

Anyway, I'am sorry for releasing my NIST-directed anger here. We'll wait and see.--SalvNaut 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
It might end so. I am so glad for you, that you already know all about it.--SalvNaut 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request 4

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)

Consensus? Unprotect?

(bow. blush.)

If we have a consensus that the WTC section is now accurate until BYU makes the next move, perhaps we could unprotect the article, add the relevant sentence to the lead, fix commas, style, (I have a couple of ideas), and improve the cold fusion section a bit. If SalvNaut, Levi, Sloane, bov, and Locewtus and I can agree not to add content to the WTC section without first seeking consensus, and preferably not until something new happens, I think there will peace in this valley for awhile.

The only outstanding issue, I think, is whether we can safely say that the mainstream engineering consensus dismisses Jones' hypothesis. But is that really in doubt?--Thomas Basboll 18:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to unprotection. And no, there is no doubt that the consensus among mainstream engineers is to dismiss his hypothesis. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of that assertion, and no evidence (that I have seen) to the contrary. Even if there are one or two ( or 12 or 20) engineers who feel differently, unless they are notable, or start showing up in droves, I think we are safe in that assertion. (Especially since, as of right now, I have not seen one structural engineer who is in the "controlled demolition" camp.) So, yes, I agree. And, no, no doubt. Levi P. 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Mainstream engineering consensus" - I have no opinion here (then I am ok). I just know that many say so, are we going to source it somehow? Levi - there is a list of engineers (couple of them structural) with reputation varying from questionable to none and we discussed it, so please be a bit more honest. ... almost forgot: (applause) --SalvNaut 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Levi:...or maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by "controlled demolition" camp, ... so it's non-issue --SalvNaut 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, SalvNaut, but I am being honest. There were only two people on that list that claimed to be engineers and neither one has any known...well...anything. All we know for sure about those names are that they are not affiliated with any university, have no hits on google scholar, and don't appear to have ever held any notable position. (As far as I could find- if you or someone else knows otherwise let us know- but I think someone would have done so by now.) Levi P. 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that you qualified your statement, "with reputation varying from questionable to none"- So I guess we are in agreement. Levi P. 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
We are in agreement. I'll refresh your memory (I posted before about Griscom) about some Scholars911 members:
  • David Griscom Adjunct Professor, Materials Science and Engineering(200 publications)
  • Jospeh M. Phelps(82yrsold) MS in Civil Engineering from the California Institute of Technology, Life Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and a Charter Member of the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute
--SalvNaut 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggestions. --Sloane 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • 1.Link to his paper needs to change.
  • 2.Lead should reflect he is currently on paid leave
  • 3."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" - The name of the book should be added.
  • 4.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. - I don't think the word "culminating" is an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Also I would remove the "which was organized by Alex Jones with the endorsement of Charlie Sheen", I don't think it's necesarry to include that.
  • 5.While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[13] 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.[14] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories. - Jones might have been cautious in the beginning, he has now grown into a full fledged conspiracy theorist. This used to be clear in the last version and needs to be reinstated. He has clearly said: "The attacks "were an "inside job", puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending and expand Israel."[10]
  • 6.The paper has been the center of controversy both for its - I would change "been the center of controversy" to "has received criticism".
  • 7.broad consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the official explanation. - Broad consensus implies there is a fringe group that doubts the official explanation. Fact is that here isn't a single published engineering paper or single reputable structural engineer that has come forth and claimed the towers were blown up. I've also barely heard about any non-academic structural engineers that claims such a thing. I'd say that maybe except for a dismissable handfull of non academic structural engineers, they all agree it wasn't blown up.
  • 8.doubts about this remain. - I would add "and the papers has not been published in any reputable scientific journal".
I tried out some of the suggestions. But will revert them - I completely forgot to let a consensus develop. Sorry. See history to see what I was going to suggest.--Thomas Basboll 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 3.Ok.
  • 5.urged caution - in his scientific work, his public comments... - this tells things you bring up. I think it's clear from the sentence - let it stay as is.
  • 7. Broad is broad. Does every engineer express his doubts with publication? I think it's ok the way it is. --SalvNaut 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
--SalvNaut 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
2) If we are going to mention that he is a Prof. in the intro (which we undoubtedly should), it does need to be mentioned that he has been put on leave. It is both unusual, and has happened in a very public way. The reader should not have to scour the article to find this very important fact (but a few words to the effect should suffice).
4) Charlie Sheen should not be mentioned at all. If we had a trivia section (which I abhor), it would be appropriately placed there- there is no place for it in this article.
6) Agree.
7) This is a tough one. Everything Sloane has written about this is correct. Why don't we just take out "broad"- I think it is the qualifier that Sloane has correctly identified as misleading. Levi P. 21:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
2) I am not so sure about it.. after all it is a biography entry, not a news page about Jones. Being on paid leave is s a transitory state - it hasn't yet deserved to be a main part of his biography. If it will get in the intro anyway, let's put it into the second paragraph connecting it with his research into CTs.
4) Agree - Wiki-link is enough.
6) As following sentences explain who criticised, I am ok with that.
7) I won't insist on this one word. --SalvNaut 23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2) I think putting it into the second paragraph of the intro is a good compromise. I think there is an argument for both including it and not. I definitely lean toward including it; just a couple words, in the second paragraph. Levi P. 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


"Broad" could be removed but it's no big deal for me. I thought it strengthened the sense of consensus, but I can see how it hints at dissent too (which I don't see any evidence of.)
On September 7, 2006, Jones was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed his work in this area.
The Alex Jones/Charlie Sheen sensesentence is less than optimal, as is "culminating", my idea with that sort of information was to stress the popular effect of that symposium, i.e., I wanted to explain his notoriety. It is isn't just trivia: if the CT community had not propolled Jones into cult status (or he had not so willingly let them) BYU's review would probably not have happened.--Thomas Basboll 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Point 8 is already covered later in the paragraph. "doubts remain" introduces the most serious manifestation of those doubts - his leave - which is then explained by reference to the lack of scientific publication.--Thomas Basboll 06:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with point 6. Putting it the way I did (which also connects the paper to the section title) was a way acknowledging that the criticisms we are dealing with here are not of the paper but of Jones' actions (which is what is under review). The paper is in the center of the controversy about Jones, but the controversy is not confined to the paper. In fact, as we know, the controversy exists despite there being no "engagement" with the paper by critics.--Thomas Basboll 06:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2) Even putting it into second paragraph would need an explanation of what is it all about ("increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" and the paper peer review. " etc.) - it isn't the place for this.
4) I am not sure which event (or events) were culminating, but we definately observed public and media interest in Jones growing rapidly during last 1/1.5 months.
6) Thomas is right. After all, one of the things BYU is concerned about is Jones's paper not being properly vetted/criticised. --SalvNaut 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now semi-protected

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)

Lead

Since late 2005, Jones has been defending the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. This has brought him to the attention of the public and associated him with the pursuit of 9/11 conspiracy theories. On September 7, 2006, he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area.

How do you like it?--Thomas Basboll 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It only links to 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I think it needs more. There are the theories and there is the activist work - as a part of the scholars group, Jones is involved in both.
Since late 2005, Jones has been defending the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. This has brought him to the attention of the public and associated him with the pursuits of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and what is generally termed the 9/11 conspiracy theories. On September 7, 2006, he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area.
bov 19:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That wording is much better imo. Agree. Carcinogen
It's better than the current version, anyway. Guy 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it. --SalvNaut 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Changed it some more: "Since late 2005, Jones has been defending the hypothesis that the collapse of the World Trade Center was due to a controlled demolition[3], a common feature of conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks. On September 7, 2006, he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area.[4][5]"--Sloane 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

S'more

Morton devonshire 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those links. Few thoughts:
  • KSL-TV [13]:Expert William Connolly said: "Number one, why would you bother with the planes if you could bring down the buildings with bombs?" "Second, that whole theory is just utterly inconsistent with the evidence"
This kind of criticism will do nothing else but pour oil on the CTs' flames. This is just stupid - everyone can think of 1000 reasons why to bother. Second: from Jones' and CTs' pov it's much more consistent than official theory.
  • US News&World Report [14]: "In July, he[Jones] said his colleagues at BYU were generally supportive of his push to investigate the collapse of the WTC towers and nearby Building 7." If it's really so, then they have quite a situation there at BYU.
Anyway, should we add the following fact to the article?: (from US News&World report) "...Jones belongs to a class of academics who have faced possible career damage for controversial statements about the September 11 attacks." (it could be placed at the end of WTC section). US News&World support it with examples: "The group includes Richard Berthold...", "...Kevin Barrett, an associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsinā€“Madison, and William Woodward, a psychology professor at the University of New Hampshire, were criticized by state legislators for discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories in their classes." Ā ? --SalvNaut 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I renew the question. How about extending the sentence (both occurrences) this way:

"On September 7, 2006, he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area,[4][5] by the same he joined a group of academics who have faced possible career damage for controversial statements about the September 11 attacks.[USNW citation]"

(I hope it's in english:)--SalvNaut 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this yet. Is that group represented somewhere else in wikipedia? It could be a section in the 9/11 CT article, then maybe a sentence and a link out. There are many important differences between the Jones and Barrett cases. To say simply "he joined the group" is a bit imprecise.--Thomas Basboll 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that his case, of an academic having problems because of 9/11 CTs, is not isolated. To what extent is it similiar? - just a bit. Still, I find it worth mentioning. "he joined the group" - how about "by the same he can be placed in the group..."Ā ? --SalvNaut 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this article "Association Of Professors Defending BYU's Jones" it seems his case might be a bit similiar to Barret's. Story is getting very interesting - i am not longer sure why exactly BYU put him on paid leave. Is it because of the question about scientific value of his work, or rather because of his accusatory statements? Both? --SalvNaut 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I've made some edits. If you really disagree with something, take it out and explain here why you think it's wrong. --Sloane 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think quoting Jones from the Guardian (as opposed to just providing the reference) went beyond the consensus that got the article unlocked. The idea was not to add anything to the WTC section without seeking consensus first, precisely in order to avoid revert warring. Teh "accusatory nature" of Jones' comments are already noted in NPOV terms, quoting Jones' in an (hehheh) "unguarded" moment will just start us down the road of individually sourced quotations that shed negative and positive light on him. This IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 13:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed Guardian citation and restored order of senteces. This citation was unnecessary - "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" - this says it all imo, and there is no need to strengthen it. Jones comments on his beliefs are loose statements, each is different a bit. It's not a good habit in encyclopedia to report loose statements imho (people cannot be accounted for everything they said in their biography, they could've been excited, angry, sad,...drunk:) and then regret having said something this way or another). --SalvNaut 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to clearly state what exactly he believes. I don't think his statement was in an unguarded moment, in the article Morton devonshire posted he says more or less the same thing: "But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East." Also I think it's better to incorporate the "His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories." sentence and not arbitrarily throw in the back of the paragraph.--Sloane 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Clearly stating what he believes is not done by citation - read again argumentation above.--SalvNaut 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we can agree that there is a difference between "[Jones says the attacks were] puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending and expand Israel" and "when pressed, he cautiously blames..." The latter version is already represented in paraphrase; the former is obviously an unguarded moment. Please remember Van Romero's careless remarks about what the collapses "looked liked". He insists (in PM) that he was misquoted. And I am inclined, for the purpose of an enc. article, to give him the benefit of the doubt. The same reasoning applies here.--Thomas Basboll 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and you also changed "consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the collapse" back to "consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the official explanation". Consensus about "the official explanation" is just plain wrong. Makes it look like engineers are some kind of government shills defending "the official explanation", while they have in fact just developed their own explanations and hypothesis. --Sloane 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Official explanation" has nothing to do with engineers being goverment shills. It's "official" as it is, dot. What makes you think that engineers developed their own explanations and hypothesis (except for those few who published papers)?--SalvNaut 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Salv, I think Sloane is right here. I think it was collateral damage during the revert. I think it is safe to say that engineers have consensus on the collapses. In fact, safer than saying that they agree about the official report (since there is actually a little bit of disagreement there.)--Thomas Basboll 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are both right about the sentence. I went to argument with Sloane over irrelevant issues(irrelevant to this sentence)(as he did so in first placeĀ :)) .-SalvNaut 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that engineers have consensus on the collapses
Consensus among engineers who have read the reports, I presume. But who are those engineers? At least one informal poll taken on a university campus has shown that not a single engineering professor had read any of the reports, but they felt the reports were "probably correct." If that's what's meant by consensus, it should be clarified. The reports could bascially say anything to people who haven't read them, as long as it confirms their "belief." Locewtus 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can cite one peer reviewed paper, published by a reputable journal, written by a structural engineer that claims the "official" version is impossible and the towers were blown up, then we might consider nuancing the sentence.--Sloane 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Paper removed because of BYU's request? I don't think so.

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)
  1. ^ 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.[15]
  2. ^ Griffin, David Ray and Peter Dale Scott, eds. 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press, 2006.
  3. ^ "9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda" Press Release
  4. ^ Jones, Steven E. (July 18, 2006). "Answers to Objections and Questions" (pdf). Retrieved 2006-08-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  5. ^ "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'". London Daily Mail. 2006-09-06. Retrieved 2006-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved 2006-09-06.
  7. ^ "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. September 5]], 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Text "Education Guardian" ignored (help)
  8. ^ a b Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2006-07-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  9. ^ 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[16]
  10. ^ "Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory". Letter to the Editor. April 9, 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  11. ^ McIlvain, Ryan (December 5, 2005). "Censor rumors quelled". Retrieved 2006-07-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  12. ^ Walch, Tad. "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave", Deseret Morning News, September 8, 2006.
  13. ^ McFarland, Sheena (September 8, 2006). "BYU prof on paid leave for 9/11 theory". The Salt Lake Tribune.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_E._Jones/Archive_2&oldid=1051933689"