Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 7

Seeking consensus
This is a proposed rewording to stay closer to the sources:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Lacks attribution and lacks context as is specifically required per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you want to give it a try? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already stated what needs to be done and I do not think coming up with a new lead to fit around omitted information is appropriate at this time. A cleansweep of opinions and a hefty dose of context needs to be provided before we arrive at the sentence which notes Emerson is a divisive figure with zealous supporters and detractors. My attempts to cleanse the very problem of this out-of-context material was reverted - but the arguments still seem unchallenged. Materially that is factually inaccurate is not appropriate to be included as such in Wikipedia's voice and all this pro-and-con opinions compromise the disinterested nature of NPOV BLPs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "factually inaccurate" in this, and it is properly attributed as requested to be added to the article's body. Once agreed on the wording to properly represent these viewpoints, we can start thinking on how to summarize in the lede.:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you run into Cherrypicking and V issues - how is he "discredited"? The example being used is not accurate and is false - he did not label it as Muslim, he said it had the hallmarks when the FBI and CIA agreed. To put that in context is to draw undue attention to an allegation which gets its facts wrong. Secondly Ernst's actual position is more complex because Emerson and Ernst agree on principal about ISIS and others radical elements as not being representative or condoned by others. While there is certainly great merits to Ernst's arguements, I think a half a sentence rattling off a list of persons and broadly attributed them as "Islamophobic" is little more than a contrived and not serious argument being advanced. This is WP:CHERRYPICKING - because the notion that "these words exist in the same sentence" is all I see being verified. Calling Emerson the "worst person in the world" on an allegation which even the IRS dismissed and did not act on is one such problem. It is a lazy and partisan approach to presenting a complex issue in a most unintelligent way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The example being used is not accurate and is false
 * No. You simply stating so, without producing specific citations to reliable sources to support your assertions, doesn't work. Please forgive me for preferring the review and vetting process of the oldest academic publisher in the world over your unsupported statements.
 * This is WP:CHERRYPICKING - because the notion that "these words exist in the same sentence" is all I see being verified.
 * No. That is a total misread of WP:CHERRYPICKING. If you wish to call reliably sourced information "cherrypicked", then you must produce "contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source". You have not. Were you aware that the same Ernst source also describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe"?
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are most than welcome to add alternative views, but we can't suppress critical viewpoints per WP:NPOV just because you believe these are not serious arguments. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Did Steven Emerson actually identify Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings?. According to Aaron W. Hughes, holder of the Philip S. Bernstein Chair of Jewish Studies in the Department of Religion and Classics at the University of Rochester, Safi, Amid has form for "engaging in innuendo and identity politics". Safi has criticized other scholars for, what he states are, "pieces attacking and critiquing the prominence of Muslim scholars in the Study of Islam" - Why would you ever want to use a comment by him to achieve consensus on a controversial point for a BLP? Stacie Croquet (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Answers: (a) There are multiple sources that describe Emerson and his work in the context of Islamophobia; (b) material about Amid, can be added to the Amid article; (c) The book is not by Amir only. You can also read this article in its entirety to see that there are significant opinions on the subject. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Stacie, he identified Muslims - "speculated", actually. As for your mention of the sniping at each other between a Jewish studies academic and an Islamic studies academic on their personal blogs (no surprise here), no one has suggested "using a comment" in a BLP. The discussion is over the use of a description in a Cambridge University published academic source. Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, my jaw has dropped - digital lynch mob in dingy rooms declare black is white. - DYK The first major incident of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict was by a Palestinian Christian militant? lol, Who gives a shit...me...wish I'd gone Salsa dancing tonight instead :(  Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This seeming fact is increasingly muddied - the snippet is ``This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible, Emerson said on CBS. ``That is a Mideastern trait. The source shows that Emerson blames Islamic extremists - not Muslims. The source veers with the attempt discredit him by pointing to CAIR which Emerson claimed has connections to Hamas. Something a federal judge agreed with in a 2009 ruling over the United States government's ample evidence of a connection. Emerson ended up suing CAIR in 2013 for defamation on what was a retort over this. Understandably, CAIR was the one which brought up the Islamophobe aspect. The issue get more complex as it boils down to Emerson pounded that Islamic extremists are the biggest threat to America. CAIR says that such claims are Islamophobic and that it hurts Muslims. However, Emerson is more against the jihadic elements and his controversial 1994 film "included a disclaimer that Islam as a religion does not condone violence and that the vast majority of Muslims are not members of extremist groups." (Highbeam Source) From there it gets more complex because CAIRs assertions come on the fact that Emerson says not to trust Muslim groups and cites CIA data that 20% of all worldwide groups have been unknowingly infiltrated by radical elements. It paints a complex portrait of Emerson as not a hate-monger or bigot, but as a zealous alarmist following a watershed moment for him. Emerson has made it a duty to expose CAIR, MPAC, and AMC connections to radical elements - the very same leading organizations which label him as an Islamophobe. This is a more complete and short window into the disputants. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, you are most welcome to present alternative viewpoints for NPOV. We just don't suppress viewpoints in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We do make value judgements on viewpoints. Stacie Croquet (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we discussing the Holocaust? Can you clarify? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a blind mirror - we evaluate viewpoints and make judgements on them. That is the point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Middle East Forum (the Hibeam source you describe above, publisher of Middle East Quarterly) is not less biased than CAIR from the other side of the spectrum... -   At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Daniel Pipes (its president) has been described in the same terms as Emerson as it related to Islamophobia in some of the sources listed above. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously contesting that Emerson had a disclaimer on his 1994 film? Are you seriously contesting the CIA report? You seem to not understand using a biased source for simple facts is completely different from using biased sources for opinions or speculation. This is why this discussion is ongoing, because you use personal opinions in biased sources which call people bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not written or commented on his disclaimer, which again, it can be described in the article. What I wrote is to debunk the premise that the Middle East Forum is an unbiased source. Now, having said that, I kindly ask you to stop with your personal attacks and blatant misrepresentations. I have not called anyone a bigot. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you called anyone a bigot and I have addressed it to clarify that you cited sources which accuse Emerson of bigotry - Islamophobia is a form of bigotry. Since you find no problem with the evidence for this talk page to provide context - this is resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I did cite sources that accuse Emerson of Islamophobia, and these sources are reliable and their opinions significant per WP:NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We've already explained why the book co-authored by Omid Safi is a QS - he is a controversial, biased author. CAP is a political think-tank that publishes its own reports designed to support their cause (lobbyists). It is a highly QS at best - see what BLP states about using QS to cite contentious statements. CAP was "formed with significant seed money from George Soros, Progressive insurance magnate Peter Lewis, and Herb and Marion Sandler, who once owned Golden West Savings and Loan." They are not unlike the Heritage Foundation. Criticism of Emerson certainly belongs in his BLP, but I hardly consider the heavily biased view of a think tank worthy for the lead of an encyclopedia, not to mention all the WP:PAG at issue. The required multiple reliable sources verifiably expressing the same criticism have not been presented. All we've seen so far are more QS with cherrypicked contentious statements from each. I have no problem with the inclusion of criticism in the body of the article as long as it is verifiable, accurate, properly sourced. Representing Emerson as an Islamophobe based on bigoted opinions flies in the face of WP:BLP. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  01:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In principal - I agree. This has gone round and round and repeatedly the trivial mentions in sources have failed to provide any argument and editorial judgement comes into play. There seems to be now several editors who agree such claims are not proper for the lead and all the issues of attribute and other policies are being wikilawyered to support what is still a questionable source. The four 1000+ word documents on Emerson by independent sources all avoid any claims of bigotry, but certainly contain detailed and well-backed issues with Emerson's work. This is the mainstream view and it is certainly accurate - the Tennessean is also an acceptable source. Fear Inc is sufficiently detailed in its arguments that it is acceptable to use for its opinion and stance - even as a biased source. I disagree with Atsme on many things - namely because Emerson is not a scholar and has been subject to error, but nothing on the F. MacIntyre level. Which is still handled properly by good editors. Discretion hear is apt and there seems to be no purposeful use to the inclusions other than to document the mere existence of this label by those wronged and ideologically opposed to and by Emerson. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Emerson himself is "a controversial, biased author" -- perhaps even head of a "political think-tank that publishes its own reports" etc. I don't propose to put those passages in the article here -- but it does seem to me that we'll need to avoid using him as a source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really what is being discussed here but yes - I do not think it is apt to engage in mirroring the more contested elements of Emerson's work. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows Emerson to give his ideological stance or reasoning as long as it does not make an issue with the other points. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to avoid entirely, but think-tanks are certainly suspect as are their authors. No brainer.  They require some fact-checking to make sure what you plan to cite is verifiably accurate, in context and policy compliant, all the while keeping in mind that WP is not a source to further think-tank agendas.  Before any think-tank published sources are used, such as Emerson's IPT, or CAP, CAIR, FAIR, etc. make sure it fact-checks for accuracy. For example, Emerson's claim about CAIR fact-checks against other RS, such as .  Racial slurs, bigotry, prejudices and other contentious statements made with the intent of defaming are in conflict with US Law, WP:PAG and quite simply not encyclopedic. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This person is controversial, and the fact that he is controversial is one of the reasons he is notable. There are dozen of sources that describe him in that context and not having that in the article is a violation of NPOV. I still believe that given the sources we have, a mention of Islamophobia, anti-Islamism, and his significant errors of judgement in the past, and other aspects are entirely appropriate for this article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK He has been criticized by QS, but that does not make him "controversial" especially considering the information cited doesn't go much beyond contentious labels and misstatements about him by his critics. Some of the discussions on this TP have been far more controversial. His Birmingham gaffe does not make him controversial, it was a stupid remark but not controversial because he apologized it for it. Read what the people of Birmingham had to say about it. which is hardly what one could consider controversial. Let's not lose sight of the fact this BLP is notable for the work he did early on as an investigative reporter, for the documentary he produced with PBS, his extensive database, and Congressional testimony. The rest is media hype from QS, most of which involve paid advocacy and COI. I have not read one RS that indicates Emerson, IPT or his work had any negative effects on Muslims, except maybe for those involved in Islamic terrorism. If it has, cite the sources and what was said. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  18:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand you correctly. Any source that describes him as an "expert" or lauds his work is RS, and any source that criticises his views or questions his judgment is "QS" ("The rest is media hype from QS").  Have I got it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it telling that the majority of sources referring to Emerson as an expert either put the word in scare-quotes ("expert"), preface it with "self-proclaimed", or can be directly traced back to himself or his website bio (like the descriptions of him in Congressional records of his testimony). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you keep thumping that "It's a QS source!" drum, but you seem to be the one 'questioning' the sources, which isn't how WP:QS works. The Cambridge Companion mentioned above, for example, more than meets Wikipedia's requirements as a high-quality reliable source (as explained here). The Islamophobia in America book is another reliable source. If you'd like to discuss how the reliably sourced information should be presented in the article, fine, but mislabeling information as QS or "cherrypicked" (that's another blatant misuse I've seen above), is not part of productive discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The one that needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK is you, Atsme. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has reached its end point. We are not using the person's enemies to label him a bigot in the lead and context is required for any such seriously contested claims. Now - will the lot of you stop fighting with each other and stick to constructively improving the page. When I request the lifting of protection, this BLP matter better not start up again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given notes to Cwobeel and Xenophrenic about this. Atsme - the consensus matter stands on the one point, but with proper context this article will not be an attack piece as it was before. You'll need to trust other editors that the serious BLP issue will be kept out in favor of actual context. Cwobeel found a decent source to connect the 1995 gaff to the IPT being hampered. Without the commentary on Emerson from biased sources (which Gale specifically avoided) it becomes more neutral and not partisan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That pronouncement involves a straw man (no-one is proposing "bigot") and a tautology: any source that criticises him in strong terms (e.g. Islamophobia) is ipso facto an "enemy" and thus not usable. I don't intend to adopt this way of seeing things, and so I don't agree that "the discussion has reached its end point".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When a court rules against the organization and the organization's spokesman makes a bad retort which results in a defamation suit - yeah, nothing at all wrong with repeating their accusations. I'll take the New York Times and Gale Research over those. And just in-case you are unaware calling someone an Islamophobe is an accusation of bigotry i.e. calling someone a bigot. Have fun - I'll be watching. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Says ChrisGualtieri. Look, I don't really care if you think that Islamophobia is bigotry, and neither should you. We follow the sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't follow sources we follow BLP policy which states: ....and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Wonder what that means exactly? Surely we (WP) don't want to be spreading claims made by others whose intent is to defame.  Is there any way we can run this through WP's legal department?  Oh, and before anyone answers that question, please read the following:  There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia.' This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it."  Guess where I found it?   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I'll guess! I'll guess! Is it Sam Harris responding to Glenn Greenwald? Who then responded, The meaning of “Islamophobia” is every bit as clear as “anti-semitism” or “racism” or “sexism” and all sorts of familiar, related concepts. It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group; (2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one’s own; and/or (3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs. Do I win a prize?
 * Yes, we do follow the sources - and you'd know that if you followed the link. BLP says we must follow Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and, No original research (NOR). You stopped short of noting that when you quoted. If you think there is any defamation going on, raise your concern at the appropriate venue and obtain agreement through solid consensus. Be advised, however, that repeatedly referring to reliable sources as "claims made by others whose intent is to defame!" without a scrap of evidence is likely to have negative results. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your impudent taunting is disruptive and not helpful in improving this article. Read WP:CIVILITY so you'll understand why the only prize you'll win for disruptive behavior is an involuntary vacation from editing. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  06:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Already responded to you here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

so here is an interesting thing. I stepped away from this page to see if I was part of the problem with consensus. I come back and notice a new cast of characters, but the new additions are all arguing the exact same points I did. Furthermore the other side hasn't changed one bit. Now remember that we set up the BLPN to help us arrive at a consensus on this issue, and I had certain assurances that people would listen to them. So, please brief me. What did the previously uninvolved editors at the WP:BLPN have to say? Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous discussions: (BLPN - Steven Emerson) — (BLPN - Steven Emerson part 2) — (Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article) have produced a lot of opinion, and less consensus. In brief, the discussions center on descriptions of Emerson as (1) Islamophobic and (2) his activities/assertions as discredited and/or factually challenged and error-prone. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that you can formulate a synopsis from multiple books and articles that you believe will justify the inclusion of bigotry in the lead, but have no opinion about the Emerson BLPN which clearly indicates the contentious statements are not acceptable. I've had to deal with similar situations at two other articles, one being a BLP which the RfC closer determined was in conflict with BLP policy despite a slight lead in the number of opposing comments - he went with strict adherence to policy.  Surely you don't think bigotry and contentious labels are going to be allowed in a BLP regardless of the RS?  It's one thing to include criticism with proper weight and balance, citing the text that supports it, but that isn't what you've been proposing.  I consult you to read some of the GA BLPs, as well as some of the highly controversial BLPs that are not GAs, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Charles Manson, and the like.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear, Atsme, if you are responding to me or Coffeepusher. Speaking just for myself, I haven't "formulated a synopsis" to justify inclusion of any text so far; other editors have done so, but not me. My comments were specifically on clarifying whether sources were reliable, and whether Wikipedia policy was being misapplied. I've haven't edited this article, or proposed any specific text. Do I think the above listed sources would support content about Emerson's bigotry in the lead? Very likely; but that would first need to be handled appropriately in the body of the article, and then summarized in the lead. And you are doubly mistaken that I have no opinion about the Emerson BLP/N discussion (2 of them, actually, and 1 at RS/N); of course I do - I just didn't express it here. I can already tell that my opinion will significantly disagree with yours about what those discussions "clearly indicate".


 * As to your question about whether I think his bigotry or other "contentious" information is allowable in his BLP, of course I do (as does Wikipedia policy), as long as all applicable policies are properly followed. The fact that the subject of a Wikipedia article is a living person only means that we must take extraordinary care in handling contentious content; it does not grant them immunity to encyclopedic coverage of unflattering or critical information. As for your comment about GA BLPs, I've already read and even edited dozens of GAs and FAs; so? You are aware, I hope, that even the leads in those articles support contentious descriptions, like "I hate Islam", "compares the Quran with Mein Kampf", "Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist", "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", "his previously held positions, which include Holocaust denial", "He promotes conspiracy theories", "someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public", "made increasingly anti-American and anti-semitic remarks", "producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech", "widely considered to be a hate group", well, you get the idea. The bottom line is that unflattering information that you don't personally like may indeed appear in the lead of BLPs if it is policy-compliant; and so far, there have been no persuasive policy-based arguments presented at the noticeboards to prohibit such information from this article. Do you have a proposal for how you'd like to see the information conveyed? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Xeno - Those quotes are out of context here and in the article itself, there is a big difference between an actual stance and a manufactured one. I hope you understand that distinction. Geert Wilders campaigned for the sale to be banned - its not an out of context gaff being furthered. When Emerson messes up in a book or books and it gets substantial covered for that - well, that's legitimate. Controversial figures invariably have negative attention because someone disagrees or takes umbrage in something - otherwise people wouldn't be talking about the person. Furthermore, most of the issues being raised against Emerson are false and that's really concerning. Verifiability, not truth is a load of bullshit because veracity is essential and we are seeing this on Wikipedia's Gamergate case. Numerous media outlets giving completely inaccurate, wildly distorted and completely manufactured accounts - labeling them "reliable sources" only shows the editors defending them to be fools. Without veracity - they are not reliable for anything other than their own failings. The more "drama" that surrounds a person, the more such issues rear their ugly heads. Wikipedia had editorial control and Wikipedia can be better than the sources it uses. Every week, I have to inform Wikipedia readers to errors in multitudes of books and deal with them by showing why they are wrong and explaining the situation. Biographies of such nature deserve notes, but not debates about such material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, there is no "context" issue with the quotes I provided. Atsme asserted that we shouldn't include Emerson's "bigotry in the lead" because "the Emerson BLPN which clearly indicates the contentious statements are not acceptable", and recommended that I look at Good Articles (GA) for guidance. "Surely you don't think bigotry and contentious labels are going to be allowed in a BLP regardless of the RS?", Atsme asked. So I provided just a few easily found examples where contentious descriptions are indeed allowed in BLPs; in the LEAD, no less. And the BLPN & RSN discussions confirmed that reliably sourced criticisms and descriptions of Emerson were policy compliant.
 * Your statement that "most of the issues being raised against Emerson are false" has been shown to be not only completely unsubstantiated, but downright incorrect. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My question was taken out of context and the quotes referenced above are also out of context as was pointed out to you. The comment preceding and following my question are what defines the question in proper context: ....one being a BLP which the RfC closer determined was in conflict with BLP policy despite a slight lead in the number of opposing comments - he went with strict adherence to policy. Surely you don't think bigotry and contentious labels are going to be allowed in a BLP regardless of the RS? It's one thing to include criticism with proper weight and balance, citing the text that supports it, but that isn't what you've been proposing. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Xen - how I'd like to see information conveyed is the way WP directs us to convey it per WP:PAG. The level of sensationalism and tabloidism of late is quite disconcerting. Advocates want to mark their territory - seek and destroy all credibility of the BLP they oppose using ugly hate speech and bigotry, then turn them into attack pages or coatracks. It's an embarrassment, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I cringe when I hear teachers say they don't allow their students to use WP for research but I understand why. It's not so much a problem with BLP policy - the responsibility falls on editors who ignore policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. The following policy is also misinterpreted quite often: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. NPOV policy clearly states: Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Not all contentious material has to be included, either. If all editors would simply follow policy, we would have far fewer disputes. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  06:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Unlock Request- This article is still locked. Little effort has been made recently to form a consensus. , I think it would be reasonable to ask you to to unlock the page at this point. I think that if the same people start having the same issues here that would simply constitute edit warring. To end the disruption it may be necessary to see how the arbcom BLP Discretionary sanctions suggest to proceed with BLP's. Editors here have been given long opportunity (close to a month) to seek consensus and I don't feel as they have taken advantage of it. Thank you for your consideration.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This page had been locked indef since 1/25. This talk page discourse has proven fruitless it seems. It's time to move on to some form of dispute resolution. It was mentioned that there was already a BLPN. It seems as above some feel the prior BLPN's may have settled the issue here. Was there an official close on this/those BLPN/s? If not we could seek a close. If o since there seems to be an issue still we can seek clarification of the close. We can open an RFC. We can open another BLPN. There are numerous options.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Atsme: WP:PAG documents how we should write Wikipedia policies, so you lost me as to why you cited it. Then you launched into a diatribe about "Advocates", which is another line of discussion unrelated to this issue, and is of no interest to me. Emerson's inaccurate (as well as inflammatory) assertions, and his anti-Islam/Arab/Muslim stances are two very reliably sourced aspects which require encyclopedic treatment in this article. Do you have proposals on how that information should be presented? @Psycho: your idea to seek an official determination and close of the noticeboard discussions appears to be a good one.  How would we go about that? The discussions are here: (BLPN - Steven Emerson) — (BLPN - Steven Emerson part 2) — (RSN - Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article), plus this Talk page and a (now archived) discussion at Atsme's Talk page which she closed just as we were reaching resolution to several issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note, I am still watching this talk page. Once some sort of consensus is reached whether or not to include the material (or if discussion does down long enough that it's clear that nobody cares anymore), I'll unprotect the article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CLOSE. You can request to get an official close from [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure here]. I've not read either discussions. How much does the RSN relate to the BLPN? Anyway thats where you go and what you do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a month appears to be long enough in this case. I've set it to expire 2 days from now, which will be exactly a month. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Steinback
An interesting article that connects some significant dots: Jihad Against Islam, by Robert Steinback. The article refers to a 2010 piece by Max Blumenthal, which is a must read  for those interested in the subject. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , SPLC is a questionable source at best:, and .  Connecting "significant dots" (X said this + Y said that = Z-phobia), especially using a questionable source is WP:SYNTH and an ill advised noncompliant means for justification .  The hatred and bias spewed by SPLC and Max Blumenthal  has nothing to do with Emerson's work anyway; not the same context.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:RS/N if you are questioning the validity of SPLC. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A moot point because synth is always unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia (2)
Per BRD, I re-added the material about the Islamophobic aspects of Emerson discourse as reported in reliable sources. That was reverted, giving us the opportunity now to find a way to discuss how to best describe these significant viewpoints. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this as three different places and consensus was clear that you do not go about calling someone a bigot in the lead of an article when the claim is heavily disputed and sourced to a less than a single sentence. The claim has very dubious veracity. That is clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not calling anyone anything. We are reporting reliable sources asserting Islamophobic aspects of Emerson's discourse and ideas. It is in the body of the article and requires a mention in the lede per WP:LEAD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source and it is less than a sentence. We have had three discussions about this with BLPN. It is inappropriate to call someone a bigot when there is no veracity and the source is in legal disputes with the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also "It is in the body of the article and requires a mention in the lede per WP:LEAD." - It is not in the body of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your propensity of edit warring on a simple aspect such as dispute tag. Read the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Three different discussions were had over the issue and not only was the source found to lack veracity and depth - it is erroneous and completely lacks context. Verifiability and veracity are two completely different things. In this case - the claim is unsupported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. These aspects are well covered, veracity and verifiability are there. A critique is an assessment or opinion made by a third party, and as such these are not facts that could be deemed "true" or "false". Your narrow interpretation of policy is completely out of line, as it implies that any criticism of a LP cannot be described in a BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiable but not false - Also, extreme, wild, controversial claims about a living person (WP:BLP) should be avoided, even when in multiple sources. Treat extreme claims as requiring extreme evidence, so that Wikipedia is not used as a "rumor mill" spreading sensational text about people or events. But even more important, WP:V - 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. The latter is unambiguous, and stated quite clearly. It also one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware of our content policies. The material from which this is sourced, does not meet any of the criteria for exclusion. The sources produced in support of that material are unimpeachable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeating your argument doesn't make it true. Look - in case you didn't know. Sources from an organization he is legal battles with and suing for defamation are decidedly non-neutral. CAP's biased report which is verifiable and has veracity is fine - but this is contentious, removed by several editors multiple times and we had a BLPN discussion on this specific issue and a month long lock. You had a month to deal with this point and you did not. You went over 3RR with that edit and you should remove it. It is not BRRRRRD - if you do not remove it I will ask an admin to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This conversation seems to refer to this diff so please correct me if I'm wrong about the diff. This would come down to a question of weight. Some of Emerson's comments it seems you want to say have been challenged as Islamophobic, this would seem to fall in the realm of opinion. We can't exactly represent opinions as fact, which of course as written you don't, but you also do not attribute this opinion to anyone. Also basically the lead has it's own weight separate from the article body. Being of course that the lead summarizes the article wit the proper weight given. You would be giving alot of weight to those that have the opinion that his comments have been Islamophobic. This is already covered in the lead with, "Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe." You just expound upon it. But again it's a question of weight in my view.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim is an opinion held by those who have been in an ideological and legal battle with Emerson. So he parroted the erroneous claim in 1995 - he was not the origin of the "Middle Eastern" accusation. Emerson is not perfect, but he is not a bigot and his own writings are clear. CAP's "misinformation expert" is a bit far, but at least it is backed with examples. The short biography of Emerson was pretty clear about the divided opinions, but at no point did it entertain or give any credit to bigotry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect or imperfect, really not much to talk about there. Here the conversation seems to be about the lead. Including the part about islamophobia in the lead, which to me to beings a question of weight. The lead being a summary of the body has it's own weight gauge separate from the one measuring the weight of the body. "Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe." That is what is currently written. This neutrally reflects the views of those that see him as "Fomenting Islamophobia" and those who simply point out his inaccuracies without labeling him. Adding the label in the lead may expound upon the views of those that label him but in the case of the lead this may put undue weight on it. In regards to the body, That's not really a discussion that seemed to be taking place here. Does it have a place? It very well may. That's case by case and it really depends. Written similarly to the diff I linked to above, it would not. The opinions of random unnamed people and/or groups is not exactly encyclopedic. Opinions by specific people and/or specific groups is, depending of course on who the people are or who the group is. And of course that is to say the related opinions would be attributed to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of material
Regarding this deletion, I argue that there is no BLP violation, given the sources provided. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevant discussions about this issue at WP:BLP/N: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216
 * Several editors - not just me and - stated that the accusation was not appropriate. Emerson has had legal battles over defamation so do not reinsert such contentious claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should worry about Emerson suing "us"? I don't think that's a wise suggestion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be woefully missing the point - It is clearly not-neutral to insert petty insults by opposing sides that have been to court over this and other matters. Sourced to less than half a sentence and completely lacking in substance. You seem to be unfamiliar with the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all -- I've been following it for some time, as you likely know. I'm glad you aren't advising editors to worry about legal threats.  If the point is that Emerson has sued scholars for their characterisations, well then I'd suggest that perhaps we ought to mention that in our article here.  Assuming there are sources for it -- got any?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Current discussion at WP:BLP/N -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the concern Chris mentioned as being a legal threat. However, I do see it as potential noncompliance with a very important part of WP:BLP which states, Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States,. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such a concern, as we are reporting material published by highly regarded publishing houses. I suggest you read the comments by uninvolved editors at WP:BLP/N -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm trying to understand your perspective, so please try to understand mine which shouldn't be too difficult as it is based on policy. In parallel, the RS you cited to justify adding a contentious statement about Emerson are not unlike the following RS,  and, which would be considered equally as reliable for adding contentious statements about the Southern Poverty Law Center, specifically to label them a "hate group" in the lede of their article.  I would be interested in seeing if you could accomplish such an edit at the SPLC article.  Actually, it should be a relatively easy edit if the sources are accepted as RS like you want your sources to be accepted here for Emerson, only SPLC isn't a BLP which requires extra sensitivity and strict adherence to policy.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss SPLC, do that in that article's talk page, not here. Please see the comments on the noticeboard about this article and the content we are discussing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of articles and testimonies
I have removed that long list. We don't list in scholar's articles all their papers or journal articles, and we don't list on political pundits' articles all the opeds or other material they have published. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. It's progress that we don't have the various instances of testimony appearing.  But the articles could go as well -- unless there's evidence from a secondary source that there were a couple with particular significance/impact.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also agree. Though I wonder if this was an attempt at a journalistic bibliography?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also just removed the "See Also" section.  We have categories for that purpose. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IPT may be a POV fork
I used the duplication detector tool to see if there were a lot of similarities when comparing the two articles and the answer is definitely:. We either need to remove most of the information in the IPT section on Emerson, or delete/merge the article Investigative Project on Terrorism. Emerson and IPT are inextricably linked. Without Emerson, there is no IPT. Worse yet, whenever there is a media blast over some gaffe the guy made, both articles wind up being attacked at the same time and trying to oversee both articles is a job in itself. A while back, consensus determined that IPT would be subject to adherence of WP:BLPGROUPS. Can we please do something one way or the other? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a WP:POVFORK here: POV forks are when you create an article to push a certain POV, and without other necessary contexts for NPOV. In any case, a merge will likely address your concerns. You can add a proposal to merge Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism to here, and gauge if there is consensus for that action. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried that once and it didn't turn out well. I prefer to get input from Serialjoepsycho now that he is back editing and actually experienced some of the issues that recently raised my concern.  He is also very accomplished at doing things like initiating RfCs, etc., and since he has basically been overseeing both articles collaboratively with me, I look forward to his input.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to walk on eggshells. I have done a WP:BOLD merge, let me know what you think. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I undid it - there is no consensus to merge and there was a clear consensus to keep the article. I don't want to waste my time dealing with the walls of text and circular arguing - I permanently object to merging either article and AFD showed there was a clear consensus to keep it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it was worth a try. BTW, even if an article survives AFD it does not mean that it can't be redirected, if there is consensus, that is. And also, FYI, there is nothing "permanent" in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This conversation has been raised at multiple locations by Atsme. The AFD as I recall not only addressed the deletion of IPT but also the merging of IPT. That of course would show not only a consensus to keep but also a consensus not to merge. And while yes as you point out, Consensus can change, nothing here has fundamentally done anything to do that. There is no POVfork. There is no inextricable link, or rather that phrase stands only as a power word. The two topics are related but distinct. Atsme, time has long passed since when you should have dropped this stick. Side note, Cwobeel aren't you a frequent editor who takes part in BLPN, it seems like you may have taken part in this discussion sometime before. This content dispute is a year or more old.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I think the miscommunication issues you have are unresolvable. I do not honestly know how or why you cannot comprehend that my objection is permanent and unchangeable. This is like the Huffington Post or IMDb matter - there is a fundamental issue that resides in you. What part of "I permanently object to merging" do you not understand? Also, Serialjoepsycho is correct about the articles and the dispute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is consensus that both articles should remain, can someone please explain what we're supposed to do about mirroring information between the two articles as I demonstrated with the link above? What policy approves such a practice?  I think we either need to remove the irrelevant duplications in IPT, or merge those particular passages here.  I just corrected the factual misinformation regarding the Oklahoma City bombing here on Emerson (where it belongs) because it was a statement he made as a CBS correspondent, so why is it also included on IPT which came about after he left CBS?  If we're going to maintain two separate articles, then we need to maintain two separate articles as best we can with the inextricable link between Emerson and IPT.  I think it's going to require specific references and clear identification of who Emerson is actually representing when he is being interviewed.  He writes for IPT, but he also writes independently of IPT.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * may I kindly ask to stop personalizing disputes? It would be much appreciated. - -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one who misunderstood the process and the fact I permanently object to merging and redirecting. I didn't mention anything about your BLP sanctions or BLP violations, I was simply pointing out that you repeatedly argue points that are not being made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, seriously, drop the stick, the horse is dead, its carcass is rotten. Your standing here demanding for someone to show you the policy that says you can do a specific thing. Have you considered how ridiculous that sounds. Wikipedia policy primarily mentions what you can't do, and when it mentions what you can do, it generally does so to point out an exception to a policy. Wikipedia policy is grounded in common sense. Wikipedia explains that they have no hard and fast rules so why would you logically think you can only do something if there's a policy that specifically says you can. As far as the content that you have an issue with, It's relevant. A limited amount of notable background information on a founder is relevant to an article on a group. This gaffe is notable just as is his PBS documentary. It's interesting to note though that you only have an issue if the information shines a negative light on Emerson or IPT, you really haven't had anything to say about the inclusion of the documentary. There's already a consensus that consensus to keep that in the IPT article, you have done nothing to change the consensus. You have mentioned things that you have said repeatedly that have yet in this past year to change the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not holding a stick, and I also don't have a problem adding relevant information about the founder. Ridiculous is including information we know to be factually incorrect and pretending it's a gaffe.  If you read the articles by RS, you would know it was not a gaffe rather it was his and law enforcements opinion that it had a ME trait.  How is that a gaffe?  It did have a ME trait when you read the rest of his statement and stop taking it out of context.  His opinion was based on the evidence at the scene.  His statement about Birmingham was a gaffe.  Do you not see the difference?  I don't have a problem with adding brief mention of the founder along with a Wikilink to his BLP, and don't forget there are other people involved in that group.  Adding 20 yr. old factually incorrect biased slurs from critics with a COI for the sole purpose of discrediting the founder is just plain not ok.  If consensus determines that we must include his 20 yr. old CBS interview, then it's our job to include the correct information citing Emerson's actual comments per published RS such as the following NY Times article, .  There are also tertiary sources and videos of the interview that validate his actual comments for verification. It must be verifiable, not false. Correct the factually inaccurate biased opinions, and the issue will be resolved.  Also, Binksternet needs to stop reverting the information I added because it creates an unfinished paragraph, the latter of which indicates to me that his purpose here is not to improve the article.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to respond to here Atsme, I and others have already responded to it multiple times for over a year. You repeating it in a slightly changed wording doesn't change those prior responses. It's time to drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)