Talk:Steven Emerson: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Why are more of Emerson's incendiary comments not being reported as part of his BLP? These are his own words which go to his history as a commentator. For example, under the section 2.3 Voiced Concerns, in regards to the Oklahoma City Bombing, it is omitted that Emerson also made the following false and ridiculous statement: "“Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centres of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East. [1]

Second, Emerson also stated to the Jewish Monthly in 1995: "The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's greatest religions somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." Third, the Jerusalem Post reported on September 17, 1994 that Emerson has "close ties to Israeli intelligence."

Fourth, the Jewish Forward newspaper found in November 2010 that Emerson was funding his for-profit company using his non-profit org's funds in order to hide his revenue sources and tax-exempt disclosure requirements. Experts said Emerson was 'whitewashing the contributions'. The Forward's investigation follows an investigation by the Tennessean.[2]

Lastly, the Daily Mail UK reported that Emerson has failed to apologize to the Islamic community of Birmingham, UK for his absolutely incendiary and false comments about them. He merely apologized for his 'factual error'. As shown above, he makes a lot of these errors. [3]

The above are all credible and important facts about Emerson that are being omitted in this page. They need to be added.KAhmed20 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)KAhmed20[reply]

The Daily Telegraph headline which I refer to below: David Cameron: US terror 'expert' Steve Emerson is a 'complete idiot' is encyclopedic and a factual description of Cameron's views. I don't see any reason why a summary of the article can't be included.

JRPG (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to adhere to WP:NPOV, it should not repeat uncritically that deliberately lies spoken by Emerson were "errors". An error implies a mistake, a confusion with another fact, and that the error could be corrected by substituting the correct fact. --feline1 (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means the statement cannot be accusatory. How exactly did you determine Emerson was lying? Atsme☯^Consult 11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By reading his words and using my brain to process their meaning. --feline1 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This chump's ridiculous remarks about Birmingham should disqualify him from being taken seriously as an authority on terrorism or muslims, or the UK ever ever ever again. What a fool. 199.168.151.168 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that he made a stupid blunder - one he publicly apologized for making. Let's AGF, maintain NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and remember WP is an encyclopedia, not a message board where editors can vent. Atsme☯^Consult 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. "Blunder" is not a neutral term. It implies he made a mistake, an error, that he meant to say "Bradford" or "Belfast" or somewhere else, that instead of "Muslims" he meant "Mammals" etc etc. Clearly that is nonsensical. There is no city in Britain that fits his description. There is nothing to get confused about. It can only be a deliberate piece of misinformation propaganda. By uncritically repeating the perpetrator's own characterization of his words (an "error"), the Wikipedia article is retaining that bias. And come on, that's not a difficult concept. If you don't feel competent as an editor to understand that part of [WP:NPOV] you probably should refrain from editing.--feline1 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson has made a career of purveying hatred with false information. According to LA Times, 'Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, acknowledged a "terrible error for which I am deeply sorry."'^[1] Errors CAN be intentional, though the word is used here to imply accident or mistake. The laws on perjury provide that "affirmations of facts not known to be true are treated as affirmations of facts known to be false" (with various wordings in the various jurisdictions, such as the California penal code section 125.^[2] In short, honest folks do not make an "error" of this magnitude. When others are relying on the truth of your words, you say only what you know to be true or you say nothing at all. There is no room for "mistake." Sfarney (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a WP:BLP violation.

Emerson is widely criticized for his inaccuracies^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} and for fomenting Islamophobia,^[9]. Nonetheless, Emerson frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.^[10]

it is well referenced, displays the language and tone of the WP:RS used, accurately represents the section it references within the body of the article according to WP:LEDE, is representative of that section in length based on the proportion of the whole article which is represented, and that section of the article adheres to WP:WEIGHT. So how is it a WP:BLP violation to have that sentence in the lede? Coffeepusher (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, could you please refrain from the personal attacks. Please comment on the topic not the editors. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious comments are not helpful. Please read: WP:PA wherein it states: "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible, but when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Hopefully things will cool down and the overzealous activity around the globe over the Emerson blunder will subside. It would be nice to find some positive things the man has done and not focus only on the negative. A well-written paragraph was already included, and he apologized for his blunder. There are BLP policies that govern what is said and the tone in which it is said. I find it helpful to review FA & GA BLPs from time to time to stay on track. They are good reminders. Atsme☯^Consult 14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the section since "the sources are bias" isn't a policy argument when the sources are in fact WP:RS.

Incorrect - First of all, when you have to stack sources, all of which are partisan, it is a clear indication there's a problem. See WP:SYNTH. Secondly, it is WP:UNDUE. Thirdly, it is not a widely held view - it is a partisan opinion, and the sources are not RS. The paragraph is wrongly stated. If you want to include criticisms you need to do it in adherence with WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Do a refresh of the guidelines and policies for BLPs. Don't alter the lede because the guy made a glaring blunder that pissed off everyone in the UK. He apologized. The blunder is already in the body of the article. Don't try to make this an attack article. Atsme☯^Consult 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Wildly" is a WP:WEASEL word and not really supported. One of the sources goes back to 1991 to support the statement. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word Wildly needs to be removed, thank you for pointing that out. However having multiple sources which all say the same thing isn't WP:SYNTH at all. If you review the policy you will find that WP:SYNTH is when I take a statement from A, a separate statement from B and form C conclusion. In this case I have six WP:RS which all criticize him for being innaccruate. That simply isn't WP:SYNTH. I am actually really familiar with the WP:BLP guidelines, specifically when dealing with criticisms. Could you please pull out EXACTLY which policy guideline we are violating because according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple sources have accused him of inaccuracies AND have documented both events cited, so there is no violation EVEN when it is not a flattering picture. WP:NPOV holds that the language and tone of the lede section reflect exactly what is going on inside the articles. WP:BALANCE shows that one sentence mentioning that there are controversies, and another sentance mentioning that he is considered an expert reflects the WP:RS. And each of these artilces is considered a WP:RS. So again, having this sentence in the lede isn't a violation of any of the policies you have put forth. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprecedented for a UK Prime Minister to refer to an American mainstream journalist and recognised pundit as "a complete idiot". We need to come to terms with the fact that Steven Emerson has completely and irrevocably destroyed his own credibility. Everything he's ever said or written now requires re-examination. That's worth putting in the lead. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprecedented for a UK Prime Minister to refer to an American mainstream journalist and recognised pundit as "a complete idiot". That's only because UK Prime Ministers rarely listen to Fox News. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and Fear Inc. are not RS because of the bias. Read NPOV, V, and NOR, the 3 core content policies of BLP. The Times article [4] was actually a letter "To The Editor" submitted by Emerson and del Sesto. Did you verify any of the sources before you reverted? Let's not waste valuable time belaboring this argument. The statement in the lede doesn't belong for the reasons I mentioned. If you need more reasons, I recommend reading through the archives of this TP. Please, let's not get carried away because of one stupid mistake. Kindest regards - Atsme☯^Consult 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? These are all statements that were already in the article that I copied into the lead. At the most generous, Mr Emerson needs to spend a little more time checking his sources. His statement on Fox News is, as SamuelTheGhost has pointed out, is credibility-destroying. Not mentioning any criticism of his "expertise" in the lead is POV in the extreme. I will accept that "widely" was a poor choice of words for me to have used but I fail to see how any of the rest of that sentence is worthy of exclusion from the lead. I find your claim about the reliability of the sources somewhat hard to believe, but a complete failure to mention that he has made inaccurate comments is outright biased. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am as serious as income taxes. I consult you to read WP:NOCRIT. And don't forget - this is Emerson's BLP, not a coatrack for criticism or an attack article. Atsme☯^Consult 23:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm aware of all the policies that have been mentioned thusfar; I have indeed read them — I've been around these parts a fair while myself ;o)

I don't believe that mention of criticism in the lead is undue in any way. I'm also not suggesting that it needs to be the original words I added in that appear in the lead — though I deliberately added the criticism to a sentence that also mentioned him having testified in front of Congress, to balance the positive and the negative together. I'm merely suggesting that a complete lack of any mention of criticism is utterly POV and unrepresentative.

You appear to be taking the view (completely unmentioned by WP:NOCRIT) that any criticism in the lead is unsupportable. You also seem to think that one sentence in the lead turns it into an attack article, which is, quite frankly, a ludicrous suggestion — one sentence doesn't change the tone of the rest of the article, which certainly seems to have a substantial balance of points of view. From here, it seems that your perspective is the biased POV one, though I'm sure that's not your intention (we're all here to make a better encyclopædia, after all :o)

Can I clarify: are you saying that you believe the lead must contain no mention whatsoever of (suitably referenced) criticism of Mr Emerson's expertise? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's midnight here in the UK, so I'm gonna head to bed now, but I'll drop in again tomorrow :o)

See my comments above. They are quite clear about BLP, sources, NPOV, SYNTH, etc. Atsme☯^Consult 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am off to bed, but I can't believe that anyone who has read the interview transcript on Emerson's website [5] could possibly describe it as merely a "glaring blunder". Amongst other things he says "Europe is finished" because of Moslems. To a European, that sounds horribly like Hitler's statements about Jews. If Emerson were new to the business, he could perhaps claim mitigation because the presenter encouraged him into ever more ludicrous comments, but he is an old hand. Unless we want Wikipedia to be thought of as Fox Lite, we need to write the balanced truth about him, and summarize it faithfully in the lede. He has written off 750 million people, well over twice the population of the USA. That is not a minor error to be brushed aside to a distant paragraph. Enginear (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Atsme, on the subjects of BLP and Synth and RSs, above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off, the question is not wither he said something wrong or engaged in a recent controversy, it is to discuss the removal of the following sentance:

Emerson is widely criticized for his inaccuracies[3][4][5][6][7][8] and for fomenting Islamophobia,[9]. Nonetheless, Emerson frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.[10]

Which has the following citations 3: Adrienne Edgar (May 19, 1991). "A Defector's Story". New York Times. 4:Robert I. Friedman (May 15, 1995). "One Man's Jihad (Editorial)". The Nation 260 (19). 5: "Books | Terrorists under the bed". Salon.com. March 5, 2002. 6: "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America". Center for American Progress. August 26, 2011. 7: Seitz-Wald, Alex (April 18, 2013). "GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory". Salon.com. 8: Johnson, Cord. "Steve Emerson Bungles It Again: Saudi National Not Being Deported". Gawker.com 9: Atia, Tarek, "Mistaken identities, part X," Al-Ahram Weekly, November 25 – December 1, 1999, Now according to WP:BLP, Any criticism upon a public figure needs to be supported by multiple reliable sources. Claims of "partisan bias" especially when dealing with international issues is frankly not part of the equation. What is important is do the sources cited have a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. From what I can see each of them does, with the exception of Al Ahram weekly which I am not familiar with, and Gawker which I do not think qualifies. But the New York Times, Salon, The Nation, Center for American Progress are all reliable sources, and each of the sources cited criticizes him for being inaccurate (I do think that the "widely" needs to be dropped).

Additionally according to WP:LEDE the lede needs to summarize the article in both weight and tone. This sentence accurately reflects both. That is what is being discussed here, not the recent gaff. I think the sentence needs to be reinstated. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before we engage in this discussion, I ask supporters of the contentious statement to please read the NYT piece that was cited as a RS, and point to the paragraph or statement that justifies the claims, "widely criticized for his inaccuracies", or "fomenting Islamophobia". I already addressed the source issues above. Atsme☯^Consult 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The Daily Mail and The Guardian are both tabloids. We do not cite tabloids. I keep reading where the cited sources are RS, but I can't help but wonder where such a conclusion was drawn. Again - please show me justification for the contentious statements in the NYTimes piece that was cited. Atsme☯^Consult 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that the Daily Mail and Guardian are not reliable sources. I am looking at the list of references I provided, Daily Mail and Guardian are not in that list. And you are absolutely correct, the New York Times article is incorrectly in that list and should be removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is certainly not a tabloid, and is a WP:RS being one of the 4 (perhaps 5) serious daily newspapers in the UK [Times, FT, Guardian, Telegraph]. Most in the UK would call the Daily Mail a popular mid-market paper, as does WP in Template:Media in the United Kingdom, though I would generally avoid it as a cite. Rwendland (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened, a discussion above used reference tags for the daily mail and guardian, and they showed up in our discussion. I have external linked those citations. To be clear, the sentence we are discussing DOES NOT have references to The Guardian or Daily Mail. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter either way whether or not we're talking about the Mail and the Guardian — they are both quite definitely reliable sources. The meaning of tabloid is rather different on the two sides of the Atlantic, though The Guardian prints in Berliner format.

That said, I say again — the references I chose there are all taken from further down in the article. If they're good enough for the rest of the article, they're good enough for the lead. Now would you please stop your POV pushing and accept that a suitably-referenced sentence explaining that his views are criticised by some has a proper place in the lead? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One last time - the edit violates WP:SYNTH, and I've already explained why. Please READ WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources_and_self-published_sources as they apply to adding contentious labels and pejorative terminology in a BLP. Fear Inc. is self-published, the Salon article was written in 2002 by Eric Boehlert who was a music journalist, and not known for fact-checking. Quote from Mercury News about Salon that was published 1-1/2 yrs ago: "A look at Salon's financial statements reveals a company that stands on the precipice. They are an absolute horror show." The NYTimes was the only one that actually met RS, and as I pointed out above, it wasn't even remotely a source to cite for that contentious statement - it was a letter to the editor by Emerson himself. Again, it is against policy to take one opinion from a biased and/or partisan source (particularly questionable sources) and add it to what other sources have said in order to come up with a blanket statement like the one I had to revert. WP:IC states: ..an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Atsme☯^Consult 21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have a manic week this week, so I'll take another look at the references in question so I can give you a coherent answer as soon as I have a chance. (Unless someone wants to beat me to it, of course.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note David Cameron's views on Emerson as expressed in a UK wp:rs. JRPG (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is included in the article, it was properly sourced. No one is disputing that fact, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with it, either. Atsme☯^Consult 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article ought to include a reference to this interview with Emerson shown on Fox News on 8 January 2015. It includes the allegation that there are muslim-only "no-go" zones in a string of European countries. No details are given as to where exactly these zones are to be found, so it isn't as easy to prove that they are fantasies as in the Birmingham case, but fantasies they are. The alleged refusal of European governments to deal with these zones is then used as part of his argument that "Europe is finished". It's all really rather funny. We don't need to cite explicit contradictions. Those of our readers with any knowleedge of European reality will know what to make of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are an increasing number of refutations of Emerson's claims, such as vox 17 jan 2015, fair.org on Fox News' Fantasyland, Bloomberg businessweek "debunking the muslim no-go zone myth". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pour the liberal Koolaid down the drain, and read a WP:RS published in the Oxford Journals - Journal on Islamic Studies - Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study [6]. It is also available in print on Google Books [7] On page xii it states, "The study also enabled meaningful consideration of the ways in which residents constructed the urban social reality as regards crime. In both locations residents spoke of 'no-go' zones which were defined with reference to perceived likelihood of becoming a victim of crime in the identified locations. The work details how the construction of a 'no-go' zone is dependent on many variables including the personification of an urban space as occupied by the 'criminal other'. In the UK, a case study of the celebration of the religious festivals of "Id by South Asian youth represents a bi-annual point of conflict between the police and Muslim community." Of course, the actual chapters describes such areas in more detail if you're up to reading it, although it may not be as entertaining as the crap you've been reading. The study was authored by Muzammil Quraishi, PhD - Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice. Atsme☯^Consult 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read all of Quraishi's book that google books would let me. It's sound stuff. The reference to "no-go zones" is an informal description by residents of areas of high criminality. It is quite clear from the wider context of the book that these are areas where observance of Islamic law is weak or absent, since Islamic law prohibits theft. Thus the term is being used in quite the opposite way from its use by Emerson and co. The book does not support Emerson's fantasies in the slightest degree. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. There are other RS out there, too - see the list I added at Talk:No-go area. The term is ubiquitous and well defined in the quote above, so there's no need to try to redefine it or dispute it on Emerson. The guy was hammered enough over his stupid comment, and it's already included in this BLP. He apologized, retracted, whatever - end of story. Perhaps it's time for all of us to do a quick refresh of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and also read Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Biographies_of_living_persons_enforcement_log to see how it applies here. Some admins include a sanctions notice on user TP as a courtesy, particularly when a BLP goes under PP. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to review What_Wikipedia_is_not. A quick review of some biographies in Britannica online is good for alignment. WP has some really good GAs and FAs to model after, too. Happy editing. Atsme☯^Consult 22:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list you added at Talk:No-go area is a mixture of unreliable, biassed sources and sources giving information irrelevant to what we are talking about, as editors there pointed out. As for "He apologized, retracted, whatever - end of story." you realy don't see the point. The Birmingham gaffe wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was simply the daftest example of a string of lies he's beeen telling about European governments. He's saying that they are tolerating areas where sharia law reigns and national law enforcement cannot go, whereas the truth is that European governments have been and are pursuing very aggressive policies against islamic extremism. The man and his mates openly despise Europe and wikipedia readers should be warned about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding, right? Show me what sources to which you're referring (the majority of which are academic and institutional research). Thanks --Atsme☯^Consult 02:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme "Pour the liberal koolaid down the drain." You may really want to step away from this page before it get's bad for you, because it has become obvious with these statements that you are editing with a direct bias against a perceived partisan conflict rather than editing within the realms of wikipedia's policies. This is WP:POV editing, and you are trying to push an agenda rather than following wikipedia's standards. Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request a wikilink be added to No-go area so readers can get more context on the meaning of this phrase. Hopefully this is uncontroversial. Brianhe (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so; Done --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the No-go area article is in serious need of attention - the definition it gives is entirely unsourced, and at least one of the sections included (South Africa) doesn't meet the definition given. Given that the phrase now seems to be bandied about almost at random, I'm unconvinced that we can even justify an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; but that's a matter for Talk:No-go area and, if necessary, the avenues described at WP:DELETE. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a European, I am very concerned that, apart from his "terrible", "inexcusable", "reckless" and "irresponsible"^[1] (to use his own words) comments about Birmingham, UK, this article has no mention of Emerson's other statements about Europe on Fox News on 8 & 11 Jan 2015. This might lead people to believe that his comments on Birmingham were a single unfortunate error, rather than being a symptom of someone who has little real knowledge of Europe and merely enhances sensationalist nonsense gleaned from extremists.

(In case anyone is interested in my non-encyclopedic personal thoughts on the actual position at present, then bearing in mind that this page is not supposed to host general discussion on the subject, I've started a section on my talk page, at User talk:Enginear#What I believe to be the legal treatment of Muslims in UK and Europe)

If you have any doubt as to the seriousness of Emerson's comments, try reading his transcript of the 11 Jan interview, substituting the word Jew for Muslim throughout, and compare it with Hitler's 1930s diatribes claiming that Germany was suffering due to a Jewish conspiracy and it must rise up before they took over completely.

I feel it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute to ignore this for another five days until the protection runs out. Emerson has lost all credibility in Europe, as has FNC (not that they had much beforehand). We should not hide that. To give better balance to Steven Emerson, please therefore add a section Allegations that "Europe is finished" due to Muslims above the Comments on Fox News about Birmingham, England section. I am struggling between the emotions of, firstly, ROFL, secondly, shock that, in the 21st century, anyone can be allowed to spout such religious bigotry without being arrested, and thirdly, fear at the suggestion on Emerson's company website that Congress might listen to him (but if they do, thank God they don't keep the nuclear button). Those emotions do not leave me best placed to write an NPOV item, so you may well find some POV words which I have missed, in which case, please correct them. With that caveat, my suggested text is:

On 8 January 2015, in a pre-recorded Fox News Channel interview with Sean Hannity^[2], Emerson claimed that "throughout Europe...you have no-go zones". He appeared to nod agreement to the interviewer's definition of no-go zone as meaning "no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system" and confirmed "these are semi-autonomous countries within countries in which the federal governments there have basically given up...surrendered their authority". Received wisdom states that the considerable majority of Muslims in France, in Europe and worldwide, believe that terrorism is always wrong and that about half the remainder believe it is only rarely permissible. However, Emerson says "the domination of Muslims within European countries, particularly in France, has been by radical Islamic groups." He claims that when Western leaders state that Islam is a religion of peace, "the militants themselves are given a free pass", and later "I think they've reached critical mass, frankly...I think Europe is finished." Asked if the countries governments could take back the "no-go" zones, he said "They wouldn't take it back. They refuse to take it back." He then agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Muslim women in the "no-go zones" were "subject to sharia law, not the laws of the country".

On 11 January 2015, in another interview on FNC, this time with Jeanine Pirro,^[3] Emerson continued on the same theme, claiming that there are "no-go zones" throughout Europe, and "they're places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don't exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don't go in, and where it's basically a separate country almost, a country within a country." He also claimed that the French "official website" includes a map of Muslim-held no-go zones. Asked if there was "any way to get these no-go zones back", he reiterated that "Europe is finished" because the Muslim leadership of those zones "use them as leverage against the host country as political and military leverage".^[3]

Notably, both presenters encouraged emotive language by hosting the interviews in intemperate fashion, with Sean Hannity setting the scene by stating "You have these no-go zones. You have these sharia courts that they've allowed", later, defining "no-go zones" as noted above, and claiming that some Muslim women in France were subject to sharia law, while Jeanine Pirro set the scene with, "We're learning new details about hundreds of no-go zones across France and other countries that are off limits to non-Muslims", and later said "It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country" and "I think even you said Europe is over. What did you say, Steve?".^[3]"

Emerson's company, Investigative Project on Terrorism, has put a transcript of the 11 January interview on its website, where it has received many comments from European readers stating that his analysis is deeply flawed. Nonetheless, apart from one easy-to-prove error mentioned in the next section, he has not explained, clarified or withdrawn any of his claims. Enginear (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember BLP DS apply to this article as well as to IPT. No doubling up on both articles. Emerson's interview was Emerson's interview. IPT is inseparably connected to Emerson - see WP:BLPGROUPS which was previously determined in a BLPN. Enough mention has been made about Emerson's blunder - he apologized. Enough already. Atsme☯^Consult 23:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above are why this BLP is under PP. I stand by the advice I provided and the reasons that validate it. I consult editors to please pay heed. Atsme☯^Consult 16:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have some new, re-sourced wording to propose for the lead. (Obviously, the quote parameters could be removed from the citations, if people are concerned by the size of the references block.)

Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,^[1] the Muslim Public Affairs Council,^[2] New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar,^[3] investigative reporter Robert Friedman,^[4] Eric Boehlert,^[5] and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,^[6] leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist^[6]. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,^[7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".^[8]

Again, I have read the policies you cite. There is no synthesis here; there are multiple references, each attesting to criticism of Mr Emerson's work, that is not the same thing as citing multiple sources in order to synthesise an argument from the combination. In addition:

• Fear Inc. is not self-published, it is a work published under the auspices of the Center for American Progress, "a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization" with executive staff associated with a former US President and currently chaired by a former Senator and Cabinet nominee. The report was reviewed positively by academic Meg Stalcup for The Nation Institute (a non-profit media organisation associated with The Nation magazine) and the Southern Poverty Law Center; none of this means that it is un-reliable. I've replaced the lead reference to that to specific mentions, however, for the sake of clarity
• The finances of Salon are utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is reliable; indeed news organisations are very often unprofitable. While it may not be to your political taste and it does not sit in the political middle-ground, that does not make it unreliable — very few news organisations sit in the political middle-ground, a term that varies from polity to polity, after all. Eric Boehlert is a respected journalist, having been a contributing editor at Rolling Stone before writing for Salon; that he used to write about music doesn't mean he's only a music journalist, having written on other topics as even his stub article here shows, let alone his Salon archive.
• Citing the NYT letter is perfectly acceptable, given it was Mr Emerson replying directly to the cited criticism from the letter (and quoting the criticism in his response); I've replaced that to cite the letter itself, however.
• I've added what is effectively a self-citation from Mr Emerson; in the context of describing the uses to which his expertise has been put, I do not feel this violates WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE here.

I would also suggest expanding the section Controversies with text along the lines of:

Emerson stated that the Oklahoma City bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible... That is a Middle Eastern trait.”^[1] He was, of course, wrong. The attack was carried out by homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh. The Muslim Public Affairs Council stated that his anti-Muslim reporting in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing "resulted in him being shunned by mainstream news organizations for shoddy research techniques and inaccurate information that compromised his findings",^[2] having developed "a well-deserved reputation for inaccuracy and anti-Muslim bias".^[3]

Emerson has claimed that Islam "sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine".^[4] In their review of Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center described Emerson as one of "five key misinformation experts identified by the report" whose research "is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false".^[5]

In his review of American Jihad, Eric Boehlert compared Emerson's fear mongering that American Muslims support terrorist groups with Senator Joseph McCarthy's "reds under the bed" scare.^[6]

In the wake of his comments about Birmingham, Dan Murphy of The Christian Science Monitor stated: "His efforts on Fox yesterday put him squarely in the middle of a know-nothing community of analysts whose careers are built on sounding the shrillest alarms, and encouraging the most drastic actions, in response to Islamist terrorism."^[7]

(Note that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Eric Boehlert citations here are repeated from the proposed lead text above.)

It is important to note that apologising for an outrageous inaccuracy doesn't reduce how notable that blunder is, nor does it clear the impact that ignorance will have on Mr Emerson's future credibility. That he is still alive doesn't change that he made a ridiculous, laughable claim about the second largest city in the United Kingdom is important and significant, as well as embarrassing for Mr Emerson himself, I'm sure.

I am in no way suggesting that his biography here should be some kind of attack piece. But the lack of any mention of his reputation for inaccuracy and anti-Muslim bigotry in the lead would be biased and unrepresentative of the contents of the article, as well as of Mr Emerson himself. As the MoS guidelines for BLP leads mention (with my emphasis): When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm.

If anyone has any objections to these proposed additions, it would be very useful if you could be specific about which precise words you are objecting to and which precise part of which precise policy you believe it contravenes. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OwenBlacker - thank you for making me aware of the discussion. It is much appreciated. Emerson and his organization, IPT, have been the subject of many controversial edits and discussions, and numerous attempts to disparage and discredit him. The most recent, of course, was spurred on by his very stupid comment about Birmingham for which he apologized. I also wanted to share the following article I found while researching for another article: [8]. I found it rather curious considering it dates back to January 2009. Moving on...the reasons your suggestions are not acceptable are many, but I will focus on the RS issues and consistent criticisms from biased sources whose only purpose is to discredit the work of Emerson and people like him while supporting their own POV. CAIR, FAIR, and many of the other sources cited for the sole purpose of disparaging and/or discrediting Emerson do not pass the smell test for inclusion in a BLP. Rather than revisit the same arguments over and over again, I will simply state that aside from the Birmingham gaff, the information you mentioned above is old news, and doesn't justify overriding prior consensus nor does it justify adding contentious unreliably sourced information to this BLP. You can start with the following discussion wherein Epeefleche presents the argument that FAIR is not a reliable source, and also dig deeper to find more detailed discussions regarding FEAR INC. since the same arguments that applied then apply now. [9] The same or similar arguments can be reviewed in the archives of IPT which holds true here because of the inextricable link between them.

I will further opine with regards to some of the inaccuracies and unacceptability of the claims above. Emerson never claimed that Islam "sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine". He actually stated (which is documented): "There also has to be a willingness on the part of policy-makers to openly challenge militant Islam as a doctrine of terrorism ? The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's greatest religions somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." [10] He also wasn't the only one who compared the Oklahoma City Bombing to a Middle Eastern trait. That claim is old and not notable. [11]. In addition to WP:RS, other relevant reasons include WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, the latter of which requires strict adherence to policy, particularly as it relates to the following: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; which is exactly what the inclusion of the above represents. I hope you will find my explanations helpful. Atsme☯^Consult 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Atsme but I still don't see a coherent argument as to how these additions would not be justified under all of those policies.

The i100 piece I added does mention that "... the sad aspect of the story is that Emerson appears to have sourced his claims from a 2009 scaremongering article from the Birmingham Mail"; it would seem that's the source of Emerson's misinformation. That said, all the comments about "no-go areas" seem to come from a single anonymous commenter (who goes on to make even more racist-seeming comments) and are contradicted by every other person mentioned in the article. It still suggests a concerning lack of care for accuracy if he didn't even evaluate the rest of the article.

You mention that "CAIR, FAIR, and many of the other sources cited for the sole purpose of disparaging and/or discrediting Emerson do not pass the smell test for inclusion in a BLP." I haven't added any citations from these organisations. Equally, the text I have added makes it clear that the criticisms are not universal. It is important to include mention of these criticisms in order to comply with giving due balance in order to be neutral. That you personally don't consider them to pass some subjective "smell test" does not mean that the comments do not bear mentioning. Equally, WP:NPOV § Bias in sources explicitly mentions that "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view."

I think it's particularly worth mentioning that the wording I propose complies with WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:ASSERT by presenting the controversial opinions as factual statements, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", per WP:IMPARTIAL. Similarly, the wording I am proposing adding to the lead is almost exactly a 50/50 balance between describing criticism of Mr Emerson's views and describing how they have been respected enough for him to have given evidence to Congress and having been consulted by various federal bodies.

You have pointed me towards a specific edit by Epeefleche that doesn't actually relate to any NPOV discussion; if there was an individual edit or discussion you were trying to highlight to me, could you please check the link and come back to me? Looking at the Talk: page at that time, though, does show a discussion with an accusation that "The extensive additions of Epeefleche have turned this article into an advertisement for Emerson and a platform for his views." This doesn't fill me with confidence that you are trying to point me towards a reasoned, unbiased conversation.

It is irrelevant whether or not the information I am proposing to add is "old news". These are established facts that have a significant impact on how individuals might choose to interpret Mr Emerson's opinions. It is biased and non-neutral for them no to be mentioned clearly in the article. Your opinion that it "doesn't justify overriding prior consensus" is simply that — an opinion. I think it is relatively clear from the previous discussion that the consensus you mention is not settled — consensus can change. You mention "nor does it justify adding contentious unreliably sourced information to this BLP", but the sources I initially added were already in the article (by your "prior consensus") and I have explained how the text I am proposing is reliably sourced.

You state that "Emerson never claimed that Islam 'sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine'," but the text in question is accompanied by a reliable source that states otherwise. I would suggest that the distinction between the two forms of wording is sophistry but the solution to your concern would seem to be to expand the sentence to add though Emerson disputes that this is an accurate reading of his words. with a reference of Emerson, Steven (August 23, 2007). "Re: A Continuance Of Fear-Mongering, letter to the editor, July 28". Canada.com. Postmedia News. Retrieved January 18, 2015.

Nobody is claiming that Emerson was alone in claiming that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Islamic extremists. However, several other sources mention this and it certainly seems pertinent to the claims that he foments Islamophobia. It would be unrepresentative to omit any mention of it from the article.

I state yet again, I have read the relevant policies. Omitting mention of any controversy around his reliability or notable opinions that he foments Islamophobia would itself be giving "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Not including some text like my proposals would itself be a breach of WP:NPOV and, thus, WP:BLP. Quoting from WP:NPOVFAQ,

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

It seems clear that you are sympathetic towards Mr Emerson, and there is nothing wrong with that. But plenty of other people — some of whom are notable, respectable sources — do consider that his opinions are untrustworthy and inflammatory. It would be unrepresentative and highly POV for that not be clear in the article, including being mentioned in the lead. It would similarly be unrepresentative and highly POV for the article to fail to balance that, such as with the mention of having been consulted by Congress and federal bodies.

I'm sorry, Atsme, but you still haven't provided a justification for keeping this information from the article — it still seems as though you are trying to prevent criticism of Mr Emerson being adequately represented in the article, which would breach WP:NPOV and, thus, WP:BLP. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is an overriding policy. Your additions are in violation of both. Your proposed addition to the lead does contain some synthesis of material (OR) with the "Despite these progressive detractors.." You set up the back story to discredit him and then fault the organizations for still using him. Your proposed additions are also very highly POV. One of your primary sources "MPAC" is simply far too biased to accept as a neutral summary of anything. You clearly do not like Emerson, but WP is not the place to express this. Also, try to write in smaller sections in the future. Many people will simply not want to read a wall of text Arzel (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arzel: Sorry it's so much text but there are several points being made here, many of which are complex; not everything can be condensed down to a single paragraph. As I've asked repeatedly, without a coherent answer, in what way do you believe that the proposed texts are a violation of WP:BLP? The text I'm proposing to add is reliably sourced and balanced. As I explained above with the quote from WP:NPOVFAQ, it doesn't matter whether or not you consider MPAC to be biased, so long as the bias is properly sourced and not given undue weight.

My opinion of Mr Emerson is irrelevant; the article should reflect both that many people consider his opinions important and worthwhile (as is reflected by the second sentence in my proposed addition to the lead) and that others consider him unreliable (as is reflected by the first sentence of my proposed addition to the lead). While the article should not be an attack piece, it should also not be a puff piece. The repeated POV insistence that negative commentary be excluded from the article is itself a violation of WP:NPOV and, thus BLP. If you have specific points that you would like to show how the two proposed blocks of text would violate BLP, please do highlight them. My only interest here is improving the article so that it better reflects the variety of opinions regarding Mr Emerson. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puff Piece? There are large sections already critical of him. It would appear that anything not negative is something you consider to be puff. I used to think you just didn't like him, but it is pretty clear it goes further than just dislike. I suggest you edit something without such an emotional connection. Arzel (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arzel: I wasn't meaning to imply that this is a puff piece. Merely that a puff piece would be just as unacceptable as an attack piece. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about Mr Emerson, other than that he and I would probably agree on very few political issues — that's no different from a substantial proportion of my friends :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the proposed edit is well sourced by wikipedia policies, breaks the citations down into their separate entries to avoid WP:SYNTH which was a major concern for Arzel (I do not see any policy which supports Arzel's new interpretation of synth), it mirrors the sourcing in both tone and voice which is in accordance with WP:NPOV, and represents the literature on his qualifications both pro and con in accordance to WP:WEIGHT. Additionally it mentions the controversy section in accordance with wikipedias MOS lede requirements. All of these facts support wikipedia's blp policy when it comes to mentioning controversy. From what I can tell Arzel believes that adding any criticism into a BLP is against the policy, this in fact is not true. I will need to see exactly what section of the BLP policy Arzel is citing. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MPAC is not a reliable sourced and very little proposed has reliable sources. This Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,[7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".[8] is synthesis of material WP:SYNTH. The section is undue for the lead. If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else. WP BLP's are not the place to attack a living person. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arzel: Aside from MPAC, precisely which sources are you saying are unreliable? I justified each of them earlier, so I have to disagree with you there.

I have justified MPAC earlier as well: Quoting from WP:NPOVFAQ,

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

I completely cannot see how that sentence is synthesis. There are three clauses there:

1. Despite these progressive detractors is merely a link to make the prose flow better; I am more than happy for that to be reworded or removed, as it doesn't change the presentation of the facts. I just wanted to make the text more conversational than breaking from one sentence to another related sentence like a jump-cut.
2. Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations is directly referenced from i100 from The Independent, hence the citation.
3. with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing ... and intelligence agencies" is directly referenced from the IPT site; as I said at the top of this section:

   I've added what is effectively a self-citation from Mr Emerson; in the context of describing the uses to which his expertise has been put, I do not feel this violates WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE here.

I have no desire to attack Mr Emerson for anything here. I do, however, want the article accurately to reflect him and his views and experience — as any biography should, BLP or otherwise — and for the lead accurately to reflect the article — per MOS:LEAD:

The lead should ... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

I understand why people politically closer to Mr Emerson than I am might dislike mention of criticism in the article, let alone in the lead. But I genuinely do not believe that what I am proposing to add is unduly weighted, inaccurate or unreliably-referenced. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLP, then describe which parts of the aforementioned policies you would like to see rewritten in order to satisfy the pending requests to add contentious material to the lede using questionable sources that were cherrypicked online for the express purpose of further discrediting a BLP. Let's start with WP:VERIFIABILITY wherein it clearly states (my bold and underline): Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. And also explain why you think the ledes of BLPs should be changed each time such sources criticize the subjects where COI exists - even though similar material is already included in other sections of the article, and have already created WP:UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I've read all of those policies repeatedly in the last few days; I genuinely don't believe there is any conflict. I don't personally think MPAC is extremist and In its history, it has condemned the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the attacks on the World Trade Center, and denounced the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. (from its article here) would suggest that I am probably being reasonable.

To be clear, I totally don't think that the leads of BLPs should change often, let alone on the basis of "yet another criticism" — after all, most of us get criticised from time to time, particularly if we're in the public eye or in politics — but I do think that the lead should carry a single sentence reflecting that Mr Emerson's views are not universally respected. I wouldn't expect this sentence to change substantially in the foreseeable future (absent any substantial change in Mr Emerson's position on these topics). The lead is meant to summarise the article; there is a large section of this article devoted to controversies regarding Mr Emerson's views, yet zero mention of this in the lead. Similarly, when removing my edit, the sentence about him being respected enough to have given evidence to Congressional committees (and so on) was also removed; this too should be mentioned in the lead. Essentially, I believe the lead should give a reasonable at-a-glance understanding that Mr Emerson's views are widely respected (hence Congressional committees etc) but also widely criticised (hence the part we're arguing about ;o) and (hence the controversy) the broad grounds on which each of these is the case.

Precisely which statements do you feel are unjustified, on the basis of which references? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are two different interpretations of what is going on here, I've added a section to the WP:BLPN#Steven Emerson for some outside advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeepusher: That seems like a very sensible idea. Thank you ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brummy and I think Steven Emerson was "off the mark" with his comment - but not as far off as has been portrayed in social media, the mainstream media and (hence) his wiki page. While B'hams population may be only 21% muslim, and we have pubs, drugs and sex clubs, the city does face changes with more Muslim children than Christian and, if we want to embrace western cultural norms, there are areas where it is best not to go. Can we try and add some perspective? Stacie Croquet (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Stacie Croquet (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources you provided mention Steven Emerson. Adding them to the Steven Emerson article is original research through WP:SYNTH. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on the "No go" issue, but where is the OR/Synth in stating that Birmingham, with more Muslim children than Christian, faces changes ? Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

simple, where in that article does it mention Emerson or his statements?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not rhetorical...please assume I will answer how you wish, and you can tease out your point.Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't rhetorical if Emerson is mentioned in the article, if that is the case then it can be included with no objections from me. If he is not mentioned in the article, then you are drawing from multiple sources to make the article relevant to the page, and therefore WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph of WP:Synth states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

The quotes make no assumptions or leading statements other than to confirm the perentages of religion.

However, just to keep you happy - here's a reliable source that does mention both: BBC News: Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham' Fox News claim, and here, here, here... and, well - you get the idea. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not happy. This is a WP:BLP issue. In the last census Birmingham had more children registered as Muslim (97,099) than Christian (93,828). David Cameron has previously apologised for getting his facts wrong on Islamic issues. So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, or indeed with only those statistics in which Steven Emerson is mentioned, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).Stacie Croquet (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BLP issue, see WP:BLP/N#Steven Emerson. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Er..."There is no BLP issue"... see WP:BLP/N#Steven Emerson"...think about it...anyways thanks for the info. Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

would you be able to pull from wikipedia's neutral point of view policy exactly where you see a violation? My read of the policy shows that it is important to correctly and accurately report what the reliable sources state in both tone, language, and content. It doesn't cover censoring reliable sources when they report on significant figures making charged accusations within those reliable sources. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fluff used to discredit Emerson with poorly sourced inline citations that do not include mention of what was written has to stop. I deleted the 1990s articles and the misinformation about "fomenting Islamophobia" from the lead. There was no mention of Islamophobia in that antiquated questionable source. I also identified one of Emerson's primary critics in the lead. You can't make generalizations that are not verifiable. WP requires RS, V and NPOV. I do hope everyone realizes that adding unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material is a BLP violation. Considering this BLP falls under DS, you need to be even more cautious. Atsme☯^Consult 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bring it back to the Blp noticeboard. I have read the source, closer than you have evidently.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the exact quote is "Emerson is the man behind an infamous TV documentary titled "Jihad in America", widely considered to be one of the primary roots of the Islamophobia currently sweeping the States. Immediately following both the Oklahoma City bombing and the TWA Flight 800 tragedy, he was quick to point the finger at terrorists from the Middle East. But even after suffering the very public humiliation of being dead wrong on both counts, Emerson has still not given up. Last week, speaking on Canadian radio about the EgyptAir flight, he informed listeners that "the shahada, a major tenet of Islam [is] said before you commit an act of terrorism..." Coffeepusher (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report in Al-Ahram Weekly from Egypt to make such a contentious claim against a BLP. As I explained on your TP, the other sources cited in the lead are outdated, incorrect, partisan, and represent a minority view in opposition to the prevailing mainstream view - WP:UNDUE. You need to revert, or you may be blocked for BLP violations. Atsme☯^Consult 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the BLP Noticeboard actually approved this addition. If you disagree, you are welcome to continue the discussion there, but right now the very text you are reverting was vetted and determined not to violate BLP by the noticeboard set up to make that very decision. If you want to get me banned, then you will need to go to another noticeboard though. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. There is a standing BLP-N decision that removed the Islamophobia template from Emerson's organization because it was determined to be a BLP violation. This BLP is now under DS which means extra caution must be exercised. I kept the criticism in the lead but as required by verifiability, NPOV, and RS, you can state a minority view but it cannot supersede mainstream, and even if it does, you present both views, identify the critics, and use RS. Atsme☯^Consult 02:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a BLP violation to accruately use the language, tone, and content of a reliable source?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. and BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Also see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels and WP:Verifiability: Questionable sources - publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Atsme☯^Consult 04:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the lede is dispassionate and reflecting the abundant sources about the controversy to warrant a mention. There is no need to wikilawyer this to death. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term, "Islamophobia", in the lead is unacceptable. We don't add pejorative statements like that when the source itself called it an accusation. I consult whoever reverted my edits to self-revert. I have taken the issue to the Emerson BLP and requesting an administrator's attention to this beehive activity of making unsourced blanket criticisms in the lead, and now a prejudiced accusation that has no business in this encyclopedia. It is downright shameful. What has WP become? Atsme☯^Consult 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is The Washington Post, so there is no BLP violation.^[1] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source, a book published by Cambridge University Press. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there are many other books [12]], if needed be. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you add 100 sources. Calling someone an Islamophobe is the same as calling someone a racist. We don't do that on WP. Atsme☯^Consult 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do, but we make sure that assessment is attributed and well sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme. Didn't you say, on my talk page, that "You need more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt to make such a contentious statement about Emerson in the lead." Well, now we have several sources. It is becoming apparent that you are trying to Censor this page using any argument you can to delete that content. First, you argued that the word "Islamophobe" wasn't in the source and was therefore a BLP violation see edit summary, [13], [14]. Then after being informed exactly where in the article you could find the word Islamophobia you switch your stance to the source isn't good, and therefore a BLP violation [15]. Now, after people have provided you with more reliable sources, you have switched your argument again to the word Islamophobia is a BLP violation regardless of sources [16] [17]. What we are seeing here is in fact editing with a bias. You simply want to WP:CENSOR this wikipedia article, and you are going to use whatever wikipedia standard you can, and ignore any others, to get to your conclusion. We have satisfied all your previous arguments, but since it didn't bring you the conclusion you wanted you simply changed arguments and ignored your own previous statements. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got to do better then a blog post and a link to a book ripping from Think Progress. This page has numerous BLP violations and really poor sources, neither of which are acceptable under policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the "book ripping from think progress" was a Cambridge University Press, so it does in fact qualify... Unless you are making the case that Cambridge University Press isn't a WP:RS for some reason, in which case you will need to specify why a peer reviewed academic institution doesn't have a good editorial history. Think Progress isn't the source, Cambridge University Press is. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for that matter, I'm wondering why you are calling a piece written by a foreign affairs writer of the Washington Post, published in the foreign affairs section of the Washington post, a blog. How is a piece written by a paid reporter within the published paper a blog? Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of a source to change the origin is unacceptable. Do not filter major BLP problems though sources that simply reflect what another poor source details. You do not call Martin Luther King Jr. a racial slur or a hate monger just because some "RS" decided to put two words without qualification in front of another. A WaPo blog is not sufficient here per WP:BLP and WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that think progress isn't a reliable source, but that wasn't the source. The information, cited to Think progress, was vetted through a different editorial process. wikipedia's reliable source policy doesn't say that sources are dependent on sourcing the original information, it is actually dependent upon the source that is cited on wikipedia, which in this case is Cambridge University Press (which is about as reliable source as you can find). Also, that isn't a Washington Post blog, it is the main paper written by a paid reporter. "Blog" is an unedited publication, this piece went through the Washington post editorial process and was published under full review of their editorial board. Therefore it isn't a blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now I could be mistaking, so if you can find for me in the WP:RS and WP:IRS policies where it says that a paid reporter publishing in an edited portion of the Washington Post is a blog, and also find where it says that reliable sources must also only use other reliable sources otherwise they are not reliable sources then ill be happy to consider those things, but my experience is that those aren't the polices. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that Think Progress is not a reliable source, then it is not a reliable source. It does suddenly become acceptable or different because it is mirrored and the insulting comment picked up as an example in another source. I've been through the WaPo blog issue at RSN and other places and WP:BLP and WP:IRS take precedents here anyways. Instead of identifying higher quality sources by their individual merits, you have simply reflected the publisher is what makes a source reliable. Arming America is not a "reliable source" despite having won awards and been praised so highly. Wikipedia is not the place for tabloid journalism or sensational reporting. Emerson may screw up and he may do so spectacularly, but we are to present a disinterested portrayal. That means flattening out all the positives and negatives in place of facts and figures. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that a reliable source put a think progress site as "see also" in the footnotes. Just because it contains a footnote that says "think progress" doesn't invalidate Cambridge University Press. Now you keep calling the Washington Post article a "blog," but it isn't a blog. Where in the article does it identify itself as a blog?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ill tell you what, you want to write up the WP:RSN or should I?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN and other people who have no care of what WP:BLP and WP:IRS are will gladly edit war to keep WP:DIRT and other junk in the article of trivial importance. This is pretty much standard practice for anything controversial. Tell you what Coffeepusher - since you actually discuss. Take the WaPo source and put it in the body - where you don't need six references tacked onto the lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given our past interactions and the effort I took to refute your factually incorrect assertions, I don't think there's any need for a substantial reply on my part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused, but my patience for you wears thin. You show up right when I am working on something and you roll back the work in progress like "discuss" overrules BLP. Whenever you have to mince words and confuse responsibility for calling out an alleged abuse of power you got to know what you are talking about. The "reception" section is a horrible giveaway of the forking of content within the article. Most of it has no context or even dates. I hope you have more responsibility than just contesting things because you like to object for the sake of objecting. Be my guest - I am a perfectionist about BLPs and the fact whether or not to use certain things (positive or negative) must always been weighed with NPOV, BLP and IRS in mind. Better than Britannica is what I aim for - but you clearly disagree. With such comments like "it has a source so its okay" - we are clearly far apart on the appropriateness and relevancy of such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in case if you try to justify it - remember WP:CRITS is a readily accessible guide to NPOV which specifically states that such splitting and the existence of a "controversies" section is not appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "it has a source so its okay" is equivalent to your "book biographies are disqualified as sources for BLPs because they're long op-ed pieces"? Your fundamental view seems to be that biographies should not contain assessments of the subject's actions or work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent my stance or inject your own spin on them. Arming America is a crock and its unusable for a reason that the article clearly states. You may mean well, but you do not understand my position and reasoning despite attempts to rectify it. For that reason it is no longer a productive area of discussion. Though Salon is not a high quality source for contentious BLP statement and Huffington Post is not either. It is like the farce that is IMDb and Daily Kos - they are never acceptable, but gosh how people fight to include user generated content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are tens of books referring to Emerson in the context of Islamophobia [18], so if Cambridge University Press is not of your liking because it references a site you consider not accptable, you can use any of the others. In any case, I will look into these books to add more content in this regard, hope you can join me. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "it has a source so its okay" is not spin? You also took out the New York Times, the New York Times Book Review, and experts in the field. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN you should perhaps note that book is not anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian. The text being pulled here is not the original review. Instead it is being referenced from the editorial response by Emerson and Sesto. If criticism of a person is going to be used in place of a co-authored work, you better have more than that. Perhaps by reading a few passages of the book to confirm it. I'll take the United States Congress Committee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security over those disputed comments on any day. The fact that Emerson even personally contested those and that it was not stated shows that neutrality was not being given because it derives from the rebuttal and not the original. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is a current discussion about the sources that ChrisGualtieri is claiming are not reliable happening on the The reliable source noticeboard. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was at BLPN - it is not a RSN issue because it is a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you need to double check your arguments. YOU were the one who REPEATEDLY AND SPECIFICALLY stated that those sources were not reliable sources. I have differences if you would like. Now I do understand that when pushing a specific point of view by censoring wikipedia, you will inevitably shotgun every single policy (without directly quoting from any of them, except in long block quotes with no summation of the specific policies that were violated) and threat that you can, and it is hard to keep track of which arguments you have used against which specific edits. But I assure you, because I have the differences already pre-loaded, that in these cases you specifically argued that it was a WP:RS issue, therefore the WP:RSN is the appropriate place. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since you have forgotten which arguments you were applying to what edits, here are the differences: [19] [20] [21] [22] These differences clearly show that you objected to each of the sources BECAUSE you claimed that they were not WP:RS. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith accusations and misrepresentation. Quaint. You've moved to a battleground stance instead of considering whether or not the sources are proper and suitable to call someone a bigot on the lead of the biography. This requires action beyond my control, but again Wikipedia is going down the Bacon path. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not bad faith, you have simply shotgunned every single policy we have, without quoting from any policy and it is becoming apparent that you are pushing a point of view, or at least above you have asserted that you are defending the article against attackers and POV pushers. So frankly I think that your own analysis would leave you lacking much more than anyone else in the good faith department within all of these interactions. I'm not the one who believes that this is a Battleground, I've stuck to policies, removed sources from both sides, and faithfully adhered to noticeboard decisions. I have also not removed any cited material from the article unless it didn't mention Emerson at all. So I don't think I'm pushing a pov or turning this into a battleground. I'm sticking with wikipedia policies. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, now he is pursuing administrative action at WP:AN/I#Cwobeel, requesting a revert and protection of his preferred version. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, you haven't read WP:BOOMARANG yet have you. The fact that on the WP:RSN page and this talk page you made the claim that you weren't making a reliable source claim, and on the WP:ANI page you repeat your assertions that the University of Cambridge Press Cambridge Compendium on American Islam isn't a reliable source isn't a good tract to make. Cheers Mate, good luck with your WP:ANI I'm interested in what the result is. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See - this type of saber rattling is not productive. Policy states that a contentious edit (I pointed to just 1) should be removed during discussion. MastCell was right and I overstepped a bit because Think Progress was being used as the source but it is not a reliable suitable source for calling someone a bigot. The CPCC source is a trivial mention and I would have used sources like Lobe, Jim. "New Report Identifies Organizational Nexus of Islamophobia." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. American Educational Trust. 2011., but the best sources do not call Emerson an Islamophobe - at best misguided and overprotective. Frank J. Gaffney Jr of WT also recognized in 2011 Emerson as a top expert on terrorism."The 'Anti-Pete King' Hearing; Durbin Aims to Suppress Public's Grasp of Stealth Jihad." The Washington Times (Washington, DC) A quick check of sources shows some pretty non-neutral and divisive stances that do no good for a disinterested biography. But fine - do as you please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mate! Good luck with your ANI and all your future editing. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia articles should (and do) contain analysis of a subject's opinions, actions, performance, legacy, influence, etc. by people knowledgeable enough to give an informed opinion. An editor wants to take out the entire Reception section. I'm against that without proper integration being performed but perhaps sourcing could be improved. Thoughts on specific sources or the entire section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section lacked context and did little if anything to portray Emerson. Much of it not worth anything because of sources to "Salon" and such. Two decades worth of segregated praise, mixed and criticism dumped into the article as if it is all relevant and equal. While trying to structure and fix it, a partial WP:TNT became the best option in light of sources from HighBeam and such. BLP is different from other articles. Most things other people say about Emerson is really undue and unnecessary. If they have problems with Emerson, let the facts do it and keep their opinions out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing requires work, not massive deletions. This is not the first time you have taken the attitude to obliterate an article just because it does not pass your narrow interpretation of our content policies. This is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have used that false argumentation before. For your information, in Wikipedia we report significant opinions and viewpoints, per WP:NPOV, not just "facts". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained each edit and cited policy. I did not "obliterate" the article. I began by addressing sourcing issues and rectify errors and undue material in line with BLP. Huffington Post and Salon are not equivalent to the United States Congress reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Salon and HuffPo are insanely reliable sources in comparison to United States Congress reports. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to have an explicit mention of Birmingham in the lead? Seems too specific to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, agree. The detail should be left for the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for trimming the current lead? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This material was removed,[23] claiming BLP violation:

Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia,^[1][2][3]

One source has already been discussed at WP:RS/N (Cambridge University Press) as well as WP:BLP/N, and the other two references I added earlier today are sourced to books published by reputable houses, so I fail to see on what basis these are BLP violations. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of the revert reads: broad statements that are not verifiable and poorly sourced to partisan opinion by a controversial author(s), and do not satisfy NPOV, V.- I ask Atsme (talk · contribs) to provide clarification on these claims. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

right now it appears that this is a pov campaign to remove the word "Islamophobe" from this article, even though it is documented in reputable sources that Emerson has actually been accused of creating Islamophobia (that exact word). Wikipedia isn't censored, and well known people aren't protected from criticisms which are documented in reliable sources. The WP:BLPN has had uninvolved editors weigh in with the consensus that it can be in the article if it is documented. This entire discussion has become a WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign. Wikipedia's policies actually say quite the opposite, our WP:BLP policy and WP:LEDE policy states that these should be included if they are documented and occurring.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following reference:

"9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past. Cheers Mates! Coffeepusher (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given the proper reference and Cwobeel has inserted three poor and trivial mentions that have no weight. There is a difference in calling someone a bigot and that their work has been accused of creating an atmosphere of bigotry. These are completely different assertions and the new "fomenting Islamophobia" is not held by any of the three cited sources. The Fear Inc one - as mentioned before - is the one to use. Perhaps if you dropped the partisan politics and battleground behavior you'd have seen that this is not about the usage of the word - it is the correct claims being sourced to suitable sources. The fact that it makes a claim without attribution and without depth is the problem. I was working on the problem and then out came the pitchforks and claims of bias and such - this is not productive. If you do not understand the argument - seek clarification and do not fabricate a straw man to attack it as if it is my position. People can act in good faith and disagree - and when you close off their stance and attack them, it is disruptive and destructive. My position on the matter has been ignored and even when I've given the citations and others that can certainly fix the problems. This creates a hostile environment that no one wants to work within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? because the above discussion shows that you were the one who first lashed out with a personal attack at an editor, and you were the one who completely misrepresented sources so you could delete them en mass. From the discussion's we have had, you don't know the difference between a WP:RS and a blog, so I am not sure if your continued policy claims are really reputable. You shotgun every single policy and change the goalpost as soon as your claims are met.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is the difference, in case you forgot. You were the first one who made this a battleground. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources make the following claims: Islamophobic opinion leader, Islamophobe Steven Emerson, and prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, which I summarized as Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia. Now if you want to use any other summary, please propose. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consult Coffeepusher and Cowbeel, both of whom have unjustly reverted my edits, and created BLP violations, to please stop their disruptive behavior. Both of you have been consulted repeatedly by BLP/GA editors who have experience in this area. Review some of the BLPs of civil rights activists who have been described by mainstream media using contentious labels considered to be "widely held views" <--- your justification for keeping contentious material in the lead. See how your argument to compares to the following 3rd para from the lead in Al Sharpton:

His critics describe him as "a political radical who is to blame, in part, for the deterioration of race relations".[15] Sociologist Orlando Patterson has referred to him as a racial arsonist,[16] while liberal columnist Derrick Z. Jackson has called him the black equivalent of Richard Nixon and Pat Robertson.[16] Sharpton sees much of the criticism as a sign of his effectiveness. "In many ways, what they consider criticism is complimenting my job," he said. "An activist's job is to make public civil rights issues until there can be a climate for change."[17]

Hopefully, you now understand why you were repeatedly advised to use well sourced inline citations that point to the exact criticism, not blanket statements you've cherry-picked from partisan sources that include statements that are neither verifiable nor reliably sourced in their own articles. The above para is an excellent example of well-written prose, well sourced with inline citations pointing to the exact criticism, Verifiable, and NPOV, with no WP:UNDUE issues, which is exactly how I presented the criticism in Emerson that you reverted and replaced with tabloid garbage. I posted the following to BLP-N, and included it again here for your reading convenience.

WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":

• Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
• The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
• It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
• In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. Atsme☯^Consult 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This has been discussed at two noticeboards, and your arguments rebutted. Time to move on. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, in the future you may want to read wikipedia's wall of text essay, long cut and paste policy arguments tend to get less credit rather than more because they are seen as shotgunning a mass of text to overwhelm the discussion. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepusher - did you happen to look at this section, no wait - this entire TP - to see whose edits actually create the wall of text to which you refer? It's not me. I consult you to read the brief but very informative guidelines I provided to help you understand. Your current argument will not hold up, and it doesn't matter how many editors agree with you - BLP policy will prevail. It is really sad that you have chosen WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in an effort to discredit a BLP based on poorly sourced material. Do you really believe that argument will prevail when experienced BLP editors arrive to evaluate it? You might also want to read WP:CONSENSUS. When it comes to BLPs, WP is firm with regards to strict adherence to policy. If you feel it's ok to ignore it, it is a choice you've made despite the friendly advice. Atsme☯^Consult 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as per User:Cwobeel every issue you are attempting to raise has been vetted by the WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and WP:ANI. What did the uninvolved editors on those boards say in regards to your claims of WP:BLP violations? Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excuse me - was there a consensus I overlooked? Atsme☯^Consult 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what did the uninvolved editors at the various noticeboards say regarding this matter? This has been brought to three noticeboards, So what were you told about policy on the noticeboards which are set up to discuss and vet WP:BLP and WP:RS issues? Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 21:46, 23 January 2015‎ I edited the Steven Emerson article to briefly introduce Emerson's statement that "Europe is finished". Coffeepusher reverted it and put the following on my talk page:

Hay, I just reverted your addition and I wanted to give you a quick explanation. Right now that page is under intense scrutiny by a few editors, and every claim is being heavily verified. Unfortunately I don't think that your addition would stand up to scepticism for three reasons. 1. anything that is critical of Emerson has been removed from the lede at one time or another in the last 48 hours. It was only a few hours ago that we got a somewhat stable entry for the criticism section in the lede.

2. The statement itself doesn't reference anything within the body of the article, and is therefore not consistant with wikipedia's WP:LEDE policy.

3. the source of your quote was a video, and it has been my experience that video's tend to get removed as WP:RS especially in BLP.

I'm sorry, you kinda jumped into a hornets nest, and I'm trying to be the friendliest hornet. If you decide that you wish to peruse that edit, I would recommend finding multiple sources which identify that statement as significant, followup which makes it significant, and attaching it to the body of the article. Just my suggestion. cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I added was "He has also expressed the view that "Europe is finished".^[1]". 1. This isn't a criticism; it's a neutrally stated fact, presumably considered by his admirers as a plus point. It's no more contentious as a statement than if I had written "He's a Republican"

2. The reason I didn't add it to the body of the article is that there was no obvious place to put it. There isn't a section on his general opinions and loyalties - perhaps there should be. Putting it just in the lede is a bit unfortunate but not downright prohibited.

3. The source is perfectly adequate and the objection that Coffeepusher gives is one of the daftest pieces of wikilawyering that I've seen for some time.

"Europe is finished" is a significant view, whether or not one agrees with it and I remain convinced that it should go into the article. It would be nice if Coffeepusher could help that rather than obstruct it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not SamuelTheGhost and you would do well not to attack Coffeepusher for kindly explaining why the material is not necessary or relevant. The media is not in the business of being completely open and disinterested - their job is to portray a stance and get viewers. There is no context and it certainly is not a literal statement. Another example is David Cameron calling Emerson an "idiot" is out of context and tabloidy. Why? Because Cameron made the mistake as well. This is a biography of a living person - not a collection of drama and out of context quips. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some statement of context would be desirable, being careful not to make judgments or draw inferences. But it ought to go in. Are you arguing a) that he didn't say it? or b) that he said it but didn't really mean it? or c) that he said it and meant it but it isn't important? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that it has no business being in a biography because it is trivial and irrelevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamuelTheGhost, I'm sorry you thought you were being wikilawyared by me, I was honestly trying to help you with this edit but frankly I didn't see how it could belong in the article. BLP's are not a collection of soundbites, quotes and statements need to receive significant coverage in order for them to be included. Significant coverage means that either it produced a large body of work from multiple reliable sources, or that it was reported on across an extended period of time by a variety of sources. What User:ChrisGualtieri and I are failing to see is why this soundbite is important enough to merit inclusion. All three of us agree that he did in fact say it, so what? Did it spawn a "Europe is Finished" movement? Did it invoke national outcry from the European community? Did it become a rallying point for policymakers? How, in the context of absolutely everything else this guy has said, does this one statement stand out as meriting inclusion into the body of the article?

The second big concern I raised was that the sourcing wasn't good enough. Unfortunately video's are highly unreliable because they fail to provide the larger context of statements, and they can be easily doctored or edited in ways that the viewer may not be aware of (both legitimate doctoring as well as nefarious doctoring). Because of this I've seen statements sourced to videos go under intense scrutiny on BLP's, and I'm in the camp that believes if you can't find a transcript or other third party source which documents the event a video isn't good enough. You are welcome to dispute this on the WP:RSN page, and frankly I wouldn't fight against what those editors said if they disagreed with me. However it would be a lot better, and myself and others would be a lot more satisfied, if you were able to come up with one or more non-video sources. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear about where I'm coming from. As I see it a correct abbreviated summary of the article should be "Steven Emerson is an American specialist on terrorism who as been consulted by parts of the US Government. He hates Muslims, despises Europeans and often gets his facts wrong." Other editors have been arguing here about the muslims and the facts, but rather neglecting his clear contempt for Europeans. He has shown this in frequent statements about the alleged indifference of European governments to the muslim threats in their midst. "Europe is finished" just summarised his whole attitude but was no surprise in view of the rest of what he says.

ChrisGualtieri thinks it is "trivial and irrelevant". Irrelevant to whom? Europe has had no trouble in laughing it off; indeed the British and French press have been full of mockery of Emerson this month. When David Cameron wrote "This guy is clearly a complete idiot" he spoke for Europe. The only damage done has been a slight dent in transatlantic relations and the complete destruction of Emerson's credibility in Europe. This surely is relevant to his biography.

Coffeepusher asks for "Significant coverage means that either it produced a large body of work from multiple reliable sources, or that it was reported on across an extended period of time by a variety of sources". That sounds about right for notability as discussed in AfD debates. It is absolute nonsense to make it a requrement for each and every fact in an article. As for his rhetorical questions

• Did it spawn a "Europe is Finished" movement? Unfortunately one exists, populated by Mark Steyn, Daniel Pipes and their ilk. So far they have been more ridiculous than dangerous. Let's hope it stays that way.
• Did it invoke national outcry from the European community? No, just derision.
• Did it become a rallying point for policymakers? It was presumably intended to, but because his other allegations were so blatantly false, people who think that way are lying low.
• How, in the context of absolutely everything else this guy has said, does this one statement stand out as meriting inclusion into the body of the article? Because it sums up his attitude, otherwise evident in a host of less dramatic remarks especially about Britain and France.

As for the alleged sourcing problem, the source I originally gave has the words "Europe is finished" in writing as well as video, and here is another.^[2] SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source, Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, per WP:V and WP:BLP. This is the edit. Specifically, this source claims that Emerson is an Islamophobe - it does not directly state Emerson is a source of Islamophobia. Thus it is an invalid reference for a claim of "fomenting Islamophobia" and fails WP:V. Because this is a claim about a person and is not in source - it is to be removed and kept out of the article per WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason for his full revert which included everything I just spent 2 hours working on. Coffeepusher has become very disruptive and overly insistent on the inclusion of hate speech in this BLP. There is nothing verifiable that points to Emerson being an Islamophobe. The contentious label is nothing more than hate speech by his critics - opinions - unfounded, unverifiable. It doesn't belong in the lead. I don't want to have to 3RR him, but if he is in violation of policy, and keeps reverting what we know to be BLP violation. Atsme☯^Consult 05:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't directed at me so I am making a new section for it. Coffeepusher is trying to be neutral and you are taking a side which is a bit too positive given other issues. Coffeepusher is acting in good faith and you should not condemn their actions for the work is still in the edit history. I even added back and cited the date of birth and fixed two other citation needed issues. Secondly, Emerson has been repeatedly claimed by liberal progressives to be an Islamophobe - that will remain and I will source it myself if it will stop this mess. Atsme - human dignity does not mean that considerable criticism can be entirely ignored, but it means we need to be entirely disinterested and use the absolute best sources if we are to use it. This means that the most vitriolic of attacks will fail per IRS and BLP. Those which remain will be not comments, but well-cited and detailed analysis to back any such claim of "fomenting Islamophobia". There are limits, but this is a delicate matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My primary issue with these sources is Verifiability. If you'll look at tertiary sources and verify what the partisan authors are saying, you'll find a completely different story. For example, Emerson never said anything about Muslims in the Oklahoma City bombing. He said it had a “middle Eastern trait” and “it was done with intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” The sources are the ones claiming he said Muslim. Read the transcript from the actual interview like I did. The same applies to what the co-author in the Cambridge said - unverifiable hate speech. I spent 8 months in discussions, on noticeboards, etc. about the Islamophobia template at Emerson's IPT article, and a BLP-N basically said it was a BLP violation because IPT has the same protection as Emerson under BLP-N. My issue isn't about ignoring criticism - it's about getting the criticism right. Atsme☯^Consult 06:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - and this is what I have given below! A source is not reliable because of its publisher or that you can point to it, it is the strength and credibility of its material. You had just pointed out a source where an article contained false information that had a source, but Wikipedia was legally liable because it included and spread the false allegations.[24] Getting a BLP right is more than just pointing to a source and citing the content - it is going through and evaluating contentious claims (especially negative ones) before deciding whether or not they are even worth including. Even though both claims were sourced, Wikipedia was liable because during the trial it was undisputed that the factual allegations were untrue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if anyone is being disruptive here, it is Atsme, who is one of three users who do not agree with the consensus that reliably-sourced criticism of Mr Emerson's accuracy and apparent tendency towards Islamophobia should appear in both the article and its lead. Several users, including myself, have pointed to Reliable sources using the word Islamophobia. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it really doesn't matter if there are 20 users violating policy or ignoring guidelines if what they've included intentionally harms a living person, or makes statements that simply don't exist in the sources as stated. It only takes 1 editor to point that out. Consensus doesn't change a standing policy. If you want to change any of the policies, good luck. When that happens, I will stop pursuing corrections to violations. In the interim, do your homework, OwenBlacker. I did not exclude the negative information from the lead. I properly stated it and provided inline citations because I was following policy. I have better things to do with my time and energy than waste it arguing with a couple of editors WP:DONTGETIT. --Atsme☯^Consult 15:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OwenBlacker you say using the word Islamophobia as a descriptor for a person makes it acceptable. Let's frame your argument in a different way.

1. Is it a reliable that the book contains that passage using those words in that order? Certainly.
2. Would changing it to "being described as being Islamophobic" be reliable per the text? Certainly.
3. Is it appropriate to accuse someone of bigotry, without qualification, and add it to the biography because you can source it? No.

See - the problem here is one not of "can it be sourced", but a claim of appropriateness and weight. Say I call you some horrible things without qualifier. Let's say "Wikipedia Vandal OwenBlacker (some tiny good-faith mistake)..." Would it be appropriate to put this on OwenBlacker's biography and source it with the line: "OwenBlacker has been claimed to be a Wikipedia Vandal.^[1]"? If challenged, would the claim "it is what the source says?" really make you content? Of course not! The real question to ask is "can that book really hold enough weight to make a claim of Islamophobia for simply making the defamatory label?" Clearly not. Let's keep cries of bigotry out of the article and require claims of "fomenting Islamophobia" or other things to be source to more than half a sentence in a 300 page book. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

except in this case wikipedia is not saying that he is islamophobic, it is saying that "he has been accused of islamophobia" which is referenced by several sources documenting the fact that he has been accused of islamophobia which is not simply a defamatory label, but rather a stronger accusation about the false nature of his claims. Simply summarizing that as "he has been accused of inaccuracies against Muslims" is a violation of WP:NPOV when the sources themselves specifically say the word Islamophobic. The sources say Islamophobic, you don't like that word so you downgrade the controversies to "he has been accused of inaccuracies against Muslims..." that isn't what the sources say. Our WP:BLP policy doesn't protect public figures from significant controversies, but we cannot report on them just any way, we need to use the same language and tone to accurately convey what the reliable sources say. Cheers Mate!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source, One Man's Jihad (Editorial), which was republished in a biased source without context. The entirety of that out of context passage has been placed into the article in lieu of the original. As if the usage by the source was not enough of a red flag, Robert I. Friedman. Friedman was known for his attention to the finer details in his controversial and volatile reporting - little of it even relevant or related to Emerson's work. The passage is like taking from Sean Hannity and slapping it on Emerson. The dead giveaway is that the editorial fails WP:NPOV and WP:IRS for a proper WP:BLP sourcing. I don't care whether or not "it is sourced", you have a knowingly volatile writer and a source with a clear bias being used to exact the most direct and out of context criticism possible on Emerson by someone's personal opinion. This fails weight and neutrality, but even worse - Friedman's page is a horrible insult to the man which is not under BLP itself. Where is the human dignity? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Emerson may not be a scholar, and he may sometimes connect unrelated dots. He may also occasionally be quite wrong. But he is an investigator who has performed a genuine service by focusing on radical Islamic groups in this country. His information should be taken seriously—just not at face value," wrote New York Times Book Review critic Ethan Bronner in his review of American Jihad. Others were equally adamant in defending Emerson and denouncing his critics. Reviewing the book in Commentary, Terry Eastland, a former Justice Department official, wrote, "Groups that put incendiary speakers at their microphones or that permit themselves to be used by radicals bent on jihad, should be exempt neither from criticism nor from the scrutiny of the law. But the sad fact is that, for far too long, groups preaching hatred and violence have indeed escaped scrutiny. If Emerson's warnings had been heeded when he first issued them, our country might not be in the difficult straits in which it finds itself today." This is what neutral commentary looks like. Balanced and nuanced with prominent citations that are reasonable and understandable. A tiny fragment or quip is a poor use of WP:QUOTE and typically a WP:NPOV issue. The full examination and summation of a complete view should be expressed in quotes to prominent and authoritative figures when possible. Seeking not to live in a moment, but encompass the whole. Both quotes are suitable additions found this publication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is, "Groups that put incendiary speakers at their microphones or that permit themselves to be used by radicals bent on jihad, should be exempt neither from criticism nor from the scrutiny of the law. But the sad fact is that, for far too long, groups preaching hatred and violence have indeed escaped scrutiny. If Emerson's warnings had been heeded when he first issued them, our country might not be in the difficult straits in which it finds itself today" balanced? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read Al Sharpton to see how it was written, and pay close attention to how each contentious statement was properly attribution to a particular source, page number, etc. in an inline citation. You can't make general statements, add 5 footnotes of cherrypicked garbage, and expect it to stick. One source may make a statement or reference in an entirely different context like what Chris recently demonstrated. It's not just about reliable sources, it's about verifiability and attribution with inline citations that point to the quote or statement. Just because a book said it's true doesn't make it so. Check tertiary sources to verify the statement - that's what VERIFIABILITY means. So he made a bad assumption regarding McVeigh - he thought it was a Middle Eastern trait - and he wasn't alone. Big deal - it was one interview, and it certainly isn't worthy of being called an Islamophobe. Atsme☯^Consult 06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a second Atsme - NeilN is saying the second quote is not neutral. The entire passage conifers a balanced approach and NeilN is examining the defense of Emerson's work as not-neutral while ignoring the criticism of the first passage which is far better reasoned and - evident. Even the interconnecting aspect which is a clear sign of neutral writing is being avoided by NeilN here. The fact this is published in another encyclopedia and is a neutral summary of views on Emerson's work is pretty obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree. Having a quote that mentions criticism followed by praise is mathematically neutral, but not wikipedia neutral. It's an argument I heard while editing Scientology, AA, and other controversial issues. Balancing criticism with praise isn't neutral and if I remember correctly actually violates WP:WEIGHT. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not entirely happy with how the policy is written, the spirit of what I said is contained in the following policy WP:VALID. What I am not happy with is it deals with the extreme cases, but otherwise we can see that tit for tat doesn't equal neutrality.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good argument! Having a 1 to 1 ratio of praise to criticism is mathematically correct, but it is not neutral. "X is a good person" vs "Y is a bad person" fills the straws until you put something like "He was a mass murderer" into the picture. I dislike personal opinions because of this very problem - what is a good opinion? Well, a good opinion requires an argument founded on a statement that holds up to the observation. Furthermore, a good opinion needs to come from someone of caliber who can express views of the publication, but is still subject to editorial control or such. A New York Times book critic who leans left against a right leaning Justice Department official who is a book critic, both discussing Emerson's work is relative. Both opinions are certainly not wrong, but they are opinions nonetheless. Still, this is more neutral than anything in this article for "opinion" matters. I really dislike opinions because they are subjective and open to interpretation instead of more disinterest presentation of facts. Given the option, I'd do away with opinions of persons in BLPs to make it easier to achieve disinterested neutrality, but I am in the minority. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I think Eric Boehlert's Salon source is a poor source, perhaps an example is better as to why such low grade sources are undue and improper, rising to a BLP level. Specifically the use in the article which is most concerning. Boehlert also criticized Emerson for suggesting that Katherine Smith, a 49-year-old Tennessee motor vehicles inspector who died when her car exploded was the victim of assassination even though authorities denied this. Boehlert quotes a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA Vincent Cannistraro who said of Emerson's thesis, "He's trying to say people who move to this country and set up charities and think tanks and are associated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, that there's some kind of connection between them and Sept. 11, that there's a liaison or support network. He doesn't know what he's talking about." Interesting. Boehlert criticized Emerson for claiming she was killed instead of dying in a car accident. Then as if to support it, Boehlert quoting someone else, is being used in lieu of anything further - an attempted justification and supporting argument for what is "reception" after all. The FBI found it unusual and the source confirms there was a wide belief of a terror connection, and indeed some trivial (in the end) connection to the World Trade Center and September 11.[25] A later source confirms the unresolved case.[26] Though several more reports exist, Emerson and the FBI, state and local authorities and the medical examiner agreed it was not the car accident which killed Smith. This "reception" is pretty much useless and not in context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past....

• Footnote 4: The Cambridge attribution states with an unfounded contentious label "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh) - which cites [27] - when you read the source Cambridge cited, the exact statement is "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? Sorry, but Cambridge Companion sucks as a reliable source.
• Footnote 5: Washington Post states in passing mention However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past. Really? By whom? Where is the verifiability?
• Footnote 6: Islamophobia In America - Chapter title Women as Producers of Islamophobic Discourse - provides a list of 6 names, one of which is Newt Ginrich, Emerson, " —many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male." Newt Gingrich wasn't even spelled correctly, it was a blanket statement in a chapter about women, and it doesn't accuse him of Islamophobia.
• Footnote 7: Law as Movement Strategy: How the Islamophobia Movement Institutionalizes Fear Through Legislation - "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. This one calls Steven Emerson a "misinformation expert". Emerson has been instrumental in getting a substantial amount of information to law makers regarding Islamic terrorism. Where is the Islamophobia? VERIFIABILITY. Where is it?

and for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. All 4 of the sources cited for that partial sentence point to Emerson's Birmingham gaff. Sorry, but it wasn't that big a gaff that a partial sentence requires 4 footnotes. The lead needs to go back to the way I wrote it because it was properly stated and sourced. Verifiability is one of WP 3 core content policies, and the way the lead is written now flies in the face of BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 07:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, So is the statement untrue, or do we need more/different sources? Coffeepusher (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so in your footnoes, each of those document exactly what the sentence says, "he has been accused of Islamophobia" and each of them say exactly that. Additionally they each are in fact WP:RS. You are attempting to discredit them, "the Cambridge Companion sucks as a source" so you are saying that Cambridge University Press is not a valid WP:RS why? and please point to specific policy. We can start there. Cheers MissCoffeepusher (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you read WP:V, those sources ARE the reliable sources that "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." So those statements actually are supported by WP:V. There is no wikipedia policy that says Variability requires that you must source the sourcing of the statement found in the reliable source, you only have to check the first WP:RS, and if it passes WP:IRS (which each of these do) then variability is satisfied. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very tiresome. You really need to start reading what I've written above so you'll understand - I consult you to self revert while you have the chance. VERIFIABILITY

• "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" - In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate.
• It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
• In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

BLP

• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
• Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

You should not have reverted because I've told you over and over the material was not properly sourced and verified. I explained it very clearly above. Atsme☯^Consult 08:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is properly sourced and the sources are WP:RS. I have Cambridge University Press, Washington Post, Palgrave Macmillan, and Taylor and Francis, each of which are either under an editorial board or academic peer reviewed processes. So why aren't they reliable publishing houses?!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading your criticisms, the sources are in fact high quality, the sentence is framed in such a way that it isn't in wikipedia's voice, each of the sources either talks directly about Emerson or Islamophobia in a significant way, all the sources document that Emerson "has been accused of Islamophobia," and the sources come from an extended period of time so it is an accusation that extends years satisfying the requirement that criticisms have significant coverage. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, "Is it appropriate to accuse someone of bigotry, without qualification, and add it to the biography because you can source it? No." The existence of contentious labels and personal attacks in sources does not jump to the inclusion of the material in a biography. People can and do disagree, but it is not acceptable to mirror those contentious and inflammatory labels without high quality and in-detail sourcing. Say I call Coffeepusher a Wikipedia vandal (a hypothetical example) does that make it true? On the reverse don't you know I am a "Wikipedia administrator" according to Andrew Lih, a USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution!?[28] Even though it is sourced by a professor and academic individual - does it make it true? I am not an admin and never have been. But if you were writing my biography, would this mention make it into my biography because Lih is a reliable source given his experience and status as professor? Almost certainly - and this is an error of attribution and a positive one at that. Do not believe everything that is written and hesitate before included contentious albeit sourced material. After all, the court ruled against Wikipedia for libel despite having a sourced claim for something more minor than what we are discussing now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lih - what sources in the article are self-published blogs and are used to cite text about living people? Because that's what you're pointing to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisGualtieri, you may want to strike your statements about the German court that is very close to legal threats used to chill the discussion, and your point can be made without pointing to that example. Just a friendly suggestion mate. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but there is no legal threat - I am not threatening legal action or would ever take such an action. I am pointing out that even using a source does not make defamation suddenly acceptable and I explained why Wikipedia policy is what it is. Per WP:NLT "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." The reason why I mentioned it is because the defamatory claim that was removed by two users and repeatedly reinserted during the discussions. This is in violation of WP:BLP because the material has been challenged in good faith and was of a trivial and poor nature. The ability to source personal attacks does not mean the inclusion of personal attacks on the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to go bold on me. I simply pointed out that including information about a time when wikipedia was in fact sued could be perceived of as a legal threat, and that it didn't do anything for your argument UNLESS you are in fact trying to chill the discussion (which would go against establishing consensus, which is why I am sure you didn't intend for that to happen). So as I assume you didn't intend it that way you could in good faith strike the statement and your point would still remain. Your call mate. cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri, You continually (and falsely) accuse editors of inserting defamatory material. This is a serious charge. You should either take these editors to ANI or moderate your language. If you persist in these accusations, I will take you to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why the following belongs in this section? Do the sentences sound coherent and purposeful?

Emerson has played a role in criminal prosecutions. In the Sami Al-Arian case he was a major source of information and advice to the federal prosecutors and the Tampa Tribune.[54] He has a close relationship to Gordon Kromberg, a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia.[55] The Holy Land Foundation prosecution relied on evidence produced by Emerson’s Investigative Project.[56]

Do we really need a separate section on controversies? Atsme☯^Consult 08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ill address your second question first, yes in this case there are several significant controversies which have generated a significant amount of coverage. The first question is simply, I'm as clueless about that sentence as you are. Unless someone can find a place where it belongs in the article I'm all for deleting that. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRITS we should have weaved this into the narrative, not set it aside and placed it upon a pedestal because it damages the neutrality. Also, a controversy section is a magnet for this stuff. We can work the material into the article without drawing undue attention towards it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this from my talk pageCoffeepusher (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read my breakdown of the sources at the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 08:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so right now you are the only one on the talk page who is gunning for the islamophobia statement on the lede. Chris has already said it was significant. Additionally you keep saying "you are violating BLP" as a irrefutable Veto, but frankly it has become an idle threat. By removing sourced content from a WP:BLP which has been exclusively criticisms of the subject matter it appears that you are violating WP:BLP and attempting to produce a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article which documents all notable contributions and criticisms. I'm moving this to the talk page, please do not put threats on my talk page, and all relivent discussion should be placed on the talk page of the article. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to this edit. The edit framed the entire controversy of Emerson into his statements about Birmingham and deleted all the references and citations to other criticisms.Coffeepusher (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After debating and checking the source, I think Al-Ahram Weekly is not up to BLP standards because - like most newspapers - it is biased and it really pretty clear. The source makes numerous suspect comments of clear non-neutral stance and the cherry picked comments used in the source are unsuitable for a BLP. It says "so-called "journalist" as if Emerson is not a journalist, but he had already won the George Polk Award five years earlier by then. It uses a bandwagon approach and a lack of attribution - both are poor backing for an argument and a contentious claim that - Emerson is "widely considered to be one of the primary roots of the Islamophobia currently sweeping the States." It requires evidence. "Immediately following both the Oklahoma City bombing and the TWA Flight 800 tragedy, he was quick to point the finger at terrorists from the Middle East. But even after suffering the very public humiliation of being dead wrong on both counts," - wait what? Did the FBI and the CIA and others not investigate it because the claim was widely circulating?[29] As detailed prior, the Oklahoma City bombing was where Emerson made a comment in the middle another widespread belief and said the attack had the hallmarks of Middle East terrorism. He was not the origin, but speculated and failed. Consider this: But Emerson, who has been ousted even by the pro-Israeli Washington Post as a "pro-Israel researcher and author"... Really...? Along with the quote: Americans are programmed to think of Arabs as terrorists is this really a fair balance? Excuse me, but this may be before September 11, but trying to enter into the cockpit of a plane - mistake or intentional is liable to get you arrested and detained regardless. The source has its faults and its clear stance, but does this rise to making it suitable to use those attacks in a biography.... no. Considering it cannot even get its facts on Emerson straight jeopardizes its use. I much prefer the NYT one if we had to use a quote for "reception" at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing edit warring of material in and out of this page, I've fully protected it until a consensus is established regarding what belongs and what doesn't. If any part of the current revision violates BLP, please open a protected edit request pointing it out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following - my bold for emphasis as to how it applies here:

• True to common sense—An article cannot claim, "All Americans think Hitler was evil" or state, "All marriages have rough periods", or any other issue which applies to all members of a vast group. There are limits to what is logically verifiable, even if stated in 17 sources. Text should not contradict general common-sense notions about a topic.
• True to balance—The overall text of articles should reflect the true balance, as to significance, in the world at large. Often, the data is sourced to recent research or to fact-checked news reports which provide current information. For example, to state, "Many people believe the Earth is flat" should not be used to give the impression that most people do not believe, today, the World is round. The proportion of text, in an article, should reflect the relative views of the educated public, at least those educated in the specific topic of the article.
• True to presentation—The placement of text, plus images or photos, in an article should present a true impression of the subject, not just in details, but in the top summary or overall structure of the article. An article's structure should not mislead readers into thinking that known falsehoods or rare opinions are somehow reflecting the majority concerns about a topic. Atsme☯^Consult 04:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete your enthymeme. I don't mean that to be curt, but you just quoted policy but haven't made an argument at all. Tell us why you quoted this and how it applies to the article. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]