Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 4

David Cameron's comments on Emerson
I note David Cameron's views on Emerson as expressed in a UK wp:rs. JRPG (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is included in the article, it was properly sourced. No one is disputing that fact, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with it, either.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2015
Request a wikilink be added to No-go area so readers can get more context on the meaning of this phrase. Hopefully this is uncontroversial.

Brianhe (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say so; Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the No-go area article is in serious need of attention - the definition it gives is entirely unsourced, and at least one of the sections included (South Africa) doesn't meet the definition given. Given that the phrase now seems to be bandied about almost at random, I'm unconvinced that we can even justify an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; but that's a matter for Talk:No-go area and, if necessary, the avenues described at WP:DELETE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sentence referencing controversy section of article being removed from lede
How is this a WP:BLP violation.


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

it is well referenced, displays the language and tone of the WP:RS used, accurately represents the section it references within the body of the article according to WP:LEDE, is representative of that section in length based on the proportion of the whole article which is represented, and that section of the article adheres to WP:WEIGHT. So how is it a WP:BLP violation to have that sentence in the lede? Coffeepusher (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * also, could you please refrain from the personal attacks. Please comment on the topic not the editors. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Spurious comments are not helpful. Please read: WP:PA wherein it states: "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible, but when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack.  Hopefully things will cool down and the overzealous activity around the globe over the Emerson blunder will subside.  It would be nice to find some positive things the man has done and not focus only on the negative.  A well-written paragraph was already included, and he apologized for his blunder.  There are BLP policies that govern what is said and the tone in which it is said.  I find it helpful to review FA & GA BLPs from time to time to stay on track.  They are good reminders.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section since "the sources are bias" isn't a policy argument when the sources are in fact WP:RS.
 * Incorrect - First of all, when you have to stack sources, all of which are partisan, it is a clear indication there's a problem. See WP:SYNTH.  Secondly, it is WP:UNDUE.  Thirdly, it is not a widely held view - it is a partisan opinion, and the sources are not RS.  The paragraph is wrongly stated.  If you want to include criticisms you need to do it in adherence with WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  Do a refresh of the guidelines and policies for BLPs.  Don't alter the lede because the guy made a glaring blunder that pissed off everyone in the UK.  He apologized.  The blunder is already in the body of the article.  Don't try to make this an attack article.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "Wildly" is a WP:WEASEL word and not really supported. One of the sources goes back to 1991 to support the statement.  Arzel (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word Wildly needs to be removed, thank you for pointing that out. However having multiple sources which all say the same thing isn't WP:SYNTH at all.  If you review the policy you will find that WP:SYNTH is when I take a statement from A, a separate statement from B and form C conclusion.  In this case I have six WP:RS which all criticize him for being innaccruate.  That simply isn't WP:SYNTH.  I am actually really familiar with the WP:BLP guidelines, specifically when dealing with criticisms.  Could you please pull out EXACTLY which policy guideline we are violating because according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple sources have accused him of inaccuracies AND have documented both events cited, so there is no violation EVEN when it is not a flattering picture.  WP:NPOV holds that the language and tone of the lede section reflect exactly what is going on inside the articles.  WP:BALANCE shows that one sentence mentioning that there are controversies, and another sentance mentioning that he is considered an expert reflects the WP:RS.  And each of these artilces is considered a WP:RS.  So again, having this sentence in the lede isn't a violation of any of the policies you have put forth.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unprecedented for a UK Prime Minister to refer to an American mainstream journalist and recognised pundit as "a complete idiot". We need to come to terms with the fact that Steven Emerson has completely and irrevocably destroyed his own credibility. Everything he's ever said or written now requires re-examination. That's worth putting in the lead. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unprecedented for a UK Prime Minister to refer to an American mainstream journalist and recognised pundit as "a complete idiot". That's only because UK Prime Ministers rarely listen to Fox News. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To begin, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and Fear Inc. are not RS because of the bias. Read NPOV, V, and NOR, the 3 core content policies of BLP.  The Times article  was actually a letter "To The Editor" submitted by Emerson and del Sesto. Did you verify any of the sources before you reverted?  Let's not waste valuable time belaboring this argument.  The statement in the lede doesn't belong for the reasons I mentioned.  If you need more reasons, I recommend reading through the archives of this TP.  Please, let's not get carried away because of one stupid mistake.  Kindest regards - Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? These are all statements that were already in the article that I copied into the lead. At the most generous, Mr Emerson needs to spend a little more time checking his sources. His statement on Fox News is, as SamuelTheGhost has pointed out, is credibility-destroying. Not mentioning any criticism of his "expertise" in the lead is POV in the extreme. I will accept that "widely" was a poor choice of words for me to have used but I fail to see how any of the rest of that sentence is worthy of exclusion from the lead. I find your claim about the reliability of the sources somewhat hard to believe, but a complete failure to mention that he has made inaccurate comments is outright biased. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am as serious as income taxes. I consult you to read WP:NOCRIT. And don't forget - this is Emerson's BLP, not a coatrack for criticism or an attack article. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm aware of all the policies that have been mentioned thusfar; I have indeed read them — I've been around these parts a fair while myself ;o)
 * I don't believe that mention of criticism in the lead is undue in any way. I'm also not suggesting that it needs to be the original words I added in that appear in the lead — though I deliberately added the criticism to a sentence that also mentioned him having testified in front of Congress, to balance the positive and the negative together. I'm merely suggesting that a complete lack of any mention of criticism is utterly POV and unrepresentative.
 * You appear to be taking the view (completely unmentioned by WP:NOCRIT) that any criticism in the lead is unsupportable. You also seem to think that one sentence in the lead turns it into an attack article, which is, quite frankly, a ludicrous suggestion — one sentence doesn't change the tone of the rest of the article, which certainly seems to have a substantial balance of points of view. From here, it seems that your perspective is the biased POV one, though I'm sure that's not your intention (we're all here to make a better encyclopædia, after all :o)
 * Can I clarify: are you saying that you believe the lead must contain no mention whatsoever of (suitably referenced) criticism of Mr Emerson's expertise? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: It's midnight here in the UK, so I'm gonna head to bed now, but I'll drop in again tomorrow :o)
 * See my comments above. They are quite clear about BLP, sources, NPOV, SYNTH, etc. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am off to bed, but I can't believe that anyone who has read the interview transcript on Emerson's website could possibly describe it as merely a "glaring blunder".  Amongst other things he says "Europe is finished" because of Moslems.  To a European, that sounds horribly like Hitler's statements about Jews.  If Emerson were new to the business, he could perhaps claim mitigation because the presenter encouraged him into ever more ludicrous comments, but he is an old hand. Unless we want Wikipedia to be thought of as Fox Lite, we need to write the balanced truth about him, and summarize it faithfully in the lede.  He has written off 750 million people, well over twice the population of the USA.  That is not a minor error to be brushed aside to a distant paragraph. Enginear (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, first off, the question is not wither he said something wrong or engaged in a recent controversy, it is to discuss the removal of the following sentance: "Emerson is widely criticized for his inaccuracies[3][4][5][6][7][8] and for fomenting Islamophobia,[9]. Nonetheless, Emerson frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.[10]" Which has the following citations 3: Adrienne Edgar (May 19, 1991). "A Defector's Story". New York Times. 4:Robert I. Friedman (May 15, 1995). "One Man's Jihad (Editorial)". The Nation 260 (19). 5: "Books | Terrorists under the bed". Salon.com. March 5, 2002. 6: "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America". Center for American Progress. August 26, 2011. 7: Seitz-Wald, Alex (April 18, 2013). "GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory". Salon.com. 8: Johnson, Cord. "Steve Emerson Bungles It Again: Saudi National Not Being Deported". Gawker.com 9: Atia, Tarek, "Mistaken identities, part X," Al-Ahram Weekly, November 25 – December 1, 1999, Now according to WP:BLP, Any criticism upon a public figure needs to be supported by multiple reliable sources. Claims of "partisan bias" especially when dealing with international issues is frankly not part of the equation. What is important is do the sources cited have a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. From what I can see each of them does, with the exception of Al Ahram weekly which I am not familiar with, and Gawker which I do not think qualifies. But the New York Times, Salon, The Nation, Center for American Progress are all reliable sources, and each of the sources cited criticizes him for being inaccurate (I do think that the "widely" needs to be dropped).
 * Agree with Atsme, on the subjects of BLP and Synth and RSs, above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally according to WP:LEDE the lede needs to summarize the article in both weight and tone. This sentence accurately reflects both. That is what is being discussed here, not the recent gaff. I think the sentence needs to be reinstated. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Before we engage in this discussion, I ask supporters of the contentious statement to please read the NYT piece that was cited as a RS, and point to the paragraph or statement that justifies the claims, "widely criticized for his inaccuracies", or "fomenting Islamophobia". I already addressed the source issues above. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - The Daily Mail and The Guardian are both tabloids. We do not cite tabloids.  I keep reading where the cited sources are RS, but I can't help but wonder where such a conclusion was drawn.  Again - please show me justification for the contentious statements in the NYTimes piece that was cited. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that the Daily Mail and Guardian are not reliable sources. I am looking at the list of references I provided, Daily Mail and Guardian are not in that list. And you are absolutely correct, the New York Times article is incorrectly in that list and should be removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is certainly not a tabloid, and is a WP:RS being one of the 4 (perhaps 5) serious daily newspapers in the UK [Times, FT, Guardian, Telegraph]. Most in the UK would call the Daily Mail a popular mid-market paper, as does WP in Template:Media in the United Kingdom, though I would generally avoid it as a cite. Rwendland (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what happened, a discussion above used reference tags for the daily mail and guardian, and they showed up in our discussion. I have external linked those citations. To be clear, the sentence we are discussing DOES NOT have references to The Guardian or Daily Mail.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter either way whether or not we're talking about the Mail and the Guardian — they are both quite definitely reliable sources. The meaning of tabloid is rather different on the two sides of the Atlantic, though The Guardian prints in Berliner format.
 * That said, I say again — the references I chose there are all taken from further down in the article. If they're good enough for the rest of the article, they're good enough for the lead. Now would you please stop your POV pushing and accept that a suitably-referenced sentence explaining that his views are criticised by some has a proper place in the lead? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One last time - the edit violates WP:SYNTH, and I've already explained why. Please READ WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and Identifying_reliable_sources as they apply to adding contentious labels and pejorative terminology in a BLP.  Fear Inc. is self-published, the Salon article was written in 2002 by Eric Boehlert who was a music journalist, and not known for fact-checking. Quote from Mercury News about Salon that was published 1-1/2 yrs ago: "A look at Salon's financial statements reveals a company that stands on the precipice. They are an absolute horror show."  The NYTimes was the only one that actually met RS, and as I pointed out above, it wasn't even remotely a source to cite for that contentious statement - it was a letter to the editor by Emerson himself.  Again, it is against policy to take one opinion from a biased and/or partisan source (particularly questionable sources) and add it to what other sources have said in order to come up with a blanket statement like the one I had to revert.  WP:IC states: ..an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it.  WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have a manic week this week, so I'll take another look at the references in question so I can give you a coherent answer as soon as I have a chance. (Unless someone wants to beat me to it, of course.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments re "Europe is finished" and protected edit request on 14 January 2015
As a European, I am very concerned that, apart from his "terrible", "inexcusable", "reckless" and "irresponsible" (to use his own words) comments about Birmingham, UK, this article has no mention of Emerson's other statements about Europe on Fox News on 8 & 11 Jan 2015. This might lead people to believe that his comments on Birmingham were a single unfortunate error, rather than being a symptom of someone who has little real knowledge of Europe and merely enhances sensationalist nonsense gleaned from extremists.

(In case anyone is interested in my non-encyclopedic personal thoughts on the actual position at present, then bearing in mind that this page is not supposed to host general discussion on the subject, I've started a section on my talk page, at User talk:Enginear)

If you have any doubt as to the seriousness of Emerson's comments, try reading his transcript of the 11 Jan interview, substituting the word Jew for Muslim throughout, and compare it with Hitler's 1930s diatribes claiming that Germany was suffering due to a Jewish conspiracy and it must rise up before they took over completely.

I feel it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute to ignore this for another five days until the protection runs out. Emerson has lost all credibility in Europe, as has FNC (not that they had much beforehand). We should not hide that. To give better balance to Steven Emerson, please therefore add a section Allegations that "Europe is finished" due to Muslims above the Comments on Fox News about Birmingham, England section. I am struggling between the emotions of, firstly, ROFL, secondly, shock that, in the 21st century, anyone can be allowed to spout such religious bigotry without being arrested, and thirdly, fear at the suggestion on Emerson's company website that Congress might listen to him (but if they do, thank God they don't keep the nuclear button). Those emotions do not leave me best placed to write an NPOV item, so you may well find some POV words which I have missed, in which case, please correct them. With that caveat, my suggested text is:


 * On 8 January 2015, in a pre-recorded Fox News Channel interview with Sean Hannity, Emerson claimed that "throughout Europe...you have no-go zones". He appeared to nod agreement to the interviewer's definition of no-go zone as meaning "no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system" and confirmed "these are semi-autonomous countries within countries in which the federal governments there have basically given up...surrendered their authority".  Received wisdom states that the considerable majority of Muslims in France, in Europe and worldwide, believe that terrorism is always wrong and that about half the remainder believe it is only rarely permissible.  However, Emerson says "the domination of Muslims within European countries, particularly in France, has been by radical Islamic groups."  He claims that when Western leaders state that Islam is a religion of peace, "the militants themselves are given a free pass", and later "I think they've reached critical mass, frankly...I think Europe is finished."  Asked if the countries governments could take back the "no-go" zones, he said "They wouldn't take it back.  They refuse to take it back."  He then agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Muslim women in the "no-go zones" were "subject to sharia law, not the laws of the country".


 * On 11 January 2015, in another interview on FNC, this time with Jeanine Pirro, Emerson continued on the same theme, claiming that there are "no-go zones" throughout Europe, and "they're places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don't exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don't go in, and where it's basically a separate country almost, a country within a country." He also claimed that the French "official website" includes a map of Muslim-held no-go zones. Asked if there was "any way to get these no-go zones back", he reiterated that "Europe is finished" because the Muslim leadership of those zones "use them as leverage against the host country as political and military leverage".


 * Notably, both presenters encouraged emotive language by hosting the interviews in intemperate fashion, with Sean Hannity setting the scene by stating "You have these no-go zones. You have these sharia courts that they've allowed", later, defining "no-go zones" as noted above, and claiming that some Muslim women in France were subject to sharia law, while Jeanine Pirro set the scene with, "We're learning new details about hundreds of no-go zones across France and other countries that are off limits to non-Muslims", and later said "It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country" and "I think even you said Europe is over. What did you say, Steve?". "


 * Emerson's company, Investigative Project on Terrorism, has put a transcript of the 11 January interview on its website, where it has received many comments from European readers stating that his analysis is deeply flawed. Nonetheless, apart from one easy-to-prove error mentioned in the next section, he has not explained, clarified or withdrawn any of his claims. Enginear (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember BLP DS apply to this article as well as to IPT. No doubling up on both articles.  Emerson's interview was Emerson's interview.  IPT is inseparably connected to Emerson - see WP:BLPGROUPS which was previously determined in a BLPN.  Enough mention has been made about Emerson's blunder - he apologized.  Enough already.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The comments above are why this BLP is under PP. I stand by the advice I provided and the reasons that validate it.  I consult editors to please pay heed.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP & Birmingham
As a Brummy and I think Steven Emerson was "off the mark" with his comment - but not as far off as has been portrayed in social media, the mainstream media and (hence) his wiki page. While B'hams population may be only 21% muslim, and we have pubs, drugs and sex clubs, the city does face changes with more Muslim children than Christian and, if we want to embrace western cultural norms, there are areas where it is best not to go. Can we try and add some perspective? Stacie Croquet (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * please review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Stacie Croquet (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * none of the sources you provided mention Steven Emerson. Adding them to the Steven Emerson article is original research through WP:SYNTH. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point on the "No go" issue, but where is the OR/Synth in stating that Birmingham, with more Muslim children than Christian, faces changes? Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * simple, where in that article does it mention Emerson or his statements?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is not rhetorical...please assume I will answer how you wish, and you can tease out your point.Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it isn't rhetorical if Emerson is mentioned in the article, if that is the case then it can be included with no objections from me. If he is not mentioned in the article, then you are drawing from multiple sources to make the article relevant to the page, and therefore WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The very first paragraph of WP:Synth states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
 * The quotes make no assumptions or leading statements other than to confirm the perentages of religion.

However, just to keep you happy - here's a reliable source that does mention both: BBC News: Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham' Fox News claim, and here, here, here... and, well - you get the idea. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"clearly a complete idiot"
No I am not happy. This is a WP:BLP issue. In the last census Birmingham had more children registered as Muslim (97,099) than Christian (93,828). David Cameron has previously apologised for getting his facts wrong on Islamic issues. So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, or indeed with only those statistics in which Steven Emerson is mentioned, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).Stacie Croquet (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP issue, see WP:BLP/N. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...Er..."There is no BLP issue"... see WP:BLP/N"...think about it...anyways thanks for the info. Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * would you be able to pull from wikipedia's neutral point of view policy exactly where you see a violation? My read of the policy shows that it is important to correctly and accurately report what the reliable sources state in both tone, language, and content.  It doesn't cover censoring reliable sources when they report on significant figures making charged accusations within those reliable sources.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fluff used to discredit Emerson with poorly sourced inline citations that do not include mention of what was written has to stop. I deleted the 1990s articles and the misinformation about "fomenting Islamophobia" from the lead.  There was no mention of Islamophobia in that antiquated questionable source. I also identified one of Emerson's primary critics in the lead.  You can't make generalizations that are not verifiable.  WP requires RS, V and NPOV.   I do hope everyone realizes that adding unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material is a BLP violation.  Considering this BLP falls under DS, you need to be even more cautious.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * bring it back to the Blp noticeboard. I have read the source, closer than you have evidently.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the exact quote is "Emerson is the man behind an infamous TV documentary titled "Jihad in America", widely considered to be one of the primary roots of the Islamophobia currently sweeping the States. Immediately following both the Oklahoma City bombing and the TWA Flight 800 tragedy, he was quick to point the finger at terrorists from the Middle East. But even after suffering the very public humiliation of being dead wrong on both counts, Emerson has still not given up. Last week, speaking on Canadian radio about the EgyptAir flight, he informed listeners that "the shahada, a major tenet of Islam [is] said before you commit an act of terrorism..." Coffeepusher (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's going to take more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report in Al-Ahram Weekly from Egypt to make such a contentious claim against a BLP. As I explained on your TP, the other sources cited in the lead are outdated, incorrect, partisan, and represent a minority view in opposition to the prevailing mainstream view - WP:UNDUE.  You need to revert, or you may be blocked for BLP violations. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the BLP Noticeboard actually approved this addition. If you disagree, you are welcome to continue the discussion there, but right now the very text you are reverting was vetted and determined not to violate BLP by the noticeboard set up to make that very decision.  If you want to get me banned, then you will need to go to another noticeboard though.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a standing BLP-N decision that removed the Islamophobia template from Emerson's organization because it was determined to be a BLP violation. This BLP is now under DS which means extra caution must be exercised. I kept the criticism in the lead but as required by verifiability, NPOV, and RS, you can state a minority view but it cannot supersede mainstream, and even if it does, you present both views, identify the critics, and use RS. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  02:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So it is a BLP violation to accruately use the language, tone, and content of a reliable source?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. and BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.  Also see: Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch and  WP:Verifiability: Questionable sources - publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The text in the lede is dispassionate and reflecting the abundant sources about the controversy to warrant a mention. There is no need to wikilawyer this to death. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violations
The term, "Islamophobia", in the lead is unacceptable. We don't add pejorative statements like that when the source itself called it an accusation. I consult whoever reverted my edits to self-revert. I have taken the issue to the Emerson BLP and requesting an administrator's attention to this beehive activity of making unsourced blanket criticisms in the lead, and now a prejudiced accusation that has no business in this encyclopedia. It is downright shameful. What has WP become? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is The Washington Post, so there is no BLP violation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Added another source, a book published by Cambridge University Press. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And there are many other books ], if needed be. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you add 100 sources. Calling someone an Islamophobe is the same as calling someone a racist.  We don't do that on WP.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do, but we make sure that assessment is attributed and well sourced. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme. Didn't you say, on my talk page, that "You need more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt to make such a contentious statement about Emerson in the lead."  Well, now we have several sources.  It is becoming apparent that you are trying to Censor this page using any argument you can to delete that content.  First, you argued that the word "Islamophobe" wasn't in the source and was therefore a BLP violation see edit summary,, .  Then after being informed exactly where in the article you could find the word Islamophobia you switch your stance to the source isn't good, and therefore a BLP violation .  Now, after people have provided you with more reliable sources, you have switched your argument again to the word Islamophobia is a BLP violation regardless of sources  .  What we are seeing here is in fact editing with a bias.  You simply want to WP:CENSOR this wikipedia article, and you are going to use whatever wikipedia standard you can, and ignore any others, to get to your conclusion.  We have satisfied all your previous arguments, but since it didn't bring you the conclusion you wanted you simply changed arguments and ignored your own previous statements.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You got to do better then a blog post and a link to a book ripping from Think Progress. This page has numerous BLP violations and really poor sources, neither of which are acceptable under policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, the "book ripping from think progress" was a Cambridge University Press, so it does in fact qualify... Unless you are making the case that Cambridge University Press isn't a WP:RS for some reason, in which case you will need to specify why a peer reviewed academic institution doesn't have a good editorial history. Think Progress isn't the source, Cambridge University Press is.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * for that matter, I'm wondering why you are calling a piece written by a foreign affairs writer of the Washington Post, published in the foreign affairs section of the Washington post, a blog. How is a piece written by a paid reporter within the published paper a blog?  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The misuse of a source to change the origin is unacceptable. Do not filter major BLP problems though sources that simply reflect what another poor source details. You do not call Martin Luther King Jr. a racial slur or a hate monger just because some "RS" decided to put two words without qualification in front of another. A WaPo blog is not sufficient here per WP:BLP and WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that think progress isn't a reliable source, but that wasn't the source. The information, cited to Think progress, was vetted through a different editorial process.  wikipedia's reliable source policy doesn't say that sources are dependent on sourcing the original information, it is actually dependent upon the source that is cited on wikipedia, which in this case is Cambridge University Press (which is about as reliable source as you can find).  Also, that isn't a Washington Post blog, it is the main paper written by a paid reporter.  "Blog" is an unedited publication, this piece went through the Washington post editorial process and was published under full review of their editorial board.  Therefore it isn't a blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * now I could be mistaking, so if you can find for me in the WP:RS and WP:IRS policies where it says that a paid reporter publishing in an edited portion of the Washington Post is a blog, and also find where it says that reliable sources must also only use other reliable sources otherwise they are not reliable sources then ill be happy to consider those things, but my experience is that those aren't the polices. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you agree that Think Progress is not a reliable source, then it is not a reliable source. It does suddenly become acceptable or different because it is mirrored and the insulting comment picked up as an example in another source. I've been through the WaPo blog issue at RSN and other places and WP:BLP and WP:IRS take precedents here anyways. Instead of identifying higher quality sources by their individual merits, you have simply reflected the publisher is what makes a source reliable. Arming America is not a "reliable source" despite having won awards and been praised so highly. Wikipedia is not the place for tabloid journalism or sensational reporting. Emerson may screw up and he may do so spectacularly, but we are to present a disinterested portrayal. That means flattening out all the positives and negatives in place of facts and figures. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think that a reliable source put a think progress site as "see also" in the footnotes. Just because it contains a footnote that says "think progress" doesn't invalidate Cambridge University Press.  Now you keep calling the Washington Post article a "blog," but it isn't a blog.  Where in the article does it identify itself as a blog?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ill tell you what, you want to write up the WP:RSN or should I?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN and other people who have no care of what WP:BLP and WP:IRS are will gladly edit war to keep WP:DIRT and other junk in the article of trivial importance. This is pretty much standard practice for anything controversial. Tell you what Coffeepusher - since you actually discuss. Take the WaPo source and put it in the body - where you don't need six references tacked onto the lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given our past interactions and the effort I took to refute your factually incorrect assertions, I don't think there's any need for a substantial reply on my part. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused, but my patience for you wears thin. You show up right when I am working on something and you roll back the work in progress like "discuss" overrules BLP. Whenever you have to mince words and confuse responsibility for calling out an alleged abuse of power you got to know what you are talking about. The "reception" section is a horrible giveaway of the forking of content within the article. Most of it has no context or even dates. I hope you have more responsibility than just contesting things because you like to object for the sake of objecting. Be my guest - I am a perfectionist about BLPs and the fact whether or not to use certain things (positive or negative) must always been weighed with NPOV, BLP and IRS in mind. Better than Britannica is what I aim for - but you clearly disagree. With such comments like "it has a source so its okay" - we are clearly far apart on the appropriateness and relevancy of such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and in case if you try to justify it - remember WP:CRITS is a readily accessible guide to NPOV which specifically states that such splitting and the existence of a "controversies" section is not appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My "it has a source so its okay" is equivalent to your "book biographies are disqualified as sources for BLPs because they're long op-ed pieces"? Your fundamental view seems to be that biographies should not contain assessments of the subject's actions or work. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent my stance or inject your own spin on them. Arming America is a crock and its unusable for a reason that the article clearly states. You may mean well, but you do not understand my position and reasoning despite attempts to rectify it. For that reason it is no longer a productive area of discussion. Though Salon is not a high quality source for contentious BLP statement and Huffington Post is not either. It is like the farce that is IMDb and Daily Kos - they are never acceptable, but gosh how people fight to include user generated content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are tens of books referring to Emerson in the context of Islamophobia, so if Cambridge University Press is not of your liking because it references a site you consider not accptable, you can use any of the others. In any case, I will look into these books to add more content in this regard, hope you can join me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And "it has a source so its okay" is not spin? You also took out the New York Times, the New York Times Book Review, and experts in the field. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN you should perhaps note that book is not anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian. The text being pulled here is not the original review. Instead it is being referenced from the editorial response by Emerson and Sesto. If criticism of a person is going to be used in place of a co-authored work, you better have more than that. Perhaps by reading a few passages of the book to confirm it. I'll take the United States Congress Committee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security over those disputed comments on any day. The fact that Emerson even personally contested those and that it was not stated shows that neutrality was not being given because it derives from the rebuttal and not the original. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * there is a current discussion about the sources that ChrisGualtieri is claiming are not reliable happening on the The reliable source noticeboard. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this was at BLPN - it is not a RSN issue because it is a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, you need to double check your arguments. YOU were the one who REPEATEDLY AND SPECIFICALLY stated that those sources were not reliable sources.  I have differences if you would like.  Now I do understand that when pushing a specific point of view by censoring wikipedia, you will inevitably shotgun every single policy (without directly quoting from any of them, except in long block quotes with no summation of the specific policies that were violated) and threat that you can, and it is hard to keep track of which arguments you have used against which specific edits.  But I assure you, because I have the differences already pre-loaded, that in these cases you specifically argued that it was a WP:RS issue, therefore the WP:RSN is the appropriate place. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * since you have forgotten which arguments you were applying to what edits, here are the differences:    These differences clearly show that you objected to each of the sources BECAUSE you claimed that they were not WP:RS.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad faith accusations and misrepresentation. Quaint. You've moved to a battleground stance instead of considering whether or not the sources are proper and suitable to call someone a bigot on the lead of the biography. This requires action beyond my control, but again Wikipedia is going down the Bacon path. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * not bad faith, you have simply shotgunned every single policy we have, without quoting from any policy and it is becoming apparent that you are pushing a point of view, or at least above you have asserted that you are defending the article against attackers and POV pushers. So frankly I think that your own analysis would leave you lacking much more than anyone else in the good faith department within all of these interactions.  I'm not the one who believes that this is a Battleground, I've stuck to policies, removed sources from both sides, and faithfully adhered to noticeboard decisions.  I have also not removed any cited material from the article unless it didn't mention Emerson at all.  So I don't think I'm pushing a pov or turning this into a battleground.  I'm sticking with wikipedia policies.  Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only that, now he is pursuing administrative action at WP:AN/I, requesting a revert and protection of his preferred version. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, you haven't read WP:BOOMARANG yet have you. The fact that on the WP:RSN page and this talk page you made the claim that you weren't making a reliable source claim, and on the WP:ANI page you repeat your assertions that the University of Cambridge Press Cambridge Compendium on American Islam isn't a reliable source isn't a good tract to make.  Cheers Mate, good luck with your WP:ANI I'm interested in what the result is. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See - this type of saber rattling is not productive. Policy states that a contentious edit (I pointed to just 1) should be removed during discussion. MastCell was right and I overstepped a bit because Think Progress was being used as the source but it is not a reliable suitable source for calling someone a bigot. The CPCC source is a trivial mention and I would have used sources like Lobe, Jim. "New Report Identifies Organizational Nexus of Islamophobia." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. American Educational Trust. 2011., but the best sources do not call Emerson an Islamophobe - at best misguided and overprotective. Frank J. Gaffney Jr of WT also recognized in 2011 Emerson as a top expert on terrorism."The 'Anti-Pete King' Hearing; Durbin Aims to Suppress Public's Grasp of Stealth Jihad." The Washington Times (Washington, DC) A quick check of sources shows some pretty non-neutral and divisive stances that do no good for a disinterested biography. But fine - do as you please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Reception section
I think Wikipedia articles should (and do) contain analysis of a subject's opinions, actions, performance, legacy, influence, etc. by people knowledgeable enough to give an informed opinion. An editor wants to take out the entire Reception section. I'm against that without proper integration being performed but perhaps sourcing could be improved. Thoughts on specific sources or the entire section? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire section lacked context and did little if anything to portray Emerson. Much of it not worth anything because of sources to "Salon" and such. Two decades worth of segregated praise, mixed and criticism dumped into the article as if it is all relevant and equal. While trying to structure and fix it, a partial WP:TNT became the best option in light of sources from HighBeam and such. BLP is different from other articles. Most things other people say about Emerson is really undue and unnecessary. If they have problems with Emerson, let the facts do it and keep their opinions out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixing requires work, not massive deletions. This is not the first time you have taken the attitude to obliterate an article just because it does not pass your narrow interpretation of our content policies. This is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have used that false argumentation before. For your information, in Wikipedia we report significant opinions and viewpoints, per WP:NPOV, not just "facts". -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've explained each edit and cited policy. I did not "obliterate" the article. I began by addressing sourcing issues and rectify errors and undue material in line with BLP. Huffington Post and Salon are not equivalent to the United States Congress reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Salon and HuffPo are insanely reliable sources in comparison to United States Congress reports. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham in Lead
Do we need to have an explicit mention of Birmingham in the lead? Seems too specific to me. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, agree. The detail should be left for the article's body. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for trimming the current lead? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia
This material was removed, claiming BLP violation:

One source has already been discussed at WP:RS/N (Cambridge University Press) as well as WP:BLP/N, and the other two references I added earlier today are sourced to books published by reputable houses, so I fail to see on what basis these are BLP violations. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary of the revert reads: broad statements that are not verifiable and poorly sourced to partisan opinion by a controversial author(s), and do not satisfy NPOV, V.- I ask to provide clarification on these claims. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * right now it appears that this is a pov campaign to remove the word "Islamophobe" from this article, even though it is documented in reputable sources that Emerson has actually been accused of creating Islamophobia (that exact word). Wikipedia isn't censored, and well known people aren't protected from criticisms which are documented in reliable sources.  The WP:BLPN has had uninvolved editors weigh in with the consensus that it can be in the article if it is documented.  This entire discussion has become a WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign.  Wikipedia's policies actually say quite the opposite, our WP:BLP policy and WP:LEDE policy states that these should be included if they are documented and occurring.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the following reference:
 * Cheers Mates! Coffeepusher (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've given the proper reference and Cwobeel has inserted three poor and trivial mentions that have no weight. There is a difference in calling someone a bigot and that their work has been accused of creating an atmosphere of bigotry. These are completely different assertions and the new "fomenting Islamophobia" is not held by any of the three cited sources. The Fear Inc one - as mentioned before - is the one to use. Perhaps if you dropped the partisan politics and battleground behavior you'd have seen that this is not about the usage of the word - it is the correct claims being sourced to suitable sources. The fact that it makes a claim without attribution and without depth is the problem. I was working on the problem and then out came the pitchforks and claims of bias and such - this is not productive. If you do not understand the argument - seek clarification and do not fabricate a straw man to attack it as if it is my position. People can act in good faith and disagree - and when you close off their stance and attack them, it is disruptive and destructive. My position on the matter has been ignored and even when I've given the citations and others that can certainly fix the problems. This creates a hostile environment that no one wants to work within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? because the above discussion shows that you were the one who first lashed out with a personal attack at an editor, and you were the one who completely misrepresented sources so you could delete them en mass. From the discussion's we have had, you don't know the difference between a WP:RS and a blog, so I am not sure if your continued policy claims are really reputable.  You shotgun every single policy and change the goalpost as soon as your claims are met.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * here is the difference, in case you forgot. You were the first one who made this a battleground.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The three sources make the following claims: Islamophobic opinion leader, Islamophobe Steven Emerson, and prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, which I summarized as Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia. Now if you want to use any other summary, please propose. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I consult Coffeepusher and Cowbeel, both of whom have unjustly reverted my edits, and created BLP violations, to please stop their disruptive behavior. Both of you have been consulted repeatedly by BLP/GA editors who have experience in this area. Review some of the BLPs of civil rights activists who have been described by mainstream media using contentious labels considered to be "widely held views" <--- your justification for keeping contentious material in the lead. See how your argument to compares to the following 3rd para from the lead in Al Sharpton:

Hopefully, you now understand why you were repeatedly advised to use well sourced inline citations that point to the exact criticism, not blanket statements you've cherry-picked from partisan sources that include statements that are neither verifiable nor reliably sourced in their own articles. The above para is an excellent example of well-written prose, well sourced with inline citations pointing to the exact criticism, Verifiable, and NPOV, with no WP:UNDUE issues, which is exactly how I presented the criticism in Emerson that you reverted and replaced with tabloid garbage. I posted the following to BLP-N, and included it again here for your reading convenience. The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This has been discussed at two noticeboards, and your arguments rebutted. Time to move on. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * also, in the future you may want to read wikipedia's wall of text essay, long cut and paste policy arguments tend to get less credit rather than more because they are seen as shotgunning a mass of text to overwhelm the discussion. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Coffeepusher - did you happen to look at this section, no wait - this entire TP - to see whose edits actually create the wall of text to which you refer? It's not me.  I consult you to read the brief but very informative guidelines I provided to help you understand.  Your current argument will not hold up, and it doesn't matter how many editors agree with you - BLP policy will prevail.  It is really sad that you have chosen WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in an effort to discredit a BLP based on poorly sourced material.  Do you really believe that argument will prevail when experienced BLP editors arrive to evaluate it? You might also want to read WP:CONSENSUS. When it comes to BLPs, WP is firm with regards to strict adherence to policy.  If you feel it's ok to ignore it, it is a choice you've made despite the friendly advice.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as per User:Cwobeel every issue you are attempting to raise has been vetted by the WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and WP:ANI. What did the uninvolved editors on those boards say in regards to your claims of WP:BLP violations?  Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me - was there a consensus I overlooked? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * what did the uninvolved editors at the various noticeboards say regarding this matter? This has been brought to three noticeboards, So what were you told about policy on the noticeboards which are set up to discuss and vet WP:BLP and WP:RS issues?  Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)