Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 23 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)

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."' 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. 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)

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. http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-paris-mayor-upset-over-fox-news-20150120-story.html
2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=118-131
3. Cite error: The named reference Defectors Story was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Friedman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference salon2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Fear, Inc. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Salon 2013-04-18 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Gawker 2013-04-18 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference Al-Ahram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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☯ 22:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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☯ 02:31, 19 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)

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☯ 16:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the mention of controversy in the lead

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, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar, investigative reporter Robert Friedman, Eric Boehlert, and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, 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".

References

1. Steinbeck, Robert (August 26, 2011). "New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved January 19, 2015. The five key misinformation experts identified by the report Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key "grassroots" activists
2. Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, pp. 5–6, retrieved January 14, 2015, Emerson's lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson's decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric.
3. Edgar, Adrienne (May 19, 1991). ""A Defector's Story: A Review of Terrorist by Steven A. Emerson and Cristina Del Sesto". The New York Times Book Review. p. 714.
4. Friedman, Robert (May 15, 1995). "One Man's Jihad". The Nation. pp. 656–57. Cited in Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, p. 7, retrieved January 14, 2015
5. Boehlert, Eric (March 5, 2002). "Terrorists under the bed". Salon. Retrieved January 14, 2015. Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson's at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... dismisses Emerson's entire thesis. ... 'He doesn't know what he's talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word "terrorist" the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word "communist."
6. ^ Seitz-Wald, Alex (April 18, 2013). "GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory". Salon. Retrieved January 18, 2015. Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity's show that unnamed "sources" told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... "I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it's just not worthy of an answer," the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan's willingness to embrace Emerson's charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right.
7. Champion, Matthew (January 12, 2015). "That Steve Emerson #foxnewsfacts interview is even worse than you think". i100 from The Independent. Retrieved January 18, 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
8. "About The Investigative Project on Terrorism". Investigative Project on Terrorism. Retrieved January 18, 2015.

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.” 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", having developed "a well-deserved reputation for inaccuracy and anti-Muslim bias".

Emerson has claimed that Islam "sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine". 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".

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.

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."

References

1. CBS News, April 19, 1995, cited in Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, p. 6, retrieved January 14, 2015
2. Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, p. 7, retrieved January 14, 2015
3. "Islamophobe Strikes Again: MPAC's Response to Steve Emerson's Latest Baseless Attack". Muslim Public Affairs Council. April 9, 2007. Retrieved January 14, 2015.
4. Stalcup, Meg (September 15, 2011). "Fear, Inc: Anatomy of an Anti-Islam Epidemic". The Investigative Fund. The Nation Institute. Retrieved January 14, 2015.
5. Steinbeck, Robert (August 26, 2011). "New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved January 19, 2015. The five key misinformation experts identified by the report Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key "grassroots" activists
6. Boehlert, Eric (March 5, 2002). "Terrorists under the bed". Salon. Retrieved January 14, 2015. Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson's at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... dismisses Emerson's entire thesis. ... 'He doesn't know what he's talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word "terrorist" the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word "communist."
7. Murphy, Dan (January 12, 2015). "#Foxnewsfacts, fiction, and hysteria in the wake of Paris terrorist attacks". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 18, 2015.

(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)

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: . 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. 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." 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. . 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☯ 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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, 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". 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)

@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)

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☯ 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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

WP:BLP & Birmingham

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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. "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)

"clearly a complete idiot"

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)

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

...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)

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)

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☯ 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 said before you commit an act of terrorism..." Coffeepusher (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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☯ 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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☯ 02:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

WP:NPOV: The tone of Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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☯ 04:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

BLP Violations

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☯ 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

References

1. "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.

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

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

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☯ 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we do, but we make sure that assessment is attributed and well sourced. --NeilN 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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, , . 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 . 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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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)

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 23:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

There are tens of books referring to Emerson in the context of Islamophobia , 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)

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 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

since you have forgotten which arguments you were applying to what edits, here are the differences: 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)

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 Misplaced Pages is going down the Bacon path. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Reception section

I think Misplaced Pages 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 23:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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