Talk:Ernest Emerson: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 09:08, 17 January 2007 editSam Wereb (talk \| contribs)317 edits →GA hold ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:10, 17 January 2007 edit undoSam Wereb (talk \| contribs)317 edits →GA hold Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:
	:I oppose many of the referenced claims in this article because the sources are suspect on their best days. Knife magazines are very unreliable sources of facts. An argument presented below presents the consequences of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy in brilliant technicolor. We are supposed to be impressed by the sagacity and reputation of one Pat Covert -- the writer who holds the world record for publishing the most articles on Strider Knives and who has the dubious distinction of being the first magazine writer to fail to perform his due diligence and check the public record to see if his subject was even legally allowed to possess knives, let alone make and sell them.		:I oppose many of the referenced claims in this article because the sources are suspect on their best days. Knife magazines are very unreliable sources of facts. An argument presented below presents the consequences of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy in brilliant technicolor. We are supposed to be impressed by the sagacity and reputation of one Pat Covert -- the writer who holds the world record for publishing the most articles on Strider Knives and who has the dubious distinction of being the first magazine writer to fail to perform his due diligence and check the public record to see if his subject was even legally allowed to possess knives, let alone make and sell them.

	:You say, "This article is not about Strider Knives and that has nothing at all to do with this article." I say my comments have everything to do with bad sources. The Pat Covert problem is one example. All these articles are suspect, especially the ones written in the early nineties when amateurs were editing those magazines. This article is fraught dubious sources and it needs to be toned way down to avoid embarrassing problems later.		:You say, "This article is not about Strider Knives and that has nothing at all to do with this article." I say my comments have everything to do with bad sources. The Pat Covert problem is one example. All these articles are suspect, especially the ones written in the early nineties when amateurs were editing those magazines. This article is fraught with dubious sources and it needs to be toned way down to avoid embarrassing problems later.

	:I've stated more than once in history of this page that want there to be a good Misplaced Pages article on Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives. But this one is sloppy and falls all over itself to be complimentary to its subject, which is always a mistake. It doesn't need to be this way, but each attempt I've made to contribute the kind of help it needs has been stymied.		:I've stated more than once in history of this page that want there to be a good Misplaced Pages article on Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives. But this one is sloppy and falls all over itself to be complimentary to its subject, which is always a mistake. It doesn't need to be this way, but each attempt I've made to contribute the kind of help it needs has been stymied.

Revision as of 09:10, 17 January 2007

Skip to table of contents

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Martial arts B‑class

	Martial arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Law Enforcement B‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Older entries

Old discussions should not be deleted - but archived. Old comments do have their uses and you can't be accused of cover-up.Peter Rehse 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Peter. I will do that in the future...is there a way to archive? I'm still kind of new to this. Thanks --Mike Searson 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For someone new to this - its a very well done article. I'll leave a message on your Talk page about archiving. I rated it as a B but I think it could go higher. I'll mention that also in you talk page.Peter Rehse 10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, Thanks again, I've only been doing this off and on the past 4 months as time allows. Any advice you can give for improvement would be a big help. --Mike Searson 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Other older entries

Please do not place advertorials into this online encyclopedia. Also, remember that you do not own any Misplaced Pages article, whether or not you started it, think you started it, did a lot of editing to it, or you have a long-term personal relationship with the subject. Please see WP:OWN. Cheers, Sam 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This article does not merit "Good Article" status, yet. It contains a seven thousand word advertorial for Emerson Knives, Inc. as well as link spam to the Emerson Knives, Inc. website. Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. is taken care of in the first sentence with a Wikilink to Emerson Knives. Remove the advertorial and the link spam and I see no reason why Mikey's little article can't be judged a "good article." Cheers, Sam 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam, can you please explain to us how you are distinguishing spam from referenced text about an entity and person which both appear to meet notability requirements? Perhaps if we can understand where you're coming from, we can help you resolve this without edit warring (and please take care with WP:3RR). Also, language like "Mikey's little article" isn't productive. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam, your patronizing attitude is bordering on a personal attack. Please try to tone down your sarcasm and edit constructively. Thanks. Jeffpw 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would agree that it is a tiny bit florid in places, but there is no denying that the claims are all well substantiated and the article is impeccably sourced. So instead of throwing brickbats, Sam, how about proposing some specific changes for debate? Guy (Help!) 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to, Sandy. This article handles Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. in the fist sentence. Readers can read all the joyful product announcements and the glorious history of Emerson Knives that Mike wants to tell them about by following the Wikilink. They don't need a seven-thousand word advertorial in the middle of a biographical aricle.

I apologize for editing the article while it was under peer review. A biographical article containing link spam and a seven-thousand advertorial for a corporation is, ipso facto, not a good article no matter whose definition you use. Consequently, it never occured to me that one could be nominated for Good Article status. Still, I should have looked for it.

