Talk:Steven E. Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives Talk 1 Talk 2 Talk 3

I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, per your blp concerns and for use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 sensible disclaimer 2 Archaeology and the Book of Mormon 3 Jones Discrediting Cold Fusion 4 9/11 'hard science' group linked to archaeology hoax 5 Why are you edit warring over the templates? 6 More nonsensical statements to serve the purpose of labelling 7 Hard Evidence's changes

[edit] sensible disclaimer

The following comments were made in a deleted discussion, and may not make sense to the reader. These comments were once deleted by a claim of violating WP:BLP and soapboxing. I promptly restored them, as they were not in violation of either policy. They were subsequently removed again, stating that while they don't violate the policies referred to above, they don't make sense without the context of the deleted text. This is a disclaimer that the quotes below don't make much sense, since they are taken out of the context. I agree that much of the context was certainly violating soapboxing, and possibly WP:BLP (I really didn't read that much of it). If I had known that my comments would be deleted ahead of time, I would of placed them in a section on their own, or even asked the question on that users talk page. I personally believe that my comments were not malicious, or inappropriate. I believe that it would be a violation of WP:TPG for them to be deleted. Talk is supposed to be archived, not deleted. To help slightly with the context, the original removed comments had a sentence referring to a link that couldn't be posted here because wikipedia had blacklisted it. The following comments are in relation to that topic. Umeboshi 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little on wikipedia blacklisting the link you discussed above? Please provide links to the actual act of blacklisting if possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC). sorry, forgot to sign: Umeboshi 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See here.

Search page for this text: #Jon Harald Søby's list

Judy Wood's link is the 2nd in the list.

Kings 32 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I found it quite informative. Umeboshi 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

I realize that Jones' work in this area is used to riducule him, but it's at minimum a very serious hobby for him. In addition to the cited paper (which is only reproduced because someone wanted to ridicule him), there is much more to suggest the seriousness of his interest. "For several years", he investiged possible pre-columbian North American horses (which the Book of Mormon writes about); Jones published an article in a Mormon apologetics journal. I doubt it's on par with the effort he put into regular physics, but LDS archaeology has been a major personal interest. Cool Hand Luke 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. IMHO, it's a POV attempt to smear Jones for standard Mormon beliefs. All Mormons believe Christ came to America, and BYU has spent decades trying to tie archeology to the book of Mormon. As a professor at BYU his one major (?) paper (over a decade ago, I believe) is much less notable than dozens of other professor's work in this area. I suggest you try adding this attempt to impugne Jones over standard Mormon beliefs to the Mitt Romney article. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I'm ignorant of LDS beliefs? Nonsense. Romney has not written and published articles defending LDS doctrine from archeological/scientific frameworks. As I've pointed out, Jones has worked on at least three different projects related to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I could find more if you wish. These works, and the comments from his former BYU associate in the first link above, suggest he was seriously interested in finding evidence to bolster the Book of Mormon. He's not a leader in the field, but the same could be said for his other non-Cold Fusion interests. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please find others then as a link to the archive of an email list is unnacceptable, and the other link is dead. I will agree to the inclusion of this info if it is also noted that BYU is the center of these studies, and his writings are not unusual for ANY Mormon professor teaching there. OK? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. But it should also be noted that not every BYU professor engages in Mormon apologetics either. Jones can be distinguished from the average Mormon (like Mitt Romney) because of the scholarly work he does on Mormonism.

Incidentally, I think the title of Jones' article should be confined to the footnotes. You're right that many people don't realize that it's a perfectly orthodox Mormon belief. The title might seem looney to non-Mormons; you have a good point here. I think it's sufficient to say he's researched archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, using this article as one example. I'll try to find a published citation for this article before I leave for Chicago on Tuesday (these sources are much easier to find in Utah). I think an apologetics newsletter or journal reproduced his paper, but I think the link is still important. It seems to be the only copy extant on the internet. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming a bit late to this discussion, but I notice someone's looking for a copy of Prof. Jones' article on Mormon archaeology on the Web. Will this one do?: http://web.archive.org/web/20051124053614/http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext+and+figures.htm --Lopakhin 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jones Discrediting Cold Fusion

Many believe Jones was a government plant to discredit Pons/Fleishman's original Cold Fusion work for the purpose of keeping the world addicted to oil energy. See the links I added and make any necessary additions to the cold fusion section. Watch the 45 minute google video Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion. Complete Truth 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been whispered in the marketplace that those videos are deliberately made to look like disinformation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be interesting if free/cheap/clean energy was real and the government/oil mafia didn't want it publicized. Those videos are only one piece of the evidence btw. Complete Truth 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to read this article in Infinite Energy Magazine about Cold Fusion scientists including Jones. The article and magazine was founded by Eugene Mallove, a strong proponent of Cold Fusion, who was brutally murdered a few years ago. Read his wiki page and note the "conspiracy theory" term!

Also note that Dr Judy Wood (the mechanical engineering professor who was released from her teaching position at Clemson University), had a student, Michael Zebuhr, who was killed as well. Not only was Michael doing 9/11 research with Dr Wood, but their research was to show that Steven Jones work was faulty. Complete Truth 11:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A new article details the many similarities between Jones' 9/11 and cold fusion work: [1] Complete Truth 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 'hard science' group linked to archaeology hoax

read through this page [2] and make any appropriate additions to article. Complete Truth 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you edit warring over the templates?

As a semi-outsider to this article, I seriously don't understand why editors keep adding and removing these templates. Care to work it out on the talk page? Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed on several pages: the template talk pages, other linked articles, and Templates for deletion. Join the discussion if you care to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, Tom doesnt believe there is a Truth Movement, or doesnt believe it has a membership. yet he keeps adding the template here. I am honestly very confused as well. Tom, can you please answer now, if you believe there is no truth movement group, then how is steven jones part of it? [3] --NuclearZer0 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was User:Bov who claimed the Truth Movement doesn't have a membership. Pay attention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[4] I appreciate your apology now. There is Tom denying a group exists, yet adding people to a template for it. So those people belong to a non-existent group? What exactly was the inclusion criteria that Tom was working with when he reverted others and added people? Maybe you can answer since you like to talk for Tom. --NuclearZer0 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm mistaken. What standard of membership do you apply? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you are wrong. I hope in the future you will cease adding or removing people since you admit to not knowing. I will agf and assume you were just ignorant to the topic and not purposely vandalizing it. --NuclearZer0 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you are wrong. I hope in the future you will cease adding or removing people since you admit to not knowing. I will agf and assume you were just ignorant to the topic and not purposely vandalizing it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This will also be noted, unless you want to apologize for it. --NuclearZer0 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• group /grup/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[groop] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

• • 1. any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation: a group of protesters; a remarkable group of paintings.
  • 2. a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.

This is the definition from Dictionary.com, any objection to this Tom? Nto sure what definition of group you keep reffering to. I also dont get your redundant pointless arguement that a movement isnt a group unless they signed something or had a charter. Go argue on the Civil Rights Movement template about its list if you honestly feel that way, else I am done discussing the issue with you, you have grown quite rude and its already been noted your "incidents" regarding this template. --NuclearZer0 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing the two. Neither seems to be making much sense lately. But the 911tm, by definition (at least as we recognize it in the 911tm article, quoted by Tom in the above reference), does not have "members". Change the article, if you want the template to reflect it.

But this is the wrong place to discuss it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a proper response, you shouldnt rush to the aid of people without fully researching the issue. --NuclearZer0 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized your clear and persistent error before. I did research the issue in regard the template. He's in the template, he should link to the template. Period. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And since I can't revert your removal of the clearly appropriate template Template:911ct under WP:3RR, I'll put the link in here. I'll unwiki it when it reappears in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Who said he doesn't belong in a 9/11 conspiracy template? Stop reinserting the personal attack please --NuclearZer0

I'm asking you to revert your removal of the clearly appropriate template from this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is being removed because its being edit warred over, making it unstable and its content not reliable. If you stopped edit warring on it I would not revert. Until then please stop your personal attacks. PS noone has stated the template isnt appropriate. Well it might possibly not be since its being edit war'd over and changing every 2 minutes I cannot say 100%--NuclearZer0 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus "Conspiracy Theory" version of the template is being actively edited, in spite of multiple reverts to "Alternate theory" and "controlled demolition" versions which are not being edited to correct the article lists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds liek you are saying there is an edit war on it? Not sure what your point is, I think I stated this already as well. --NuclearZer0 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit war against clear concensus that conspiracy theory should be used. Why should the template be different than anything else on Wikipedia? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I do not promote edit warring on all articles on Wikipedia, not sure why you would, but I guess it may explain other things. I guess this conversation is done unless you want to continue the battle of witty responses. --NuclearZer0 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is improper to fail to include an article because of an edit war on it; the correct thing to do is to stop the edit war. As you are one of the primary proponents for two non-concensus versions of the template, you are already promoting edit warring on those articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are not done with witty responses? please stop already, you are making this look like a joke. You are participating in the revert war, you want t ocontinue to do so fine, you want to be the bigger person, or actually use the talk page, those would be a great help. You have something more to say post it on my talk. --NuclearZer0 11

52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you mad at him for? Edit warring, or continually replying to your remarks? More importantly, shouldn't disputes about article content be on the article talk page instead of a user's? Why can't you resolve this on template talk? It seems likely that 911ct will be kept, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Why not resolve your disputes on the template first? Cool Hand Luke 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the attempt to do\this properly and by consensus [here. All constructive contributions towards building a consensus are welcome Fiddle Faddle 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More nonsensical statements to serve the purpose of labelling

>>"Although his work is the basis of many 9/11 conspiracy theories, Jones himself maintains that more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about the collapses."

What "other" conspiracy theories is Jones' work the basis for??? And especially if he himself calls for more research? The demolition ht was around long before Jones was on the scene, so he didn't "create" that theory nor exclusively promote it, so how on earth could his work then be a "basis"? Which "conspiracy theories" - specifically, ones purporting a criminal conspiracy among individuals - are being referred to here? To say that someone else's "conspiracy theory" is using Jones's work as its basis would have to be a theory which came out after 2005 when Jones went public, and which involves a criminal conspiracy based on the use of thermite. Please provide a link to the new "conspiracy theory" which is based on Jones' work specifically. bov 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "used as justification" rather than "basis". Your revision is clearly biased. Perhaps we can still discuss this on the talk page before you get blocked for disruptive editing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The above remark by Arthur Rubin was completely uncalled for, and his accompanying edit summary beyond the pale. Please adopt a more civil tone. Ombudsman 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The revision in question was cited in the Nuclear arbcom enforcement procedings as being rejected by the community, so that any attempt to reinsert it should be considered vandalism. The edit summary is perhaps slightly less inappropriate than this section header. And User:Bov has been blocked for 3RR (and probably would have been more often if we'd kept track of his IP addresses; apparently he has trouble logging in. I'm not saying he's trying to avoid 3RR violations by failing to log in, but it does make it more difficult to detect which of the IP edits are by him and which by banned users.) But I shouldn't have done it, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Evidence's changes

A user named "Hardevidence" attempted to make some changes, most of which are corrections, and I happen to know this user is Dr. Jones himself, as he contacted me. Yet, these efforts were removed without any regard. For example, Dr. Jones attempted to correct that fact that Judy Woods' position is now "former." This was eliminated. No request for citation, just removed. He also attempted to clarify some of the scientific statements but again, just removed.

In particular he told me directly that the statement "His experiments initially used a diamond anvil to create high pressures" is completely false. His attempt to correct that was also removed.

Why would a statement without any source be preferred on wikipedia when someone is clearly attempting to remove that statement to correct it? Why is any change to the page treated as vandalism if someone is not a known official version promoter? It's a pathetic atmosphere on here -- protect the obvious and unsourced errors instead of bothering to even look at the content of the attempted corrections.

I'm going in revert the last reversion until someone can actually address the issues. bov 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If User:Hardevidence really is Jones, he absolutely, positively should not be editing the article except to remove misstatements. Ask him to describe what he wants on this page, and we will consider whether his "corrections" are appropriate. Some of the ones you (User:Bov) added were attempts to bias the article to his POV, but some of the others may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

>>Ask him to describe what he wants on this page

He obviously did, in his edits. I did mention to him that he isn't supposed to edit his own page and that I would start a discussion on his corrections on the discussion page. But simply reverting the corrections is not productive - why don't you do the research to show that statements made without any sources at all are actually supported in the sources if you are going to put them back in, rather than putting them back in and then tagging it as unsourced? They should be removed first if there are questions about them, not left in with tags to say the whole page is questionable. bov 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one of those changes is to correct Judy Wood's title to FORMER. How hard is that to find out, Arthur? It not rocket science. Yet you just revert any changes and add tags to put the page in disarray, and then leave. That's hardly editing, that's just reverting any changes made at all by someone you don't agree with -- nothing more. I see zero editing work here, only a goal to block certain users from ever making a single change. Over and over I've seen you reverting to versions with completely incorrect links and efforts to associate people with hoaxes that you have no idea of what you are talking about. bov 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He added unsourced material, or material sourced only on his website. The present revision here seems more-or-less acceptable. As for the {{totallydisputed}} tag: I didn't revert the text from your reversion to Jones's edit. I just added the tag. If the edits which User:Tom harrison removed are reinserted, the tag goes back on, and you get blocked for 3RR again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)