Talk:Steven Emerson: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:16, 27 April 2010 editEpeefleche (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Tags ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:55, 27 April 2010 edit undoEpeefleche (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Tags Next edit →
Line 202:		Line 202:
	:::I don't see how Sean Hannity is considered a reliable source on senate testimony. ] 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)		:::I don't see how Sean Hannity is considered a reliable source on senate testimony. ] 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	Those are books put out by publishing houses with reputations for accuracy in fact checking. Some of them, in fact, are publishing houses of the highest reputation. I believe I (and the others who have opined) do understand the reason for tags. And that the reasons you have presented so far fall somewhat short. --] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)		Those are books put out by publishing houses with reputations for accuracy in fact checking. Some of them, in fact, are publishing houses of the highest reputation. I believe I (and the others who have opined) do understand the reason for tags. And that the reasons you have presented so far fall somewhat short. --] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


	:::Oh my the great fact checkers of book that says there was a middle eastern connection to the oklahoma city bombing. A Link to the actual senate testimony would be more credible than publishing houses that are mostly concerned with selling books. Not to mention that people like Sean hannity and Brigitte Gabriel have no expertise in terrorism. ] 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)		:::Oh my the great fact checkers of book that says there was a middle eastern connection to the oklahoma city bombing. A Link to the actual senate testimony would be more credible than publishing houses that are mostly concerned with selling books. Not to mention that people like Sean hannity and Brigitte Gabriel have no expertise in terrorism. ] 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 209:		Line 208:

	*Well, I can see how you fell into an edit war elsewhere. Most of your deletions were lacking in wiki-based rationale; you cant just delete on the basis of idontlikeit. That said, I've left in the substance of your additions in the criticism section, and cleaned them up (copy-edited them), and started to look at the underlying refs. FAIR is not considered an RS. What I will look to see is whether you are using it as an RS (which on the surface it seems may be the case), or if not -- if as an opinion -- whether we can clarify the text to reflect that.--] (]) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)		*Well, I can see how you fell into an edit war elsewhere. Most of your deletions were lacking in wiki-based rationale; you cant just delete on the basis of idontlikeit. That said, I've left in the substance of your additions in the criticism section, and cleaned them up (copy-edited them), and started to look at the underlying refs. FAIR is not considered an RS. What I will look to see is whether you are using it as an RS (which on the surface it seems may be the case), or if not -- if as an opinion -- whether we can clarify the text to reflect that.--] (]) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

			==Archive==
			Absent consensus objection, I'll archive threads where the most recent post is more than 21 days old.--] (]) 06:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:55, 27 April 2010

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

	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 Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Islam Unassessed

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Unassessed

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archive 1

BLP

To the anon, please don't restore the previous lead. The article has to conform to our policy on biographies of living persons, and this lead arguably doesn't. I'd like to ask some other editors who specialize in BLP issues to look at it over the next few days, so please leave the current version in place until I get a chance to do that. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some criticism to the lead. At some point, we should add a careful section on some of the issues; Oklahoma, for example. But it needs to be carefully written and very carefully sourced to good, mainstream sources. SlimVirgin 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections

It strikes me that having one line in the 'education section' is a little spare. I suggest we rename the section 'education and early career' and move the early part of his career into it. (I'll also dig around to see what else can be added.) I'm not sure where the dividing line should be--any suggestions? Bucketsofg 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me. SlimVirgin 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

US New & World Report position?

Does anyone have a source for "national security correspondent" at the US New & World Report? The NY Times review of his 1988 book "Secret Warriors" refers to him as "a senior editor of U.S. News & World Report". Bucketsofg 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "senior editor specializing in national security issues," which is what the back flap of Secret Warriors says. SlimVirgin 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another detail, not sure whether its important, but in his 1991 interview with Larry King, King says Emerson was "a member of the Special Assignment unit here at CNN". Bucketsofg 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And in a transcript of a CNN show he is called "CNN Special Assignment Correspondent" Bucketsofg 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life

It is important to mention that he is Jewish. That is something one should be proud of and is something that is important for everyone to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.161.66 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Why is this imprtant? - 72.66.46.20 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Emerson is Jewish

Why is it so bad to put down the simple fact that he is a Jew. One's religion is included on almost every wikipedia page and I do not see any reason to make an exception here. People are interested in facts such as someone's religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.27.215 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

He could be Jewish without being religious. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVrigin is violating wikipedia rules by wantonly deleting information

I am truly sorry for the petty game of semantics that some want to play on wikipedia. He may not be religious, but he is a Jew. There is nothing wrong with either him being religious or not, but he is a Jew. Stop trying to hide a simple innocent fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.27.215 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Slim is doing nothing wrong or against policy. Provide SOURCES for the material you want to add and then we can discuss the additions here. OK? --Tom 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that stating Steve Emerson is a Jew is very helpful!

I agree with the person trying to place the fact that Steve Emerson is a Jew into the page. This is obviously something that should be on the page and the fact that someone would try to keep it off is very suspect. Why keep off a simple fact that is harmless unless someone doesn't want the public to know that he is a Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.96.253 (talk • contribs)

Anon, you are sounding ridiculous. If you want to do something to balance this article, you have to find an acceptable source, such as a serious news agency, that published something that provides balance. Stop harping on whether he is Jewish or not. Nobody cares. --Zero 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't resist adding, to nobody in particular, that this article is so adulatory that it might as well as have been written by Emerson's mother. --Zero 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

People do care what important people's backgrounds are, don't try to use that one on us Zero!!! I agree and I understand the need for a source. I will attempt to find a source that is online and will post Mr. Emerson's religious background accordingly. I am trying to show not only those of Jewish descent on Misplaced Pages, but also those of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc.. It's highly offensive to me to get these personal messages elsewhere accusing me of "yellow-tagging" or being anti-Semitic. This is a scare tactic in my book and I will not stand for it. One cannot be scared to post something that is in no way offensive if it is a fact. I will find a source and post it then. I have in now way called anyone anything that is slanderous or anti anything ever here on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with showing someone's background, whether one is a Jew or any other religious background. Please press those that would accuse wantonly not to do so without even an inkling of evidence.

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanJihad.jpg

Image:AmericanJihad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

CAIR

John, please stop adding the description of CAIR that attempts to discredit them. First, this page isn't about CAIR; people can look them up if they want to. Secondly, you're picking and choosing what ought to be highlighted about them, whereas other people might want to add that they're a wonderful organization. That's why we simply refer people to the CAIR article, where all the nuances can be shown in full. SlimVirgin 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles removed

I removed the long list of articles from the page. Here they are, in case anyone wants to use them as references:--Gloriamarie 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Emerson's January 25, 2000 testimony to the House of Representatives' Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Emerson's February 24, 1998 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, entitled "Foreign Terrorists in America"
How I made 'Jihad in America' and lived to tell about it" by Steven Emerson, February 26, 2002
Get Ready for Twenty World Trade Center Bombings Middle East Forum interview with Steven Emerson, conducted on April 7, 1997; published June 1997
"In Defense of Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes", a letter from Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Root and Branch Information Service, September 19, 1999
"Exposing jihad within our borders" by Steven Emerson, March 21, 2002
IP News Service website, a news service soon to be offered by Emerson's Investigative Project
Steven Emerson's Crusade by John F. Sugg, Extra!, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, January-February 1999
WSJ Rejects Muslim Reply to Steven Emerson
Who is Steven Emerson?, Council for Arab-American Relations, undated, retrieved on January 2, 2005
The prime-time smearing of Sami Al-Arian by Eric Boehlert, Salon, January 19, 2002
"Withdraws Defamation Suit, Counterpunch, May 19, 2003, retrieved January 4, 2004
Criticism of Emerson gathered on an Islamic website
"Extra's Report on Steven Emerson: Setting the Record Straight" -FAIR, February 2, 1999
Brown Alumni Magazine, November-December 2002
John Mintz, The Washington Post, November 14, 2001
Robert Friedman, The Nation, May 15, 1995
Recent interview with Steve Emerson, July 06, Planet Jackson Hole

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanJihad.jpg

Image:AmericanJihad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Age

How old is he/when was he born? (also please add this info to the Emerson (surname) page WikiLoverr (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can answer 1/2 of your question. He was "0" years old when he was born.--Purpleslog (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

predictions

The lead para says: "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." However, the source (which has vanished but is archived here) does not support that statement. The mention of Emerson and al Qaeda together refers to the WSJ in 2001 not the Senate in 1998. (It is also a no-brainer since four al Qaeda operatives had just been convicted in court.) Is there another source, or is this an error? Zero 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found his congressional testimony in 1998 on a subscription service. He mentions Osama bin Laden but doesn't single him out:

"These include: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizzbullah, Hizba-Tahrir (Islamic Liberation Party), Islamic Salvation Front (Algeria), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria), En-Nahda (Tunisian), Muslim Brotherhood, Ga'mat Islamiya (Egypt), Islamic Salvation Front (Algeria), Abu Sayyaf Group, followers of Osama bin Laden, Taliban (Afghanistan), Jamat Muslimeen (Pakistan and Bangledesh), and support groups of mujahideen (Holy Warriors) in Bosnia, Philippines, Chechniya and other places." (Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information February 24, 1998)

So bin Laden is 11th in the list. Only hindsight can make this into a notable prediction. The article is technically correct but misleading, and the source is insufficient. Zero 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us

I have suggested that American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us be merged here as the book is apparently not notable aside from its author. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My google search suggests it is notable in and of itself -- based on the number of reviews of the book. In such circumstances, a merge isn't appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

edits by Epeefleche

The extensive additions of Epeefleche have turned this article into an advertisement for Emerson and a platform for his views. This is not an acceptable use of Misplaced Pages. To start with, all claims for which the only source is Emerson himself should be deleted or clearly indicated as Emerson's claims. Zero 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which claims are those? (btw, I think you are wrong, and am surprised that a sysop would be so off-base).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has become Puff Piece

I agree with Zero000 that the article has essentially become an advertisement for Emerson. I don't understand why the FAIR articles were removed. It seems to me that if David Horowitz and The National Review are considered legitimate then so should FAIR.

I also don't see how edits like these can be considered neutral:

That was met, however, by assertions by some prominent people on the political Left that Emerson was "Muslim-bashing" and engaging in "McCarthyism".

Emerson has been vilified as an anti-Islamic bigot by pressure groups such as CAIR, which rejects his claim to be a terrorism expert.

Doesn't seem like NPOV language. I also don't understand why we need a whole section devoted to his concerns.

As I stated on the Sami Al-Arian talk page the reason I haven't made any edits is because I'm pretty sure it would result in a long drawn out edit war. Those can be pretty debilitating and I frankly don't have the strength for one of those right now. I only hope that by adding the tags and posting here on the talk page that others will come to the article in hopes of improving it. annoynmous 08:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First, FAIR is not an RS. Second, what specifically are you objecting to that is in the article, supported by what source? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought I gave two examples above of POV language. Again I don't understand why David Horowitz and The National Review are considered respectable, but FAIR isn't. It seems to be that the only reason you object to them is because of there politics. It's perfectly fine to indentify them as the "Liberal Watchdog" gorup FAIR, but I don't see why there criticism can't be included. annoynmous 09:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR isn't an RS. What DH and NR refs are you referring to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Who says FAITR isn't a respectable source. I wouldn't use them for general information, but in the criticism section there perfectually appropriate as long as there indentified as a group with a political viewpoint. abboynmous 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_the_F.A.I.R._website_and_reporters is a recent discussion on FAIR at RSN that I contributed to, with links to earlier discussions. Might help here.John Z (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I think whoever put up the tags or agrees with them, ought to note on this page what specifically concerns them. I personally find the article balanced, with sufficient references etc. There should be a list of POV concerns and "puff piece" concerns so that they can be addressed if they are indeed valid criticisms. If the tags can't be supported, they should be removed! Stellarkid (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well first off I did note what I found wrong with the article. I mentioned two POV language passages above and the fact that the FAIR articles were taken out. The reason I feel the article is a puff piece is for the concerns section. The main reason for this section exists is to say all the stuff Emerson was right about except for the fact that he wasn't right. His claim that Sami Al arian was the North American head of Palestine Islamic Jihad is flat out false. Al Arian was never convicted of being the head of a terrorist organization. Even if I agreed that he was right on a lot of things (I don't) why does the article need a whole section devoted to his predictions. It seems to me when that when you factor in his Pan Am Flight claims and his embarrassing Oklahoma City predictions, Emerson as a much longer track record of getting things wrong than he does getting things right. annoynmous 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't right just to tag stuff and walk away because you "don't have the strength" to make appropriate edits, though I am sympathetic to the point. I suggest you make the edits and see what happens. If they are honest and fair, they should not trigger and edit war. Stellarkid (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well stated Stellarkid. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can raise points here that you wish to discuss, and make edits after discussion upon achieving consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I've done that in the past and the usual result is that no matter what my edits were automatically reverted. You apparently think theres more reasonable people at wikipedia that I do. I've decided this time to take a different approach and start with tags in order to trigger a discussion. I don't understand why you and Ism schism are so opposed to tags. They don't harm the article in any way. annoynmous 05:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag-bombing is a deprecated practice, because it is too easily used by editors lacking a legitimate issue w/an article rather than their own POV. It is for that reason that there has to be manifest evidence of legitimate issues as evidenced in the tags, rather than sweeping generalizations that are too often proxies for idontlikeit. I also don't see reason for the tags.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well stellarkid I took your advice and made some minor edits to the article. There are many other things I'd like to edit, but I've decided to start out small. annoynmous 05:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have a legitimate issue with the article. I gave several examples above and said that I felt that the article has become an advertisement for Emersons views. The reason I added the tags before making any edits is as I've said before that I've had bad expieriences with edit wars in the past and don't want to repeat them. I also don't want to be the lone editor fighting to change in the article and by adding the tags hopefully people like me who have problems with the article will come to it. I know that there are editors out there who feel the same way I do about this article, but like me they don't want to deal with the hassle that will result from them actually doing something about it. annoynmous 05:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you said that. But you didn't say how it was "an advertisement" for his views. BLPs of people famous for their views tend to reflect ... their views. That's not reason for the ad tag. Are the views not sourced to RSs? What specifically is your issue -- again, not broad brush-stroke non-specific "I feel". If you've had edit wars, it could be because of other editors, because of you, or both. I don't know. But you seem not to be listening carefully to what the three of us are saying here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought my saying it was puff piece made it pretty clear I thought it was an advertisment for his views. You seem not understand the purpose of tags. All tags mean is that there is a controversy with the article. The procedure from there is to discuss the controversy on the talk page until a consensus is reached. You seem to not be listening to me that the main reason I've been careful here is because of bad experiences in the past and becasue I'm hoping that other editors will come to the article who have the same concerns as I do. I didn't want to make edits and get ganged up on by several editors without trying to get some backup. Disputes are better when theres more than one person advocating a position.

An for your information, no his views aren't sourced to RS links, as least not all of them. It's filled with sources like these:

^ The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005, ISBN 1-59555-014-3, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=UasfK4zQnecC&pg=PT43&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=52#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010. ^ Terrorism today, Christopher C. Harmon, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 0-7146-4998-8, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=F4AYGALitgsC&pg=PA176&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=68#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010. ^ Gabriel, Brigitte, "Because they hate: a survivor of Islamic terror warns America," Macmillan, 2006, ISBN 0-312-35837-7, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=NTJnnJNinSgC&pg=PA210&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=21#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

How are these authors respectable. annoynmous 06:26, 26 April 2010 (UCT)

I found another one. Theres a passage about testimony he gave to congress that has this as it's source:

^ Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism, Sean Hannity, HarperCollins, 2004, ISBN 0-06-073565-1, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bco44op7ArEC&pg=PA100&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=32#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

I don't see how Sean Hannity is considered a reliable source on senate testimony. annoynmous 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are books put out by publishing houses with reputations for accuracy in fact checking. Some of them, in fact, are publishing houses of the highest reputation. I believe I (and the others who have opined) do understand the reason for tags. And that the reasons you have presented so far fall somewhat short. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh my the great fact checkers of book that says there was a middle eastern connection to the oklahoma city bombing. A Link to the actual senate testimony would be more credible than publishing houses that are mostly concerned with selling books. Not to mention that people like Sean hannity and Brigitte Gabriel have no expertise in terrorism. annoynmous 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've made a number of edits to the article and believe that it's neutrality has been improved. I still have a problem in general with the voiced concerns section sense it seems to me that it's only purpose is to say how right Emerson was all the time. However, I guess sense I've expanded the criticism section that the concerns section serves as balance to that so it would seem fair to keep it for now. annoynmous 09:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see how you fell into an edit war elsewhere. Most of your deletions were lacking in wiki-based rationale; you cant just delete on the basis of idontlikeit. That said, I've left in the substance of your additions in the criticism section, and cleaned them up (copy-edited them), and started to look at the underlying refs. FAIR is not considered an RS. What I will look to see is whether you are using it as an RS (which on the surface it seems may be the case), or if not -- if as an opinion -- whether we can clarify the text to reflect that.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)