In fact, I requested a review of my 9/11 research at BYU
There are statements in the current (23 January 2016) Wikipedia article regarding "Steven E. Jones" (myself) that I feel are misleading, which prompts me to issue a clarification.
In the opening paragraph, we read:
"In late 2006, some time after Brigham Young University (BYU) officials placed him on paid leave, Jones chose to retire as part of deal with BYU which included BYU abandoning their academic review of Jones' later work.[8]"
And later, we find the statement:
"However, Jones resigned before the BYU review could be completed.[8]"
These statements make it appear that I did not wish to have an academic review of my research on 9/11. If any reader knows of other comments to this effect, I would appreciate being informed of these sources. In fact, I had requested to have an "impartial review" in writing, dated October 7, 2006, some time prior to my accepting early retirement at BYU.
Another statement in the Wikipedia article reads:
"Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the review was abandoned as part of a deal where Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.[36]"
The first part quotes me directly and correctly -- I "welcomed the review" after being placed on administrative leave, I had many questions -- but an impartial review allowing me to be fully informed and to respond never materialized. Later, it became clear that there would in fact be no such review with me present despite my request in writing. At that point, I saw little alternative -- except to sign the papers accepting early retirement, which I finally did.
To further clarify -- I did not (and do not) consider that the agreement to accept early retirement was final until I signed the papers. It is not correct at all to suggest that I wanted the review which I had requested in writing to be "abandoned."
This is not to be critical of BYU -- I do not know much about what went on in the decision process and I do not mean to second guess them. Certainly an impartial review of my research AND of the administrative leave action (including taking away my classes), allowing my response, would have been welcomed by me (I requested this in writing).
I hope this clarifies the situation and will serve to counter falsehoods regarding my early retirement, which I accepted with great reluctance. Further, to this day I stand by the papers which I have published on 9/11 research, starting with the April 2006 publication (before I was placed on leave):
•Steven E. Jones, "What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?," Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, Apr 2006.
- ProfJones's blog
- Login to post comments
Another article likewise discusses the "investigation"
I'm continuing to research this issue, and came across a Wikipedia article on "Academic Freedom at Brigham Young University," where we read (25 January 2016):
"BYU's academic freedom controversy has not always been limited to religious matters. BYU placed physics professor Steven E. Jones on paid leave in connection with an internal investigation that a paper he authored on the causes finding that the World Trade Center towers fell on 9/11 because of pre-set explosives might not have met "scientific standards of peer review" and his failure of "appropriately distancing himself" from the University in his statements regarding his explosive theory.[17] Mr. Jones accepted early retirement while the investigation was in its early stages.[17]"
Yes, I signed AFTER I was told that my request for an impartial review was denied. I'm trying to get that clear.
I also wish to emphasize my publication in the Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, dated April 2006. That was my first publication (by actual publication date anyway), and an impartial review would consider that publication. Probably another paper is referred to -- an impartial review with me present (following my placement on academic leave) is needed to fairly address such questions, .
Besides that - let us consider that a paper I authored did not meet "scientific standards of peer review" -- is there any PRECEDENT at BYU or another university for placing a full professor on academic leave because one particular paper did not meet someone's "scientific standards of peer review"? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.
Was the CONTENT of my 9/11 research papers challenged? Perhaps, but that is something for the investigative review to evaluate. I stand by my publications, and in an impartial review I would now call on the large organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as Scientists for 9/11 Truth. (Note that I left Scholars for 9/11 Truth before the early retirement took place.)
Recall that I presented data regarding 9/11 research at a 2-hour colloquium at BYU before peers (BYU faculty) in September 2006 -- one year before I was placed on leave. Would this be considered a form of peer review?
As for properly "distancing myself" from the university regarding my 9/11 research - I certainly did and expressed my research as my responsibility. But I would be willing to consider arguments to the contrary, in an impartial review setting.
Note that I did not place myself on paid leave, which totally surprised me, and I did not willingly relinquish my classes that I was teaching at the time. Further, I REQUESTED and request again an impartial review. That review would properly consider my research AND the actions of placing me on academic leave.
Again, I am not here "second guessing" or criticizing the university - just asking for an impartial review.
Revisions to the Wikipedia article
I've revised the article so that it reflects better what the sources say; and these changes should also address the concerns which you expressed in your first post. We'll see if the changes stick - they should, as biography articles on living persons in Wikipedia are particularly sensitive to covering their subject in a fair and accurate manner.
"In late 2006, some time after Brigham Young University (BYU) officials placed him on paid leave, Jones chose to retire as part of deal with BYU which included BYU abandoning their academic review of Jones' later work."
revised to:
"In late 2006, some time after Brigham Young University (BYU) officials placed him on paid leave, Jones chose to retire in an agreement with BYU. BYU abandoned their academic review of Jones' work after the agreement was reached."
and
" However, Jones resigned before the BYU review could be completed."
revised to:
"However, BYU discontinued the review after the retirement agreement was reached with Jones."
and
"Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the review was abandoned as part of a deal where Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007."
revised to:
"Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review after Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007."
Hmmmm...
So you made an effort with Wikipedia, which is commendable - pls let me know how it turns out.
However, I ask that you re-read my blog above and consider its main points. For example, you changed one sentence at wiki to:
"Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review after Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007."
One might say, in view of my blog above,
"Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves;" so when the school abandoned the review contrary to Jones' request, he elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007."
-- adding a reference to my blog above.
Re: Hmmmm...
I agree that referencing the blog as you suggest would provide readers with better information about the issue, and the edit should be made if it is allowed under Wikipedia policies. I would have made the edit, but I am extremely cautious about using a blog as reference; especially on a topic related to 9/11. Researching Wikipedia policy, it appears that this reference usage might be allowed in this instance; per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFPUB. I would like to leave this edit (and decision) for someone else to make, as I likely burned as much of my Wikipedia editing karma making the previous edits as I wish to make at this time. (If anyone doesn't understand why I'm extremely cautious with 9/11 related edits on Wikipedia, I can give an explanation.) In principle, anyone can make this edit as long as they don't have a ban or a conflict of interest (WP:COISELF).
Yes, I would like to learn more regarding
edits on Wikipedia - as you mentioned.
I do think it would be helpful to have this blog (and perhaps an earlier relevant blog) referenced at Wikipedia to provide the reader more information.
Also, is it allowable per their rules for me to make edits such as we are discussing here?
"...and then there is Wikipedia..." ---Sharyl Attkisson
"...and then there is Wikipedia..." ---Sharyl Attkisson. Former CBS Reporter Exposes Media Lies, Internet Shills & Astroturfing
https://youtu.be/0s__qs0cBek?t=3m45s
In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere.