Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 17 January 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance 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 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 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 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 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 the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Archives

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

Omitted Information

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

Errors versus lies

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)

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

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

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)

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☯ 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 you probably should refrain from editing.--feline1 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sentence referencing controversy section of article being removed from lede

How is this a WP:BLP violation.

Emerson is widely criticized for his inaccuracies and for fomenting Islamophobia,. Nonetheless, Emerson frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Defectors Story was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Friedman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference salon2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Fear, Inc. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Salon 2013-04-18 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Gawker 2013-04-18 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Al-Ahram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Voniati, Christiana (February 16, 2009). "Chomsky on Gaza". countercurrents.org.

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)

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)

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☯ 14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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☯ 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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☯ 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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☯ 23:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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☯ 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I too am off to bed, but I can't believe that anyone who has read the interview transcript on Emerson's website 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 and for fomenting Islamophobia,. Nonetheless, Emerson frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

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)

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☯ 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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☯ 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

One last time - the edit violates WP:SYNTH, and I've already explained why. Please READ WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages: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☯ 21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

David Cameron's comments on Emerson

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

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☯ 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Europe is finished"

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)

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)

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 . It is also available in print on Google Books 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☯ 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2015

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)

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

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)

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)

Comments re "Europe is finished" and protected edit request on 14 January 2015

As a European, I am very concerned that, apart from his "terrible", "inexcusable", "reckless" and "irresponsible" (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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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, 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".

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?"."

References

1. "Fox News comments: Steven Emerson admits 'terrible error'". BBC News. 13 January 2015.
2. "'Europe is finished': Terror expert on Islamic 'no-go zones'". Hannity. Fox News Channel. 8 January 2015. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
3. ^ Steven Emerson. "Emerson with Judge Pirro: No-Go Islamic Zones and Western Self-Denial". The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

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)

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☯ 23:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles