Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 5

Invalid citation removed per WP:BLP
I have removed the source, Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, per WP:V and WP:BLP. This is the edit. Specifically, this source claims that Emerson is an Islamophobe - it does not directly state Emerson is a source of Islamophobia. Thus it is an invalid reference for a claim of "fomenting Islamophobia" and fails WP:V. Because this is a claim about a person and is not in source - it is to be removed and kept out of the article per WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Invalid citation removed per WP:BLP
I have removed the source, One Man's Jihad (Editorial), which was republished in a biased source without context. The entirety of that out of context passage has been placed into the article in lieu of the original. As if the usage by the source was not enough of a red flag, Robert I. Friedman. Friedman was known for his attention to the finer details in his controversial and volatile reporting - little of it even relevant or related to Emerson's work. The passage is like taking from Sean Hannity and slapping it on Emerson. The dead giveaway is that the editorial fails WP:NPOV and WP:IRS for a proper WP:BLP sourcing. I don't care whether or not "it is sourced", you have a knowingly volatile writer and a source with a clear bias being used to exact the most direct and out of context criticism possible on Emerson by someone's personal opinion. This fails weight and neutrality, but even worse - Friedman's page is a horrible insult to the man which is not under BLP itself. Where is the human dignity? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Salon source removed
While I think Eric Boehlert's Salon source is a poor source, perhaps an example is better as to why such low grade sources are undue and improper, rising to a BLP level. Specifically the use in the article which is most concerning. Boehlert also criticized Emerson for suggesting that Katherine Smith, a 49-year-old Tennessee motor vehicles inspector who died when her car exploded was the victim of assassination even though authorities denied this. Boehlert quotes a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA Vincent Cannistraro who said of Emerson's thesis, "He's trying to say people who move to this country and set up charities and think tanks and are associated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, that there's some kind of connection between them and Sept. 11, that there's a liaison or support network. He doesn't know what he's talking about." Interesting. Boehlert criticized Emerson for claiming she was killed instead of dying in a car accident. Then as if to support it, Boehlert quoting someone else, is being used in lieu of anything further - an attempted justification and supporting argument for what is "reception" after all. The FBI found it unusual and the source confirms there was a wide belief of a terror connection, and indeed some trivial (in the end) connection to the World Trade Center and September 11. A later source confirms the unresolved case. Though several more reports exist, Emerson and the FBI, state and local authorities and the medical examiner agreed it was not the car accident which killed Smith. This "reception" is pretty much useless and not in context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Work on neutrality
"Emerson may not be a scholar, and he may sometimes connect unrelated dots. He may also occasionally be quite wrong. But he is an investigator who has performed a genuine service by focusing on radical Islamic groups in this country. His information should be taken seriously—just not at face value," wrote New York Times Book Review critic Ethan Bronner in his review of American Jihad. Others were equally adamant in defending Emerson and denouncing his critics. Reviewing the book in Commentary, Terry Eastland, a former Justice Department official, wrote, "Groups that put incendiary speakers at their microphones or that permit themselves to be used by radicals bent on jihad, should be exempt neither from criticism nor from the scrutiny of the law. But the sad fact is that, for far too long, groups preaching hatred and violence have indeed escaped scrutiny. If Emerson's warnings had been heeded when he first issued them, our country might not be in the difficult straits in which it finds itself today." This is what neutral commentary looks like. Balanced and nuanced with prominent citations that are reasonable and understandable. A tiny fragment or quip is a poor use of WP:QUOTE and typically a WP:NPOV issue. The full examination and summation of a complete view should be expressed in quotes to prominent and authoritative figures when possible. Seeking not to live in a moment, but encompass the whole. Both quotes are suitable additions found this publication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is, "Groups that put incendiary speakers at their microphones or that permit themselves to be used by radicals bent on jihad, should be exempt neither from criticism nor from the scrutiny of the law. But the sad fact is that, for far too long, groups preaching hatred and violence have indeed escaped scrutiny. If Emerson's warnings had been heeded when he first issued them, our country might not be in the difficult straits in which it finds itself today" balanced? --Neil N  talk to me 05:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Al Sharpton to see how it was written, and pay close attention to how each contentious statement was properly attribution to a particular source, page number, etc. in an inline citation. You can't make general statements, add 5 footnotes of cherrypicked garbage, and expect it to stick.  One source may make a statement or reference in an entirely different context like what Chris recently demonstrated.  It's not just about reliable sources, it's about verifiability and attribution with inline citations that point to the quote or statement. Just because a book said it's true doesn't make it so.  Check tertiary sources to verify the statement - that's what VERIFIABILITY means.   So he made a bad assumption regarding McVeigh - he thought it was a Middle Eastern trait - and he wasn't alone.  Big deal - it was one interview, and it certainly isn't worthy of being called an Islamophobe.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a second Atsme - NeilN is saying the second quote is not neutral. The entire passage conifers a balanced approach and NeilN is examining the defense of Emerson's work as not-neutral while ignoring the criticism of the first passage which is far better reasoned and - evident. Even the interconnecting aspect which is a clear sign of neutral writing is being avoided by NeilN here. The fact this is published in another encyclopedia and is a neutral summary of views on Emerson's work is pretty obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree. Having a quote that mentions criticism followed by praise is mathematically neutral, but not wikipedia neutral.  It's an argument I heard while editing Scientology, AA, and other controversial issues.  Balancing criticism with praise isn't neutral and if I remember correctly actually violates WP:WEIGHT.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I am not entirely happy with how the policy is written, the spirit of what I said is contained in the following policy WP:VALID. What I am not happy with is it deals with the extreme cases, but otherwise we can see that tit for tat doesn't equal neutrality.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A good argument! Having a 1 to 1 ratio of praise to criticism is mathematically correct, but it is not neutral. "X is a good person" vs "Y is a bad person" fills the straws until you put something like "He was a mass murderer" into the picture. I dislike personal opinions because of this very problem - what is a good opinion? Well, a good opinion requires an argument founded on a statement that holds up to the observation. Furthermore, a good opinion needs to come from someone of caliber who can express views of the publication, but is still subject to editorial control or such. A New York Times book critic who leans left against a right leaning Justice Department official who is a book critic, both discussing Emerson's work is relative. Both opinions are certainly not wrong, but they are opinions nonetheless. Still, this is more neutral than anything in this article for "opinion" matters. I really dislike opinions because they are subjective and open to interpretation instead of more disinterest presentation of facts. Given the option, I'd do away with opinions of persons in BLPs to make it easier to achieve disinterested neutrality, but I am in the minority. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Coffeepusher should not have reverted the lead...not good because in doing so, coffeepusher violated BLP
I have moved this from my talk pageCoffeepusher (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You should have read my breakdown of the sources at the TP. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  08:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ok, so right now you are the only one on the talk page who is gunning for the islamophobia statement on the lede. Chris has already said it was significant.  Additionally you keep saying "you are violating BLP" as a irrefutable Veto, but frankly it has become an idle threat.  By removing sourced content from a WP:BLP which has been exclusively criticisms of the subject matter it appears that you are violating WP:BLP and attempting to produce a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article which documents all notable contributions and criticisms.  I'm moving this to the talk page, please do not put threats on my talk page, and all relivent discussion should be placed on the talk page of the article.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is in reference to this edit. The edit framed the entire controversy of Emerson into his statements about Birmingham and deleted all the references and citations to other criticisms.Coffeepusher (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies section....
Can someone please explain why the following belongs in this section? Do the sentences sound coherent and purposeful?

''Emerson has played a role in criminal prosecutions. In the Sami Al-Arian case he was a major source of information and advice to the federal prosecutors and the Tampa Tribune.[54] He has a close relationship to Gordon Kromberg, a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia.[55] The Holy Land Foundation prosecution relied on evidence produced by Emerson’s Investigative Project.[56]''

Do we really need a separate section on controversies? Atsme  &#9775; Consult  08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ill address your second question first, yes in this case there are several significant controversies which have generated a significant amount of coverage. The first question is simply, I'm as clueless about that sentence as you are.  Unless someone can find a place where it belongs in the article I'm all for deleting that.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRITS we should have weaved this into the narrative, not set it aside and placed it upon a pedestal because it damages the neutrality. Also, a controversy section is a magnet for this stuff. We can work the material into the article without drawing undue attention towards it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ahram Weekly removed
After debating and checking the source, I think Al-Ahram Weekly is not up to BLP standards because - like most newspapers - it is biased and it really pretty clear. The source makes numerous suspect comments of clear non-neutral stance and the cherry picked comments used in the source are unsuitable for a BLP. It says "so-called "journalist" as if Emerson is not a journalist, but he had already won the George Polk Award five years earlier by then. It uses a bandwagon approach and a lack of attribution - both are poor backing for an argument and a contentious claim that - Emerson is "widely considered to be one of the primary roots of the Islamophobia currently sweeping the States." It requires evidence. "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," - wait what? Did the FBI and the CIA and others not investigate it because the claim was widely circulating? As detailed prior, the Oklahoma City bombing was where Emerson made a comment in the middle another widespread belief and said the attack had the hallmarks of Middle East terrorism. He was not the origin, but speculated and failed. Consider this: But Emerson, who has been ousted even by the pro-Israeli Washington Post as a "pro-Israel researcher and author"... Really...? Along with the quote: Americans are programmed to think of Arabs as terrorists is this really a fair balance? Excuse me, but this may be before September 11, but trying to enter into the cockpit of a plane - mistake or intentional is liable to get you arrested and detained regardless. The source has its faults and its clear stance, but does this rise to making it suitable to use those attacks in a biography.... no. Considering it cannot even get its facts on Emerson straight jeopardizes its use. I much prefer the NYT one if we had to use a quote for "reception" at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Europe is finished" again
At 21:46, 23 January 2015‎ I edited the Steven Emerson article to briefly introduce Emerson's statement that "Europe is finished". Coffeepusher reverted it and put the following on my talk page:
 * Hay, I just reverted your addition and I wanted to give you a quick explanation. Right now that page is under intense scrutiny by a few editors, and every claim is being heavily verified.  Unfortunately I don't think that your addition would stand up to scepticism for three reasons.  1. anything that is critical of Emerson has been removed from the lede at one time or another in the last 48 hours.  It was only a few hours ago that we got a somewhat stable entry for the criticism section in the lede.
 * 2. The statement itself doesn't reference anything within the body of the article, and is therefore not consistant with wikipedia's WP:LEDE policy.
 * 3. the source of your quote was a video, and it has been my experience that video's tend to get removed as WP:RS especially in BLP.
 * I'm sorry, you kinda jumped into a hornets nest, and I'm trying to be the friendliest hornet. If you decide that you wish to peruse that edit, I would recommend finding multiple sources which identify that statement as significant, followup which makes it significant, and attaching it to the body of the article.  Just my suggestion.  cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * All I added was "He has also expressed the view that "Europe is finished". ". 1. This isn't a criticism; it's a neutrally stated fact, presumably considered by his admirers as a plus point. It's no more contentious as a statement than if I had written "He's a Republican"
 * 2. The reason I didn't add it to the body of the article is that there was no obvious place to put it. There isn't a section on his general opinions and loyalties - perhaps there should be. Putting it just in the lede is a bit unfortunate but not downright prohibited.
 * 3. The source is perfectly adequate and the objection that Coffeepusher gives is one of the daftest pieces of wikilawyering that I've seen for some time.
 * "Europe is finished" is a significant view, whether or not one agrees with it and I remain convinced that it should go into the article. It would be nice if Coffeepusher could help that rather than obstruct it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not SamuelTheGhost and you would do well not to attack Coffeepusher for kindly explaining why the material is not necessary or relevant. The media is not in the business of being completely open and disinterested - their job is to portray a stance and get viewers. There is no context and it certainly is not a literal statement. Another example is David Cameron calling Emerson an "idiot" is out of context and tabloidy. Why? Because Cameron made the mistake as well. This is a biography of a living person - not a collection of drama and out of context quips. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that some statement of context would be desirable, being careful not to make judgments or draw inferences. But it ought to go in. Are you arguing a) that he didn't say it? or b) that he said it but didn't really mean it? or c) that he said it and meant it but it isn't important? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated that it has no business being in a biography because it is trivial and irrelevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:SamuelTheGhost, I'm sorry you thought you were being wikilawyared by me, I was honestly trying to help you with this edit but frankly I didn't see how it could belong in the article. BLP's are not a collection of soundbites, quotes and statements need to receive significant coverage in order for them to be included.  Significant coverage means that either it produced a large body of work from multiple reliable sources, or that it was reported on across an extended period of time by a variety of sources.  What User:ChrisGualtieri and I are failing to see is why this soundbite is important enough to merit inclusion.  All three of us agree that he did in fact say it, so what?  Did it spawn a "Europe is Finished" movement?  Did it invoke national outcry from the European community?  Did it become a rallying point for policymakers?  How, in the context of absolutely everything else this guy has said, does this one statement stand out as meriting inclusion into the body of the article?
 * The second big concern I raised was that the sourcing wasn't good enough. Unfortunately video's are highly unreliable because they fail to provide the larger context of statements, and they can be easily doctored or edited in ways that the viewer may not be aware of (both legitimate doctoring as well as nefarious doctoring).  Because of this I've seen statements sourced to videos go under intense scrutiny on BLP's, and I'm in the camp that believes if you can't find a transcript or other third party source which documents the event a video isn't good enough.  You are welcome to dispute this on the WP:RSN page, and frankly I wouldn't fight against what those editors said if they disagreed with me.  However it would be a lot better, and myself and others would be a lot more satisfied, if you were able to come up with one or more non-video sources.  Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear about where I'm coming from. As I see it a correct abbreviated summary of the article should be "Steven Emerson is an American specialist on terrorism who as been consulted by parts of the US Government. He hates Muslims, despises Europeans and often gets his facts wrong." Other editors have been arguing here about the muslims and the facts, but rather neglecting his clear contempt for Europeans. He has shown this in frequent statements about the alleged indifference of European governments to the muslim threats in their midst. "Europe is finished" just summarised his whole attitude but was no surprise in view of the rest of what he says.

ChrisGualtieri thinks it is "trivial and irrelevant". Irrelevant to whom? Europe has had no trouble in laughing it off; indeed the British and French press have been full of mockery of Emerson this month. When David Cameron wrote "This guy is clearly a complete idiot" he spoke for Europe. The only damage done has been a slight dent in transatlantic relations and the complete destruction of Emerson's credibility in Europe. This surely is relevant to his biography.

Coffeepusher asks for "Significant coverage means that either it produced a large body of work from multiple reliable sources, or that it was reported on across an extended period of time by a variety of sources". That sounds about right for notability as discussed in AfD debates. It is absolute nonsense to make it a requrement for each and every fact in an article. As for his rhetorical questions As for the alleged sourcing problem, the source I originally gave has the words "Europe is finished" in writing as well as video, and here is another. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did it spawn a "Europe is Finished" movement? Unfortunately one exists, populated by Mark Steyn, Daniel Pipes and their ilk. So far they have been more ridiculous than dangerous. Let's hope it stays that way.
 * Did it invoke national outcry from the European community? No, just derision.
 * Did it become a rallying point for policymakers? It was presumably intended to, but because his other allegations were so blatantly false, people who think that way are lying low.
 * How, in the context of absolutely everything else this guy has said, does this one statement stand out as meriting inclusion into the body of the article? Because it sums up his attitude, otherwise evident in a host of less dramatic remarks especially about Britain and France.

Coffeepusher's revert

 * There was no reason for his full revert which included everything I just spent 2 hours working on. Coffeepusher has become very disruptive and overly insistent on the inclusion of hate speech in this BLP.   There is nothing verifiable that points to Emerson being an Islamophobe.  The contentious label is nothing more than hate speech by his critics -  opinions  - unfounded, unverifiable.  It doesn't belong in the lead.  I don't want to have to 3RR him, but if he is in violation of policy, and keeps reverting what we know to be BLP violation.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  05:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, this isn't directed at me so I am making a new section for it. Coffeepusher is trying to be neutral and you are taking a side which is a bit too positive given other issues. Coffeepusher is acting in good faith and you should not condemn their actions for the work is still in the edit history. I even added back and cited the date of birth and fixed two other citation needed issues. Secondly, Emerson has been repeatedly claimed by liberal progressives to be an Islamophobe - that will remain and I will source it myself if it will stop this mess. Atsme - human dignity does not mean that considerable criticism can be entirely ignored, but it means we need to be entirely disinterested and use the absolute best sources if we are to use it. This means that the most vitriolic of attacks will fail per IRS and BLP. Those which remain will be not comments, but well-cited and detailed analysis to back any such claim of "fomenting Islamophobia". There are limits, but this is a delicate matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My primary issue with these sources is Verifiability.  If you'll look at tertiary sources and verify what the partisan authors are saying, you'll find a completely different story.  For example, Emerson never said anything about Muslims in the Oklahoma City bombing.  He said it had a “middle Eastern trait” and “it was done with intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”  The sources are the ones claiming he said Muslim.  Read the transcript from the actual interview like I did.  The same applies to what the co-author in the Cambridge said - unverifiable hate speech.  I spent 8 months in discussions, on noticeboards, etc. about the Islamophobia template at Emerson's IPT article, and a BLP-N basically said it was a BLP violation because IPT has the same protection as Emerson under BLP-N.  My issue isn't about ignoring criticism - it's about getting the criticism right. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  06:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct - and this is what I have given below! A source is not reliable because of its publisher or that you can point to it, it is the strength and credibility of its material. You had just pointed out a source where an article contained false information that had a source, but Wikipedia was legally liable because it included and spread the false allegations. Getting a BLP right is more than just pointing to a source and citing the content - it is going through and evaluating contentious claims (especially negative ones) before deciding whether or not they are even worth including. Even though both claims were sourced, Wikipedia was liable because during the trial it was undisputed that the factual allegations were untrue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if anyone is being disruptive here, it is, who is one of three users who do not agree with the consensus that reliably-sourced criticism of Mr Emerson's accuracy and apparent tendency towards Islamophobia should appear in both the article and its lead. Several users, including myself, have pointed to Reliable sources using the word Islamophobia. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it really doesn't matter if there are 20 users violating policy or ignoring guidelines if what they've included intentionally harms a living person, or makes statements that simply don't exist in the sources as stated. It only takes 1 editor to point that out.  Consensus doesn't change a standing policy.  If you want to change any of the policies, good luck.  When that happens, I will stop pursuing corrections to violations.  In the interim, do your homework, OwenBlacker.  I did not exclude the negative information from the lead.  I properly stated it and provided inline citations because I was following policy.  I have better things to do with my time and energy than waste it arguing with a couple of editors WP:DONTGETIT. --Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

OwenBlacker you say using the word Islamophobia as a descriptor for a person makes it acceptable. Let's frame your argument in a different way. See - the problem here is one not of "can it be sourced", but a claim of appropriateness and weight. Say I call you some horrible things without qualifier. Let's say "Wikipedia Vandal OwenBlacker (some tiny good-faith mistake)..." Would it be appropriate to put this on OwenBlacker's biography and source it with the line: "OwenBlacker has been claimed to be a Wikipedia Vandal."? If challenged, would the claim "it is what the source says?" really make you content? Of course not! The real question to ask is "can that book really hold enough weight to make a claim of Islamophobia for simply making the defamatory label?" Clearly not. Let's keep cries of bigotry out of the article and require claims of "fomenting Islamophobia" or other things to be source to more than half a sentence in a 300 page book. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it a reliable that the book contains that passage using those words in that order? Certainly.
 * 2) Would changing it to "being described as being Islamophobic" be reliable per the text? Certainly.
 * 3) Is it appropriate to accuse someone of bigotry, without qualification, and add it to the biography because you can source it? No.
 * except in this case wikipedia is not saying that he is islamophobic, it is saying that "he has been accused of islamophobia" which is referenced by several sources documenting the fact that he has been accused of islamophobia which is not simply a defamatory label, but rather a stronger accusation about the false nature of his claims. Simply summarizing that as "he has been accused of inaccuracies against Muslims" is a violation of WP:NPOV when the sources themselves specifically say the word Islamophobic.  The sources say Islamophobic, you don't like that word so you downgrade the controversies to "he has been accused of inaccuracies against Muslims..." that isn't what the sources say.  Our WP:BLP policy doesn't protect public figures from significant controversies, but we cannot report on them just any way, we need to use the same language and tone to accurately convey what the reliable sources say.  Cheers Mate!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Due to the ongoing edit warring of material in and out of this page, I've fully protected it until a consensus is established regarding what belongs and what doesn't. If any part of the current revision violates BLP, please open a protected edit request pointing it out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you, and in my opinion if you are going to fully protect a version you protected the correct version for that purpose. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable_but_not_false
Please read the following - my bold for emphasis as to how it applies here:
 * True to common sense—An article cannot claim, "All Americans think Hitler was evil" or state, "All marriages have rough periods", or any other issue which applies to all members of a vast group.  There are limits to what is logically verifiable, even if stated in 17 sources.  Text should not contradict general common-sense notions about a topic.
 * True to balance—The overall text of articles should reflect the true balance, as to significance, in the world at large. Often, the data is sourced to recent research or to fact-checked news reports which provide current information. For example, to state, "Many people believe the Earth is flat" should not be used to give the impression that most people do not believe, today, the World is round. The proportion of text, in an article, should reflect the relative views of the educated public, at least those educated in the specific topic of the article.
 * True to presentation—The placement of text, plus images or photos, in an article should present a true impression of the subject, not just in details, but in the top summary or overall structure of the article.  An article's structure should not mislead readers into thinking that known falsehoods or rare opinions are somehow reflecting the majority concerns about a topic.  <span 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"><span 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  04:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please complete your enthymeme. I don't mean that to be curt, but you just quoted policy but haven't made an argument at all. Tell us why you quoted this and how it applies to the article.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Political and ideological debates are not civil by nature. We could have a thousand sources to claim Barrack Obama is racist or the worst president in history - but we do not put "Barack Obama has been accused of corrpution" in the lead. I'm certain we could cite plenty of books like Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration, The Case Against Barack Obama, The Corruption Chronicles: Obama's Big Secrecy, Big Corruption, and Big Government, Barack Obama: Hope Destroyed and so on and so on simply not reflected? Not one mention, at all - about Barack being accused of corruption exists in the entire article. Is this NPOV? Yes. Notice how there is no "reception" or "controversy" section on Barack Obama's FA. Yet - here, a pile of praise and criticism exist where it serves to provide commentary on a person's life as if the facts themselves are not suitable for the task. Let the facts stand on their own, no need to use opinions and whatever farce that turns up in a search engine on a biography. Keeping all this "praise and criticism" type opinions out is what establishes disinterested neutrality best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * but the uninvolved editors at the WP:BLPN have a different interpretation as it applies to this article. We didn't open the WP:BLPN discussion to see if uninvolved editors said what we wanted them to say, we opened that discussion to get an outside view so that we could help with this debate.  one group of editors is really applying WP:IDHT to what the WP:BLPN had to say.  We even have one editor who has said that it doesn't matter if 20 editors feel that a section should be included, their interpretation is the only right one.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an uninvolved editor responding to that request and while I have become involved in the topic I am the fourth editor to highlight concerns with the material and taken a role in correcting the problem. Verifiable allegations or criticism is not immediately suitable per WP:ONUS. It is not an excuse to include praise or criticism of a person's life and beliefs simply because a detractor said something negative. Atsme does not seem to be editing neutrally, but it does not change the fact that all this "reception and controversy" is an issue per WP:CRITS. It wouldn't stand at FA and you need to understand that this is an biography in an encyclopedia - it is not a tabloid or a list of comments by supporters and detractors. It is simply not appropriate nor suitable. There is a difference and understanding that difference may not be easy because you disagree, but recognize it and try to examine the argument and you will see why Barack Obama's page is so different from Emerson's. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you, I will note the fact that before you became involved you were uninvolved. Surprisingly so was I.  I have opened a second biography of living person's noticeboard request which spacifically deals with this issue.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't check the history of most disputes and I got burned by it once, but I think we have similar views and it is becoming clear what direction the article should go. We may disagree on the extent and purpose somewhat - but I don't think either of us have really any vested interest in supporting or attacking Emerson. My caution can at first appear supportive in cases of contentious negativity - but Emerson is not perfect and his record speaks for itself. I just like having plain facts do the talking instead of commentators. No pun intended. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there are some editors who are taking a hard line, but I'm still assuming that everyone genuinely wants the best for this article. Some of us, myself included, still need to learn how to get to consensus without a lot of mess in the process. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doubles for me on that - a year of ick (for short) resulted in me being drama adverse to all but BLP things. And I typically avoid BLPs because they are drama. Either way, I've made my argument and stayed longer than I intended to - but thanks for everything. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Source issues in lead, and why...
However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past....
 * Footnote 4: The Cambridge attribution states with an unfounded contentious label "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh) - which cites - when you read the source Cambridge cited, the exact statement is "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”  < Where in that statement do you see Muslim?  Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"?  Sorry, but Cambridge Companion sucks as a reliable source.
 * Footnote 5: Washington Post states in passing mention However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past. Really?  By whom?  Where is the verifiability?
 * Footnote 6: Islamophobia In America - Chapter title Women as Producers of Islamophobic Discourse - provides a list of 6 names, one of which is Newt Ginrich, Emerson, " —many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male." Newt Gingrich wasn't even spelled correctly, it was a blanket statement in a chapter about women, and it doesn't accuse him of Islamophobia.
 * Footnote 7: Law as Movement Strategy: How the Islamophobia Movement Institutionalizes Fear Through Legislation - "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. This one calls Steven Emerson a "misinformation expert".  Emerson has been instrumental in getting a substantial amount of information to law makers regarding Islamic terrorism.  Where is the Islamophobia?  VERIFIABILITY.  Where is it?

and for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. All 4 of the sources cited for that partial sentence point to Emerson's Birmingham gaff. Sorry, but it wasn't that big a gaff that a partial sentence requires 4 footnotes. The lead needs to go back to the way I wrote it because it was properly stated and sourced. Verifiability is one of WP 3 core content policies, and the way the lead is written now flies in the face of BLP. <span 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"><span 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  07:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, So is the statement untrue, or do we need more/different sources? Coffeepusher (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * so in your footnoes, each of those document exactly what the sentence says, "he has been accused of Islamophobia" and each of them say exactly that. Additionally they each are in fact WP:RS.  You are attempting to discredit them, "the Cambridge Companion sucks as a source" so you are saying that Cambridge University Press is not a valid WP:RS why? and please point to specific policy. We can start there.  Cheers MissCoffeepusher (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * if you read WP:V, those sources ARE the reliable sources that "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." So those statements actually are supported by WP:V.  There is no wikipedia policy that says Variability requires that you must source the sourcing of the statement found in the reliable source, you only have to check the first WP:RS, and if it passes WP:IRS (which each of these do) then variability is satisfied.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting very tiresome. You really need to start reading what I've written above so you'll understand - I consult you to self revert while you have the chance. VERIFIABILITY BLP
 * "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" - In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate.
 * It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
 * In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.
 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. 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.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
 * Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

You should not have reverted because I've told you over and over the material was not properly sourced and verified. I explained it very clearly above. <span 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"><span 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  08:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * it is properly sourced and the sources are WP:RS. I have Cambridge University Press, Washington Post, Palgrave Macmillan, and Taylor and Francis, each of which are either under an editorial board or academic peer reviewed processes.  So why aren't they reliable publishing houses?!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reading your criticisms, the sources are in fact high quality, the sentence is framed in such a way that it isn't in wikipedia's voice, each of the sources either talks directly about Emerson or Islamophobia in a significant way, all the sources document that Emerson "has been accused of Islamophobia," and the sources come from an extended period of time so it is an accusation that extends years satisfying the requirement that criticisms have significant coverage. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, "Is it appropriate to accuse someone of bigotry, without qualification, and add it to the biography because you can source it? No." The existence of contentious labels and personal attacks in sources does not jump to the inclusion of the material in a biography. People can and do disagree, but it is not acceptable to mirror those contentious and inflammatory labels without high quality and in-detail sourcing. Say I call Coffeepusher a Wikipedia vandal (a hypothetical example) does that make it true? On the reverse don't you know I am a "Wikipedia administrator" according to Andrew Lih, a USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution!? Even though it is sourced by a professor and academic individual - does it make it true? I am not an admin and never have been. But if you were writing my biography, would this mention make it into my biography because Lih is a reliable source given his experience and status as professor? Almost certainly - and this is an error of attribution and a positive one at that. Do not believe everything that is written and hesitate before included contentious albeit sourced material. After all, the court ruled against Wikipedia for libel despite having a sourced claim for something more minor than what we are discussing now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Lih - what sources in the article are self-published blogs and are used to cite text about living people? Because that's what you're pointing to. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:ChrisGualtieri, you may want to strike your statements about the German court that is very close to legal threats used to chill the discussion, and your point can be made without pointing to that example. Just a friendly suggestion mate. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but there is no legal threat - I am not threatening legal action or would ever take such an action. I am pointing out that even using a source does not make defamation suddenly acceptable and I explained why Wikipedia policy is what it is. Per WP:NLT "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." The reason why I mentioned it is because the defamatory claim that was removed by two users and repeatedly reinserted during the discussions. This is in violation of WP:BLP because the material has been challenged in good faith and was of a trivial and poor nature. The ability to source personal attacks does not mean the inclusion of personal attacks on the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to go bold on me. I simply pointed out that including information about a time when wikipedia was in fact sued could be perceived of as a legal threat, and that it didn't do anything for your argument UNLESS you are in fact trying to chill the discussion (which would go against establishing consensus, which is why I am sure you didn't intend for that to happen). So as I assume you didn't intend it that way you could in good faith strike the statement and your point would still remain. Your call mate. cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri, You continually (and falsely) accuse editors of inserting defamatory material. This is a serious charge. You should either take these editors to ANI or moderate your language. If you persist in these accusations, I will take you to ANI. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just read Chris' above argument about contentious information in BLPs, and find it not only unpersuasive, but actually misleading and not applicable in this situation. For clarification: No, certainly not. What you cited for your example was personal commentary (i.e.; no requirement to cite sources, or incentive to be 100% accurate) on a personal blog (i.e.; not an academic press with an editorial review process and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Wikipedia policy on reliable sources prevents your example from occurring. Nothing analogous to that has happened in this article. Didn't happen. Wikipedia's position on actual defamation is very clear, and shouldn't be mistakenly interjected into this discussion. What did happen was unflattering information about a living person was removed under the pretense that the sources provided were inadequate. This is a typical and expected response to the initial introduction of negative information in a BLP. Subsequent detailed review of those sources indicate that they are indeed amply compliant with WP:BLP sourcing requirements. Chris' basic premise that contentious descriptions in BLPs require high-quality sourcing is of course correct, but the implication that this policy has been violated is not supported. Reliable sources do indeed convey information about Emerson's "anti-" stance on matters related to Islam, Muslims and Arabs, as well as his promulgation of misinformation about same. The only remaining debate is how best to convey that material in the lede of this article. Words like "Islamophobe" or "Idiot", while they may appear in context in the body of the article, shouldn't be in the lede — but a concise summary of both his position and accuracy on those matters definitely should. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lih is a reliable source given his experience and status as professor? Almost certainly
 * defamatory claim that was removed by two users and repeatedly reinserted
 * Your first half (about Lih) shows you did not understand the argument being made. The second half shows your ignorance of the actual arguments and the clearly biased nature of the sources and a consensus has formed about it being a problem. The fact you do not understand Emerson's position means you assume that the source is actually accurate when it is not. The "fomenting Islamophobia" was not in any of the four sources Cwobeel added at all. Per V and IRS - it is not to be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my first half, I responded to the argument you made. If you intended to make a different argument, I invite you to do so more clearly, at which time I will respond. My second half merely corrected your misuse of the word "defamation". I've also said nothing about sources being biased or not, not that it matters, nor have I seen where a "consensus" has been achieved regarding sources.  Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a diff of that consensus being reached. As for "Emerson's position", I only know what reliable sources have said, nothing more.  If you feel there is something missing in my understanding of his position, I invite you to direct me to the appropriate information.  As for the phrase "fomenting Islamophobia", that isn't discussed in this section of this Talk page, and I said nothing about it. In fact, I share your concern about that specific wording. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lih is irrelevant to this, so I'll kindly refuse to derailing it. Calling someone a bigot does not make it true - saying someone accused him of being a bigot is a poor distancing excuse to slip the actual intention - X is a bigot - into the article under the guise that it is either true or is credible. Every figure to ever have received attention certainly has been used to further a cause or stance, even unknowingly. This is why I reject such criticism and commentary on the lives on any and all persons. To put forth assumption or asserts of another person is naked conjecture and regardless of who says it - this does not make it truthful or verifiable. Despite repeated attempts for evidence of any Islamophobia - none appears or graces this page. I would gladly take Emerson's own stance - but I don't believe every word from his mouth, even about himself. You probably disagree with my notion that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence or will say that the mere accusation needs to exist for inclusion - but baseless accusations should never be included regardless of who says them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You introduced Lih into this conversation as part of your example; you even wikilinked his name. So I responded, critiquing your example. If you now wish to back away from that part of the discussion, I will not pursue it.
 * Moving on to your assertion that reliable sources "calling someone a bigot does not make it true" — may I assume by "bigot", you actually mean "Islamophobe" and associated with an "Islamophobia movement" and has been frequently "accused of Islamophobia"? These are from exceptionally reliable sources. Any source saying anything does not make it true, of course, but that has nothing to do with what we are doing here as Wikipedia editors. We are (at least I hope you are joining me in this) conveying what reliable sources have conveyed -- not what we personally want to be the truth. Of course we must handle all BLPs with care, but if reliable sources convey that John Wayne Gacy was a "rapist" or The Beatles were associated with the British Invasion, we don't scream "that doesn't mean it's true!" I agree 100% with you that "baseless accusations should never be included" in BLPs, but if the assertion comes from high-quality reliable sources, then it is not "baseless". Xenophrenic (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Europe is finished"
The article ought to include a reference to this interview with Emerson shown on Fox News on 8 January 2015. It includes the allegation that there are muslim-only "no-go" zones in a string of European countries. No details are given as to where exactly these zones are to be found, so it isn't as easy to prove that they are fantasies as in the Birmingham case, but fantasies they are. The alleged refusal of European governments to deal with these zones is then used as part of his argument that "Europe is finished". It's all really rather funny. We don't need to cite explicit contradictions. Those of our readers with any knowleedge of European reality will know what to make of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are an increasing number of refutations of Emerson's claims, such as vox 17 jan 2015, fair.org on Fox News' Fantasyland, Bloomberg businessweek "debunking the muslim no-go zone myth". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pour the liberal Koolaid down the drain, and read a WP:RS published in the Oxford Journals - Journal on Islamic Studies - Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study . It is also available in print on Google Books On page xii it states, "The study also enabled meaningful consideration of the ways in which residents constructed the urban social reality as regards crime. In both locations residents spoke of 'no-go' zones which were defined with reference to perceived likelihood of becoming a victim of crime in the identified locations.  The work details how the construction of a 'no-go' zone is dependent on many variables including the personification of an urban space as occupied by the 'criminal other'.  In the UK, a case study of the celebration of the religious festivals of "Id by South Asian youth represents a bi-annual point of conflict between the police and Muslim community."  Of course, the actual chapters describes such areas in more detail if you're up to reading it, although it may not be as entertaining as the crap you've been reading.  The study was authored by Muzammil Quraishi, PhD - Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice. <span 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"><span 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  20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just read all of Quraishi's book that google books would let me. It's sound stuff. The reference to "no-go zones" is an informal description by residents of areas of high criminality. It is quite clear from the wider context of the book that these are areas where observance of Islamic law is weak or absent, since Islamic law prohibits theft. Thus the term is being used in quite the opposite way from its use by Emerson and co. The book does not support Emerson's fantasies in the slightest degree. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. There are other RS out there, too - see the list I added at Talk:No-go area.  The term is ubiquitous and well defined in the quote above, so there's no need to try to redefine it or dispute it on Emerson.  The guy was hammered enough over his stupid comment, and it's already included in this BLP.  He apologized, retracted, whatever - end of story.  Perhaps it's time for all of us to do a quick refresh of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and also read Editing_restrictions to see how it applies here.  Some admins include a sanctions notice on user TP as a courtesy, particularly when a BLP goes under PP.  Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to review What_Wikipedia_is_not.  A quick review of some biographies in Britannica online is good for alignment.  WP has some really good GAs and FAs to model after, too.  Happy editing.  <span 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"><span 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  22:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The list you added at Talk:No-go area is a mixture of unreliable, biassed sources and sources giving information irrelevant to what we are talking about, as editors there pointed out. As for "He apologized, retracted, whatever - end of story." you realy don't see the point. The Birmingham gaffe wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was simply the daftest example of a string of lies he's beeen telling about European governments. He's saying that they are tolerating areas where sharia law reigns and national law enforcement cannot go, whereas the truth is that European governments have been and are pursuing very aggressive policies against islamic extremism. The man and his mates openly despise Europe and wikipedia readers should be warned about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding, right? Show me what sources to which you're referring (the majority of which are academic and institutional research). Thanks --<span 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"><span 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  02:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Atsme "Pour the liberal koolaid down the drain." You may really want to step away from this page before it get's bad for you, because it has become obvious with these statements that you are editing with a direct bias against a perceived partisan conflict rather than editing within the realms of wikipedia's policies. This is WP:POV editing, and you are trying to push an agenda rather than following wikipedia's standards. Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop casting aspersions, and falsely accusing me of bias. If the sources had been self-proclaimed conservative, I would have said "Pour the conservative koolaid down the drain." Focus on the contentious statements you're trying to add to a BLP without VERIFIABILITY.  Read what admin JzG wrote in the BLPN .  Oh, and this TP is for discussing article content, not your misinterpreted notions about me.  In fact, I find your focus on me rather disturbing, and I consult you to back away.  You admitted that you didn't know a thing about Emerson until his Birmingham blunder which obviously insulted you in some way, so is your purpose here now to get even, and resent me getting in your way?  WP is not the place to vent, if that's the case.  Use the comment sections of the news sites that covered the story.   My only purpose here is trying to keep the article stable and free of BLP violations while maintaining its encyclopedic value.  VERIFIABILITY is the key.  If that doesn't work, read WP:BM.  <span 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"><span 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  01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that admin's comment at BLPN. The following sentence gave me an especially good chuckle: The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. Yes, their "agenda" is academic-quality information on Islam-related matters. You can't really ask for a better source. You should read the rest of that BLPN entry. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contentious labels, . CAP report is self-published.  Reliability of the academic co-author, read , both of which cite actual sources for further verifiability.  Perhaps Ok to express a particular cited opinion in body of article, but UNDUE for lead which represents a summary of its most important aspects.  Such opinions fall short of "most important aspects" of a BLP for all the reasons previously given. <span 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"><span 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  14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)