As far as your reference to an edit war is concerned, notice how Mike calls in the admins almost every time someone attempts to edit one of "his" articles. I think a better understanding of "ownership" would help him a great deal here at Misplaced Pages. That's why I posted a link to WP:OWN. Sam 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Wereb (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Sam, you are continuing to make this personal, for whatever the reason. As a point of fact, neither Sandy nor I are administrators. Guy is, but I don't see that he was specifically called here to defend This article or Mike. Could you please confine your discussion to the article, and why you think that section is spam? It doesn't not look like spam to me. As Sandy pointed out, it is well reference4d, and seems to meet notability requirements. Jeffpw 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, exactly what am I continuing to make personal in what I've written about this article on this talk page? On second thought, I don't care. Nothing whatsoever that I have to say is personal. My only contention is that a biographical article should be biographical and free of business promotion. We should take the entire Emerson Knives section out of this article. Then it will be a decent article, albeit one written obviously by big, big fans. Users can easily follow the Wikilink (provided in the first sentence) to Emerson Knives and discover the rich history and many wonderful product offerings of the company therein.

When I tried to do this you stomped all over my user talk page and Mike tattled to the admins. Sam 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I am an admin and spend much of my Wikitime removing spam. This is not spam. The idea that the company info (as opposed to the bio info) be forked into the Emerson Knives article has some merit, but there is not so much that Emerson Knives could not be merged into this, either. So please, let's have some constructive suggestions, not arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on Guy's point, I had a look at the Emerson Knives article, and see that there is much in this article that is not found there. In fact, this article seems to give a much more detailed look at the company than the main Emerson Knives article. If anything needs to be merged, in my opinioon, it is that article into this one. Jeffpw 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the direction I was considering, merging the Emerson Knives page back into this article after cleanup on that one, etc.

I asked for Sandy's help as she helped me alot with my writing and sourcing which is admittedly a step above a waiter scratching out notes to a chef. --Mike Searson 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I am not an admin, and it was logical for Mike to request my input, as I counseled his edits on the peer review (in other words, if he goofed, I'm to blame :-) I did ask Guy to have a look, just to make sure I wasn't incorrect here, since I am not an admin, and don't want to lead Mike astray. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All very cozy -- and irrelevant. Advertorial should be removed. If not that, then I will support merging the two articles. I didn't think a merge would be debated, given the emotional investments people have made in their contributions to the other article. If merged, then the link to the Emerson Knives corporation's website is justifiable. Until then it is link spam as defined by Misplaced Pages. Sam 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Whatever, dude!

I'll merge the other article into this one, I'm only concerned that it would make this one article very long. I'm still waiting to see your contributions to wikipedia, Sam, so I can see how a perfect article is written. All I see is a history of trashing the work of others. --Mike Searson 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the overall length would be a problem, Mike, especially if you are considering bring it to FA status later on. And just a reminder to all editors here: we're all working towards the same goal--or should be. Please try to address each other with respect and courtesy. Thanks. Jeffpw 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Size is not a concern here, Mike. The current prose size is only 19KB (see WP:LENGTH for an explanation of readable prose vs. overall size). You've got room to expand here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused on the sizing requirements. I added in the essential elements from the Emerson Knives aricle: Key collaborations, materials used, etc. I hope it does not detract from the biographical scope of the article. Do you think the table listing the various models is needed? I don't want this to be an "advertorial" by any means. Perhaps I could list it in the very bottom as an "appendix"? Does wikipedia have a rule for things of this nature? --Mike Searson 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the table under "models", in the knives article, I don't think it's needed here. I think that would give the article here more emphasis on the knives, and not the man who created them. You've discussed the major knives he made, and I think that's enough. You can list his website as an external link, so readers wanting more info about particular knives he sells can go there for additional info. Just my opinion as a disinterested observer. Jeffpw 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A very good and honest assessment, Jeff. The website probably does a better job of that sort of thing anyway. I listed my intent on the Emerson Knives Talk Page.

Mike Searson 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved what was relevant and redirected the other page to this one. No sense in reinventing the wheel. I left out the table and the trivial bits, etc. --Mike Searson 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer it the other way, with an Ernest Emerson article, and also an EKI article. But, it would be difficult to write two meaty articles that would be substantially different. Emerson himself runs the company, so most of what he does is what the company does. I do see precedents here on Misplaced Pages in putting large company info on a biographical page. But, what's done is done; I say we leave it the way it is for now and see how this beast evolves.

About the links: those articles are all legitimate pieces of cutlery journalism, I do think it is too bad that the only place we have been able to find them is archived on the EKI page. Is it NPOV? I don't think so. The articles are real, regardless of the link holding them. I have noticed that there are people who (mostly via the internet) criticize Emerson Knives and their products, but I have yet to see something in print. My point is that we should reference whatever articles we find, including those that speak negatively of the subject, but personally, I have yet to see any.Isaac Crumm 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isaac,

I have close to 20 years of articles and books concerning knives, guns, police, the Military, and martial arts here at my disposal. Not just from knife magazines, but across all media. One source is the Wall Street Journal! I have not discovered any which speaks negatively about the subject. If I did, I would definitely include it. I think it says something that in over 60 different sources, pretty much the same story is corroborated, hence the reason for several inline sources on the same sentence. There are some that are not noteworthy, such as whether or not Emerson was going to open a factory in Minden, Nevada. I didn't see how that would gel with the rest of the article, so I left it out.

Definitely the older periodicals do a better job at telling pieces of the story than some of the more modern ones, which are little better than advertisements. Thanks for your input. --Mike Searson 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason you don't see anything that speaks negatively about the subject in the knife magazines is that magazine editors (especially those magazine editors) are notoriously reluctant to print anything critical of their most important advertisers.

There is a considerable amount of criticism out there about this subject. Many thinking people in the knife world castigate these people for "weaponizing" knives by their hyperbolic advertising in the media and disregarding the consequences. One of the things that can easily be done to this article is to start a "Controversy" section in this article that presents other opinions of this company's influence on the knife world. Instead of making that necessary, why don't you allow other contributors to try to tone down this florid love letter a little bit with a neutral point of view? Sam 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

For reference, here is the peer review, which is hidden in a drop-down on those silly templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Expand the lead to 2 paras to better summarize the article. Also see if you can convert the popular culture bullets to prose and add more wikilinks. Rlevse 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD gives more info on what the lead should do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it...I expanded the lead to 2 paras and think it sums up everything. --Mike Searson 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has taken a turn for the worse since the merge. It's gone through a major sole-author re-write, too. NPOV problems start with the first paragraph. (1) You need citations for "is an award winning custom knifemaker, martial artist, author, and edged weapons guru". (2) The common connotation for "guru" is "cult leader." While that is an inadvertantly apt word choice in this case, I don't think you want to publicize it. (3) Museum pieces? Need a source for that. And (4) "...very valuable and popular with collectors," is a claim/opinion. Such loving touches are very thoughtful on the author's part, but far out of the realm of NPOV. This is only the first paragraph. The text gets more flowery and devotional the further you read. I suggest removing the GA hold and letting editors who are less emotionally involved with and devoted to the subject contribute. Sam 11:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Some incorrect statements above - citations are not normally given in the lead for text that is supported by citations to reliable sources in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article. Guru is the word used in the reliable source which is cited, for example. Sam, I'm wondering if you have read these reliable sources, and why you are so strongly opposing a well-referenced article. (oops, sorry for being repetitive - I see Mike already explained that below - well, he's a step ahead of me, but I'll leave my comment anyway, since I already typed it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose many of the referenced claims in this article because the sources are suspect on their best days. Knife magazines are very unreliable sources of facts. An argument presented below presents the consequences of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy in brilliant technicolor. We are supposed to be impressed by the sagacity and reputation of one Pat Covert -- the writer who holds the world record for publishing the most articles on Strider Knives and who has the dubious distinction of being the first magazine writer to fail to perform his due diligence and check the public record to see if his subject was even legally allowed to possess knives, let alone make and sell them.

You say, "This article is not about Strider Knives and that has nothing at all to do with this article." I say my comments have everything to do with bad sources. The Pat Covert problem is one example. All these articles are suspect, especially the ones written in the early nineties when amateurs were editing those magazines. This article is fraught with dubious sources and it needs to be toned way down to avoid embarrassing problems later.

I've stated more than once in history of this page that want there to be a good Misplaced Pages article on Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives. But this one is sloppy and falls all over itself to be complimentary to its subject, which is always a mistake. It doesn't need to be this way, but each attempt I've made to contribute the kind of help it needs has been stymied.

Please retract the nomination for Good Article until it has had time to be worked into a good article. If it is rejected now, it will be encumbered by prejudice when it is finally edited and renominated later. Sam 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam,

Interesting commentary. I'm not even sure if you can be part of the voting process as you've made significant contributions to the article (I'm sure deleting large portions of text is a contribution of sorts) . You may want to take a look WP:LEAD for guidance on what the lead should be/do. Extraordinary facts are often sourced in the lead, but generally, the lead is a summary of facts already sourced elsewhere in the article. All of the claims in the lead are sourced throughout the body of the article if the time is taken to actually read it. In a further metaphorical extension, the term "guru" is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise. This appelation is actually from the Pat Covert "Strike Force!" article in American Handgunner magazine. You may also want to also take a look at WP:CIVIL if you get a free moment. Thank you for your support. PS here is a link to the article in question.Strike Force--Mike Searson 14:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

All: GA is not a vote but all input is appreciated and considered. For now as there is active discussion going on, I'll wait 2-3 more days before proceeding. My sole input right now is to avoid POV, be as neutral as possible, and cite anything that needs it. Sandy is right, a good lead, as a summary, will need few if any cites. Rlevse 01:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories: