Talk:Steve Jones

---

Just to be more specific, my "Steve Jones (athlete)" is the marathon runner. Deb 20:05 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw the US Open links and it was linking to the disambiguation page, so when I saw Steve Jones (athlete), I thought that was who the US Open page wanted. -- Zoe

======

Dispute Resolution :: Attempt #1 ::

WebHampster,

Apparently, the Dispute Center requires parties to first try to solve issues directly via the Discussion page before moving forward with a formal complaint. That sounds reasonable to me, so here I am.

The use of neutral descriptors regarding the disambiguation page for Steven Jones - and specifically for the entry for Steven E. Jones - adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Negatively biased semantics do not.

Neutral: Steven E. Jones - physicist and researcher (Mokeyboy)

Biased A. : Steven E. Jones - physicist and conspiracy theorist (WebHamster)

Please do not edit my neutral descriptor back to your biased descriptor again, as you have now done twice.

Respectfully,

Mokeyboy —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

======

Dispute Resolution :: Attempt #2 ::

WebHampster,

Apparently, the Dispute Center requires parties to first try to solve issues directly via the Discussion page before moving forward with a formal complaint. That sounds reasonable to me, so here I am.

The use of neutral descriptors regarding the disambiguation page for Steven Jones - and specifically for the entry for Steven E. Jones - adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Negatively biased semantics do not.

Neutral: Steven E. Jones - physicist and researcher (Mokeyboy)

Biased A. : Steven E. Jones - physicist and conspiracy theorist (WebHamster)

:: Biased B. : Steven E. Jones - physicist and conspiracy theorist/researcher (WebHamster)

Please do not edit my neutral descriptor back to your biased descriptor again, as you have now done three times.

Respectfully,

Mokeyboy 02:16 May 10, 2009

• It has nothing to do with bias, unlike your attempt to clean up his image. These days he is notable for his work on the so-called conspiracy of the WTC demolition. As such he is a conspiracy theorist, it's not bias, it's a statement of fact. In fact half his article is on him being a conspiracy theorist so the description is valid per his article. It's simple concept really. --WebHamster 10:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones

The majority of reliable sources do not describe Steven E. Jones as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist". Some examples:

1. "BYU Professor Who Believes WTC Brought Down by Explosives Resigns". Fox News. Oct. 21, 2006. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
2. "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". CBS News. Dec. 10, 2006. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
3. Barber, Peter (Jun. 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
4. "Questioning what happened on 9/11. Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC". MSNBC. Nov. 15, 2005. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
5. Jarvik, Elaine (Nov. 10, 2005). "Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC". Deseret News. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
6. Narain, Jaya (Sep. 6, 2006). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'". Daily Mail. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
7. Chang-Yen, Anna (Feb. 16, 2006). "Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out". Daily Herald. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

As this is a BLP issue, we need to follow the description used by the majority of reliable sources, a single reference (or a small number of references) to newspaper articles that use the term is not sufficient to describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist. To the editors who have inserted the term "conspiracy theorist": If you want to add something to an article, remember that the burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) who add(s) or restore(s) material.  Cs32en  19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're using the wrong standard. We need to compare those sources which call him a conspiracy theorist with those that say he is not a conpiracy theorist. The number of the latter is somewhere around 0. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No. We need to compare the number and weight of the reliable sources that regard the description of Jones as a "conspiracy theorist" as essential when characterizing him versus the number and weight of the sources that do not consider it as essential and either just call Jones a physicist or add a different characterization, such as "9/11 researcher" (Financial Times). Sources that call him "conspiracy nut" would count towards the weight of the "conspiracy theorist" side. But very rarely do media characterize people by what they are not. They don't write headlines like "Non right-wing Republican Rush Limbaugh", "Non-liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi", "Non-liberal former President George W. Bush" etc. Your approach, i.e. looking for a binary count, "Yes" vs. "No", is not valid for the determination of the relevant attributes of people in an encyclopedia, and it's neither valid nor applicable in this case.  Cs32en  17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Example: The article on Rush Limbaugh calls Limbaugh a "conservative" commentator, although there are probably some reliable sources that have called him "right-wing", and probably no reliable sources that have explicitly said he is "not right-wing" (maybe in some commentary, but not in a news article).  Cs32en  18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but your approach doesn't seem realistic, as all we could say is former physicist.

I don't think "9/11 researcher" meets your requirements, either, as most sources don't comment as to whether he "researches" or speculates. It may not even meet my standard, as I'm not sure where the weight lies between "9/11 researcher" and "promoter of unfounded 9/11 theories", but "9/11 researcher and conspiracy theorist" may be acceptable.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, in regard "conspiracy theorist", many of the articles specify that he at least believes in the controlled demolition theory, if not that he believes that there was a conspiracy. I don't think we could include those as not supporting his appellation as a "conspiracy theorist". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A professor emeritus is still a professor, so Jones is a physicist, of course. (BYU seems to agree: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/) I'm not arguing for using the term "9/11 researcher", as this term (or a similar one) is not used by the majority of reliable sources either. The issue is whether these newspapers chose the term "conspiracy theorist" (or a similar one) in a brief characterization of Jones, not what kind of information they provide about Jones in the entire text of these article.  Cs32en  23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)