Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 6

Revisiting the mention of controversy in the lead
Ok, so I have some new, re-sourced wording to propose for the lead. (Obviously, the  parameters could be removed from the citations, if people are concerned by the size of the references block.)

Again, I have read the policies you cite. There is no synthesis here; there are multiple references, each attesting to criticism of Mr Emerson's work, that is not the same thing as citing multiple sources in order to synthesise an argument from the combination. In addition:


 * Fear Inc. is not self-published, it is a work published under the auspices of the Center for American Progress, "a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization" with executive staff associated with a former US President and currently chaired by a former Senator and Cabinet nominee. The report was reviewed positively by academic Meg Stalcup for The Nation Institute (a non-profit media organisation associated with The Nation magazine) and the Southern Poverty Law Center; none of this means that it is un-reliable. I've replaced the lead reference to that to specific mentions, however, for the sake of clarity
 * The finances of Salon are utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is reliable; indeed news organisations are very often unprofitable. While it may not be to your political taste and it does not sit in the political middle-ground, that does not make it unreliable — very few news organisations sit in the political middle-ground, a term that varies from polity to polity, after all. Eric Boehlert is a respected journalist, having been a contributing editor at Rolling Stone before writing for Salon; that he used to write about music doesn't mean he's only a music journalist, having written on other topics as even his stub article here shows, let alone his Salon archive.
 * Citing the NYT letter is perfectly acceptable, given it was Mr Emerson replying directly to the cited criticism from the letter (and quoting the criticism in his response); I've replaced that to cite the letter itself, however.
 * I've added what is effectively a self-citation from Mr Emerson; in the context of describing the uses to which his expertise has been put, I do not feel this violates WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE here.

I would also suggest expanding the section Controversies with text along the lines of:

(Note that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Eric Boehlert citations here are repeated from the proposed lead text above.)

It is important to note that apologising for an outrageous inaccuracy doesn't reduce how notable that blunder is, nor does it clear the impact that ignorance will have on Mr Emerson's future credibility. That he is still alive doesn't change that he made a ridiculous, laughable claim about the second largest city in the United Kingdom is important and significant, as well as embarrassing for Mr Emerson himself, I'm sure.

I am in no way suggesting that his biography here should be some kind of attack piece. But the lack of any mention of his reputation for inaccuracy and anti-Muslim bigotry in the lead would be biased and unrepresentative of the contents of the article, as well as of Mr Emerson himself. As the MoS guidelines for BLP leads mention (with my emphasis): When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm.

If anyone has any objections to these proposed additions, it would be very useful if you could be specific about which precise words you are objecting to and which precise part of which precise policy you believe it contravenes. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - thank you for making me aware of the discussion. It is much appreciated.  Emerson and his organization, IPT, have been the subject of many controversial edits and discussions, and numerous attempts to disparage and discredit him.  The most recent, of course, was spurred on by his very stupid comment about Birmingham for which he apologized.  I also wanted to share the following article I found while researching for another article: .  I found it rather curious considering it dates back to January 2009.  Moving on...the reasons your suggestions are not acceptable are many, but I will focus on the RS issues and consistent criticisms from biased sources whose only purpose is to discredit the work of Emerson and people like him while supporting their own POV.  CAIR, FAIR, and many of the other sources cited for the sole purpose of disparaging and/or discrediting Emerson do not pass the smell test for inclusion in a BLP.  Rather than revisit the same arguments over and over again, I will simply state that aside from the Birmingham gaff, the information you mentioned above is old news, and doesn't justify overriding prior consensus nor does it justify adding contentious unreliably sourced information to this BLP.  You can start with the following discussion wherein  presents the argument that FAIR is not a reliable source, and also dig deeper to find more detailed discussions regarding FEAR INC. since the same arguments that applied then apply now.   The same or similar arguments can be reviewed in the archives of IPT which holds true here because of the inextricable link between them.
 * I will further opine with regards to some of the inaccuracies and unacceptability of the claims above. Emerson never claimed that Islam "sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine".  He actually stated (which is documented): "There also has to be a willingness on the part of policy-makers to openly challenge militant Islam as a doctrine of terrorism ? The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's greatest religions somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine."   He also wasn't the only one who compared the Oklahoma City Bombing to a Middle Eastern trait.  That claim is old and not notable. .  In addition to WP:RS, other relevant reasons include WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, the latter of which requires strict adherence to policy, particularly as it relates to the following: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; which is exactly what the inclusion of the above represents.  I hope you will find my explanations helpful. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I still don't see a coherent argument as to how these additions would not be justified under all of those policies.
 * The i100 piece I added does mention that "... the sad aspect of the story is that Emerson appears to have sourced his claims from a 2009 scaremongering article from the Birmingham Mail"; it would seem that's the source of Emerson's misinformation. That said, all the comments about "no-go areas" seem to come from a single anonymous commenter (who goes on to make even more racist-seeming comments) and are contradicted by every other person mentioned in the article. It still suggests a concerning lack of care for accuracy if he didn't even evaluate the rest of the article.
 * You mention that "CAIR, FAIR, and many of the other sources cited for the sole purpose of disparaging and/or discrediting Emerson do not pass the smell test for inclusion in a BLP." I haven't added any citations from these organisations. Equally, the text I have added makes it clear that the criticisms are not universal. It is important to include mention of these criticisms in order to comply with giving due balance in order to be neutral. That you personally don't consider them to pass some subjective "smell test" does not mean that the comments do not bear mentioning. Equally, WP:NPOV § Bias in sources explicitly mentions that "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view."
 * I think it's particularly worth mentioning that the wording I propose complies with WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:ASSERT by presenting the controversial opinions as factual statements, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", per WP:IMPARTIAL. Similarly, the wording I am proposing adding to the lead is almost exactly a 50/50 balance between describing criticism of Mr Emerson's views and describing how they have been respected enough for him to have given evidence to Congress and having been consulted by various federal bodies.
 * You have pointed me towards a specific edit by Epeefleche that doesn't actually relate to any NPOV discussion; if there was an individual edit or discussion you were trying to highlight to me, could you please check the link and come back to me? Looking at the Talk: page at that time, though, does show a discussion with an accusation that "The extensive additions of Epeefleche have turned this article into an advertisement for Emerson and a platform for his views." This doesn't fill me with confidence that you are trying to point me towards a reasoned, unbiased conversation.
 * It is irrelevant whether or not the information I am proposing to add is "old news". These are established facts that have a significant impact on how individuals might choose to interpret Mr Emerson's opinions. It is biased and non-neutral for them no to be mentioned clearly in the article. Your opinion that it "doesn't justify overriding prior consensus" is simply that — an opinion. I think it is relatively clear from the previous discussion that the consensus you mention is not settled — consensus can change. You mention "nor does it justify adding contentious unreliably sourced information to this BLP", but the sources I initially added were already in the article (by your "prior consensus") and I have explained how the text I am proposing is reliably sourced.
 * You state that "Emerson never claimed that Islam 'sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine'," but the text in question is accompanied by a reliable source that states otherwise. I would suggest that the distinction between the two forms of wording is sophistry but the solution to your concern would seem to be to expand the sentence to add though Emerson disputes that this is an accurate reading of his words. with a reference of
 * Nobody is claiming that Emerson was alone in claiming that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Islamic extremists. However, several other sources mention this and it certainly seems pertinent to the claims that he foments Islamophobia. It would be unrepresentative to omit any mention of it from the article.
 * I state yet again, I have read the relevant policies. Omitting mention of any controversy around his reliability or notable opinions that he foments Islamophobia would itself be giving "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Not including some text like my proposals would itself be a breach of WP:NPOV and, thus, WP:BLP. Quoting from WP:NPOVFAQ,
 * It seems clear that you are sympathetic towards Mr Emerson, and there is nothing wrong with that. But plenty of other people — some of whom are notable, respectable sources — do consider that his opinions are untrustworthy and inflammatory. It would be unrepresentative and highly POV for that not be clear in the article, including being mentioned in the lead. It would similarly be unrepresentative and highly POV for the article to fail to balance that, such as with the mention of having been consulted by Congress and federal bodies.
 * I'm sorry,, but you still haven't provided a justification for keeping this information from the article — it still seems as though you are trying to prevent criticism of Mr Emerson being adequately represented in the article, which would breach WP:NPOV and, thus, WP:BLP. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP is an overriding policy. Your additions are in violation of both.  Your proposed addition to the lead does contain some synthesis of material (OR) with the "Despite these progressive detractors.."  You set up the back story to discredit him and then fault the organizations for still using him.  Your proposed additions are also very highly POV.  One of your primary sources "MPAC" is simply far too biased to accept as a neutral summary of anything.  You clearly do not like Emerson, but WP is not the place to express this.  Also, try to write in smaller sections in the future.  Many people will simply not want to read a wall of text  Arzel (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's so much text but there are several points being made here, many of which are complex; not everything can be condensed down to a single paragraph. As I've asked repeatedly, without a coherent answer, in what way do you believe that the proposed texts are a violation of WP:BLP? The text I'm proposing to add is reliably sourced and balanced. As I explained above with the quote from WP:NPOVFAQ, it doesn't matter whether or not you consider MPAC to be biased, so long as the bias is properly sourced and not given undue weight.
 * My opinion of Mr Emerson is irrelevant; the article should reflect both that many people consider his opinions important and worthwhile (as is reflected by the second sentence in my proposed addition to the lead) and that others consider him unreliable (as is reflected by the first sentence of my proposed addition to the lead). While the article should not be an attack piece, it should also not be a puff piece. The repeated POV insistence that negative commentary be excluded from the article is itself a violation of WP:NPOV and, thus BLP. If you have specific points that you would like to show how the two proposed blocks of text would violate BLP, please do highlight them. My only interest here is improving the article so that it better reflects the variety of opinions regarding Mr Emerson. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Puff Piece? There are large sections already critical of him.  It would appear that anything not negative is something you consider to be puff.  I used to think you just didn't like him, but it is pretty clear it goes further than just dislike.  I suggest you edit something without such an emotional connection.  Arzel (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to imply that this is a puff piece. Merely that a puff piece would be just as unacceptable as an attack piece. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about Mr Emerson, other than that he and I would probably agree on very few political issues — that's no different from a substantial proportion of my friends :o) —  OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the proposed edit is well sourced by wikipedia policies, breaks the citations down into their separate entries to avoid WP:SYNTH which was a major concern for Arzel (I do not see any policy which supports Arzel's new interpretation of synth), it mirrors the sourcing in both tone and voice which is in accordance with WP:NPOV, and represents the literature on his qualifications both pro and con in accordance to WP:WEIGHT. Additionally it mentions the controversy section in accordance with wikipedias MOS lede requirements.  All of these facts support wikipedia's blp policy when it comes to mentioning controversy.  From what I can tell Arzel believes that adding any criticism into a BLP is against the policy, this in fact is not true.  I will need to see exactly what section of the BLP policy Arzel is citing.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MPAC is not a reliable sourced and very little proposed has reliable sources. This Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,[7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".[8] is synthesis of material WP:SYNTH. The section is undue for the lead.  If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else.  WP BLP's are not the place to attack a living person.  Arzel (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from MPAC, precisely which sources are you saying are unreliable? I justified each of them earlier, so I have to disagree with you there.
 * I have justified MPAC earlier as well: Quoting from WP:NPOVFAQ,
 * I completely cannot see how that sentence is synthesis. There are three clauses there:
 * Despite these progressive detractors is merely a link to make the prose flow better; I am more than happy for that to be reworded or removed, as it doesn't change the presentation of the facts. I just wanted to make the text more conversational than breaking from one sentence to another related sentence like a jump-cut.
 * Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations is directly referenced from i100 from The Independent, hence the citation.
 * with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing ... and intelligence agencies" is directly referenced from the IPT site; as I said at the top of this section:
 * I have no desire to attack Mr Emerson for anything here. I do, however, want the article accurately to reflect him and his views and experience — as any biography should, BLP or otherwise — and for the lead accurately to reflect the article — per MOS:LEAD:
 * I understand why people politically closer to Mr Emerson than I am might dislike mention of criticism in the article, let alone in the lead. But I genuinely do not believe that what I am proposing to add is unduly weighted, inaccurate or unreliably-referenced. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLP, then describe which parts of the aforementioned policies you would like to see rewritten in order to satisfy the pending requests to add contentious material to the lede using questionable sources that were cherrypicked online for the express purpose of further discrediting a BLP. Let's start with WP:VERIFIABILITY wherein it clearly states (my bold and underline): Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. And also explain why you think the ledes of BLPs should be changed each time such sources criticize the subjects where COI exists - even though similar material is already included in other sections of the article, and have already created WP:UNDUE. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read all of those policies repeatedly in the last few days; I genuinely don't believe there is any conflict. I don't personally think MPAC is extremist and In its history, it has condemned the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the attacks on the World Trade Center, and denounced the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. (from its article here) would suggest that I am probably being reasonable.
 * To be clear, I totally don't think that the leads of BLPs should change often, let alone on the basis of "yet another criticism" — after all, most of us get criticised from time to time, particularly if we're in the public eye or in politics — but I do think that the lead should carry a single sentence reflecting that Mr Emerson's views are not universally respected. I wouldn't expect this sentence to change substantially in the foreseeable future (absent any substantial change in Mr Emerson's position on these topics). The lead is meant to summarise the article; there is a large section of this article devoted to controversies regarding Mr Emerson's views, yet zero mention of this in the lead. Similarly, when removing my edit, the sentence about him being respected enough to have given evidence to Congressional committees (and so on) was also removed; this too should be mentioned in the lead. Essentially, I believe the lead should give a reasonable at-a-glance understanding that Mr Emerson's views are widely respected (hence Congressional committees etc) but also widely criticised (hence the part we're arguing about ;o) and (hence the controversy) the broad grounds on which each of these is the case.
 * Precisely which statements do you feel are unjustified, on the basis of which references? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there are two different interpretations of what is going on here, I've added a section to the WP:BLPN for some outside advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very sensible idea. Thank you ;o) —  OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

FAIR may not be a reliable source, but their reporting on Emerson is quite extensive. We could follow some of the sources they report on, for example, to find the original sources for material such as this

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO
I have to cut out all the links for it to save, don't know why.

For personal reasons I have some interest in this topic namely Birmingham, and should state right at the top that I am not nearly as familiar with the formatting and rules of wikipedia, hopefully this does not disqualify. IMHO: For decades Emerson has been toiling away as an analyst / minor media circuit pundit. The world shifts and brings him into focus and in the glare of the spotlight where people can make outrageous claims (ie all that about ebola, just a day or so ago Glenn Beck ascribed vaccines as part of governmental control) and not get called out on it he probably figured he could shovel a heap about Birmingham and no one would tag him for it.

In the context of modern politics he delivered right on cue, its not as if the worlds he spoke were not screened. Guests don't get on global broadcast networks with out someone reviewing their statements, his words were checked, not for veracity but to ensure that they would fit the heated format. In here he speaks about Sweden, Germany other countries, not just Birmingham.

If the man can be ascribed as an 'expert' and can also be so egregiously wrong about the likes of Birmingham is shocking. Any adult with a brain knows he is, and was, wrong and he knew it. There was a debate in the American Civil War in the consideration of making slaves soldiers. A general wrote that ~if they can be good soldiers than they cannot be slaves. A variant of this holds for Emerson, he can't be as wrong as he has regularly been / made the statements he has made and still be in contention as an expert.

People have gotten shows on Fox news, become media figures by doling out lies and half truths and Emerson was having a moment, he reached for the brass ring and got it but unfortunately, for him, it turned out to be the ring on a grenade. He was a bit of a regular on Fox. These days he's pretty much dead as a figure than can get or deserves respect.

Emerson is one of the many cranks who pollutes the public discourse for assorted aims. To struggle to ascribe his words as 'an error' without a smirk is obviously, grossly dishonest. This isn't giving him the benefit of the doubt - its perpetuation.

ATSME: "His Birmingham gaffe does not make him controversial, it was a stupid remark but not controversial because he apologized it for it" (I will allow myself one profanity) This statement beguiles me for how truly fucking inane it is. If I told you Hitler apologized that makes him/his actions/his words not controversial? You can say anything you want and as long as you apologize it is rendered not controversial? This would have gotten shot down in a HS debate club, shame on you, your lack of objectivity here is enough (to bend logic like that!) that you should recuse yourself.

I am sure that someone will quote a policy or guideline but we, unfortunately, have reached the point where people who lie and damage the public sphere by offering up scaremongering and hate are 'controversial'. Steven Emerson will probably get a teaching gig at a right leaning college and get recognized on occasion in the elevator as 'that guy'. On a personal level thats what he deserves. I would hope wikipedia (and some of the individuals on this page) would stop bending their spine to jelly to avoid laying into Steven Emerson's Wiki page the sort of correct and harsh statements that deserve to be there.

"Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe" This sentence (and the rest of this page) reeks of the sweat generated in putting it together, the effort to smooth things over.

For starters: "Muslim religious police 'beat' anyone who doesn't dress.... / should be- 'beat' and wound anyone" -link- The no go zone statment should include the other countries mentioned "“Governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany, they don’t exercise any sovereignty… you basically have zones where Sharia courts are set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country”"

Fox in it's apology called Emersons "Serious factual error that we wrongly let stand unchallenged and uncorrected"..."we could find no credible source that Birmingham is a nogo zone" -link- I am fairly certain (95%) that I had read that Fox had made a statement to ban Emerson from appearing on the network in the future. This repercussion (and the apologies) should certainly be mentioned.

I couldn't find it and it's getting late but here -link-is this passage "What is perhaps surprising is that since 1998 publicly-funded National Public Radio has blacklisted Mr. Emerson." Which is really, sharply funny in that Mr. Emerson might be the only person in the world barred from the opposing poles of media.

It's 3:30 am, this went a bit long and is perhaps outside the normal format, alas. I need to get to bed. More in a couple days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 04:14, February 10, 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, encyclopedias don't care about your honest opinion which is why we have WP:PAG, and also why WP:BLP policy requires strict adherence. WP is not a comment section for a blog post.  You obviously came here with a grudge against Emerson with your focus on Birmingham which makes your account a WP:SPA.  We welcome new editors, and are happy to help you anyway we can, but the Emerson TP isn't a place for people to vent because BLP violations count everywhere on WP.  You need to read the policies, learn how to sign your comments so we'll know who made them, and pay attention to our guidelines before you find yourself blocked before you even get started.  Get a good night's sleep, and maybe you'll feel better in the morning. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ATSME - can you explain both the logic of this statment and how it does not display an underlyng excessive favoritism?
 * ATSME: "His Birmingham gaffe does not make him controversial, it was a stupid remark but not controversial because he apologized for it" =dhaddonpearson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 04:14, February 11, 2015  (UTC)
 * That's actually one of those that encyclopedia's don't actually care about. However Atsme is has a sound basis for removing the word controversial.The word is vague and subjective. The view that he is controversial is true to some and laughable to others. The word has a rather broad nature. You can see the relevant guideline at WP:LABEL.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you were unable to include your links with your post. Were the links to cites which have been blacklisted by Wikipedia, perhaps? Without your links, or citations to reliable sources, your post comes off as a personal opinion "blog post", as Atsme said - and that isn't the purpose of Talk pages on Wikipedia. (In fact, I applaud Atsme's courtesy and restraint in not simply hatting or reverting your post outright per WP:TPO; an action I would not have contested.) With nearly 100 edits across various topics, your account is obviously not an SPA, but please restrict yourself on article Talk pages to discussion of information in reliable sources, and related article improvement. Atsme's opinion on whether Emerson's Birmingham remarks make him controversial shouldn't matter to you; this article will only convey that if, as the WP:LABEL guideline linked by Serialjoepsycho says, "reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy". Also, you should consider giving readers reliably sourced information about the relevant controversies, rather than just affixing a label. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The links were youtube (I believe) and were mr emersons own words. Yes it did stray into more of an essay though I like it enough that I'll use it elsewhere, perhaps not the best place to put it alas. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/paris-sue-fox-news_n_6664090.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)