Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morbidthoughts (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 15 March 2015 (→Tim Von Swine & Kelly Shibari: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Steven Emerson - Part 3

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing Emmerson as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.

References

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083. Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, New Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney — many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse

ChrisGualtieri is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here based on his argument that The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Steven_Emerson
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216#Steven_Emerson_part_2

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify something once and for all: Misplaced Pages (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion? You can't have it both ways. What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources. There's no question that the sources meet WP:RS. (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern, and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that " any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe."

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.
2. Hafez, Kai (2014). Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 288. ISBN 9781442229525. Retrieved 23 January 2015. This is not different among Islamophobic opinion leaders in the United States such as Steven Emerson or Daniel Pipes, whose notions of Islamic jihadism as the new communism, and so on, have gained wide currency.
3. Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest WP:CLOSE closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually agree with Serialjoepsycho. Prior comments supported WP:BLP policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV: and . Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject. Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Atsme☯ 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a plan to me, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯ 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by Binksternet, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse. Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations in an op-ed for Fox News, stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."

References

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083. Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, New Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney — many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse
3. "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.
4. Hafez, Kai (2014). Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 288. ISBN 9781442229525. Retrieved 23 January 2015. This is not different among Islamophobic opinion leaders in the United States such as Steven Emerson or Daniel Pipes, whose notions of Islamic jihadism as the new communism, and so on, have gained wide currency.
5. Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
6. Emerson, Steven. "Will we ever learn? Obama White House can't admit Paris attacks 'Islamic terrorism'". Fox News. Retrieved 5 March 2015.

Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what ChrisGualtieri and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? Atsme☯ 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all. Atsme☯ 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in WP:DR besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in WP:ADMIN). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, WP:ANRFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the very wise suggestion of Serialjoepsycho. The fact that policy supersedes consensus is paramount, therefore an admin who is well-versed in NPOV and BLP policy issues should close in an effort to avoid unnecessary drama as well as future disputes. Atsme☯ 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson. Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross". Apparently, Atsme doesn't think it worthy of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just "his guess" - that should be clear because local police and the FBI also specifically considered Islamic terrorism. Reports surfaced almost immediately following and Emerson was one who agreed it had the hallmark. He made the statement, but he isn't the origin of the claim. The gaff itself has been used against Emerson and it is appropriate to include it - as well as the context surrounding it. Though in the big scheme of things - its sorta lame as "the biggest error" they refer to for him, but it is what it is. Political drama is like toilet writings for me - but I disagree with Atsme only because it is too prevalent to omit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This should have never been removed. This should be put back in as neutrally as possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should have, and the reason follows. The misleading comment Binksternet made about me is not unlike the misleading comment he wants included in the Emerson BLP...both are misleading and factually incorrect. Per my edit summary: removed poorly written paragraph stating that Emerson was "labeled an Islamophobe" based on incorrectly stated, unverifiable opinion. Emerson never mentioned Muslims. BLP violation) Binks, I'm curious - you removed an entire section I included in IPT (which is inextricably linked to Emerson and mirrors much of the same info) with the following summary: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.) . And now you think a 20 year old interview on CBS wherein he only suggested that the bombing had a Middle Eastern trait is important? I think the Boston bombing is far more important because (1) it's recent, and (2) Emerson was doing his job which is what we're supposed to write about. Now what could be the difference between the two that makes you think a 20 year old brief interview is so almighty important...let's see...could it be that with the Ok City bombing Emerson suggested a ME trait when it was actually homegrown terrorism, and with the Boston bombing it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was correct? Interesting angle on NPOV. Atsme☯ 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that is not what we do in WP. We don't bring our own opinions, rather, we report what reliable sources say. Adding your own commentary to somehow dismiss or diminish the RSs provided, as you have done (see Talk:Steven_Emerson#SYNTH), is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not bring my opinion in. I provided an inline citation for my source, and the source said precisely what I stated in the article (no copyvio) which is actually what we do on WP. The SYNTH and POV is what was in the passage I modified to be policy compliant. Do I need to include that whole ball of yarn here with inline text attribution for each phrase? I hope not. Atsme☯ 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel doesn't understand the point you make Atsme. This is clear because his use of "reliable source" here translates to - the biased non-neutral assessment by a political think-tank which Emerson has been in conflict with for decade and that it uses a quote fragment and a lack of context to attack Emerson personally. I mean sure... the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post were going on about the Middle East trait, live coverage well-before Emerson was already hard pounding the WTC and Islamic terrorism angle. CNN identified four innocent Arab Americans in connection with the bombing.... Emerson also criticized CNN for this act... yet it is "Emerson the Islamophobe"? American Journalism Review is better source than Emerson's personal enemies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel blocked

So Cwobeel was just blocked for violating WP:NEWBLPBAN, which is a method I had never seen. ChrisGualtieri filed a case against Cwobeel at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel, then HJ Mitchell read the case and blocked Cwobeel. The immediate complaint was that Cwobeel restored disputed text to the Emerson biography during this discussion here at BLPN, the text in question described as a BLP violation by ChrisGualierie and Atsme. My problem with the Arb case and the block stems from the persistent mischaracterization of the text as being a violation of BLP. The sources are scholarly ones, the highest quality sources we have. Yes, they characterize Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes as being the two most prominent voices of Islamophobia in the US. It doesn't particularly matter whether Emerson is happy with this assessment or not; the description accurately represents the opinion of these (and some other) scholars.

If we are to institute a rule disallowing any re-posting of BLPN disputed material (no matter how highly sourced the text or how misrepresented the complaint) then we will open ourselves up to those who would game the system: any I-don't-like-it text can be perpetually discussed at BLPN to keep it from being re-posted at a biography. That's a change I would not like to see. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Half a sentence quips from parties involved in a dispute with Emerson is not "scholarly" by any means - it is name calling. The real issue is repeatedly edit warring to reinsert the material which is at BLPN when there is no consensus to include the material is the problem. And you have done this yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your original research does not take the place of reliable sources, and Arbcom can not (nor do I believe they intended to) set a higher standard for BLPs than established by the community. What I see is editors tendentiously pushing their own POV by using BLP as club to keep legitimate criticism out of articles in violation WP:NPOV. I think this discussion needs to happen at ANI.- MrX 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was restoring content removed under BLP, acknowledged by Cwobeel to be valid and then restored during the dispute. Citing Gale was me and the American Journalism Review was Atsme's source - and the information is not "original research". OR pertains to article content, not highlighting that Cwobeel's source was non-neutral, cherry-picked and unsupported name-calling. By this logic, it would be fine to include racist and bigoted "scholarly criticism" on Obama's page. Sorry bud, but BLP needs to have high standards. I've seen this same stuff directed at Al Sharpton calling him every vile nasty epithet you can think of, but yet we do not include such filth either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires good sources, not neutral sources. Cwobeel added well-sourced content here based on 3:1 support at BLP/N here. You ignored that consensus and reverted Cwobeel's edit here claiming "Remove per BLP Policy". BLP Policy requires good sourcing, the absence of which you have flatly failed to demonstrate. I've seen you do this repeatedly on this and other articles such as Shooting of Michael Brown. I would like to know why you haven't been sanctioned.- MrX 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have thought it would be common sense for any established editor to know that you don't restore content removed on BLP grounds until and unless the discussion concludes in your favour, much less an editor who has previously been blocked for BLP violations. I have no comment on the content; whether or not it should be in the article and if so in what form is a matter for discussion on this board to resolve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: I don't think it's going to be possible to address this one properly without evaluating the content. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds for disputing it on a BLP basis. ChrisGualtieri and Atsme think so, and they've been arguing about it for months. Multiple editors coming to it "cold", however, have reached a different conclusion and have added/restored the material (sometimes in revised form). In that context, "content removed on BLP grounds" means something different, in contrast to a situation where someone sees a BLP violation and removes it the first time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Evaluating the content is absolutely critical to understanding whether this was or was not a BLP concern. Otherwise any editor could block any negative text at all from a BLP, just by complaining about it here at BLPN. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Harry, at least look at the fact the Cwobeel's edit had 3:1 support and was well-sourced. There is a fundamental problem when a single editor can stonewall by simply crying BLP without showing that the cited sources fail our reliable source guidelines or that the content is not supported by the sources. Please see Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.- MrX 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So @Atsme: is a non-person? The content evaluate is separate, but the offending material should not be restored by the BLPN filing party while the dispute is ongoing at BLPN. You made a false dichromy argument because no one is saying negative material is a problem. It is name-calling that is the issue here, and name-calling is not encyclopedic or productive and its not in the Gale biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your issue seems to be with the fact that Emerson as been characterized as an Islamaphobe or a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, a fact which he acknowledges. Several editors clearly disagree with you that it's not encyclopedic.- MrX 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding contentious material to a BLP that is verifiable but false or that is unsupported by the cited RS is quite simply noncompliant with NPOV. Sources that mirror each others' bigotry may be RS for a particular claim, but in this case, one of the sources included only a parenthetical reference to Emerson in an unrelated chapter in a book containing fewer than three sentences about the guy. Another source did not even include what was actually stated in the BLP. Since NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and the contentious material is clearly noncompliant with NPOV, how is that not a BLP violation? Furthermore, Binksternet made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours: 21:22, March 6, 2015 21:46, March 6, 2015‎ 08:29, March 7, 2015‎ 09:14, March 7, 2015‎ which not only violates 3RR, it appears to have violated BLP DS. Atsme☯ 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand how WP:3RR works. Try to understand the notion of consecutive edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Verifiability is a foundational policy, and sources are how we evaluate "truth". If you want to challenge content as being unsourced, then do so with diffs and a link to the source. Binksternet did not violate 3RR; concurrent edits don't count as reverts.- MrX 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Refer to the evaluation by HJ Mitchell above because Binksternet reverted the same material that caused Cwobeel to be blocked. Edit warring is edit warring and when it involves contentious material about a BLP that is not properly sourced, it requires immediate attention. The revert happened so quickly it became a job in itself just to keep up. I don't understand why the same action that applied to Cwobeel should not apply to Binksternet per BLP DS. There are substantive grounds for removal of that contentious material. Furthermore, closure requires a close review based on the substantive argument, not a vote to see how many editors agree despite BLP policy. Atsme☯ 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Several editors restoring content is one of the signals of consensus. If only one editor supported this content and reverted without discussion, they should be sanctioned for edit warring. What instead seems to be happening is filibustering, original research, strained interpretations of policy and appeals to non-existent policies. Also, BLP/N discussions do not require formal closure.

Now a specific question for you: What exactly in the disputed content do you claim is not properly sourced? - MrX 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I've included a classic example of the NPOV issue at Emerson:

• <--factually accurate information in a published transcript (pg 11) of the actual 1995 CBS interview with Emerson as indicated by an academic source. Another source I was going to cite (had I not been disrupted from editing) is a NY Times article:
• <--example of the misinformation Binksternet insisted on keeping, and in doing so prevented me from completing the last segment of the paragraph. The reverted passage reflects an unsubstantiated bigoted opinion (and biased slur) that was expressed parenthetically (in passing mention). COI - several authors of the cited book are paid proponents and/or teachers of Islamic studies at various universities. The passing mention of Emerson in the book was clearly incidental. The source demonstrates how Emerson's statement was taken out of context: Atsme☯ 01:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's heartening that you would try to figure out whether the scholars are correct or not in their negative assessment of Emerson, but frankly that is not our concern, and it smacks of original research. The scholars looked at Emerson's contribution to the issue and they determined that Emerson was expressing Islamophobic ideas. Let's not try to second-guess these scholars who we accept as experts in their fields. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Except WP:OR - does not apply to talk pages so pointing out that the quote is incomplete and inaccurate is acceptable. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to engage in conflicts and label people as bigots based on the quips of their political and ideological opponents. Not one case has been presented to show Emerson as an actual bigot. It is rhetoric and name-calling, all without merit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What is an "actual bigot"? Who is to judge what behavior deserves that label? Why, the reliable sources are to judge, and if we are concerned about BLP (we certainly are) then we must use the highest quality sources. Scholars are our highest sources. Let's not try and out-think the scholars in their areas of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm? ABC, CBS, and NBC which had FBI sources on the day of stating this connection. Oliver Revell (not Emerson) stated that it was most likely a Middle East terrorist which appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Plenty of figures made this connection, the Wall Street Journal even ran a story featuring it. Emerson's award winning documentary was released several months prior and apparently he wasn't a "Islamophobe" for predicting such an attack and of such a style. Your use of the word "Scholar" as some unimpeachable standard is pretty telling that you have no experience in such research... I am also very confident you have not watched the tapes and while I do not have access to the Hillmann & Carr collection (containing the tape of Emerson) I have found many instances of the "Middle Eastern" aspect including Emerson condemning the identification of four innocent Arabs by the media shortly thereafter. So much for "bigotry", but keep sticking to your non-neutral sources and claiming it to be the gospel - I take the New York Times, American Journal Review and the FBI over those sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As soon as you publish your book about this issue, your opinion will be considered a reliable source on the matter of what the media was saying and how Emerson was viewed. Until then, a number of scholars have separately and collectively determined that Emerson espouses Islamophobic ideas. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: You answered a different question than the one I asked. This section is about the material inserted by Cwobeel for which he was blocked for violating WP:BLP. So I ask again, what specific words, phrases or sentences in this edit do you assert is not properly sourced?- MrX 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Interested parties are invited to comment at the Arbitration request by Cwobeel to be unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution attempt

Due to Binksternet's reinsertion and modification, it is not the same offending text that Cwobeel was edit warring. But we need to resolve this. Let's begin by finding some points of discussion to resolve the dispute. Let's break the section down:

Emerson has been criticized for espousing Islamophobic views...

Specifically, what "views" are Islamophobic? This requires clarification and none of the sources being used support a single example. Three different sources are saying he is an Islamophobe, but none provide any argument or example of said Islamophobia. I see verification that an accusation has been made, but this is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If the slightly different way I worded it is not a BLP violation, how is it that you insisted on Cwobeel getting blocked, when the solution was simply a bit of rewording? It seems to me that you could have suggested some rewording at the article's talk page and thereby saved the community's time along with their patience. Or you could have reworded it yourself instead of blanking good sources. Not to mention striving to get an editor blocked for no good reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a core misunderstanding here. Cwobeel edit warred over the content, took it here, edit warred it in, month long protection, added it again, took it here, added it again after acknowledging the "restore part of BLP" and doing it during the dispute which has been requested to have a formal close. So I took it to AE to stop this and also asked for 1RR on the page. You reinserted it, but you did it once and while I and Atsme disagree, edit warring is not productive and its not a top-tier BLP issue. I even asked Atsme to let it stay because we need to more forward. If I undo the material you reinserted and modified - I'd be continuing to stall the situation. You weren't even warned of the AC/DS, but this has got to stop and be resolved. I don't think anyone wants this dispute to continue for another month so can we focus on the issue with the content now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris makes a good point. It shouldn't be enough to just report that some individual has called Emerson a name. If someone has, do they have reason for that position? Otherwise there would be undue weight it seems. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• This demonstrates it is both notable and due for this "terrorism expert's" biography. It goes into extensive explanation but obviously you are not going to just present one "side". So, you all should move on and get with exactly how you present it in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue with including the 1995 "gaffe" material and everyone agrees that it needs to be include. Despite WP:BLPSELFPUB objects as it is "self-serving" by one user - Emerson's statements and other sources about this need to be given. The issue here is name-calling, specifically labeling Emerson as a bigot without identifying what specific views of his are "Islamophobic" or "fomenting Islamophobia" as previously claims. Verification of the name-calling is WP:UNDUE without at least a single argument as to why Emerson is Islamophobic in the eyes of his critics. That's the core issue we have been trying to resolve for weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources do talk about why they say what they say. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but that is another matter entirely. "Islamaphobe" is not in the sources only an epithet, it is a critique of his expert approach, which the critics see as revealed by him. They may be right, they may be wrong but in discussing the biography of a terrorism expert, you have to discuss the "albatross" around his neck, which leads to the "islamaphobe" critique. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So by the logic Obama it is acceptable to call a communist/radical/worst president in history because "critics state" and nothing more? You seem to think I am sympathetic to Emerson because I don't think allowing unexplained bigotry in retaliation for labeling their organization as being related to a terror organization - a fact backed by a federal judge's ruling in the case. By that logic you could call George Zimmerman a racist and a murderer because "critics say". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What? No. I don't think anything about you, except now I think you indulge in irrelevancies. I think the sources show there is a prominent critique of this terrorism expert. Your swerve to irrelevant Obama commentary notwithstanding, Emerson is not Obama, two very different biographies of two very different lives, which will have very different demands of subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable in one BLP, it is acceptable in all BLPs. We cannot pick and choose whose BLP we allow contentious material to be included. Please be specific in your argument to keep a contentious statement because if it applies here, it is likely to apply elsewhere - it's referred to as establishing a "precedent". Atsme☯ 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, no one covers disparate lives the same -- only those who seek to indulge logical fallacies of a pretend parade of horribles would even attempt such reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue about Obama, start a section about Obama. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This subsection title is Resolution attempt. Can we please stay on topic? Thank you. Atsme☯ 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's why we would do well not to discuss Obama. Agreed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris correctly drew attention to an established precedent. Attempts to dismiss the comparisons only serve to make it more relevant. Established policies are just that - established policies which means they apply across the board and are not subject to POV. If compliance with NPOV applies to one BLP, it applies to all BLPs. Atsme☯ 22:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no precedent, despite your logical fallacy -- we are dealing, here, with terrorism expert, Emerson, who has this sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we are dealing with a BLP, and as such strict adherence to policy is required. Strict adherence to BLP policy includes the 3 core content policies, no exceptions. Any attempt to individualize BLP is not NPOV. Atsme☯ 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And multiple editors note that all policies are met, the critique is verifiable and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be definitive. What passages are you referring to as having met the requirements for NPOV, and how did you determine the requirements were met? Atsme☯ 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X has a proposal he has asked you to comment upon already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X asked a question that was already answered by ChrisGualtieri. I see no reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. This subsection is titled Resolution attempt, so if you have any suggestions for resolving the NPOV and RS issues, I'm interested. Atsme☯ 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then you're done, here, if you have nothing left to say and others can just move on with the consensus version, which does not require unanimity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential edits in the Barack Obama article or the George Zimmerman article have zero effect on this article, and divert us from determining if there are reliability issues with the sources, or if the sources have been misrepresented, or if they represent a fringe viewpoint. Atsme, you have made several appeals to policy, but have been a bit evasive when pressed for specific examples. You also seem to rely on ChrisGualtieri's argument which has now been refuted by three editors as being logically fallacious.- MrX 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Logically fallacious is an opinion, not a substantive argument to restore material that was removed for noncompliance with BLP policy. The burden to restore such material rests with the editor who wants it restored, not with the editor who removed it. Atsme☯ 02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make sense. I was refuting ChrisGualtieri's argument because it was based on something bad that could happen to another, unrelated article. It's not logical and it's not grounded in policy. "Non-compliance with BLP" implies misrepresentation of sources, or unreliable sources, yet you have not substantiated this alleged "non-compliance" with anything more than generalizations about policy. Once again, what specifically violates WP:BLP and why? If you can't or won't answer that question, which I have now asked three times, then would you at least refrain from claiming that there is a BLP policy violation in the disputed content?- MrX 03:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

MrX - I'm sorry you could not comprehend the example and importance of NPOV I was highlighting. The name-calling is undue and is not conducive to a disinterested biography on the subject. I was comparing the fact that other biographies for which no end of such "criticism" exists - are kept clean of it because of NPOV and BLP. Would calling Emerson a bigot survive at a Featured Article Review? No, because it is name-calling. I gave a simple request - provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed. It only takes one example to make me agree that such a view can be stated, and so far no example has been given. So far there is none so I think that without clarification - the name-calling must be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If you find "bigot" in the Emerson article, I'd support it being removed. But I don't see it there... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The request "an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed" makes no sense. Wikipedians attribute sources, Wikipedians don't attribute anything to Emerson (other than when needed, his own words), Misplaced Pages has no view with respect to Emerson. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*Nomoskedasticity are you unaware that Islamophobia is a bigotry based on religion? This is like saying someone is the key proponent of antisemitic discourse. That is what these non-neutral and minority sources claim. Alanscottwalker, you don't understand the problem I am referring to - perhaps someone else can explain my points better to you, but for the sake of it - swap "Islamophobia" with racist. Emerson has been criticized for espousing racist views.... Is that acceptable without stating at least one example of a "racist view"? That is why I am asking for that one view before I change my position. I am not asking for much - if these sources are as high-quality it should be easy to make an example that is not WP:SYNTH. Namely something like "Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia for stating...." you fill in the blank. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the idea that Emerson has espoused racist views, extrapolated from the fact that a number of scholars have observed that he has espoused Islamophibic views. Accusations of racism can and should be discussed in a biography when they are appropriate, for instance at the David Duke article. Emerson and Islamophobia are connected by enough high-quality sources that we would be remiss not to mention them. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I don't think I have comprehension problem. NPOV (a separate policy from BLP) is served by inclusion of significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in sources. AFAIK, no one here has called Emerson a bigot. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, yet you keep bringing it up. I am on record as preferring not to label Emerson an Islamophobe, but it is necessary to mention that Emerson has been criticized for fomenting Islamophobia. In addition to the sources we already have, there are these:

"There is a growing cottage industry of Western commentators and politicians who thrive on bashing Islam. The War on Terror has provided a substantial level of cover for their views.39 While initially terror experts such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, and Robert Spencer led the anti-Islam charge, it has spread widely."
— Fawaz A. Gerges, The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 21, https://www.questia.com/read/121489747.

"Yet following September 11, 2001, there was a surge of Islamophobia in the West, which portrayed all things Islamic, and in particular Islamic banks, in the worst possible light.88 The outrage provoked by the terrorist attacks gave credence to anti-Islamic views, which moved quite close to mainstream and policy-making circles. Thus, journalist Steven Emerson, whose primary claim to fame until then had been his assertion that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing “could only have been perpetrated by Middle Eastern terrorists,” said that the days following September 11, “he has fielded 1,000 calls, many from news organizations,”89 thus becoming one of the most ubiquitous “terrorist experts.”"
— Ibrahim Warde, Islamic Finance in the Global Economy, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 109, https://www.questia.com/read/121094053.

"“This small network of people is driving the national and global debates that have real consequences on the public dialogue and on American Muslims,” the report said. “Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America.” ¶ The five key misinformation experts identified by the report: Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy (see also here); David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence (see also here); Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum; Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America (see also here), and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism." "
— Southern Poverty Law Center

To answer you specific demand "provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson" how about this:

" "In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones," Emerson said. "There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire." "
— Steven Emerson on Saturday, January 10th, 2015 in an interview on Fox News

"“This is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens, you deport them because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”"
— Steve Emerson

I hope this helps.- MrX 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri might now be tempted to argue that these views do not actually display Islamophobia. I hope we can avoid that sort of WP:OR. What matters is whether significant sources meeting WP:RS perceive Islamophobia in these and/or other statements by Emerson. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No... MrX has fulfilled my requirement, while they are not as strong I would have preferred he has certainly met my requirement. He certainly made that Birmingham gaffe - which was quickly corrected, but it still was a dumb thing to say. The 1995 one is more of a matter of context, but this recent one is definitely a major error for which no real excuse can be made. Nomo, you might want to look into WP:OR because it does not apply to talk pages or evaluating sources, it applies to content. Now... we need a way in which to resolve the accusations by using the example - I believe some occurred in direct connection to the Birmingham comments. That way we also remove the dramatic claim that Emerson is "clearly a complete idiot" from Cameron, who has made a serious mistake of this nature as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's great -- except that you've been aware of that example for many weeks now, so one naturally wonders what all the fuss has been about, over dozens of posts by you about the topic.... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

.... I am certain you do not understand my argument because of that comment. I could also do less without the bad-faith accusations, but the battleground atmosphere is not pleasant. Is there a direct non-SYNTH case of this or not? MrX has an example, but you can't use OR to claim a connection to something published prior to the gaffe - which those cases were. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok so if that is going to be added, we can add the following: and Atsme☯ 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I'm not interested in using WP:OR for adding anything to the article; I thought I had made that clear. Atsme, the same response is needed for you -- and it's especially appalling that you want to use Breitbart.com as a source in this context. Yeech... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

- Since Xenophrenic has resolved the issue, I'm announcing that these changes more than resolves the issue and is NPOV in my eyes. I don't support Breitbart - but that gaffe thing is different from the issue and beyond this BLPN notice. Atsme - do you have any issues with Xenophrenic's changes - or are we all in agreement that the now-current wording is acceptable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, if you're referring to the changes already implemented by Xenophrenic at Emerson, I am Ok with them. I will address the plurality issue about the CBS interview(s) on the TP. Atsme☯ 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Xenophrenic changes have addressed Chris' issues. His changes have mostly, if not completely, removed Atsme's Synth (improper editorializing, Undue weight, over all BLP violations, or what ever anyone wants to call this ). It would probably be a good time to ask the other BLPN contributors here if there are any issues of note brought up here that aren't addressed.If not we can just put this baby to bed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• If an Admin is following this discussion, I ask that you please take some form of remedial action for the unwarranted PAs against me by Serialjoepsycho (^^see his comment above this one). His false allegations of my editing being overall BLP violations, SYNTH, UNDUE, editorializing, etc. are unwarranted, but this isn't the first time he has done so. A comparison of the two diffs will confirm my position: My edit is here: Revision as of 16:37, March 6, 2015. Xenophrenic's edit is here: Revision as of 12:40, March 9, 2015 In fact, I am still researching one of the sentences he attributed to Emerson to confirm it is factually accurate. Atsme☯ 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is not a personal attack. Simply pointing out the truth, is not a personal attack. Synth pretty much sums it up, someone else called in improper editorializing on the Steven Emerson page. Parts of it were undue. You could even point out the fluff. Overall it was a BLP violation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no personal attack Atsme. Also, I've had several person attacks lobbed at me, it is the tensions. De-escalate the situation and don't get upset about anything less than unfettered name calling. Now... I'd give it another 12 hours for objections to be raised and then I suggest for a formal admin close to finalize it. Since me and Atsme were "the opposition" in a sense and we agree on the material, I doubt any objection will be raised. I prefer a formal close despite a clear consensus - I don't want a "part 4". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just check back in 4 days and take it to ANRFC if someone else hasn't. That will be plenty of time to respond and one day before it archives.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder how many times it is actually necessary to say that Tim McVeigh was behind the Oklahoma city bombing. Probably worth scrubbing the first mention of it. It's not very well written and detracts from the tone. Further thru it mentions, "Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe"" but ot really doesn't mention by whom. This sourced to the 'Cambridge companion to American Islam'. If it's worth mentioning it would be worth mentioning who's views these are. This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply. Leaving these critics unnamed seems to benefit the following sentence where Emerson criticizes unnamed critics. This also detracts from the tone, though less than before.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Sources attributed. Still problematic though, In 1995 CBS interviews, prior to any knowledge the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, Emerson said "Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East", and that the bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. This negatively effects the tone of the article. Originally added to the article it stood as fluff that seemed to defend Emerson, now it seems as if it was written to make him look incompetent. Neither of which seem to carry a dispassionate tone. Emerson's actions already make him look incompetent, he doesn't need our assistance. This part is unnecessary as the same paragraph later says, In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, still problematic... but I don't want to be attacked for "stonewalling" and such. If Sloan stated the connection - completely independently of Emerson - and Sloan is an actual terrorist expert instead of a new person in the field (which Emerson was at the time) then there is very little wrong with acknowledging what the prevailing, albeit wrong view was. The way it reads is that Emerson was the source of the material - when it was leaks in the FBI and law enforcement, three different news networks and other experts. There is hours and hours of TV coverage on this stuff on April 19-20. To criticize Emerson and act as if he was alone responsible for the "fomenting Islamophobia" is dishonest. The stark difference in reality is the reason why I was strongly opposed to the inclusion of the accusations in the first place - they lacked substance and context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

re: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Serialjoe, you say "This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply." I would be interested in hearing your rationale for that. WP:YESPOV ("Don't attribute fact as if it were opinion") is also likely to apply. If you are going the attributed-opinion route, then your job is not complete. Ernst's academic book describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe"; the previously noted Washington Post article conveys that Emerson has been described as such (without naming names); etc. I'm sure there are also "critics" who have used the description. The previous wording was probably an attempt to avoid a long list of "critic" names followed by a list of non-"critic" sources.

re: Mentioning that Emerson made his remarks before knowing about McVeigh in the first sentence - I agree that it is redundant, and support its removal, but not because "it was written to make him look incompetent". It still appears to mitigate his interview comments, but it is unsourced and unprovable.

re: Many saying the same thing at the same time. Chris is correct that Emerson wasn't the only person pushing a "Middle East terrorism" theory during the first 8 hours after the event, but there is no evidence (is there?) that Emerson was parroting Sloan or anyone else, rather than giving his independent assessment, or that Sloan had or hadn't first conferred with Emerson or others. (And just a note, the "fomenting Islamophobia" description is demonstrably not based on 1995, but rather his overall history, as far as I can tell from the sources.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So "professional " is a fact? There is a different between citing name-calling as a fact and citing an accusation of bigotry as if it was true. Also note that these labels are less than half a sentence and Emerson is not discussed at any other point in the sources. 300 pages and only "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" is it? Seems undue, but since we've established this name-calling is suitable for inclusion, ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the description of Emerson as a factual, you ask? Isn't that the question every editor here has been asking? I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact, which is why I raised WP:YESPOV as just as likely to apply. I remind you that your "these labels are less than half a sentence" argument (formerly known as the "passing mention" argument) has already been refuted and buried, as it was discovered that those "half sentences" were also accompanied by citations indicating that people looked into the matter with a bit more thoroughness. Do you really wish to resurrect that line of argument yet again? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be a major BLP issue to point out certain connections here - I thought we were in agreement that the accusations exist and are trying to handle them appropriately within policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that Emerson has been "accused" of Islamophobia, at the very minimum. I certainly haven't disagreed. There appeared to be no disagreement with the previous article wording that Emerson has been "referred to as" or "described as" ... as long as we don't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that he "is". However, once you start listing where he has been described as such (Cambridge book...) or by whom (Hammer, et al...) as if those were merely opinions, you are opening a very large can of worms. Once we start adding actual "critics" to that list of sources, do you know how large that paragraph will grow? Is that what we want? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: You asked, "but there is no evidence (is there?)" Yes there is, and I already provided the sources, one of which included a timeline of events, others that included statements from Emerson confirming he based his information on what investigators and other reports were saying. In fact, that's what Emerson does - he gathers material, documents, testimony and various bits of information from the internet, videos, television, radio etc. and maintains an extensive data base. You also said, "I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact...", and I strongly disagree. Consensus cannot magically turn a contentious opinion into a statement of fact in WP voice. A similar argument occurred on Griffin, and the closing admins supported BLP policy, and the fact that such contentious labeling is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme☯ 17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A "timeline" showing that other people made equally wrong speculation does not mean that Emerson's comments were in any way based on theirs. After the comments were made and quickly criticized, of course he claimed he based his comments on other people, but while he was making those comments - and even for a brief time afterward - he gave no indication he was only parroting other people. As for your strong disagreement to Misplaced Pages policy regarding reliable sources for the assertion of fact, and consensus, everyone is welcome to their opinions. However, Misplaced Pages policy trumps editor opinion where BLP articles are concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, no reasonable person could accuse you of stonewalling, when it relates to my comments there is still something wrong. The section does mention that others said similar. Xenophrenic, can you show me a source that factually states he is an Islamophobe and that he is a discredited terrorism expert? That's a rhetorical question. The fact is both are value based opinions. His work has been been discredited but he still seems to be very active in his field. So YesPOV doesn't seem to meet any real scrutiny and attributePOV does. That would not be my job but our job. As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. Emerson did make his comments before they knew that McVeigh did it. What ever, mentioning McVeigh in the lead is excessively verbose, redundant, and should simply go. The article and sources indicate that others had made similar statements. I do think that meets the scrutiny of policy. As far as Sloan, yes I'd agree that lacking a source it doesn't seem all to important, and inclusion may very well border on synth or least it would be giving undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, yes, I can provide sources which factually describe Emerson as discredited, to answer your rhetorical question. Perhaps you consider the question rhetorical because even Emerson concedes that he has been discredited and even "blacklisted", although he insists it was done unjustly? The objective description of someone as discredited or bigoted can certainly be factually asserted (David Irving serves as a handy example of both). The degree of bigotry or amount of damage to reputation are value based opinions and can be subjective, obviously — as are any changes in those descriptions over time. The fact that an avowed racist can run for office and still get votes, for example, or that FOX News seeks someone's opinion, do not negate factual descriptions.

Regarding "fixing" the text about Emerson being referred to as Islamophobic, I will do as you request and implement my fix by removing the "Cambridge book" and "Hammer, et al" attributions. Attributing the descriptions to just one book misleadingly implies they are the only source of those descriptions. If you would like to re-add your attribution, please do a more complete job by also attributing the description to the Ernst book linked at the top of this thread, and the reports by SPLC, and actual "critics" like CAIR, CAP, the 2 dozen sources listed on the article Talk page, etc. That's not my preferred method, of course, as it will produce a rather unwieldy and huge block of text, but I won't object to a complete listing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No you can only provide me with opinions that he has been discredited. While I agree with these opinions, the sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven. Fox News and others not only view him credibly but present him credibly. I'd love to see the source where Emerson concedes that he's been discredited. I see where he mentions that he was black listed. Do show the source. Sounds like synth. By the way I never said the Cambridge companion had to be attributed. Being the source the book is already attributed. I said the opinions have to be attributed. Ernst book is already attirbuted with inline citation but guess what he's also attributed to his opinion. I'll go ahead and undo your change and ignore your edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll "ignore my edit warring"? Huh? Rather than edit warring when I noticed the problem, I came here instead and voiced my concerns for discussion. You then suggested that since I found the problem, I might be willing to fix it — so that is what I did with a single edit. Please don't derail the discussion and try to drag it into the gutter by playing that kind of game, Serialjoepsycho. Agreed?

Back to the matter at hand, we appear to have a misunderstanding. You are technically correct that descriptions, like "water is wet", "1, 3 and 5 are numbers", "the earth is round", "Emerson was discredited", can indeed be called "opinions". But for the purposes of this discussion, I was referring only to Misplaced Pages's policies regarding fact and opinion as asserted by cited sources. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. I'm still interested, in case you missed my query. You agree that "sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven", which is the textbook definition of how a person's reputation becomes discredited. He has referred to his wrong assertions and the resultant damage to his reputation as an albatross around his neck he has struggled to remove.

Is there a reason why, in your recent edit, you only "attributed" the descriptions to a single source? You don't see how that misleads the reader into thinking the description comes just from that source? (You mention that the Ernst book is already cited elsewhere in the article, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the paragraph we're working on. And by the way, that Ernst cite is wrong and attributes to him in the footnote a description made by a completely different person. But that is another matter.) Is there a reason why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added? Is there a reason why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is now locked for another month. As much as I hate to say it, it is a BLP issue and the fact it had continued for so long was the reason I took the matter to AE in the first place. BLP violations are different from violations of BLP in a sense of material versus the actions. Serialjoepsycho has been citing BLP policy and making proper and reasonable assertions on a very sensitive BLP matter and I must thank him for handling it in such a fine way. It is still clear the content and wording does not have consensus... but progress is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Serialjoepsycho handled it well, and I also thank him. Atsme☯ 04:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that the content and wording does not have consensus. (And it's locked for 2 months, not "another month".) Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually Xenophrenic, I said since you found it you could fix it or, "be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." You can put emphasis on the part where you do something fruitful but it doesn't erase the actual part where you were asked to provide more clarity so that your position could be reviewed and so that I or someone else could take action in regards to it. Text book definition? That could be argued one way or another. Honestly wouldn't likely be such an interesting conversation. So let's not bother with it because in the end there's this whole BLP policy. This detracts from the tone. That is not written responsibly, cautiously, or with a dispassionate tone. It's written specifically in wikipedia voice to attack Emerson. He has been discredited in the past in his field as a "Terrorism expert". He's also continued in that field since then and has been received as a credible source by mainstream media, government, law enforcement, and perhaps others. It's not wikipedia's place to endorse this opinion, only to record it. Yes there is a reason why there I attributed this to only one source, because there this was the only source used. No I don't think that misleads readers into thinking it comes from one source. I think this is the first time I've ever seen this particular argument. I find it ridiculous and unnecessary, but I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well. In regards to Ernst, I was referring to the final paragraph of the section titled "reception" the only place I see specifically where Ernst is mentioned as a source (Not sure if that's in a foot note section of the book. Doesn't look like it. I don't have a full copy of the book but it does seem to be in a section of the book written by Juliane Hammer. Does anyone have a full copy of the book that can verify? The citation seems to be fine but the article attribution directly to Ernst may not be.) Your prior comments were rather verbose. I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article. I also in relation to that asked you to either fix it or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however. The lock on the page is for two months but it can actually be unlocked before that. So lets get a consensus and move on. So is there anything that hasn't been addressed in some way and we should address the current Ernst attribution that is already contained in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked that either I fix it, or have someone else fix it. When I followed your suggestion, you offensively mischaracterized my edit as "edit warring", and reverted it. Your revert also undid other noncontroversial article improvements without explanation. You still haven't answered when I asked why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added. You still haven't answered when I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support.

As for more clarity on the issue, I can only repeat what I already said above - with even more verbosity - until you confirm there is no further confusion. Since there is disagreement as to whether our article can factually state in Misplaced Pages's voice that Emerson "is" an Islamophobe, or "is" a discredited expert, let's set that matter aside for later. We can certainly agree that Emerson has been (referred to/accused of/described as) such by other individuals, and that much can be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice as long as we don't present the descriptions as true or false. We agree so far? Reflecting that position, here is the previous sentence written in responsible, cautious and dispassionate tone (but still a little long, in my opinion):

Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe" and, recalling his 1995 interviews, "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Source 1, Source 2

So instead of saying "Emerson is XXX & YYY", we say that people have merely "Referred to Emerson as XXX & YYY", as explicitly conveyed by the WaPo source, and demonstrated in the Cambridge source. But then you cited WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and suggested we name the source of the description, which gives us this sentence:

In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Single Source

While I understand the reasoning behind your suggestion, it appears you did not implement that guideline properly for several reasons. Go to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; do you see where the first line tells you to See: WP:INTEXT for proper use of in-text attribution? If you'll look at the examples in that guideline, you'll see that your proposed sentence violates example #4 with clutter, and violates example #3 by misleading the reader into thinking that Cambridge source is the only one describing Emerson that way. It appears you are unaware of the sheer volume of sources conveying those descriptions. You say, "If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however." Seriously? Have you been following the several Talk page discussions and noticeboard discussions? Following your suggestion, the result would look something like this at first, and only get worse over time:

In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders". In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as...

You see where this will lead? Your suggestion to attribute the descriptions doesn't appear to produce a very encyclopedic paragraph (an "unwieldy and huge block of text" I called it, above). More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if my concerns are clear now; I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said. Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it. I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it. That I in the sentence stands for me, as in after you are more specific I can review what you are talking about and fix it. I did not tell you to go find others to fix it. I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific. Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it. Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here. And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it. And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article." We can move on.

What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said. In the final example you provide, of what the text would look like, you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation. But now that you have pointed out WP:INTEXT, following example 4, you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,". and the clutter is gone. As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that, how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do. I find this unnecessary myself. Reviewing your example, In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as... I'd have to say that's just over the top and putting alot of weight behind a guideline. WP:GUIDES, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. To read this example, According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous. If it was actually the case that this made it seem as if they were the only ones that shared this opinion, it would be only necessary to list and attribute 1 or 2 more sources. But then reading the entire paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article I can see no reasonable basis for this conclusion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said.

Yes, it was. Read what you wrote again. It's just above, in bold print. I think my paraphrase of what you said conveys everything necessary to establish my point. Given the choice of me or someone else, I chose me.

Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it.

Exactly. Me, or someone else; as I said. I chose Me (that's the meat & potatoes of my comment, by the way) rather than leave it to someone else.

I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it.

Correct. You did not. But then, I didn't say you asked me to find someone else, either. But you sure killed that straw man dead. Cheers.

I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific.

No, you said "...be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." It's still right there, just a few paragraphs up. And I did not chose that option, I chose the option before the word "or".

Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it.

I suppose so, but they didn't. Perhaps they will chime in now and propose a fix, now that the problem has been even further clarified.

Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here.

Um, duh? (I know such an obvious sentence doesn't require a response, but I didn't want you to think I haven't "actually followed" what you were saying, or "cherry picked" what I respond to.)

And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it.

Following policy is a wise decision.

And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article."

I don't disagree with that at all. (But I also have no idea where you are going with that.)

We can move on.

Please!

What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said.

...and you smell bad, wear funny clothes and have a third nipple. (See? We can both say silly, unsubstantiated stuff. Can we get back to article improvement now?)

you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation.

No, I didn't ignore that. You ignored that and used the unnecessary title.

you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,". and the clutter is gone.

That is a brilliant idea; wish I'd thought of that. Oh, wait, I did. Then you put the clutter back.

As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that...

I would ask you why not, but I predict I'd get only silence from you. I asked you to explain why you deleted my Washington Post reference. Silence. I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support. Silence. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. Silence.

...how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do.

You are sticking to the "attribute others" plan? Okay, this is reliably sourced:

In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders".

That is not the best solution, however. More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if you agree.

To read this example, (example #3) and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous.

I agree, which is why I expressed surprise that you would apparently draw that conclusion and suggest "please do" add more attributions. The easiest solution to avoid making the "example #3" violation is to simply say that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY, and cite a couple of the best reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely WP:UNDUE - mind you that the article already calls Emerson "clearly a complete idiot" from someone with a history of making similar errors. No part of this is disinterest and I am done with all the bad faith accusations and desire to over-represent some tangential negative material and make it the bulk of a person's biography. Sorry, but - I'll wait until the battleground atmosphere is gone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, may I ask you to specify which of the above proposals you feel is WP:UNDUE? When having our article convey that Emerson has been described as "Islamophobic" and "discredited" (which he has to a significant enough degree that it warrants coverage in our article), what would you suggest? My preference (and I believe Misplaced Pages's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. However, another editor appears to prefer that we also convey (read: attribute) the sources, which are numerous and span the range from scholarly academic sources and top-tier news organizations to the lower-end watchdog groups, politicians, Muslim groups, rights advocates, etc. Perhaps you have a third option to suggest? The present wording in the page-protected version of the "Voiced concerns" paragraph violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by misleadingly attributing the negative descriptions to just one source. (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?")

I share your concern about the hyperbolic wording presently in the article (the "idiot" and "stupid" remarks from high-profile individuals). That is unencyclopedic content which will no doubt be replaced eventually by NPOV-compliant wording describing the remarks he made and the criticism it generated - without the shock-value quotes. There are many other obvious problems; why is there a 'controversies' section in a BLP? That's a no-no which will just become a collection pool of negative information. (The Boston & Birmingham paragraphs should be under the 'Voiced concerns' anyway.) Even the 'Reception' section is odd for an article about a person, rather than a film or a book. Why is Emerson described as Islamophobic in one section, an Islamophobe in another section, and his IPT organization described as advancing Islamophobic conspiracy theories in a third section, with different (or missing) explanation/rebuttal information in each? There are more problems as well, but I stray. I'm with you in hoping the battleground atmosphere goes away, but we're likely to have a long wait as long as editors are more concerned with other editors (nitpicking at what they say, reverting their edits wholesale, casting aspersions at them, etc.) instead of collaborative article improvement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Chris, I think this you have a great idea. Xenophoric, as to your question of why do I feel it's not misleading, I actually answered that. Again, reading the paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article, I find it unlikely. You are also misrepresenting that diff. I gave the position that mentioning the book was unnecessary. Personal opinion. No policy or guideline rationale, pretty much like you did. Such a rationale did not come until two or 3 days ago, after the revert. And this policy rationale only effects your position on cluttering. Your edit summary to the change I reverted indicated that you did it per BLP discussion. The talk here before that change doesn't indicate a clear consensus for your change. Your change wasn't attributed to removal of the cluttering. This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. If you have a policy basis for changes that present some clear rationale and you would like to discuss them then please share them, otherwise for me it would seem this conversation is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond for Xenophoric. Hi, Serialjoepsycho, and thank you for answering one of the five questions I've asked you recently; it's a start. Unfortunately, I've already seen the response you just gave about the misleading attribution, and I even said this about it above: (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?") So your repetition of the same thing doesn't advance the discussion. Of course you are welcome to your opinion that the misleading sentence is not misleading, but since Misplaced Pages policy gives that type of misleading sentence wording as an actual example of what not to do, we should follow policy over your personal opinion. I don't see in your comment any suggestion of how that can be improved. As for me "misrepresenting a diff", I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about which diff. The diff of me removing the attribution misleadingly (according to this BLPN discussion) indicating only a single source, and the associated clutter? Or the diff of you re-inserting the misleading attribution and unnecessary clutter? Some other diff from another editor? One comment of yours which gives me great hope and relief: This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. You asked me to share proposed changes, so I'll cut & paste one of the many from above: My preference (and I believe Misplaced Pages's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. Please let me know your thoughts on that format in general, and if acceptable we can fill in the specific text & citations. (Or not; there is no requirement that you participate at any article — but would hate to lose your familiarity with the subject matter.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Manohar Aich

Under "feats" is listed a squat of 300kg. This has no source and is almost definitely false - at 54kg the world record is 290kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.2.31 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as it was unsourced and far too promotional. If it is to be added back, sources will need to be provided. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Brandon Davies

On Brandon Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ballin890 insists that this should be removed from the article (note that this happened several times and you can look back through the history). He received several warnings, including a final warning and that was taken to AIV but referred back here. Ballin890 said in an edit summery that "Please keep that information out of Brandon Davies Misplaced Pages page. He has a family now and does not need to be remembered by a mistake he made when he was 19 years old. I understand it was in the media and still can b ", but when approached on his talk page he agreed to stop until it was settled, and at the time of this post hasn't gone back on that. Kharkiv07 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

At this time you can also see his contributions, as they're all related to the matter at hand. Kharkiv07 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the first few deletions. The user never responded in the article talk page, his talk page, my talk page or even in an edit summary until on the verge of being blocked. I feel like the information should be in the article. It is brief and not overly sensational, it was heavily covered in the American press at the time that it happened - literally by all major national sports news outlets and many non-sport news outlets - see results for simple Google search for "Brandon Davies dismissal" here). We keep much, much worse transgressions committed by public figures so long as they are properly sourced (note to my British friends - top-level college sports are covered at the same level in the US as top-level professional leagues in most countries). Taking it out not only feels like censorship, but it doesn't answer the question as to why he missed half a season. In addition to violating the 3RR, this editor has also now deleted all of the warnings on his talk page related to this and seems to be a COI case as well. Rikster2 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, I just made a new edit to this controversial section of the article. My rationale is explained in the edit summary. I invite everyone's review and comments. Townlake (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Townlake: Your edit mentioned "it references the SLTrib, which itself does not actually verify exactly what Davies did. " The SLTrib qualifies it's claim with "... The Salt Lake Tribune has learned." I don't see any reason to doubt that this major newspaper did not verify what it reported and should be considered slanderous. Its report from 2011 has become accepted as fact over time. For example, a 2014 article in the Los Angeles Times makes the same claim about Davies without qualification.. At the very least, this should be in the article attributed to the SLTrib. However, WP:NPOV advises: "Avoid stating facts as opinions."—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The LA Times "article" you linked to is a guy-at-the-bar opinion column that isn't even pretending to be journalism, so let's leave that aside. Your wide acceptance argument is flawed -- literally all the sources I saw for "Brandon Davies" and "premarital sex" eventually trace back to that anonymously-sourced SLTrib article. It's an article which I don't believe Davies has ever challenged, but maybe that's because Davies' real transgression was worse than what was reported? If all he did was diddle his girlfriend, why would he have been so distraught? We simply don't know enough. That article notes that the school refused to provide the details of the honor code violation, and the kid never talked about the specific issue publicly to my knowledge, so all you have to go on are unnamed sources who might or might not have full information. The SLTrib and the numerous other media organizations that cited to it as though the unnamed sources were gospel are allowed to have low fact-checking standards, but Misplaced Pages does not have that luxury, especially for BLPs. Do you disagree? Townlake (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Given its prevalence in sources years later, and the fact that the report has never been challenged, I think you are arguing to be conservative and attribute the report to SLTrib per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Another option is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which advises to use "alleged".—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's out entirely. It's a prurient detail that is unnecessary to understand the subject of the article, we have no way of evaluating the veracity of the claim since it was made anonymously, the organizations that could verify the claim have refused to, and the accuracy of the claim is relevant to the reputation of a living person. I might feel differently if this was a crime, but come on man... this is just about a college dude possibly diddling his girlfriend. That is unremarkable, and it doesn't need to be mentioned in his encyclopedia biography. In fact, for an LDS/BYU kid, having this scarlet letter-type idle gossip attached to his bio is probably more harmful than it would be for a non-Mormon. Townlake (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On top of the above, the school releasing the details of Davies' violation would have been a clear violation of FERPA, which usually forbids public disclosure of student disciplinary records in the absence of criminal activity. No wonder the SLTrib's sources wanted to be anonymous, and no wonder neither the school nor Davies went on record to clarify what actually happened. The fact that America's TMZ-esque sports media ate up the sketchy SL Trib story without questioning it doesn't mean we should do the same thing. Townlake (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd use more caution if it was WP:RSBREAKING, but years have passed. I wouldn't have a problem with saying "alleged" and giving the added detail. At any rate, if nobody else chimes in, at least we have agreement on leaving the undisputed part about violating the school's honor code.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the premarital sex story is not disputed. Read this story on Davies' first interview after the incident when he was returning to BYU. Personally, I think it can be in the story (adding "alleged" is fine if people feel more comfortable) with either the STL article or this one. The premarital sex angle is quite well known and a big part of the reason the story got coverage beyond sports press is because BYU's strong stance was so different from many schools'. Rikster2 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Townlake was uncomfortable that nobody has ever confirmed this on the record, but so much in journalism is off the record. It's the ones that get widely circulated and unchallenged that become accepted as fact. We can always worry that there was some fringe conspiracy theory, but I think we should generally just gauge whether the sources are reliable. I don't discount it simply because it is anonymous. There's a lot of gossip out there in general, but most are not circulated by multiple sources like this one. At worst, use "alleged", but unchallenged after many years, this seems as close to a fact as we ever get on things. Again, ""Avoid stating facts as opinions."—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bob Hall (Texas politician)

Incredibly biased article. Reads like a glowing biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.61.190 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've toned it down a bit, could probably benefit from more work.--ukexpat (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints, IP Editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any bias is the article. I visited to the page ready to balance it out and only made minor tweaks to some sentences. Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just linking to the article, no opinion here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John

I just wanted to raise this issue for comment here as the title Jihadi John obviously makes reference to the real Beatle, John Lennon. Lennon, being born within the last 115 years still falls into the remit of WP:BLP. I have never heard of a family member of those killed by Emwazi themselves make any reference to him by the name "Jihadi John" and I certainly haven't heard any politician use the name. We are left in an interesting situation in which, for all I know, no primary source makes use of this designation and where it seems to be an spin or fabrication of secondary sources. I was wondering whether anything could be done about this. There is currently an RM proposing to move the title to Mohammed Emwazi here and an RM associated with The Beatles (terrorist cell) here.

I also have a supposition that, in developing the article a sequence such as the following may have happened. An editor may have heard of relevant topic in the news that could be added to the Jihadi John article. The editor then does an internet search on "topic Jihadi John". They then add another Jihadi John focussed reference to the article.

Even with the source material referenced, the article seems to disproportionately push the name "Jihadi John". For instance, when I added the replacement text "The masked militant in beheading videos" here so as to give a more faithful representation of source material, this change was instantly reverted. It makes no sense to me. GregKaye 16:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If the name were "Jihadi John Lennon" then that would be more problematic. "John" is a very common name, so there's obviously nothing wrong with using the term "Jihadi John" at Misplaced Pages. The only issue is whether the name "Jihadi John" really needs to be explained as something more than alliteration. I don't see a problem with briefly explaining that at Misplaced Pages, even though Ringo is understandably displeased.. Like Ringo, we do not control the facts.*Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) *Except when it proves irresistible to enough editors and administrators.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not "the only issue". The main issue is whether the article should be called "Jihadi John" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP issue with the title of that article. It may be preferable to change the title, but not for BLP reasons. The current title does not obviously refer to John Lennon. Even if it did, bad people are named after good people all the time, such as John Wayne Gacy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think he's slightly different, as he was legally given that name by Mr and Mrs Gacey. (Although of course, his nickname may be considered offensive to certain circus workers and children's party entertainers). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, every case is slightly different. But fans of John Wayne are generally not thrilled to see the full name of their hero atop an article about a mass murderer. What Hollywood PR person would want that? Anyway, having opined, I'll kick back. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The BLP policy says: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." So, the policy could apply here only to "Jihadi John" and not to John Lennon (whose middle name, incidentally, referred to the British Prime Minister).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We are certainly grasping at straws here. WP:RECOGNIZABLE, Jihadi John is the most recognizable name for him. It might gain the annoyance of Beatles fans but that's not anything that remotely matters. Looking at the talk page this seems to be going into the realm of tendentious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably also annoys some hardline jihadists, being associated with that hippy crap. But aside from all that, we probably mostly know Ali Hassan al-Majid as "Chemical Ali", too. But there he is. Personally, I'd rather "Jihadi John". Catchy. But I'm not Misplaced Pages. Not really, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

I see no BLP issues because John Lennon is dead and has been known to be dead for quite some time. Which is the article vs which the redirect between Mohammed Emwazi and Jihadi John matters little but I personally prefer real names to nick names when they are known. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary source for validation of revocation of medical license at William C. Rader

William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is it appropriate to use a primary source to validate that someone's medical license has been revoked when we do not have third parties discussing it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a cut-and-dried case of WP:BLPPRIMARY to me. — Strongjam (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY merely advises caution when using primary sources, and the stated policy on WP:PRIMARY is as follows:

"Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

It is unequivocal that Rader had his license revoked for gross misconduct; there is no room for misinterpretation of this fact. One suggestion that I would make however, is to use a better primary source than the spreadsheet entry that was originally linked. The license revocation can also be confirmed by a secondary source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the revocation was for not following the standard of care and of being "unrepentant." "Gross misconduct" is not found in the actual revocation decision. In the case at hand, the reasoning is clear in the decision. Collect (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Conclusion 10 of the document was "gross negligence". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

Hello. User:Catflap08 keeps deleting reliably sourced information using a primary source that doesn't even say what Catflap alleges it does.

Background: Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai were excommunicated from Nichiren Shōshū in November 1991. Multiple sources (including one from the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies) currently on the page back this up.

Catflap is removing the "and the Soka Gakkai" portion of this equation, making it look like Daisaku Ikeda was singled out for excommunication. He wasn't. The entire organization was excommunicated. The source Catflap is using is purportedly the Nichiren Shōshū's official website But that source itself states the following:

After excommunicating the Soka Gakkai organization, Nichiren Shoshu made continuous efforts to guide compassionately the Gakkai members back to the correct path of faith and practice. For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers. Nichiren Shoshu, however, could not continue with this situation, where a Gakkai member who follows Daisaku Ikeda qualifies as a Nichiren Shoshu lay believer. Nichiren Shoshu doctrine strictly prohibits its laity to hold membership in other religious organizations. On September 30, 1997, Nichiren Shoshu officially decided to terminate the membership of the Gakkai followers. After Nichiren Shoshu extensively notified the Gakkai members of this decision through its in-house publication and other means, the provision that all Gakkai members would lose their standing as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers went into effect on December 1, 1997. Emphasis added.

Not only does the primary source not refute what was on the page, it actually supports it. As I said on the talk page: Soka Gakkai was excommunited in 1991, but individual members were still recognized as lay believers. Six years later, in 1997, the recognition was revoked. When I pointed this out, Catflap's retort was "I was there at the excommunication." While that does raise wp:COI questions, I still don't see where that supports his biased edit to the BLP.

Here's a link to the Talk page, with more info: AbuRuud (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Helooo I included refs by the guys who should know. I am no longer affiliated with either of the two. SGI’s leadership was expelled in 1991 the rest of the bunch in 1997.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Catflap deleted sourced information about the excommunication, not expulsion, of Soka Gakkai. They are two different things that he is seemingly conflating to POV push and make it look like Ikeda was the only one excommunicated.AbuRuud (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, who thinks "X was founded in 1914 and is a successor group to Y founded in 1881 and Z founded in 1885" means the same thing as "X was founded in 1880 under the name Y before changing its name to Z in 1884 and adopting its current name in 1914", should not be taken at his word when it comes to the difference between word meanings. And no, those dates are not misprinted -- he really does appear to have pulled "1881" and "1885" out of his nose. The same abuse of sources is problematic for other reasons. Note that the recent edit war on the Ikeda article involved Catflap claiming a source that doesn't even mention "November 28, 1991" anywhere, and doesn't specifically mention Ikeda being excommunicated either, should be attached to the statement Ikeda was excommunicated by Nichiren Shoshu on November 28, 1991.

I would say that this abuse of sources and the serious CIR issues on display should make Catflap a candidate for an indefinite TBAN on BLPs, if I didn't already think he should be indefinitely blocked for the same reasons.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusive behavior is typical of Catflap08. He reverted my edits to the Daisaku Ikeda article in January, even though my contributions were well researched and properly sourced. Catflap08 continually insisted that false and libelous information stay in the BLP about Daisaku Ikeda even though all sources showed it was false and libelous, including the sources Catflap08 himself referenced. Catflap08 refused to allow proper edits and, after being confronted by other users, Catflap08 started a dispute resolution in which he mischievously never named me / never notified me, even though my edits started the dispute. Only at the end of the noticeboard discussion did someone else add me to it out of courtesy, and ultimately the libelous falsehood was removed (although there's still lots of false information in the text that Catflap08 insists on maintaining).

Catflap08 has repeatedly admitted bias against Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai-related topics, and as such should be banned from continually reverting the proper edits of others to suit his own agenda. Catflap08 is the cause of nearly every Talk Page dispute related to Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai. It appears that Catflap08 feels ownership over these topics, against which he has an axe to grind, and his antagonistic behavior shows he is determined to stop anyone else from improving the articles too. His ongoing Wikihounding antics and long-standing biased behavior should qualify Catflap08 for TBAN from Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai-related articles, and perhaps from all BLPs on Misplaced Pages.Elemential1 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here really doesn't relate so much to BLP as the continuation, or lack of same, of substantially similar religious or parareligious movements with different names. Unfortunately, this is a not uncommon problem regarding some religious groups, which have been known to change their name and possibly/probably other details over the years, often with the change of name being the only substantive change in the group itself. This can be problematic if the change in name is not generally seen by independent reliable sources as being sufficient to differentiate between the differently-named entities in question. Other examples which come to mind almost immediately are the Church Rising and Triumphant/Church Universal and Triumphant, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Community of Christ, the various adventist groups, and others. A more directly comparable case might be the recent schism in the Armenian Apostolic Church. If it is the case here that the different in name is not seen by others as being sufficient reason to believe the groups themselves are substantially different, then there is no reason why we would necessarily be obligated to observe a differentiation not broadly recognized by independent sources. I would think the best thing to do here would be to ask @Shii: and other editors familiar with Buddhism or Japan in general whether the change of name is sufficient to indicate a change in group structure, or, perhaps, start an RfC on the issue to determine how to proceed. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that multiple reliable sources state that Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai were excommunicated at the same time, but Catflap continues to remove the "and Soka Gakkai" part to POV push on a BLP.AbuRuud (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there is a question regarding the relevance of the "and Soka Gakkai" material, which is possibly, but not necessarily, directly relevant to the biography of an individual, and the seeming jump to conclusions about the motivations of that editor, which now two editors here have made. WP:AGF would, I think, reasonably apply that an individual who is trying to keep material not necessarily directly relevant to the topic of an individual article is acting in good faith. In all honesty, I find it all but impossible to believe that it is necessarily POV pushing, as two people in this thread have now alleged, to say that material of dubious relevance to the specific article in question has to be included in the interests of some alleged POV violation otherwise. The rather explicit jump to assuming bad faith on the part of two editors here is I believe potentially extremely problematic. And, FWIW, I remember seeing that there is a question regarding the possible differentiation between SG and SGI on the talk page. That raises yet another possibly problematic aspect. The best and I think most reasonable way to handle this would be through an RfC, regarding the specific phrasing of the sentence or broader content to be included, and the reasons for preferring or not preferring one to the other offered at the start of the RfC. But I cannot honestly believe that the assumption of bad faith explicit in the above, particularly without specific diffs to support them, which have not been produced, in any way necessarily provides sufficient reason to believe that there are any violations of BLP by attempting to exclude material of at best dubious relevance to the specific subject of a given BLP article. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08's tactics are to add biased and false information to articles, text that doesn't appear in the sources Catflap08 cites (or any other reliable source). The sources do not state Daisaku Ikeda was excommunicated, but that the entire Soka Gakkai was. In the previous case I noted, no source stated that Ikeda struck anyone, but Catflap08 insisted on keeping it in the text even after it was proven false and libelous, which should be immediately deleted WP:LIBEL. If an editor admits bias against a living person then continually frames facts in articles in a negative light against that person, as Catflap08 does, even when sources state differently, that is the definition of bad faith editing.Elemential1 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the sources don't specifically say DI was personally excommunicated, then I have serious questions seeing how any mention necessarily meets BLP requirements. I say this as someone who has reviewed a lot of content regarding Christian schisms and other reigious persecutions, where, in at least some cases where it has been said "X and his followers" or "the Z's" are sanctioned in some way, the lack of individual naming makes it problematic to say "person Y is a follower of X," and in at least some cases makes it possible for various persons "Y" to say that "I'm not a follower of X" or "one of the Z's" (or, maybe, that I am not any longer - linguistic matters can enter in here) and in that can create all sorts of difficulties in determining exactly who did and did not get specifically included in the sanctions. And, I regret to say, unfortunately, your second statement actually is rather poorly supported by policy. If reliable sources say something, honestly, whether that is later found true or false, it can be and sometimes is appropriate to include it, if it meets WEIGHT concerns for the article in question. The first paragraph of Tom Cruise#Litigation, and the history of that article prior to the filing of the lawsuit (I think, I actually haven't checked) provide an indicator of that. The determining factor seems to be how widely the libel/slander is discussed in independent reliable sources. Granted, all articles and topics are different in that regard, but it clearly is not the case that all false information must necessarily be excluded. So, honestly, I regret to say that the explicit assumption of bad faith now made by at least three separate editors seems, once again, to be perhaps dubiously based in policies and guidelines, and that perhaps the explicit failure to assume good faith on that group may be at least as big a problem as any that they are collectively raising. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to explain how the following passage can be interpreted as saying that "the entire Soka Gakkai was" excommunicated:

For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers.

The rest of the talk page is mere name-calling, so it didn't help me. Shii (tock) 23:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That passage doesn't say "the entire Soka Gakkai" was excommunicated, but it lends credence to the other (better sourced) references that state the entire Soka Gakkai was excommunicated in 1991. See especially Métraux, Daniel A., "The Dispute Between the Soka Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood: A Lay Revolution Against a Conservative Clergy", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1992, 19/4, pp. 328 and 330 At this point, the dispute is a little convoluted. Please let me attempt to summarize:

1. The page said Ikeda and SG were excommunicated in 1991 (see the Métraux article for proof)
2. User:Catflap08 deleted the "...and SG" stating that they weren't excommunicated in '91, using the reference you're citing. Which doesn't say that SG was excommunicated in 1997.
3. I pointed out that the reference Catflap08 used (and which you questioned) dated "the excommunication" to six years prior to December 1997. So that passage actually implies the opposite of what he alleged (i.e., that "the excommunication" happened in 1997).

The argument about that passage tangential argument that requires some intepretation of the sources, yes. But it's really not necessary to the original debate anyway. The original debate is: Does Catflap's source justify the deletion of reliably sourced information on the page? The answer is no. There is no debate when Ikeda was excommunicated in 91/92. The question is whether or not he was the only SG member to be excommunicated at that time. The answer is no.AbuRuud (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the source quoted by Shii seems to me to specifically contradict any sort of statement to the effect that the "entire" SG was excommunicated, as it seems to rather clearly state that at least some members of SG were still regarded as within the communion. And, actually, I have to say that the final paragraph above is not necessarily helpful. There seem to be to be serious questions whether the RS, as per Shii's quote, agree on whether the members were excommunicated, or whether they by their own actions basically withdrew their membership. There is a significant difference between the two. There also is apparently still a reasonable BLP concern regarding whether Ikeda himself was ever in a formal way excommunicated. If he actively retained membership in SG after the excommunication order was lifted, he may have been treated as out of body convert, but that is not the same thing as excommunication, which is a specifically institutional act as per the first sentence of that article. Therefore, I repeat, I at least see the following problems still remaining:

1) Was Ikeda individually ever formally excommunicated, as per that definition? So far as I can see, no. A more accurate statement, so far as I can tell, might be that those SG was expelled from NS, which addresses what some might consider a legalistic but real and in the cases of BLPs significant fact.

2) Under the circumstances, considering the dubious applicability of the term excommunication and the rather more nebulous term "expulsion," it might be good to indicate what specific effects such an expulsion has in this particular case somewhere. Particularly considering that many if not maybe most of the people expelled might still be living, and that BLP would apply to all of them. Has that been done?

3) But, in all honesty, it seems to me that perhaps the most relevant clearly relevant term here is neither excommunication or expulsion, but apostasy, which term emphasizes the fact that it is the individual him or herself who basically removes themselves from the early group. As i have seen no clearcut indication that a real list of names of excommunicated individuals was ever presented, but please point to where it if it was, the impression I get is that this is most similar to some of the Christian schisms where, basically, the church being schismed from says "you guys aren't in our group anymore," and the schismatics say, "OK, fine by us." Such tends to better be described by the term apostasy. Another term which is used in some cases is "religious conversion," and that might be relevant, but it at least strongly implies the extend of well-defined denominations, and I'm not sure the evidence required for that has yet been presented. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though I have announced my retirement on my talk page. Also due to issues like this one and dealing with editors with a … well what should I say … a problem? On a final note please excuse my foul language but saying that Ikeda was excommunicated along with SG/SGI is simply bullshitting – sorry again. Call it excommunication (a term I find irritating to be used in a Buddhist concept) or expulsion. I myself am by no means a reliable source but I was an adherent of Gakkai at the time – not any more thank goodness. In 1991/92 it was Ikeda and the Gakkai leadership that were expelled, excluded, excommunicated or what have you from Nichiren Shoshu. In effect that means they were not allowed to enter the high temple grounds. It was not until 1997 that the complete Gakkai membership i.e. the Norman Normal Gakkai member were also not allowed to enter temple grounds. I admit that to the willing flock of Gakkai adherents it was always portrayed as that we all since the early 90’s lost our standing as Nichiren Shoshu adherents but it was not until 1997 that there was an official seal to that --- which at the time came as a surprise since we were all cut off from official temple information anyway. So concerning the wording it might be a good idea to use the term regarded as adherents of … as from 1991/92 Ikeda and Gakkai lesdership were not regarded as Nichiren Shoshu adherents and as from 1997 all those who had not signed with an official Nichiren Shoshu temple were also not regarded Nichiren Shoshu adherents anymore. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: In any event I welcome seeing for the first time I think a clear indication of the practical considerations involved in being expelled, specifically, not being any longer allowed to enter (I'm guessing) NS temple grounds. Logically, it would only be at from that point that any sort of recognized excommunication/expulsion could be said to have taken place, as they were, at least theoretically, still able to take part in events on the temple grounds before then as members of the community. The one question I guess which remains open regarding that is specifically how did the temple know who was and was not to be excluded? Was there some sort of list, or was a self-declaration of some sort involved, or something else? John Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

Does

RS criticizing Cheney as a draft dodger, a “self-confessed draft dodger”.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

fall under WP:BLP noting that "draft-dodger" is an accusation of a crime? ("Refusing to submit to the draft is considered a criminal offense in most countries where conscription is in effect.") I note that there is no source quoting Cheney as saying he was a "draft dodger" - the "self-confessed" source is "A Bush & Botox World" by Saul Landau; AK Press, 2007 - Political Science - 301 pages. That source appears to be " AK Press is a worker-managed independent publisher and book distributor that specialises in radical left and anarchist literature. It is collectively owned and operated." which fails WP:RS no matter who looks at it. Thus using a non-RS source to make a criminal charge about a living person I think might run afoul of policy here.

The editor of course posted

Collect You know that you are supposed to raise BLP claims at the BLP board after deleting text on the basis of a claimed violation of BLP. You need to start following that directive and stop making unilateral pronouncements on such matters.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As that editor is the one who always says WP:CRYBLP is his favourite essay :), I trust that his demand that I prove that making criminal charges about living persons is covered by this actual policy will be adequately noted. Collect (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the unreliable source for "self-confessed draft-dodger",Saul Landau: He was one of the leaders of the Institute for Policy Studies, whose anti-"militarist" conspiracy-theoretic rightwatch is being added to many BLPs. LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it falls under the BLP policy, but are you asking if the policy prevents the source from being used, the answer is no. Clearly though, editors should not be poring over sources just to glean nasty things to call BLP subjects. Is Cheney widely-known as someone who avoided the draft? If so, it may be worth mentioning in proper context and without sensationalistic labels.

You two really need to develop some level of mutual respect and stop belittling each other. This behavior is embarrassing to the project, and it's disruptive.- MrX 15:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheney is characterized as a "chicken-hawk", "draft dodger", "self-confessed draft dodger".

The other sources include one by academic historian Joseph R. Conlin, a “self-confessed draft dodger”.

MrX I've simply asked Collect to follow what I believe is the correct procedure. I'm not alone in having doubts about the applicability of BLP here. The "accusation of a crime" angle has first been seen by me here, because Collect does not generally describe his claims of BLP violations in detail.

Please clarify how this violates BLP and how the sources could be used. Note that the text was not inserted in the article by me, and was used in reference to PNAC, with Cheney as a member.

The British MP making the statement against the war seems notable, as well as his characterizations, so is it a policy that "pejoratives" are not used in BLPs? In that case, simply paraphrase the sources and cite them?

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:37, 15:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What encyclopedic content are you proposing that would depend on those sources? Just because something is not a BLP violation doesn't mean that it belongs in a biography.- MrX 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The article in question isn't a biography, it's Project for the New American Century. The mention of Cheney is incidental to the point being made, which is that critics of the org. have criticized its members for being pro-war but avoiding service themselves. I don't love that section of the article myself but my two cents is that it's clearly marked as 1 persons opinion, is reliably sourced, and makes an accusation re Cheney that many other RS have made or noted. so I'm not sure where the BLP problem is. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles and all Wiki pages where living persons are being discussed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Roger that - I didn't mean to suggest that the policy doesn't apply, was just trying to answer Mr. X's question about what the quote is being used for.Fyddlestix (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean Project for a New American Century? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yup, fixed it, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Delete this whole correction (for posterity), if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

The quote from the British MP speaking for itself seems fine to me in the PNAC article. It addessed Cheney but also the illegitimate warmongering to invade Iraq. If it's not a BLP violation then it should be restored as far as I can tell. It is a criticism relevant to PNAC, first and foremost ("right-wing think tanks"), and Cheney as a prominent member of that organization that promoted the invasion of Iraq, and as the VP.

Here is a peer-reviewd source that notes both Newsweek and The Nation with respect to the "chickenhawks" characterization, and also mentions avoiding the draft.War Beyond the Battlefield, edited by David Grondin, Routledge, 2012

When I checked the Cheney BLP and noticed there wasn't anything there, and then checked the talk page to see the "Wikiganda" section, I decided to post the citations and quote there. I think you wording about "being criticized for avoiding the draft would be more appropriate for the BLP, but the quotes and more pejorative characterizations by mainstream sources seem appropriate to me on the PNAC article.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheney got five deferments, four for being a student, and then one for being a new father. Certainly that's worth mentioning in the Cheney article. It would also make him a chicken hawk, provided he deliberately went to school --- or reproduced --- to avoid the draft. Therefore, if a reliable source asserts that those things were done for that purpose, then by all means include the chickenhawk accusation in Cheney's article; in contrast, unsupported accusations of being a "chickenhawk" are about as BLP-compliant as other unsupported accusations ("scumbag," "dumbass," et cetera). If the "chickenhawk" accusation is included, then any defense by Cheney should perhaps be included too, for example if he ever defended himself by saying that Vietnam was an unjustified and poorly executed war whereas the ones that he started were marvels of good planning and good intentions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link, I've just wiklinked to the correct article (even though the meaning is defined in the quote).--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted, per WP:MOS, following recent warnings from Bishonen (talk · contribs) and myself (noted on talk page of PNAC). LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 11:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

An en passant quote "I had better things to do" is not being a "self-c0nfessed drat-dodger" by a mile. Accusing a person of being a "draft dodger" is, in fact, an accusation of a crime. "I had better things to do" is not an admission of a criminal act. Period. Collect (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You removed part of the quote, which was selectively incomplete to begin with. The rest of the quote should probably be removed until the dispute is settled.- MrX 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, no point in keeping a gutted quote. I'll remove it for now - but I must say I'm disappointed to see Collect editing it this way when he clearly does not have consensus to do so, either here or on the talk page, and knows full well that the edit will be controversial. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Where anything is a violation of WP:BLP (such as making a claim of criminal activity) the policy requires removal. Following absolute policy is not "controversial" - it is violating policy which is "controversial." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the policy is, that's not the issue here. The issue is that myself and several other editors think you're being over-zealous in your interpretation of BLP policy, and that the quote isn't a violation. I've repeatedly asked you explain in greater detail exactly which BLP policy the quote runs afoul of, and there has been considerable evidence presented both here and on the article talk page which suggests that the allegation is widely made/repeated in numerous reliable sources. That it is not a violation of BLP policy. I'd urge you to read and engage with the arguments other people are making, instead of assuming that your personal interpretation of BLP policy gives you license to ignore and override the input of other editors. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To expand on this with a more specific point: I think you're off-base to suggest that calling someone a "draft dodger" is an accusation of crime - look the term up in dictionaries and you'll find that while some of them specify that "draft dodging" refers to illegal draft evasion, others have a much broader definition, which includes seeking deferments and other exemptions. The OED, for example, defines "draft dodger" simply as "a person who has avoided compulsory military service" - with no requirement that the tactic used to avoid the draft be illegal. As popularly/widely used, the word "draft dodger" does not necessarily refer to someone who broke the law, and you're over-reaching by calling this a "claim of criminal activity." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disappointment is part of life, but it often stems from inflated expectations or misapprehensions---the latter being relevant here. Collect and all other editors are requested immediately remove any BLP-violations. Period.

Speaking of BLP violations, the Jew-labeling continues at PNAC-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland---as an added payback, the names of their minor children are being added, once again. Anybody who cares about BLP should help out. (And this has been going on since 2008.)
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 15:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming that the quote is/was an actual BLP violation. As far as I can tell, however, you and Collect are the only people who've tried to spin it that way. Plenty of other editors have expressed the opinion that there's nothing wrong with the quote. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the assertion that it is an "accusation of a crime" is not sustainable, because it is common parlance for avoiding the draft as well.

Deleting the material against consensus would seem to be problematic insofar as there has not been a determination here that it represents a BLP violation, which serves as the basis for the removal.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a BLP violation to include accusations of "draft-dodging" or being a "chickenhawk" while excluding reliable sources that call such charges "ridiculous".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So you would support "ridiculous draft-dodging chickenhawk"? - MrX 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost. :(Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Draft dodging" is, indeed, a criminal offense. Contentious claims, such as a person calling another person a criminal, do fall under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Draft dodging" has, as far as I know, no legal definition. It's a colloquial term that covers everything from fleeing to Canada to gaming the system. As such, "draft dodging" does not necessarily imply a crime. And regardless of that, we are perfectly able to include reliably sourced notable accusations, as long as we don't adopt them in Misplaced Pages's voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See . It most definitely has direct criminal implications. In fact, were it not a crime, Carter's pardon would have been meaningless, indeed. And we do not generally include allegations of crimes where no indictment or prosecution has been made at all, other than the few cases where the person died during commission of a crime. See Clay v. United States inter alia. Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't find anything relevant in either of your links. Yes, of course there are activities that are covered by the colloquial term "draft dodging" that the US considers criminal. But not all such activities are - arguably, your link to Ali is an example where "draft dodging" was found to be no crime. So is Cheney's case - apparently legal, but maybe morally iffy. Carter did not pardon all "draft dodgers", he "pardoned certain persons who, during the Vietnam War era, violated the Military Selective Service Act by draft-evasion acts or omissions committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973" , a much more select group than "draft dodgers". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The opinion source said Cheney was a "self-confessed draft dodger" but no source has Cheney making that claim, therefore the "self-confessed" bit is clearly errant (the person making the claim quoted Cheney as saying he "had better things to do" which is not a claim that a person dodged the draft AFAICT. In point of fact, there is no indication Cheney did anything "morally iffy" either - the charge is clearly politically made, and not made on the basis of fact. . It is clear, moreover, that calling a person a "draft dodger" was and is a "contentious claim". Unless you feel that such a charge is not "contentious"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your link to answers.com above - the first non-ad paragraph there is, to be generous, grammatically and orthographically challenged, and the site does not seem to be a reliable source at all. Could you explain what I should learn from this link? As for the rest: Where did those goal posts go? Are we still talking about the same thing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Numerous sources cite Cheney's statement(s) in one form or another in relation to the allegation of "draft dodging", "avoiding the draft", etc. None of them accuses him of committing a crime in that regard, though.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose in this BLP of the language in any event - given that I at least view the language as quite contentious? Is there a specific actual purpose which you intend the language to have? found that calling a person a "draft dodger" was defamatory per se. saying "draft dodger" was "defamatory". And so on. I would have thought anyone who was alive during the 60s would have been well aware of the connotations of "draft dodger" though. Collect (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have the feeling that you just throw some dragnet search terms into Google Books and post anything that at the first glance seems to support some kind of argument that is only loosely connected with the discussion at hand. Your second source deals with a different term with a similar meaning used in WW1, a very different situation. Your first source is at least more apropos, but it is more than a generation out of date. And it does not support your point - the page 368 snippet only found that calling someone a draft dodger was defamatory in a very particular situation, namely when made to a prospective business associate who was an ex-military man who had lost many friends in the military. The "per se" is not part of that context, but is in the apparently unrelated second column, at least in what Google shows me. The second snippet (page 371) makes no claim either way. And the third snippet, page 63, actually nearly verbatim repeats my argument - that the term is not defamatory per se, because it is ambiguous.

There is no prohibition against "contentious statements" anywhere, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, as long as they are reliably sourced and notable. I have no opinion (yet) on that aspect, but I do strongly object to what looks like an attempt to bypass the substantive discussion by making wrong and irrelevant assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Roderick Scott

To whoever this concerns,

I'm trying to create an equal opportunity for Mr. Roderick Scot as it appears on Misplaced Pages as they compare to Mr. George Zimmerman. It appears Mr. Scot has significantly less information compared to Mr. Zimmerman - most likely due to the high profiled issues. If you would please post more info in an unbiased manner I would be most appreciative. Mr. Scot has significantly less in his bio than what he should be given credit to. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRC1015 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Our article on Roderick Scott refers to a retired football player and I'm unclear how that relates to George Zimmerman. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the Roderick Scott who was acquitted on manslaughter charges in 2009, rather than the Roderick Scott (a former Canadian soccer player) we have an article on. If so, I have to suggest that 'equal opportunities' have no bearing on the matter - what matters is the depth of coverage in published reliable sources. The Scott case seems to have attracted relatively little media attention, and accordingly there is little to base an article on - and the details were very different from the Zimmerman case anyway, so the comparison is of little relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Land Tawney

Land Tawney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A newly-created biography of a "liberal activist" that came to my attention via a post on the COI noticeboard . It reads like an attack piece in my opinion, and does little to establish the individual's notability. I'm tempted to at least PROD it, but would welcome a second opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

All this article is at the moment is a WP:COATRACK for fringe right-wing talking points, but once those are scrapped, there are a handful of reliable sources that'd probably let it scrape by WP:N. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note COIN discussion Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Environmental_organization_articles. This is messy. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin and libelous descriptors

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we say at G. Edward Griffin that he and his book "promotes conspiracy theories"? Consensus on the talk page says we can, but as an outsider to the article before a few days ago, it concerned me as potentially libelous since he describes his book as factual. Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories" to describe his other works. The subject himself has stated the the term is a pejorative: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected." Misplaced Pages BLP rules demand that we reject it too. The pros and cons of his book on the Federal Reserve are discussed in an appropriate section, this debate is about the lede. UPDATE: The word "quackery" has just been restored to the BLP which I find libelous. There already was a qualifying statement the the FDA found the drug ineffective which is neutrally worded. I was listening to an interview with Penn Jillette a few days ago and he told about how they could not use the word "quack" on their show Bullshit! because it was libelous, so they so they had a sord of ducks roaming the set making the duck noise, without themselves using the word. BLP rules demand it be removed, but a not previously-involved editor needs to get involved. Consensus should not be allowed to override using such a strong and libelous word, when neutral wording already exists that does not libel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "if one calls people liars and quacks one can be sued ... but 'assholes' is pretty safe. If we said it was all scams we could also be in trouble, but 'bullshit,' oddly, is safe." - Penn Jillette.

"American magician, juggler, comedian, musician, inventor, actor, and best-selling author" -- I don't see lawyer in that list. Not exactly an authority on libel, I'd say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• You do not need to be a lawyer to recognize libel, ultimately a jury of 9 non-lawyers decide when it is brought to a courtroom. I doubt that any of the editors that will decide this incident are lawyers either. Even if they are lawyers, I doubt they are libel lawyers. Even if they are libel lawyers, I doubt that they are libel lawyers representing the Wikimedia Foundation. This isn't a legal decision involving lawyers, it is about enforcing the Misplaced Pages rule: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." Even the chatter on the talk page calling him a crank should be removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid the use of contentious labels in a BLP but in the rare instances they are included, such use should require RS with inline text attribution. Contentious labeling has been an ongoing debate at Griffin, giving rise to numerous debates. The first RfC determined the use of the label conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the lead to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. I don't understand why it wouldn't also be considered noncompliant throughout the article. Far better terminology would be words like perceived conspiracy, or controversial topics or conspiratorial view. I oppose the use of promotes conspiracy theories, or is a conspiracy theorist because they are pejorative terms. The same applies to quackery and crank. I also oppose using such contentious material as section titles. As an involved editor at Griffin since 12/10/14, I'll wrap it up here to make room for input from new blood. Atsme☯ 02:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The words should never be used for a living person, you can always fish around till you find someone that uses libelous language and then provide a reference to that source, but that is still libelous. It is just repeating libel. You don't say someone is a quack or supporting quackery. You say they support alternative medicine which has not been found to be clinically efficacious. You use the language of an encyclopedia. In a few keystrokes I can find racial epithets in reliable sources describing the president of the United States, they are still libelous and unencyclopedic, even when coming from reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well stated, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Thank you. Atsme☯ 16:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jo Frost

Jo Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Long-term, ongoing issues with IP-based editors making advertorial and promotional edits. Comments left for IP-based editors and throwaway accounts are ignored. May eventually request semi-protection but additional watchers would be appreciated. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma SAE incident

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I'm sure most people have heard, there was an incident at the University of Oklahoma concerning a song sung by members of this fraternity which resulted in the chapter being shut down and two students being expelled. There are other issues that might raise BLP concerns, but my question focuses on these issues:

• Is the assertion that the constitutional rights of the expelled students were violated subject to BLP?

  I suspect that it is, since expulsion is the action of a living person (OU President David Boren)

• Are the sources sufficient to support the assertions about Boren's actions
• And if it is, is the following assertion an acceptable summary of the cited sources?

Some scholars have raised issues related to protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. First Amendment law specialist and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asserted that President Boren's actions were unconstitutional and that the University had no legal right to expel the students. Oklahoma State University media law associate professor Joey Senat stated that the chant was offensive but is still protected free speech.

References

1. Volokh, Eugene (10 March 2015). "No, a public university may not expel students for racist speech". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
2. "Expelled University of Oklahoma student in racist chant video 'deeply sorry'". Los Angeles Times. 10 March 2015. Retrieved 10 March 2015.

Accusing someone of violating another's constitutional rights is a serious accusation, and the sources feel light-weight in that regard. But Volokh is an expert here. And yet - his opinion is in an Op-Ed. The LA Times article has a counterpoint defence of Boren, but it's not in the article. Should it be?

I don't have an outcome I'm looking for people to support or shoot down. But I'm very interested in what thoughts people here might think. Guettarda (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember than Misplaced Pages is not censored. This is cited by prominent scholars and thus should not be redacted.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as the opinions are attributed I think it's appropriate to report them, as well as appropriate balancing with contrary viewpoints as reported in major media. This issue has been widely discussed and reported; from the first page of GNews, here's The New York Times ("Expulsion of Two Oklahoma Students Over Video Leads to Free Speech Debate"), here's Al Jazeera ("Univ. of Oklahoma expulsions infringe free speech rights, experts say"). This is an important part of the controversy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

List_of_state_and_local_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

A one-shot IP removed an item from the list. Another editor has restored it. Forgetting the IP's legal threat (for which he has been blocked), my question here is: If a guy is charged but charges are dismissed, is it a BLP violation to include it in the list? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That is one of the perennial BLP questions. In the past the question has been rephrased as "did the incident have a lasting impact on the individual's career or life?" In this case I suppose that's applicable since he resigned from office. In any event, we should be following up and adding balancing information whenever possible. To me that entire article is a big violation of WP:NPF. Blue links already cover the "scandals" for each individual so we should not be documenting more of them when they involve people that don't merit a standalone article to begin with, especially given the subject matter. §FreeRangeFrog 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the main problem here is guilt by association. The people who did really scandalous stuff are mixed in with the people who were wrongly accused. Misplaced Pages already has lists like List of wrongful convictions in the United States and List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. Imagine the uproar if we instead had List of wrongful convictions in the United States mixed with the rightful convictions or List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes mixed up with acquittals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• That list is a mess. So many BLP violations and some very ambiguous inclusion criteria. Some pretty POV narratives too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert—and have never really given WP:BLP a thorough read—but it seems a list like that, which is prone to being outdated as we saw here, is more trouble than it's worth and might result in unintentional BLP violations simply by the passage of time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 22 Adar 5775 04:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, WP:BLP requires that we avoid doing harm to living persons. This "list" seems specifically intended to "do harm" to living persons. In short, we should delete such "lists" whose sole aim is to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. (I grant an exception for people killed while committing violent crimes, but that is a small minority). Collect (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Symptomatic of wider problem

Many of the same issues apply to the following lists, and probably others:

• List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States
• List of federal political scandals in the United States
• List of state and local political scandals in the United States
• List of federal political sex scandals in the United States
• List of international political sex scandals

Here are some parts of WP:BLP that seem relevant:

(1) "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.

(2) "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many of these entries characterize scandalous behavior as fact rather than allegation.

(3) "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Many of these entries involve accusations of criminal behavior for which there has been no conviction, and yet they are characterized as scandals and mixed in with incidents that have resulted in convictions.

(4) "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." There is inherent guilt by association here, because acquitted people, and people who have merely been accused, are listed together with convicted people.

(5) "iographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It is not fair to list people here who have merely been accused, together with people who have been convicted.

(6) "Misplaced Pages articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." A list focusing exclusively upon scandals is inherently improperly weighted.

(7) "Categories regarding ... sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the ... orientation in question.... Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident ... the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to lists...." Many of the people listed were not convicted, and many of the alleged incidents are indicative of orientation without any indication of self-identification.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC Bush List

List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century (since renamed to List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush)

Lists people who signed a letter which was created by people in PNAC as being "strongly associated with PNAC." I would note this is the very essence of "guilt by association" and SYNTH - asserting that anyone who has ever signed a letter from a group is now a "member" of such a group or "strongly associated" with the group. For a person to be "strongly associated with any group" requires more than "he signed a letter". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since you failed to notify any of the concerned parties I have done so. Jbh (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):If there are no sources that clearly bring these people under the umbrella of PNAC and Bush, it may be a conjectural interpretation of a source(s). Lists need to have sources for the overall subject of the list that corresponds with the inclusion criteria. In its simplest form, that means that reliable sources have published such a list, or discussed the members of the list in the context of PNAC and Bush.- MrX 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Each of the connections, as far as I know/can tell, has been reliably sourced. Collect just refuses to accept/acknowledge those sources, and refuses to clearly explain where the "SYNTH" is, even when repeatedly and directly asked to do so, and after having it repeatedly explained to him that the table is not drawing unsourced conclusions or connections. See the links in my post below if you can stand to read through it all, but that's basically my understanding of the situation. This has been discussed many times over, Collect just stops engaging and starts a new discussion elsewhere whenever someone asks him to make a more specific argument or clearly explain where the "synth" is. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss this again? It's been discussed here already, as well as here and here and here at (great) length. There are sources that clearly indicate each of these individuals' connections to both PNAC and the Bush Administration, and there are other sources which clearly indicate that the Bush Admin and PNAC had many personal connections/shared many personnel in general terms (I can link some of them here, but they've already been cited and linked repeatedly in the discussions I just linked. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this the kind of source you are looking for? From Gonzalez, George A. Energy and Empire SUNY Press pp.72ff"Signers of were placed within key foreign pilicy-making positions within the George W, Bush administration." The source goes on to list Donald Rumsfeld and ten of the seventeen other signers: Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr, Robert B. Zoellick, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard perle and John Bolton. Later on the same page:"The most significant PNAC member in the Bush administration... was Vice President Dick Cheney" There are many similar things in RS but this seems pretty clear.Jbh (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anybody writing about "member" of PNAC is not serious, even if it got published by a weak university press. PNAC is a contentious topic, and anybody who cares about the encyclopedia should be using only high quality sources, instead of knowingly citing junk to support their POV.

There is no point trying to edit such articles.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The reliably published statements in peer-reviewed academic sources are highly valued in the content creation endeavor here per WP:RS. The people published in those books are, in fact, very serious people, and you are not in a position to say otherwise. Even if you were to find a mistake in their text, all you should do is point that out so that it's relevance can be collaboratively ascertained.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

{ec}} The State University of New York (SUNY) press "a weak university press" the mind boggles. Jbh (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's a peer reviewed, academic book. It is a "high quality source," and I think you should probably strike your allegation that any of us are "knowingly citing junk to support their POV." Fyddlestix (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Article seems to serve no purpose other than for left wing zealots to promote some sort of quasi conspiracy theory. I guess this harkens back to when Dick Cheney was considered to be Darth Vader by the childish and ignorant left so these must all be Imperial Storm Troopers or something. Only an adolescent mind would find this SYNTH violation and possible BLP violation to be even slightly enlightening.--MONGO 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, who exactly are these "left wing zealots" and "adolescent minds" that you speak of? And where, exactly, is this "sort of quasi conspiracy theory" you speak of? I see no such thing in this article or in the PNAC one. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Collect: I'm not clear on the nature of the BLP concern here. Is the existence of the list a BLP violation in your view? Or are there specific people whom you view as inappropriately included? If the latter, please specify so that your concern can be addressed constructively. MastCell  17:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you feel that we should ever label living persons as being members of any organization based on their signing a single letter which is said to be from that organization? I do not care what the organization is -- but I rather feel it is not up to us to define anyone as a "member" of anything without a strong source for that membership. Perhaps some feel that we can label people as being members without a real source - but I do not agree with that interesting position. Collect (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • So calling them 'Signers of PNAC Policy Letters' is OK with you? Jbh (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @Collect: I can think of instances where it would be appropriate, and instances where it would not. That seems like a red herring, though, since it appears that in this case many of the list members are identified because reliable secondary sources associate them with PNAC. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but you didn't answer my question: do you object to the list as fundamentally incompatible with WP:BLP, or do you object to the inclusion of specific members on the basis of poor sourcing? MastCell  18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all -- the use of a list of signers of the statement of principles is already in the PNAC article - which would make this separate list utterly useless. The idea of a "list of anyone possibly remotely connected" is improper - specifically people listed as possibly zero agreement with the group in the book clearly are not "members" in any sense at all. Thirdly, connecting the large group with somehow being ones who caused the Iraq War by virtue of "being somehow connected with the Bush administration" is either SYNTH or simply taking the famed "dual loyalty conspiracy theory" to absurd lengths. Vide adding persons who were on a committee about bioethics! World Bank! Defense Science Board! etc. Under no circumstances should Misplaced Pages promote the famed "dual loyalty" slurs. Using on any BLP (Scooter Libby BLP for example) such sources as " 32. Cf. Ron Kampeas, "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 2, 2005; rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 6, 2005; updated November 7, 2005; both accessed July 16, 2007., neoconservatism is an episode, an important and interesting one, in the intellectual and political history of Jewish America, and it is impudent to call anyone who mentions this a bigot. Schoenfeld suggests that only racist crackpots ever query the commitment of senior Washington officials, but it was Jack Straw, himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants, who said of Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: "It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day.", and the like are improper accusations of having Jewishness being the defining political characteristics of living persons. Your mileage may clearly vary, of course. And I do regard any edit which makes such associations to be violative of BLP, and I suggest that your view is not supported by WP:BLP policy. To call a person a "member" of a group requires a strong source for such "membership". Collect (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid you lost me somewhere around the middle of your paragraph; these sorts of stream-of-consciousness posts can be impenetrable and incoherent to those of us who aren't heavily steeped in the dispute in question, particularly when unaccompanied by diffs. You seem very concerned with the potentially anti-Semitic implications of this list, but I am not seeing how membership (or non-membership) implies anything of the sort. If anti-Semitism is a key concern in this dispute, then it's a basic responsibility on your part to explain your concern more clearly and provide diffs so that it can be addressed. From what has been posted so far, I don't see the connection.

          I'm still lacking answers to my questions—you've now repeated several times that you find signatures on a letter to be insufficient evidence of membership, but it appears to me that inclusion in this article is instead based on reliable secondary sources, so your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance to the dispute at hand. If I'm missing something, please clarify, ideally concisely and with diffs. MastCell  18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I daresay it is fun to deride editors as "incoherent" but it appears the others have no problem in understanding my posts. Is there a reason why an administrator should feel compelled to reduce their standing in such a manner?

Was the problem the fact that I oppose promoting the "dual loyalty conspiracy theory" about the Iraq War?

"His conclusions are similar to theirs: Individuals in government, who always have Jewish surnames and Israeli connections, provided crucial intelligence on Iraq and were concerned not with the American republic but with Israel's security. Like his predecessors, Hostettler's claim of "dual loyalty" by prominent Jews repeats age-old slanders of Jewish disloyalty to their countries and outlandish notions of secret Jewish cabals pulling international strings. ... Hostettler gets to the red meat of his thesis when he focuses on the neoconservatives, relying on names such as Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Shulsky, to convey the specter of a covert cabal that has intrigued to encourage the United States to go to war for the benefit of Israel. ... Sadly, this is the conspiracy theory that keeps on ticking."

If such is proper on Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages's voice, tell me. Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I also have trouble understanding your posts/argument Collect. I have absolutely no idea why discussions of the Jewish lobby, "dual loyalty conspiracy theories" and links to the adl would have anything to do with the discussion we've been having about PNAC. I have a vague sense that it relates to some previous, wholly unrelated dispute between you and Ubikwit, but apart from the fact that both of you are also engaged in the current debate it seems completely off topic to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Me three, I know none of that was in the table I used to create the article and I know I have seen nothing like that added to the article. I suggest Collect back up such claims with links/diffs to the article. Calling antisemitism without backing it up is not an acceptable debating tactic. Jbh (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources characterize these men as "PNAC members" based on statements on the website at the time, or by the fact that they signed their name to the official PNAC statement of principles and later documents. There's no sense at all in quibbling over this fact; all of these named individuals were considered members of this think tank. The problem here is that the scope of the list is intentionally biased and of a singular point-of-view; asserting the group's undue influence on the Bush Jr. White House. This is a particular bit of POV ugliness along the lines of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and IMO should be deleted on those grounds. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the list was a lot less likely to be seen as POV or undue when it was actually part of the article on the Project for the New American Century (which has a discussion/citations covering how some academics have spoken out against the perception that PNAC was a big influence on the Bush admin's policies). I'm pretty sure that Collect's insistence that the table was SYNTH and refusal to listen to contrary arguments was what inspired the list article creator to spin it out. Personally, I'd rather see it back in the article, where it can be paired with a broader discussion of PNAC's influence (or non-influence) for proper balance. Given the large numbers of sources which draw the same link(s), though, I don't think the table it self could be construed as POV or biased: the simple fact is that many PNAC supporters did end up working for the Bush administration, and many reliable sources (including many scholarly monographs) make that connection. As long as the table is paired with an acknowledgement/discussion of the people who've said that the effect of these connections have been over-stated (which is already in the PNAC article) then I don't see how the table could be a problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is a reliable source specifying that they were not members ("In Ryan's book (Neoconservatism and the New American Century) she says that "The individuals who signed the PNAC statements and letters were not employees or members of the group, and supporters of PNAC's initiatives differed from case to case.") -- having a writer assert a person was a member of the Communist Party USA in the 30s does not make a person a member of the CPUSA in the 30s. And where a reliable source says "not member" I tend to accept that - since there is no sign that PNAC was in any way a membership group in any of its documents at all. And saying "signing a single letter" made one a member of PNAC is a really poor idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's one source, Collect, and I'd like to point out that it was me (one of the 3-4 people you've been arguing with about this for weeks now) who brought it to your attention. As I said just now on the list article talk page, there are plenty of other reliable sources that use "members" instead. There's a discussion underway on the same talk page, about whether the word "members" should be dropped in favor of "supporters," with their specific type/level of support noted specifically. We're trying our best to meet you halfway here, but you can't pretend that there isn't a very large number of secondary sources which draw the same links between these individuals, PNAC, and the Bush admin. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, once neo-conservatism crashed and burned as all their Iraq predictions and assessments blew up in their face , I have no doubt that there was a lot of behavior analogous to rats and sinking ships, as these people sought to distance themselves. But affixing one's signature to a document written on PNAC letterhead is sufficient to call on a "member". Again, the entire notion of the list itself is silly and pointy, but just being included therein is not a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tarc Neoconservatism didn't crash and burn; it's still alive and well in the Obama adminstration.

You really shouldn't be trying to downplay this subject matter, including the 'letters', over and against a plurality of peer-reviewed academic sources, especially using colloquialisms like "crashed and burned".

The reliably published statements of scholars are what we include in articles, the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors matter only on Talk pages.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• "List of people associated with..." is never a good idea, and it's a BLP problem in this case because it synthesizes a category and puts people in it without adequete support. ("He signed the letter! Here's the proof!") Moreover, the article is something of a POV fork of Project for the New American Century. Presenting it as a list removes it from context, which exacerbates the BLP problem. Tom Harrison 20:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lists can be problematic if there is no context, but in this instance I see no harm. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

After discussion here I would not object to merging it back into the article. I have no faith at all that the editor who opened this discussion will DROPTHESTICK and comply with consensus. This topic has been done to death as an editor noted above here, here, here, and here in all of these discussions consensus formed that there was no BLP or SYNTH as Collect was asserting. I will cop to Tarc's allegation of POINTYness but this was the lowest drama solution I could think of. Jbh (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to imply a conclusion not found in any single source is SYNTH by definition. And if it is improper in this "list" it remains improper in any article. And your accusation that I will not abide by WP:BLP is abhorrent and improper. Period. Collect (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What conclusion specifically has been made as a result of synthesis of multiple sources? Please point it out so it can be corrected.- MrX 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that it wasn't pointy. It was the next logical step after determining that the table might be UNDUE after determining that the SYNTH arguments against it had no basis in policy.

The List article as such eminently meets the criteria of notability, as demonstrated by a shelf full of peer-reviewed academic publications, and we haven't even tapped other sourcing streams.

Finally, if it is deemed that the word "associated" in the title is problematic, as per Tom harrison, the article should be moved again to

List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we stick a pin in this, please?

Collect, the fact that you say something is a BLP violation or SYNTH does not make it so, particularly when you seem unable to explain how the edit/item/table in question actually violates any policies or guidelines. You've been repeatedly asked to detail your exact problem with the table:

• by MastCell here and here, and here
• by MrX here
• by Jbhunley and others here (make sure you scroll to the bottom there, to see where/how the conversation ends).
• By myself here and here
• By JBH again here and here
• By Ubikwit here and here

I'm sure I could find more examples but frankly feel it would be a waste of my time to spend any more time trying to explain this to you. Note that one of the diffs by JBH above is from February 10 - this debate has been going on for over a month! JBH told you over a month ago that:

I am not saying that I am unwilling to be convinced of your position but just saying SYNTH over and over will not get us there. Thanks for helping me understand your position better.

And yet in the weeks that have passed since then, you haven't been able to clearly explain why you think the table is SYNTH or a BLP violation, and we continue to have the same conversation over and over again. Most of the well-intentioned, perfectly polite queries I linked above have either gotten no reply or received spectacularly unhelpful responses like this one (scroll down, it's the second edit of the diff) and this one, among others. Now I have no personal issue with you and this is not intended as a personal attack, I simply think that it's high time you sit back, take a breath, and recognize that this issue is not as clear-cut or as obvious a case of SYNTH (or BLP violating) as you seem to think it is. From where I stand, your refusal to read & engage with what other people are telling/asking you has been extremely disruptive and not at all helpful. On several of the talk pages/noticeboards where this issue has been discussed, there was a clear consensus against you (or at best, a lack of consensus either way). When that happened, you stopped engaging only to reopen the debate in a new forum (sometimes, just a bit lower down on the same talk page) as if the previous conversation never happened, and acting as if this was an open-and-shut case of SYNTH/BLP/OR violation. The reality is that most of the people involved in these discussions are not convinced by that argument, and this issue has already been discussed and done to death elsewhere, weeks ago. Respectfully, I suggest that it might be time to let this particular issue go. I respect your enthusiasm for enforcing BLP policies and guidelines, but in this case as far as I can tell, you're actually misunderstanding or misreading the policy that you claim to be upholding. Perhaps it is time to recognize/accept that fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed a good example of the need to WP:DROPTHESTICK - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The article simply draws its own conclusions rather than using sources that actually state those conclusions. That's a textbook example of SYNTH. The article is just a POV pushing platform. I'd recommend Collect send it to Afd.--MONGO 03:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain what Collect has (in my opinion) been unable to: what exactly is they conclusion that is being drawn synthetically/through OR? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MONGO: Possibly you would care to point out the conclusions being drawn that are unsupported by sources? Specific, addressable examples please. Jbh (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How about the entire format? I was worrried when myself and others wrote Retreat of glaciers since 1850 that we might violate SYNTH because we were originally simply compiling a list but as it unfolded and we found dozens and dozens of peer reviewed and scholarly literature that allowed us to not draw our own conclusions we were able to make it a FA. This article is never going to be anything other than a piece of garbage in which the editors are trying to link together persons that whose involvement in PNAC is likely nearly zero. As our next President might say..."What difference does it make?" If Collect doesn't send this piece of crap to Afd I likely will.--MONGO 03:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Specific please. How is the format SYNTH. Right at the top of this discussion there is a source which defines the group and its significance - From Gonzalez, George A. Energy and Empire SUNY Press pp.72ff"Signers of were placed within key foreign policy-making positions within the George W, Bush administration." following that is a list of those people. There are many such sources in the article. Several single sources all draw together the three elements needed to avoid SYNTH: 1 - The person was a "member" of PNAC. 2 - The person was a "member" of the G W Bush Administration. 3 - That the confluence of these two facts is notable and significant. By my understanding of SYNTH this is not SYNTH. What conclusions are being improperly drawn? None of these people have "nearly zero" involvement with PNAC. In particular they signed either the Statement of Principles, The 1998 Iraq Letter to Clinton or both and this is considered significant by multiple high quality RS. Please help me understand your position of how this is SYNTH. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution