Talk:Ernest Emerson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Older entries

Old discussions should not be deleted - but archived. Old comments do have their uses and you can't be accused of cover-up.Peter Rehse 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Peter. I will do that in the future...is there a way to archive? I'm still kind of new to this. Thanks --Mike Searson 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For someone new to this - its a very well done article. I'll leave a message on your Talk page about archiving. I rated it as a B but I think it could go higher. I'll mention that also in you talk page.Peter Rehse 10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, Thanks again, I've only been doing this off and on the past 4 months as time allows. Any advice you can give for improvement would be a big help. --Mike Searson 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Other older entries

Please do not place advertorials into this online encyclopedia. Also, remember that you do not own any Wikipedia article, whether or not you started it, think you started it, did a lot of editing to it, or you have a long-term personal relationship with the subject. Please see WP:OWN. Cheers, Sam 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This article does not merit "Good Article" status, yet. It contains a seven thousand word advertorial for Emerson Knives, Inc. as well as link spam to the Emerson Knives, Inc. website. Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. is taken care of in the first sentence with a Wikilink to Emerson Knives. Remove the advertorial and the link spam and I see no reason why Mikey's little article can't be judged a "good article." Cheers, Sam 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam, can you please explain to us how you are distinguishing spam from referenced text about an entity and person which both appear to meet notability requirements? Perhaps if we can understand where you're coming from, we can help you resolve this without edit warring (and please take care with WP:3RR). Also, language like "Mikey's little article" isn't productive. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam, your patronizing attitude is bordering on a personal attack. Please try to tone down your sarcasm and edit constructively. Thanks. Jeffpw 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well I would agree that it is a tiny bit florid in places, but there is no denying that the claims are all well substantiated and the article is impeccably sourced. So instead of throwing brickbats, Sam, how about proposing some specific changes for debate? Guy (Help!) 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to, Sandy. This article handles Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. in the fist sentence. Readers can read all the joyful product announcements and the glorious history of Emerson Knives that Mike wants to tell them about by following the Wikilink. They don't need a seven-thousand word advertorial in the middle of a biographical aricle.

I apologize for editing the article while it was under peer review. A biographical article containing link spam and a seven-thousand advertorial for a corporation is, ipso facto, not a good article no matter whose definition you use. Consequently, it never occured to me that one could be nominated for Good Article status. Still, I should have looked for it.

As far as your reference to an edit war is concerned, notice how Mike calls in the admins almost every time someone attempts to edit one of "his" articles. I think a better understanding of "ownership" would help him a great deal here at Wikipedia. That's why I posted a link to WP:OWN. Sam 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Wereb (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Sam, you are continuing to make this personal, for whatever the reason. As a point of fact, neither Sandy nor I are administrators. Guy is, but I don't see that he was specifically called here to defend This article or Mike. Could you please confine your discussion to the article, and why you think that section is spam? It doesn't not look like spam to me. As Sandy pointed out, it is well reference4d, and seems to meet notability requirements. Jeffpw 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, exactly what am I continuing to make personal in what I've written about this article on this talk page? On second thought, I don't care. Nothing whatsoever that I have to say is personal. My only contention is that a biographical article should be biographical and free of business promotion. We should take the entire Emerson Knives section out of this article. Then it will be a decent article, albeit one written obviously by big, big fans. Users can easily follow the Wikilink (provided in the first sentence) to Emerson Knives and discover the rich history and many wonderful product offerings of the company therein.

When I tried to do this you stomped all over my user talk page and Mike tattled to the admins. Sam 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sam, I am an admin and spend much of my Wikitime removing spam. This is not spam. The idea that the company info (as opposed to the bio info) be forked into the Emerson Knives article has some merit, but there is not so much that Emerson Knives could not be merged into this, either. So please, let's have some constructive suggestions, not arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on Guy's point, I had a look at the Emerson Knives article, and see that there is much in this article that is not found there. In fact, this article seems to give a much more detailed look at the company than the main Emerson Knives article. If anything needs to be merged, in my opinioon, it is that article into this one. Jeffpw 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the direction I was considering, merging the Emerson Knives page back into this article after cleanup on that one, etc.

I asked for Sandy's help as she helped me alot with my writing and sourcing which is admittedly a step above a waiter scratching out notes to a chef. --Mike Searson 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I am not an admin, and it was logical for Mike to request my input, as I counseled his edits on the peer review (in other words, if he goofed, I'm to blame :-) I did ask Guy to have a look, just to make sure I wasn't incorrect here, since I am not an admin, and don't want to lead Mike astray. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All very cozy -- and irrelevant. Advertorial should be removed. If not that, then I will support merging the two articles. I didn't think a merge would be debated, given the emotional investments people have made in their contributions to the other article. If merged, then the link to the Emerson Knives corporation's website is justifiable. Until then it is link spam as defined by Wikipedia. Sam 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Whatever, dude!

I'll merge the other article into this one, I'm only concerned that it would make this one article very long. I'm still waiting to see your contributions to wikipedia, Sam, so I can see how a perfect article is written. All I see is a history of trashing the work of others. --Mike Searson 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the overall length would be a problem, Mike, especially if you are considering bring it to FA status later on. And just a reminder to all editors here: we're all working towards the same goal--or should be. Please try to address each other with respect and courtesy. Thanks. Jeffpw 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Size is not a concern here, Mike. The current prose size is only 19KB (see WP:LENGTH for an explanation of readable prose vs. overall size). You've got room to expand here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused on the sizing requirements. I added in the essential elements from the Emerson Knives aricle: Key collaborations, materials used, etc. I hope it does not detract from the biographical scope of the article. Do you think the table listing the various models is needed? I don't want this to be an "advertorial" by any means. Perhaps I could list it in the very bottom as an "appendix"? Does wikipedia have a rule for things of this nature? --Mike Searson 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the table under "models", in the knives article, I don't think it's needed here. I think that would give the article here more emphasis on the knives, and not the man who created them. You've discussed the major knives he made, and I think that's enough. You can list his website as an external link, so readers wanting more info about particular knives he sells can go there for additional info. Just my opinion as a disinterested observer. Jeffpw 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A very good and honest assessment, Jeff. The website probably does a better job of that sort of thing anyway. I listed my intent on the Emerson Knives Talk Page.

Mike Searson 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved what was relevant and redirected the other page to this one. No sense in reinventing the wheel. I left out the table and the trivial bits, etc. --Mike Searson 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer it the other way, with an Ernest Emerson article, and also an EKI article. But, it would be difficult to write two meaty articles that would be substantially different. Emerson himself runs the company, so most of what he does is what the company does. I do see precedents here on Wikipedia in putting large company info on a biographical page. But, what's done is done; I say we leave it the way it is for now and see how this beast evolves.

About the links: those articles are all legitimate pieces of cutlery journalism, I do think it is too bad that the only place we have been able to find them is archived on the EKI page. Is it NPOV? I don't think so. The articles are real, regardless of the link holding them. I have noticed that there are people who (mostly via the internet) criticize Emerson Knives and their products, but I have yet to see something in print. My point is that we should reference whatever articles we find, including those that speak negatively of the subject, but personally, I have yet to see any.Isaac Crumm 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isaac,

I have close to 20 years of articles and books concerning knives, guns, police, the Military, and martial arts here at my disposal. Not just from knife magazines, but across all media. One source is the Wall Street Journal! I have not discovered any which speaks negatively about the subject. If I did, I would definitely include it. I think it says something that in over 60 different sources, pretty much the same story is corroborated, hence the reason for several inline sources on the same sentence. There are some that are not noteworthy, such as whether or not Emerson was going to open a factory in Minden, Nevada. I didn't see how that would gel with the rest of the article, so I left it out.

Definitely the older periodicals do a better job at telling pieces of the story than some of the more modern ones, which are little better than advertisements. Thanks for your input. --Mike Searson 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason you don't see anything that speaks negatively about the subject in the knife magazines is that magazine editors (especially those magazine editors) are notoriously reluctant to print anything critical of their most important advertisers.

There is a considerable amount of criticism out there about this subject. Many thinking people in the knife world castigate these people for "weaponizing" knives by their hyperbolic advertising in the media and disregarding the consequences. One of the things that can easily be done to this article is to start a "Controversy" section in this article that presents other opinions of this company's influence on the knife world. Instead of making that necessary, why don't you allow other contributors to try to tone down this florid love letter a little bit with a neutral point of view? Sam 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was an encyclopedia article with no room for "opinions" or original research now you want to introduce it? I've done more than my share of research and documentation for this article you have been trying to delete since it's inception. This article is about one man and his company, a man who collaborates with his own competition and now you're intimating that he is influencing whatever it is you call "the knife world"? The love letter remark is a bit low, even for you, wereb.--Mike Searson 11:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest if you have a reliable source discussing this alleged controversy amongst the "thinking people" in "knife world" that I or others may not be aware of, then I will ask you to please bring it forward. Otherwise, please refrain from using article talk pages to further your personal opinions, however intriguing you feel they may be. I write articles based on reliable sources. You may want to take a look at WP:RS if you are confused over the issue of what a reliable source is.

Thank you. --Mike Searson 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

For reference, here is the peer review, which is hidden in a drop-down on those silly templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Expand the lead to 2 paras to better summarize the article. Also see if you can convert the popular culture bullets to prose and add more wikilinks. Rlevse 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD gives more info on what the lead should do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it...I expanded the lead to 2 paras and think it sums up everything. --Mike Searson 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• This article has taken a turn for the worse since the merge. It's gone through a major sole-author re-write, too. NPOV problems start with the first paragraph. (1) You need citations for "is an award winning custom knifemaker, martial artist, author, and edged weapons guru". (2) The common connotation for "guru" is "cult leader." While that is an inadvertantly apt word choice in this case, I don't think you want to publicize it. (3) Museum pieces? Need a source for that. And (4) "...very valuable and popular with collectors," is a claim/opinion. Such loving touches are very thoughtful on the author's part, but far out of the realm of NPOV. This is only the first paragraph. The text gets more flowery and devotional the further you read. I suggest removing the GA hold and letting editors who are less emotionally involved with and devoted to the subject contribute. Sam 11:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some incorrect statements above - citations are not normally given in the lead for text that is supported by citations to reliable sources in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article. Guru is the word used in the reliable source which is cited, for example. Sam, I'm wondering if you have read these reliable sources, and why you are so strongly opposing a well-referenced article. (oops, sorry for being repetitive - I see Mike already explained that below - well, he's a step ahead of me, but I'll leave my comment anyway, since I already typed it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose many of the referenced claims in this article because the sources are suspect on their best days. Knife magazines are very unreliable sources of facts. An argument presented below presents the consequences of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy in brilliant technicolor. We are supposed to be impressed by the sagacity and reputation of one Pat Covert -- the writer who holds the world record for publishing the most articles on Strider Knives and who has the dubious distinction of being the first magazine writer to fail to perform his due diligence and check the public record to see if his subject was even legally allowed to possess knives, let alone make and sell them.

You say, "This article is not about Strider Knives and that has nothing at all to do with this article." I say my comments have everything to do with bad sources. The Pat Covert problem is one example. All these articles are suspect, especially the ones written in the early nineties when amateurs were editing those magazines. This article is fraught with dubious sources and it needs to be toned way down to avoid embarrassing problems later.

I've stated more than once in the history of this page that I want there to be a good Wikipedia article on Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives. But this one is sloppy and falls all over itself to be complimentary to its subject, which is always a mistake. It doesn't need to be this way, but each attempt I've made to contribute the kind of help it needs has been stymied.

Please retract the nomination for Good Article until it has had time to be worked into a good article. If it is rejected now, it will be encumbered by prejudice when it is finally edited and renominated later. Sam 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that cutlery publications are unreliable or is this more "original research"? I checked the Guinness Book of World Records this afternoon and could find no category for "world record for publishing the most articles on Strider Knives". Mr Covert has written 3 articles on Strider and has been a published writer for over 12 years. Are you saying in all recorded history he is the first writer to get something wrong? If he even got something wrong at all. That's a bold statement.

This is not about Strider, another knife maker who's name you've tried to drag through the muck since you've started on Wikipedia [[1]]. This is not about Pat Covert a writer whom you clearly have disdain for. This article is about Ernest Emerson and his knives. You tried to argue the facts from day one. The facts have since been sourced. Now you want to attack the sources. When you can't argue the facts, argue procedure, is that it?

Patent 1 Note the yellow highlighted section, a US Patent cites a knife magazine (one also cited in this very article) as a source. Here's another one Patent 2. Maybe you should get on the phone and alert the US Patent and Trade Office immediately of your theory.

Blade Magazine has been in circulation for 35 years, Knives Illustrated for 20, and Tactical Knives for almost 11. These are legitimate published print sources available on newsstands, in libraries, and by subscription. They are not some online fly-by-night venture or a glorified blog. If you want to create your own article about how printed media is not to be trusted or want to harp about inexperienced writers, do it somewhere else or create a new article, it's not that hard, I'd even be willing to help you out.

As for your claims about your intentions for this article, all someone needs to do is read the earliest versions of what was here and your contributions which were nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to delete the article or your threats to have it deleted. Your agenda is not to create a better article. Anyone who can read your "contributions", can clearly see what it is.

--Mike Searson 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Mr Covert writes for American Handgunner, a source for over 30 articles on Wikipedia. It's a firearms magazine, not a knife publication. Sometimes people confuse the two, but I assure you, they are different.

My very best regards Mike Searson 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam,

Interesting commentary. I'm not even sure if you can be part of the voting process as you've made significant contributions to the article (I'm sure deleting large portions of text is a contribution of sorts) . You may want to take a look WP:LEAD for guidance on what the lead should be/do. Extraordinary facts are often sourced in the lead, but generally, the lead is a summary of facts already sourced elsewhere in the article. All of the claims in the lead are sourced throughout the body of the article if the time is taken to actually read it. In a further metaphorical extension, the term "guru" is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise. This appelation is actually from the Pat Covert "Strike Force!" article in American Handgunner magazine. You may also want to also take a look at WP:CIVIL if you get a free moment. Thank you for your support. PS here is a link to the article in question.Strike Force--Mike Searson 14:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting tired of being referred to WP:CIVIL every time I submit a comment about the substance of this article. Criticism is not uncivil, and when you whine about it you look a like a Girl Scout. Weren't you a Marine and don't you claim to be a highly-trained martial artist? Show some dignity and grit. Sam 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe other people are getting tired of your tone and negative comments. Ever take a look at the things you type after the fact? I know your goal is to draw me into some kind of outburst, and you're not going to get it. Your accusations of this as advertising are not well met. There is no original research, no opinion. This article states everything that is documented in respected print sources. There are over 60 of them across the spectrum. The majority are cutlery industry magazines, gun magazines, martial arts magazines, I'll grant you...but where else in the mainstream media is there going to be an article on a knifemaker? I'm sorry you have a bias against knife magazines, but how can you dispute when a multitude of articles say the same things about the man and his product?

--Mike Searson 09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All: GA is not a vote but all input is appreciated and considered. For now as there is active discussion going on, I'll wait 2-3 more days before proceeding. My sole input right now is to avoid POV, be as neutral as possible, and cite anything that needs it. Sandy is right, a good lead, as a summary, will need few if any cites. Rlevse 01:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. It isn't a good lead. Ernest Emerson is not an award-winning author and the first sentence suggests that he is "award-winning" in all those fields of endeavor. Second, "guru" is not the kind of term used in formal articles of an encyclopedic nature. It needs a re-write. Moreover, Ernest Emerson's knives are not carried by U.S. Navy Seals at a significantly higher rate than any other brand of knife and saying so without verifiable documentation is an ADVERTISING CLAIM. Sam 09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed guru and author from the "award winning" part of the lead. I can see how that could be misleading. As to the Navy SEAL connection, there are numerous sources from not just knife and gun magazines, but also hardcover books, some written by SEALs themselves. Nowhere in the article does it say these were an "issued item", but it is a fact that the knives have been used and were made for individual SEALs which is pointed out in that manner. This was what boosted Emerson's popularity. Some of those articles were written back before he became popular and touched on this connection to the specwar community. --Mike Searson 09:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find confusing is that the lead says Emerson has won awards but the article says his knives have won awards. This is confusing, potentially misleading, and needs to be clarified.Sumoeagle179 11:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your knife wins an award, the maker gets it...still I could see how it could be confusing to some...I edited it to reflect the knife designs won the awards. --Mike Searson 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this article's focus Emerson the man or his knife company. I think it switches focus a few times.Rlevse 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse,

Originally, this was two seperate articles: Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives.

The main focus of this article was Emerson and his CUSTOM knives. The factory was mentioned as a stub with a link to the other article.

A solitary editor was complaining about the link to the Emerson Knives article.

As can be seen above, another editor and an administrator reccomended merging that article into this one. The editor with the complaint agreed to this, merge as well. It was also reccomended on the Bio Peer Review to increase the stubs within the article, etc. so I didn't see a problem with it. I did so and the article as it stands is the result. If you think it would be a better article with this section as a seperate stub, i can back it out. Or if you think I should restate the lead to include this focus.

--Mike Searson 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'd say keep it one article, restructing/rewriting as need to make it look more like one article vice two that were merged, now I see why the focus shifts occurred. Let me know on my talk when you're done.Rlevse 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll get on it ASAP.

For the record, the knives mentioned in the article are not generally available from Emerson. The Raven and Specwar are long discontinued. Timberline no longer makes the specwar fixed blade; it is mentioned because it was a museum display piece and a contender in the trials for a Navy SEAL issued knife(and the article mentions specifically that it did not win the contract). Benchmade hasn't produced a CQC7 in almost 8 years, The NASA knife is not available outside of NASA. The custom knives are only available through lotterys at a few shows per year. The only 2 knives mentioned in the article in any great detail other than the CQC6 and CQC7(and i'm sure there are controversies over which knife is the more significant between these two models )are the SARK (which is there to demonstrate the man's ability to produce a successful prototype to fill a need for the Military in 24 hours as well as being an issued piece of gear to a police agency and certain units in the US Navy) and the Commander which features the Wave,a simple yet unique blade opening device and won Knife of the Year in 1999.

There is alot of material I would have liked to have included, but can't as it's not documented in print and it would be anecdotal at best, hearsay at worst. As far as the "advertising" with knife magazines go...Emerson advertisements are few and far between. A call to the periodicals sourced in the article will reveal advertising from Emerson Knives the production company is almost 0 between 1998 and 2006...in 2006 it was the 10 year anniversary knife of the CQC7 that made it into a handful of ads in Blade Magazine. Yet despite little advertising, etc...what began as a kitchen table knife project has evolved into a Company which made $10 million in revenue last year. See the WSJ article. (obviously biased because tactical knife manufacturers advertise so heavily in the Journal).

What I have attempted to do with this article is create a resource about Mr Emerson and his knives. As a knifemaker he is defined by his work, the knives he's made over the years. There are alot of people who don't know his past making fancy art knives or that his first knife was made so crudely because he could not afford one on a working man's salary. Surely there are some people who see the crowds and the numbers and wonder "how?" or "why?"...I am merely trying to lay it out in a chronological order as best I can to try to explain it to anyone who might want to learn something about Mr Emerson and his knives. --Mike Searson 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)