Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645201360,00.html (posted by Sloane, 14:23, 15 September 2006)

Anyone want to do anything with this? I doubt it's going to go anywhere, but if something else turns up, this is probably the first mention of it. Could have historical significance. I've never liked this tactic of the ADL. It seems to me that they, not Jones, are connecting banking with jews. That said, I do understand the "codetalk" argument. Tough call. But this is not yet substantial.--

14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tactic of the ADL"? You've got to be kidding. It's widely known that "International Bankers" is an anti-Semitic euphemism. If you hear it, you can expect that "the Jews did it" is just around the corner (oh wait, that's already part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, isn't it?).

Morton devonshire

15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What,what? What is this organization AFD? It's first time I hear that "international bankers" is a codetalk? Maybe I'm oldfashioned but international bankers are... international bankers? I've never connected them with Jews. (Well, I heard some anti-semitic Jews-banking connections but... codetalk?) Jones speaks publicly of "international bankers" for the first time and AFD sends a letter of complaint - aren't they a bit paranoid? ... Or.. (lol, but please don't tell AFD :)) maybe, they're indeed defending interests of... "international bankers"? :))

Anyway, in Jones's own words: ""I had no idea this would be some sort of codespeak for anti-Semitism, it is not right to link such a group to Jews." --SalvNaut 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think 'Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and an "international banking cartel"' is pretty clear, if that is an accurate report of what he said. But unless this is picked up more widely in the press I would say it should not go in here. In context it might be appropriate for the section in

new anti-Semitism. Tom Harrison ^Talk

18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I can't stay mute. I very oppose to this way of thinking! Are Wolfowitz and Perle Jews? I didn't know that - I'm not sure if Jones did. Even if - why would this be the most important thing for him?? He never spoke ANYTHING of Jews before! Maybe he've heard this phrase ("banking cartel") from someone of Scholars911. It doesn't matter. He can't be accused of anti-semitizm for saying this sentence!! dot.

This kind of thinking frames very "well" onto what we've read today in the news. Pope Benedict gave a lecture on a german university on the history of religion. He cited some guy from 14th century (ok, maybe he should be more carefull choosing citation, still) and what do we have in the news!? "Muslims" are angry! Pope angered Muslims! First: I don't think any muslims would care if it wasn't for such organizations - just exactly like AFD, but on the Muslim side. And who inflated the story so it would go around the world 3 times? What do we need this for! Why to follow this "don't piss me off" way of thinking? Comments I've seen on forums today were depressing - 0, nada, null! of understanding, just pointing fingers who's fault it is. Don't pour more oil into these - please. --SalvNaut 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree at least partially. It is possible that Jones picked up a line from others in the movement, and repeated it without knowing how others intend it, or how it would be received. Now he does know. As you say, I have not heard anything like this from him before. Again, I don't think we should add it here at this point. This is a biography of Jones, and it's not at all clear that this remark tells us anything at all about the man, except maybe that he is inclined to say more than he should of things he knows little about. That at least seems consistent with his 9/11 'research.' "Neocon cabal," "world bank," and "masters of the media" are all phrases to avoid, especially when coupled with "vast conspiracy." Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, this has nothing to do with the article. I still would like to stress on one thing: Why should anyone read that sentence different way it reads?!? The sentence is about two people and international bankers. Conspirational, as it is, it still sais nothing about Jews. This sentence is not anti-Semitic and why should I even know it can be? There is a line between protecting nationalities, minorities, whoever, from harassment or disrespect and between advancing ones' political position. Many cross this line and other similiar lines today. --SalvNaut 22:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Please check this article under section "The Radio Trap".

Even the host of a Radio program acknowledged:

"I'm not sure we did it the right way," Fabrizio said after he accepted responsibility for the radio program that sparked the sacking of Jones.

Should this somehow be mentioned in the article with connection to paid leave? --SalvNaut 01:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should cite to this Anti-Jewish website?

Morton devonshire

01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is Are Zionists Behind Banning of Truthful 9/11 Scientist?. This stuff is just stupifying. I cannot believe people do not see the anti-semitism that is built into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Anyway, this site is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks, so we should not cite it for any information about Jones. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One would have to be a complete fool to not see this piece for what it is: hate-mongering dressed up as journalism. Levi P. 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I see how that title is unfortunate, I'm going to need a bit more info to believe that the site and the author of this (off-site) article is "anti-Jewish". The site is basically anti-globalization and has a clear 9/11 focus (as explained under "about"). There are many forms of anti-Zionism that are not anti-semitic (and forms of Zionism that are not Jewish). To bring this back to the Jones' problems, all that this indicates is the difficulty implicit in taking any sort of "conspiracist" position. Many believe (with some justification) that the "Elders of Zion" is the arch-conspiracy theory. That fact is then used to construe anti-globalization (especially when it is called "anti-globalist"), anti-Zionism (i.e., opposition to the idea that there should be a "homeland for the Jews"), and, in this case, anti-banking as anti-semitism. Again, while anti-semites may find many of these stances attractively compatible with their own, they can be (and are being) articulated without any references to that tiresome prejudice. Try to compare the claim "it is obviously controlled demolition" with the claim "anti-semitism is clearly built into conspiracy theories" in terms of the sort of evidence you would need to support it.--

Thomas Basboll

09:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there would need to be an extensive body of academic literature and journalism to support the idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, for the purposes of articles here. But I also mean more common sensically. That is, what has given you this idea?--

Thomas Basboll

14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That anti-semitism is an element of almost all conspiracy theories? That is what I see based on my reading and experience. (I think it is possible that this may not be the case with conspiracy theories in the far east, but I know little about those.) It is the nature of conspiracy theories that they start small and expand to include everything. No conspiracy theory can for very long ignore the Jews. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can understand your pov and your gained prejudice. Then, your first opinion was This stuff is just stupifying. which is quite strong judgement. This article was not the first one to mention Fabrizio interview beside paid leave. Second, the most biased part of this article is its title. Maybe we should be more careful when judging people (in this case the author of that article) basing it solely on experience. Similiar behavior might be considered to be at the core of anti-Semitism.

I am not sure if I agree with your view on the nature of conspiracy theories (on this particular CT especially, others - I don't have experience). Thomas pointed it out couple of times that it's rather the other way round - those are long-time anti-Semites who find their way into CT.--SalvNaut 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again your conclusions crush on me... What has drawn you into thinking that this site is anti-Jewish hate-mongering journalism? While the article title is, as it is, it's content is just a report. I don't think I am a fool but I can't see how this site is hate-mogering? You have thrown such strong words Levi - have you read other articles there? I find them to be written in a very reportive style without any pov-pushing remarks. Where is the hate?

This site has many articles condemning Israel's war with Lebanon, ok, but I haven't found anything there that would constitute anti-Jewish? I would say at most it's anti-war, anti-(politics of Israel), anti-globalist. I've found no hate directed at Israeli (or any other) people at all. I'll give an example: an article with very strong title "Israel’s deceptions as a way of life" but it's focused on Israel gov. war propaganda, it even express concernes of ordinary people from Israel that actions of their politicians are not going to be examinated: Most Israelis are deeply unhappy about what one commentator has called Olmert’s "committee of non-inquiry". Again, where is hate? Where is anti-Jewish content? Do you call people that question war in Iraq anti-American?

Why you keep acusing everyone who has a different world view of such bad things, while people can just be very concerned about what is going on in the world?

I won't insist on adding content to Jones' article, although this could explain what BYU meant by "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature". I can't find words that would explain the situation concisely. --SalvNaut 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Information about Jones's interview was also mentioned in this Sep8 article by Desertnews:

Jones had been relatively reticent to discuss the implications of his findings, but he created buzz on campus Tuesday with his appearance on KUER-FM 90.1. He expressed the opinion to talk-show host Doug Fabrizio that blame for the attacks rests with neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others.

The connection between BYU decision and that radio-interview apparently exists.--SalvNaut 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, go ahead and include it in the article -- the idea that "the Jews got Steven Jones fired" is, I agree, so stupifyingly absurd that maybe it does belong with the other stupifyingly absurd ideas of the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement, like the rest of Jones' ideas. Go for it. Wallow in the foolishness of it all.

Morton devonshire

18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton - from one extremity to another. You sort of got me here, as my first message and the section's title could indicate I would like to do it, the way you described it - but no, it was never my intention to do so. I would like to include info that BYU paid leave decision was influenced by biased interview by Fabrizio and that even Fabrizio agrees he didn't handle it well, and that this interview caused completely unjustified accusations of Jones being anti-Semitic. I understand you fully support this proposed inclusion of mine, as you've already supported something much more extreme - thank you. --SalvNaut 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you skirting the accusation made by the Radio Trap article?

Morton devonshire

19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not. Please, show me which paragraph of this article is an accusation of anyone? Do not bring the title on - a headline's purpose is to grasp readers' attention, so headlines are often exaggerated and its justified. SalvNaut 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I've found this one for you:

Within two days, the authorities at BYU apparently caved to organized Jewish pressure and put Jones on paid leave. Students who had already begun their fall physics courses with Jones will be taught by other faculty members for the rest of the semester as university administrators review his statements and research.

Well,hmmm... apparently... You are right. It's sort of an accusation.I wonder if it's supported by something more than the author's guess. Still, the anti-Semitic topic was tuched upon other articles about Jones.(previous discussion). We have enough sources to support what I proposed to add. SalvNaut 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate in English per NPOV: "Engineers have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis". This implies/states/pushes the POV that all engineers have dismissed this. Unless someone can find a source that says flatly that all engineers have dismissed it this needs to be changed. You cannot have it say "Most engineers", or anything similar either, unless you can source that. I am changing this again to "A variety of engineers", which is neutral and NPOV. Let the reader decide. None of us has that right for them. · XP · 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, none of us has to be mislead to believe that any respected engineers support his summary of the events either, so until you can demostrate that they have, the edit stays.--MONGO 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reread how it works on policy please. You need to source that "all" engineers have dismissed him. · XP · 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What the heck does a variety of engineers have any difference than just saying engineers...I want you to show me a single engineer that completely agrees with Jones's findings. Good luck.--MONGO 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to find you a single one that supports his views, because I'm not saying that even one supports his view. What I'm saying is thisw article shall not say that ALL engineers dismiss his views, nor shall it say anything to denote a majority, as that cannot be proven. All that can be proven from RS is that a "variety" of them dismiss it. The difference is just saying "Engineers" is the same in English as saying "All engineers", which cannot be proven and advocating a point of view--which we shall not and are not to do. Saying a variety of engineers instead leaves it up to the reader. We do not have any sources that say anything beyond "some" engineers. We do not have any RS that say all, most, nearly all, the majority of, lots of, gobs of, or anything related. Therefore, my version is appropriate per RS, NPOV, and usage of the English language. · XP · 15:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom's edit

Please demonstrate where your citation supports this, or this will be coming back out as a policy vio. I contest that. · XP · 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

This has been discussed at the 9/11 CT talk page, but remains controversial.[1] My view is that any qualification, like "some engineers" or (worse) naming specific engineers, would be a bit like saying, "

18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloane, as you put a controversial citation of Jones again, I ask you to look into the archive for a discussion we had about using citations in such cases. And you could also read articles discussed in previous two sections and this more recent artcle. SalvNaut 23:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• controversial citation? How? --Sloane 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the article I had linked to (this quoute for example: In later media interviews, Jones expressed surprise that others might draw anti-Semitism from his remarks.), and if you had looked back into archive for discussion you had with me and Thomas you would have known. If you can be more specific in your questioning and adress the the points raised (in this case former discussion and the article), please. I think, the issue is resolved and the comment below is very true. SalvNaut 10:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the refs have quotes - we could pack the ref section solid with excerpted quotes from each article, then add links within those quotes and essentially will end up starting all over again with an edit war. We should nip this in the bud before Sloane can again get the page locked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.197 (talk • contribs)

I think Sloane's edit introduced something that Jones said in an unguarded moment. It expresses one of his less well-formed views, if expresses anything at all. As SalvNaut pointed out, he has since been accused of anti-semitism for making a similar remark. On that occasion he made it clear that his opinions about who dunnit are not especially well thought out and that he will probably stop saying stuff like that. When he got involved in the issue he normally tried to avoid the question of guilt, which was out of his area of expertise. As in the case of Van Romero, who must always be quoted along with his retraction, we would have to qualify the quote in this manner. It is unclear what that would accomplish other than making Jones look a little bad in an ultimately insignificant way. A biographical article on him does not need to do that. If the statement is to be included, I would suggest writing a little paragraph that explains the basis for BYU's concern about the "accusatory nature" of Jones' work. Here the anti-semitism controversy might also be added, but keeping the POV N will of course of the utmost importance.--

12:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I had similiar idea about a paragraph that explains the basis for BYU's concern. After all, we have 3 articles [2][3][4] linking KUER-FM talk-show with BYU decision 2 days later - those would be "accusatory nature" concerns. Other articles describe what else is reviewed by BYU and one has drawn my attentnion with: Whether BYU will allow him to keep his posts with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Journal of 9/11 Studies is part of what will be reviewed, Jenkins said....

I haven't proposed any edits because I thought that precise explanation of the situation could give undue weight to it. (Maybe, it's because of my inability to express my thoughts concisely.)SalvNaut 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the main article: DesertNews. Jones's letter to the editor of the Deseret Morning News can be found here. On Scholars for 9/11 Truth page you can find Jones announcment to his Colleagues (right side, "Founder's Corner"). SalvNaut 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not using the "Scholars for Truth" as a reference base. The news report is satisfactory.--MONGO 19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not as a reference in this matter of course. I've just given the link to provide broad look on this case for other editors. My edit was based solely on DesertNews article. SalvNaut 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article states Jones' views on Cold Fusion were mainly supported by the scientific community. But Robert Park for one, seems to equate Jones' views with those of Pons and Fleishmann. A google search shows that Cold Fusion proponents tend to cite Jones' work, while those whoi ridicule Pons and Fleishmann tend to ridicule him as well. Nowhere did I find a web site accepting his work, while rejecting that of Pons and Fleishmann.68.239.152.239 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... have you read the article? In the article, at the end of "Cold Fusion" section there is a link to a paper which cites Jones and confirms his findings... You can read more about this controversy in Jones's Answers to objections and questions here (more confirming papers mentioned there). SalvNaut 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm just a little leery of saying his findings were confirmed based on one paper and one New York Times article, when other physicists do seem to disagree.68.239.152.239 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked into Jones Answers and Questions (p.43-47)? Joens provides two papers that confirm his findings. What sources do you refer to exactly? Because Google Search returns nothing of scientific importance in first couple of hits. As for Robert Park, it seems that he earns a living with bashing other scientists (or want-to-be-scientists, which is not the case here).

I've read the abstract of Jones paper and listened to lecture by Jones where he explained his work. From what I know, Jones constructed an aparatus which allowed him to measure with high precision and he observed very low energy muon-catalyzed fusion, which is now confirmed and seems to be explained by some quantum mechanics.

If you want to make a research look here. SalvNaut 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(Looks like this one isn't winning support. I'm withdrawing it. Thanks for the comments.--

23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

I think the following text would be a more appropriate lead into the present article:

Steven Earl Jones is an American phycisist. In the 1980s Jones popularized the term cold fusion, but his experimental work was significantly different from the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann. Through the 1990s Jones also conducted research into solar energy.

Since late 2005, Jones has been defending the hypothesis that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by controlled demolition, a common feature of conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks. On October 20, 2006 Steven Jones announced his retirement from Brigham Young University in order to devote more time to this line of research.

The very fact that we feel a need to source the claims made in the lead is a red flag for me. Characterizing him as a "conspiracy theorist" on a par with his being a phycisist is in any case a bit odd. He's a phycisist by profession who is notable for a two or three areas of research.--

11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Current version does not indicate that he retired in order to do more research - it should be changed. SalvNaut 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose: Disparagement of his scientific analysis with outrageously pov terminology does not belong in the intro at all, and if such pov presented in the body, it must be pointed out that the disparagement has its roots in widespread efforts at
  9/11 Truth Movement. Ombudsman
  07:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What we have. No violation of
  9/11 Truth Movement should be suppressed, aside from identifying that they exist. Misuse of Wikipedia as a platform to espouse "hypothesises" and "theories" with no basis in fact is not to be tolerated.--MONGO
  08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. When commenting on this please keep in mind that this is not a discussion about the content of the whole article, which I also don't see any reason to change dramatically. I'm just suggesting that the lead could be written in a more plain style and offer less interpretation than it currently does.--

Thomas Basboll

08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as-is. This has been debated to death already. The reason we say in the lead that he is a conspiracy theorist is that he promotes conspiracy theories, and that is pretty much the only reason most people have ever heard of him. In other words, we say he is a conspiracy theorist because that is what reliable sources say he is. The reason it's cited is because people (perfectly reasonably) want a statement like that to be backed up. His "retirement" is along the lines of a politician retiring to "spend more time with his family", and is every bit as credible. The amusingly misnamed 9/11
  Truth Movement has no say in this, it is Wikipedia policy that matters, and what is in the article is sourced, generally to a high standard, from reliable secondary sources, has been debated at length and is stated in carefully neutral terms. Guy
  13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• I see no reason to change the lead. He's really only here because of the conspiracy theories. If he becomes less notable, this page could be deleted, or merged into Researchers questioning... Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons (self-identification) policy are among the more serious policy vioalations. To use the term conspiracy theorist to describe Jones we need a credible and verifiable source quoting Jones refering to himself with that term. In that case it would not violate the Biography of Living Persons policy, but it would still violate the NPOV (neutral language) policy. It would probably just be best to avoid the term in reference to Jones. Cplot 07:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that a person's opinions about himself are not the ultimate source for who he is. External

reliable sources are more relevant than how a person describes himsef. Weregerbil

10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We're in agreement then: I think. We need to have a verifiable and reliable source that shows Steven Jones refering to himself as a conspiracy theorist. Then it would not be a potentially libelous categorization. However, I still think it's still non-neutral language, unencylopedic and violates the NPOV policy, so maybe it's just pointless and maliscious (and therefore potentially libelous again) to try to track down such a source just to refer to him in that way. Cplot 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an encyclopedia should turn a blind eye to sources to avoid offending someone. A policy of self-censorship does not breed reliability. I think it would be really strange if an encyclopedia were to admit that the concept of a

conspiracy theorist exists, yet systematically deny that anyone actually is a conspiracy theorist. Weregerbil

18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about Cplot? Self identification isn't the only factor here. Jones is called a conspiracy theorist by others, and that is important in any Wikipedia article about him. Deliberately removing that information is censorship. Good heavens, at the end of the very first sentence in this article two references are given. The second of them goes to a Washington Post story headed "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young" which states "Jones recently published theories about U.S. government involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001.....". It is accurate and valid for Wiki to say that others call him a conspiracy theorist. In fact, it is not only valid but our duty, if we want to present a balanced article. Moriori 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the article should report that he has been called so. One can't get a label stick to oneself on encyclopedia for a reason of newspaper article. SalvNaut 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with taking seriously Wikipedia's policies — and in this case each of us taking responsibility for protecting Wikipedia from charges of libel. Again, it has nothing to do with censorship. If you know a verifiable and reliable source that reveals Jones considers himself to be a fuckhead you can put that in the lead section. If for example, Jones says somewhere "I consider myself a fuckhead and I'm proud of that fact.", then you can put in the lead "Jones is a physicist and a fuckhead". However, make sure he wasn't being sarcastic or facetious when he said those things. If George Bush saaid he was a 'fuckhead' and you have a verifiable and reliable source for that you can add to the lead section: "G.W. Bush called Jones a 'fuckhead' at a press conference". Again, these are hypotheticals meant to demonstrate censorship has nothing to do with this matter. It has to do with potential libel and following the policies of Wikipedia: in particular "Biorgraphy of Living Persons", Verifiability, NPOVl and the reliable sources guideline. This is not really an issue up for debate if you read the policies correctly.--Cplot 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The other uses of the term 'conspiracy theories' are a bit of a grey area, though I am opposed to those on the grounds that it is unencylopeic. I'm not now going to take issue with them or try to rmove them, but I will say I don't think they belong. Calling Jones a 'conpiracy theories' is not up for debate without a verifiable reliable source showing Jones self-identifies as such. You could add to the article that "Jones has been associated with others whom the Washington Post labels as 'conspiracy theorists'" In this way there is a clear attribution (with a verifiable and reliable source) that shows who is referring to Jones in that way and that it's not Wikipedia. --Cplot 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave the Washington Post as an example because it already exists in the intro as a reference. The media generally says this person is a conspiracy theorist, and points to his own writings as evidence. It is legitimate to say so in the article. Moriori 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you make such statements, please give sources - I've read many articleas about him and I've seen only 1 or 2 examples of this label used directly to him. SalvNaut 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say that Cplot's last two posts are very convincing. I agree with them, and yes, it should be either removed from the first paragraph or put the way Cplot has proposed. I remind, that one argument for calling him conspiracy theorist in the first paragraph was that he is notable thanks to it. So, let it be "Jones has been associated..." or "...has been labeled..". SalvNaut 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, "...has been labeled.."' is weasely but compromise is better than nothing if it helps give Wikipedia some semblance of professionalism. Moriori 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. Can't be weasely Then, "has been labeled..." by who? I propose "mainstram media". Opinions? SalvNaut 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim McVaigh is still dead as far as I am aware and so the Biography o Living Persons policy does not apply to him. Nevertheless, the lead section for McVaigh does not call him a mass murderer and is much more neutral toward McVaigh than the vindictive editors here are toward Jones. It really makes one wonder why so much more venom is unleashed upon a guy simply asking some questions when compared to another guy who killed hundreds. Again, the fact that some have dismissed Jones as a 'conspiracy theorist' does not mean it belongs in the lead section of anyclopedia article. It doesn't violate the BLP policy, but it does fail on the NPOV neutral language policy. The lead section already indicates in neutral NPOV compliant language what makes Jones notable. There's no reason to add politically motivated dismisals of his work to the lead section.. --Cplot 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Hmmm, indeed present version is shapely. The fact, he has been labeled conspiracy theorist could find its way somewhere else in this article. SalvNaut 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't been 'labeled' a conspiracy theorist - ABC news and the Washington Post have noted that he is one. Without this coverage, he would not be notable enough for a biography at all, and that suggests another possibility: delete this page and leave him with just a section in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you're wrong about this notability issue. Jones is a notable phycisist even if no one at WP noticed him til the 9/11 stuff. The cold fusion stuff simply isn't trivial. It is not enough for ABC and Wash Post to say he is one thing or another. I think Cplot's line on this is entirely reasonable. It is very clear in the article that Jones is a conspiracy theorist (for those who like to apply that label.) Wikipedia, however, has no basis for saying that he is one. That's an important distinction. We simply can't let anything that a mainstream news source prints be treated as citable fact in WP. The consequences of such a policy are staggering to imagine.--

Thomas Basboll

22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Like I say, I think you're wrong about that. The cold fusion section is enough to warrant an article for Jones.--

Thomas Basboll

23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. I think that people who are mentioned in other articles (especially articles like

Thomas Basboll

23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So he is a notable conspiracy theorist, but we mustn't say so? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You and I know what we mean "conspiracy theorist". In any case, yes, at bottom, we must not say so. The fact that two editors can agree that there is a sense in which a particular label applies does not entitle them to put that in the article.--

Thomas Basboll

00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right that it is not our agreement. It is ABC news and the Washington Post. There are conspiracy theorists, and Jones is one, per citation to reliable sources. That's not all he is, but it is one important thing - important enough for those sources to mention it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty simple. Not everything that newspapers say about people is true. In the case of biographies about living people, Wikipedia seems to have pretty clear policy. Use caution. I've gotta run, please don't AfD this until next year. ;-) --

Thomas Basboll

00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The facts of Jones nobaility are not in dispute in this discussion: it's the inappropriate use of pejorative language that's being debated. "Jones is associated with a group of critics of US executive branch explanations for the attacks of September 11th". That's the most neutral way I can think of saying it. Another way would say "Jones is associated with the 9/11 truth movment. Or "Jones is associated with 9/11 conspiracy theories". Those are three ways of describing the same facts abaout Jones notability. The first one follows neutral language poicy. The other two less so. He is notable for that however we say it. However, since this is Wikipedia and we're writing about a living person, we should be extra carfeul in producing neutral language for the article. Tom Harrison, the point you raise about the phrase "9/11 conspiracy movement" simply suggest that there's a viral effect of using non-neutral language in one article (one that is not a biography) which then infects into other articles where the problems with non-neutral language is more accute. --Cplot 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Cplot, are you User:Zen-master? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No I am not a zen master. I don't even go to tample. But seriously no. Why do you ask?. --Cplot 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your writing and some of the pages you edit are similar. But I will take you at your word that you are not him. Thanks for the direct answer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this page due to a disagreement regarding

08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Page unprotected. Violators of

18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fetzer dispute

I've removed the recent additions occasioned by the Jones/Fetzer dispute. I imagine it will eventually lead to a press release. We can't keep track of every unresolved dispute within the Scholars in real time. This isn't journalism.--

Thomas Basboll

00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not original reporting. The citation is to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. And yes, it's significant, as Steven E. Jones is one of the Co-Chairs of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Morton devonshire

01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an exchange between Jones and Fetzer. As bov has pointed out, the citation is to Fetzer, not Scholars. At this point is simply beyond our knowledge (on the basis of the citation to you provide) to decide this issue. This isn't sanitization, it's

Thomas Basboll

07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For now I have made the section a little more encyclopedic. I would still suggest removing it until a official statement from Scholars emerges.--

Thomas Basboll

07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You should not automatically assume that Scholars will put out a news release on the issue of Jones. Up to now, they’ve operated as a loose-confederation of people with a similar viewpoint, and to the extent that that viewpoint has some coherency, it exhibits itself on the scholarsfor911truth.org website, or on their Journal of 9/11 Studies site. With respect to the story, we cannot rely upon ST911 to verify many things, but we can rely upon them to verify the status of their own organization, of which Fetzer is Chair, and up until Fetzer’s latest pronouncement, Jones was Co-Chair – we can describe what Fetzer says, but we must indicate that it is Fetzer saying this, because we do not know the internal procedures of ST911, and whether Fetzer is the sole authority on what is or isn’t ST911 policy (although so far it appears to be whatever Fetzer says it is, but that remains to be seen).

As to notability of this issue, it pays to look back as to why Jones is notable to begin with. Without the 9/11 alternative theory controversy and Jones’ subsequent troubles with BYU because of his 9/11 research, Jones would probably not be notable at all. The Cold Fusion research and mentions of Jones with respect to it are so old now that they never get mentioned by the mainstream media, except with reference to Jones’ 9/11 research. So, without 9/11, Jones doesn’t get an article here. But Jones does have an article here because of the 9/11 issues, so we should be describing his notability based upon the 9/11 research, including what the reputable media has said about the research and his departure from BYU. Additionally, Jones is not merely a member of ST911, he is/was its Co-Chair, so his membership and leadership of that organization is also notable. If you leave out Jones’ current association or non-association with ST911 and its theories, you are leaving out a significant portion of the picture, and leaving the reader of this Wikipedia article under the impression that Jones’ status with ST911 is the same – it’s clearly not, based upon what’s been described personally by James Fetzer, Co-Chair and Founder of the organization. That’s relevant, important, and notable. So, describe it as Fetzer describes it, indicate that it is Fetzer’s description, and make a direct link to Fetzer’s letter about it – that’s all I’m asking for.

Morton devonshire

22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the section [5] does what you want it to. It is precisely because we can only "describe what Fetzer says" and "do not know the internal procedures of ST911" that we have a hard time including this "story" (again, making it sound like journalism--a current event). I haven't found anything from Jones about stepping down yet. That would be useful as self-identification and would be as good as (better than?) a press release. Right now we have an unresolved dispute that we are unable to assess the relevance of, as you yourself say. We simply don't know enough about the Scholars to know whether this is an important event in Jones's life.--

Thomas Basboll

08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Affiliations" section lists Jones as a co-chair of Sf911. If being co-chair is notable, isn't being fired from being co-chair of equal notability? We have a source according to which Fetzer says he fired Jones; any sources to the contrary? As it is now, the article is contradicting sources based on unsourced claims that Fetzer has no right to fire Jones. Weregerbil 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In an open letter to the organization [6], Fetzer does say that he has "temporarilly removed Jones as co-chair". But when this was added to the article, Fetzer's authority to do so was questioned (after all, it was one co-chair removing the other). The point of dispute is whether he has actually been fired, I guess. (I don't have a strong opinion on this, mainly because I feel poorly informed.) Certainly, if he is fired or steps down that would be notable (or, at the very least, would warrant changing the relevant line in his affiliations.) My main concern here is that we are may be too quick to accept Fetzer's version of a controversy he is so clearly involved in. That's why I wanted to wait until the decision filtered through the Scholars organization.--

Thomas Basboll

13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for "Fetzer's authority was questioned"? Thanks! Weregerbil 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. No, I meant that an editor questioned it [7].--

Thomas Basboll

14:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that's

WP:OR. Source: Fetzer says he suspended Jones as co-chair. We are removing sourced edits based on unsourced OR? Weregerbil

14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. It's a concern about whether our source is reliable. Look, Fetzer's open letter may be a reliable source, that's what we're discussing. There's an outside chance that he's overstepped his authority. The best analogy I can think of is an article on the president of a country that's in the middle of coup. At what point do you declare him toppled? Certainly not when his opponent declares himself the victor.--

Thomas Basboll

15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it's easy. Just say that Fetzer said it. The Scholars site is reliable for that, as it's Fetzer's site.

Morton devonshire

16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But if Fetzer's saying it doesn't make it so, then it's not really worth including. We just need to wait a few days (I'd think) until the issue is settled and Jones makes a statement.--

Thomas Basboll

16:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

<- shift

First, I think the founder/co-chair of Sf911 saying he is suspending Jones is every bit as notable as any other Jones/Sf911 -related information. Second, questioning Fetzer's authority is still an unsourced OR rumor started by one Wikipedia editor and as such not really much of a reason for anything. Third, Jones' statements about Jones are not the ultimate source of information about Jones. Wikipedia's biographies are not based on waiting for their subjects to give statements so we can write what other sources say. Weregerbil 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute defninitely needs inclusion. It's notable as far as the conpsiracy theories go. --Tbeatty 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a sentence in the affiliations section that I think reaches a compromise. Even on the boldest reading of Fetzer's remark, Jones's removal from his co-chair is temporary. So so say that his future with the organization is uncertain is certainly true. Beyond that, I think reporting the dispute with Fetzer needs both more biographical study (and would constitute a kind of OR, I think) and more hindsight (i.e., time). So I think we should delete the whole "conflict" section.--

19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about outlining the esential facts here, and discussing at length in

9/11 Truth Movement? Tom Harrison ^Talk

20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ's visit to America

I hope we can all agree that the paper which has now been removed from BYU's webpage, and doesn't seem to have been published anywhere else (an is therefore unavailable in any reliable form), and can be found mentioned on the web only to ridicule him, has served whatever purpose it may have had, and can now be removed. Even if it has been published in newsletter somewhere (which is my recollection of its original publication data) this paper is absolutely peripheral to Jones's bio. Right?--

Thomas Basboll

23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is a person's religious beliefs peripheral to his Bio? --Tbeatty 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, with this, and your earlier reticence to allow the Schism material, it's starting to feel like you've taken on the role of protector of Jones' wiki reputation. That's not going to work. The article can't make him out to be a fool, or a saint -- just the facts ma'am, unvarnished. No spin allowed. That's the Wikipedia way.

Morton devonshire

00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormons believe that Jesus other biblical figures came to the America. This is standard Mormon belief. Mormons are also the most politically conservative major religion in the US, and vote GOP more than any other major religion.- F.A.A.F.A. 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormons are the most politically conservative? More conservative than Clowns???!!! Clowns want to see America become the 4th Reich. How much more conservativve can you get? Do you have any verifiable source to back up your claim about mormons. I have a source to back up my claims. --Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Clowns had their own religion! Are they all Pentacostalists like John Ashcroft - who think Satan walks among them, talk in tongues, and roll around on the ground in fits? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "protecting Jones's reputation" (not just "wiki reputation"), at least from unnecessary ridicule, is not only allowed, but required, by

Thomas Basboll

07:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1) It needs to be noted that I don't believe the 'controlled demolition theory' or most of the alternative 9/11 theories.

2) It also needs to be noted that Steven E. Jones is a politically and socially conservative 'life long Republican' and devout member of what is considered to be the most socially and politically conservative major religion in America, The Mormon Church.

3) Any attempts by Conservative editors to 'disown' Professor Jones or portray him as a liberal or 'wild eyed lefty' will be actively opposed by this editor.

4) That is all. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your beliefs are not relevant. This article is about Steven E. Jones.

Morton devonshire

02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of discrimination and hostility on Wiki directed at editors who admit that they believe the controlled demolition theory, so I just thought I'd clear that up! - F.A.A.F.A. 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because that theory is not supported by either evidence or science. Jinxmchue 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That Jones supported President Bush is already stated in the article (with a much better and cleaner source, btw). Jinxmchue 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding controlled demolition... it is physically impossible for a steel building to collapse at freefall speed from anything other than a controlled demolition. The Aug 2006 update of the NIST report says North tower collapsed in 11 seconds, south tower 9 seconds. Freefall in a vacuum is 9.22 seconds. Most of the concrete was pulverized into powder. The structural steel spire vaporized into dust. The slurry wall (bathtub) was not broken. Downtown Manhattan was not flooded.(If one million tons of tower collapsed on the bathtub, downtown NYC would have been flooded.) The seismic readings were too low. What does this all mean? The towers did not collapse... they were blown up. There were hundreds of toasted cars over half a mile from the WTC. There were huge sections "missing" from WTC 5/6. For any hypothesis to be valid, it must take into account ALL of the evidence. The towers were definitely demolished in some controlled form. That is proven fact, using basic Laws of Physics. But what brought them down? Google Star Wars Beam Weapon for a hypothesis that takes into account ALL of the evidence. (I can't post the link here because wikipedia blacklisted it.) 71.247.129.17

OK, I'll check it out. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think someone's been watching Loose Change a little too much. Jinxmchue 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to know what they think would have slowed down the building? The difference between freefall in a vacuum and the falling of the building is the relative resistance of the air and steel compared to the mass that is falling. In any practical sense, that resistance to freefall is negligible. But you can do your own experiment: Drop a bowling ball and a feather from the top of a building. Freefall speed in a vacuum would be the same for both objects. But with air resistance, the bowling ball still falls at near free fall speeds (even without controlled demolition!) But the feather does not. The same is true for the towers. There is not enough structure (or "resistance") to impedede it's fall significantly considering how massive each floor was. --Tbeatty 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it highly dangerous, irresponsible and even illegal to drop a bowling ball off a building? You could killl somebody that way! Why are you suggesting that your fellow editors engage in such irresponsible behavior? I remember seeing a sign at the top of the Empire State building saying that anyone who threw coins or other objects off the building would be arrested - and you're recommending bowling balls???!!! - F.A.A.F.A. 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not dangerous if you believe what these Conspiracy theorists and controlled demolition people believe. There's no way that bowling ball could approach free fall speeds. Anyone who believes that should feel very comfortable standing under that bowling ball. --Tbeatty 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? - wow! Controlled Demolition advocates believe that a bowling ball thrown off a building would 'float' down and not hurt them if it landed on their head? I never knew that! I thought their theories were about the WTC, not bowling balls! What's your source for these claims? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They must believe it if they think the near free-fall rate of building collapse is not achievable. Or maybe they believe gravity works differently for Structural Engineers than it does for Conspiracy theorists? That's why no sources are provided for what they believe and you are catching on to why it's such a silly theory. --Tbeatty 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom has re-introduced the idea that Jones "is a physicist and conspiracy theorist" in the lead. I disagree with this way of putting it. I am not suggesting he not a conspiracy theorist, nor even that he might not self-identify with that label. (Though the last question is certainly also important.) Even if he were a conspiracy theorist by his own repeated admission he would not be an conspiracy theorist in the same sense that he is a physicist. The version Tom changed had very clear indications of his involvement with CTs but it did not put these labels on the same level. One day, his article may read, "Jones was a famous American conspiracy theorist. He abandoned his career as a physicist to..." But I think it is too early to go down that road. IMHO.--

15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the mention of conspiracy theories from the end of the paragraph to the beginning, replacing the mention at the end with a reference to the 9/11 Truth Movement. His primary reason for being in our encyclopedia is his views on 9/11. I think it is appropriate to mention this up front. I accept that he is still a physicist, even if no longer a professor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He would not be notable if he were not a conspiracy theorist. --Tbeatty 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He is only notable because of his conspiracy theory work. He might get a small stub, if even that, if he had not been about the only physicist in the world who was suggesting that Thermate was one possible way that the WTC complex was destroyed.--MONGO 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Mongo summarizes a particular attitude to this article when he says Jones would only get a stub if not for his 9/11 work. I really hope that isn't how Wikipedia works. Imagine the hypothetical case of some high school student getting interested in cold fusion around, say, 2003. And suppose he sought info on Wikipedia. Now, suppose he found Jones's work to be really intersting and contacted Jones and read all his papers and ... and ... and ... and suppose he kept track of his discoveries by contributing to a rich, detailed article about Steven E. Jones the cold fusion expert. Would you keep cutting that guy's efforts back to a stub? The trouble with the "he's nothing without 9/11" approach is that it ignores the fact that Wikipedia articles develop out of the interest that Wikipedians take in whatever topics they take an interest in. They are not here to affect the reputations of people or topics; they are here to inform readers. So I think some of you are making too much out of how Jones got on Wikipedia's radar. I think you should think in terms of writing an accurate, informative and interesting biographical article. And then the question of the relative overall importance of Jones's career as a phycisist and his recent "notability" as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist can be taken more seriously.--

Thomas Basboll

18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think Mongo summarizes a particular attitude to this article when he says Jones would only get a stub if not for his 9/11 work."...is incivil...if you have a comment to make, do so about the message and not the messenger. My point is that Jones would get about a stub article only if he hadn't been involved in conspiracy theories regarding the WTC. His work on cold fusion is of minor importance, and if an article was written regarding his research there it would probably be only a stub since there isn;t much to write about. He is notable for most people for his conspiracy theories.--MONGO 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, that's ridiculous. Obviously "he would only get a stub" is a summary of a particular attitude or approach to this article. One that I disagree with but which is a particular POV on the article, that should be respected but cannot, IMHO, be endorsed. You make it sound like attributing an attitude to someone is an insult. My comments were about the message; you have taken the fact that they were about your message personally. My point is that the interest in Jones is only an occasion for working on this article. We still need to apply ordinary encyclopic standards to its content. The cold fusion section could be about 100K longer and not violate any policy. But the WTC stuff is about maxed out, I'd think.--

Thomas Basboll

19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage you to add more about his cold fusion efforts to help him gain further credibility. Yes, I'm sorry, but your allusion that I was somehow biased that this article would get a stub only had it not been for his CT efforts, is a personal attack on my character, and I felt very hurt by it...as have probably a number of other editors. Please see

WP:BLP.--MONGO

19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this personal issue over to my talk page (or yours if you prefer). About expanding the cold-fusion section to balance this excessive emphasis on 9/11: well, that's the whole point, Mongo. I'm not especially interested in cold fusion and know very little about it. But the fact that no one who can contribute to that section is around right now does not give us license to skew the whole thing in the direction of his WTC work. That's bad biography. I believe Tom Harrison's edit overemphasizes Jones connection to CT's when compared to his lifelong career as a perfectly respectable physicist. It insists at looking at his whole life through the lens of a current controversy. That approach is full of problems. My argument was not that your bias would cut back the article to a stub were it not for the 9/11 issues, by the way; I assumed you would not cut the article back under the hypothetical conditions I described. By that means I was trying to show you a flaw in my your [!] argument. Anyway, come on over to my place and we'll work it out.--

Thomas Basboll

20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Content disputes are discussed in article space, not userspace, thanks. His work on cold fusion could be expanded and I encourage you to do so, but since he is better known due to the issues revolving around his insinuations that there were conspiracy theories at play in the collapse of the WTC, and that these arguments he has presented are current...then that is the emphasis. I don't doubt he has done fine work as a physicist, and that needs to be expanded, but there is no reason to inaccurately describe what he is best known for by attempting to minimize these issues.--MONGO 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, what is your 'personal definition' of Conspiracy Theory, and Conspiracy Theorist? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, I don't know how to expand on his cold fusion work, I just know that it's a hell of a lot more important biographically at this point than his WTC work, which, as you keep pointing out, is "what he's best known for". There was a time when Paris Hilton was "best known" for amateur porn. Don't get me started. I'm not trying to minimize anything, I'm trying to keep things in perspective. Since some editors are pushing to maximize this issue, restraint may look like minimization. It's just accuracy, IMHO.--

Thomas Basboll

20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a contemporary "best known" definition with a notability "best knowm" definition. In this case, SJ is known to the public for his CT work. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and a peanut farmer and a governor. At one time, he was "best known" for all those things yet over the span of his life, he is best known for being President of the United State. Jones, over the span of his life is most widely known for his CT work. This is patently obvious by the volumes of information including books, newspapers, movies, etc available on his CT work and the relatively dearth amount of information available on his work as a physicist. --Tbeatty 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)