Jump to content

Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Untitled

BLP

To the anon, please don't restore the previous lead. The article has to conform to our policy on biographies of living persons, and this lead arguably doesn't. I'd like to ask some other editors who specialize in BLP issues to look at it over the next few days, so please leave the current version in place until I get a chance to do that. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some criticism to the lead. At some point, we should add a careful section on some of the issues; Oklahoma, for example. But it needs to be carefully written and very carefully sourced to good, mainstream sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections

It strikes me that having one line in the 'education section' is a little spare. I suggest we rename the section 'education and early career' and move the early part of his career into it. (I'll also dig around to see what else can be added.) I'm not sure where the dividing line should be--any suggestions? Bucketsofg 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

US New & World Report position?

Does anyone have a source for "national security correspondent" at the US New & World Report? The NY Times review of his 1988 book "Secret Warriors" refers to him as "a senior editor of U.S. News & World Report". Bucketsofg 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "senior editor specializing in national security issues," which is what the back flap of Secret Warriors says. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Another detail, not sure whether its important, but in his 1991 interview with Larry King, King says Emerson was "a member of the Special Assignment unit here at CNN". Bucketsofg 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And in a transcript of a CNN show he is called "CNN Special Assignment Correspondent" Bucketsofg 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life

It is important to mention that he is Jewish. That is something one should be proud of and is something that is important for everyone to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.161.66 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Why is this imprtant? - 72.66.46.20 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Emerson is Jewish

Why is it so bad to put down the simple fact that he is a Jew. One's religion is included on almost every wikipedia page and I do not see any reason to make an exception here. People are interested in facts such as someone's religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.27.215 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

He could be Jewish without being religious. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVrigin is violating wikipedia rules by wantonly deleting information

I am truly sorry for the petty game of semantics that some want to play on wikipedia. He may not be religious, but he is a Jew. There is nothing wrong with either him being religious or not, but he is a Jew. Stop trying to hide a simple innocent fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.27.215 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Slim is doing nothing wrong or against policy. Provide SOURCES for the material you want to add and then we can discuss the additions here. OK? --Tom 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that stating Steve Emerson is a Jew is very helpful!

I agree with the person trying to place the fact that Steve Emerson is a Jew into the page. This is obviously something that should be on the page and the fact that someone would try to keep it off is very suspect. Why keep off a simple fact that is harmless unless someone doesn't want the public to know that he is a Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.96.253 (talk • contribs)

Anon, you are sounding ridiculous. If you want to do something to balance this article, you have to find an acceptable source, such as a serious news agency, that published something that provides balance. Stop harping on whether he is Jewish or not. Nobody cares. --Zerotalk 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't resist adding, to nobody in particular, that this article is so adulatory that it might as well as have been written by Emerson's mother. --Zerotalk 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

People do care what important people's backgrounds are, don't try to use that one on us Zero!!! I agree and I understand the need for a source. I will attempt to find a source that is online and will post Mr. Emerson's religious background accordingly. I am trying to show not only those of Jewish descent on Wikipedia, but also those of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc.. It's highly offensive to me to get these personal messages elsewhere accusing me of "yellow-tagging" or being anti-Semitic. This is a scare tactic in my book and I will not stand for it. One cannot be scared to post something that is in no way offensive if it is a fact. I will find a source and post it then. I have in now way called anyone anything that is slanderous or anti anything ever here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with showing someone's background, whether one is a Jew or any other religious background. Please press those that would accuse wantonly not to do so without even an inkling of evidence.

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanJihad.jpg

Image:AmericanJihad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

CAIR

John, please stop adding the description of CAIR that attempts to discredit them. First, this page isn't about CAIR; people can look them up if they want to. Secondly, you're picking and choosing what ought to be highlighted about them, whereas other people might want to add that they're a wonderful organization. That's why we simply refer people to the CAIR article, where all the nuances can be shown in full. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles removed

I removed the long list of articles from the page. Here they are, in case anyone wants to use them as references:--Gloriamarie 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanJihad.jpg

Image:AmericanJihad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Age

How old is he/when was he born? (also please add this info to the Emerson (surname) page WikiLoverr (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can answer 1/2 of your question. He was "0" years old when he was born.--Purpleslog (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

predictions

The lead para says: "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." However, the source (which has vanished but is archived here) does not support that statement. The mention of Emerson and al Qaeda together refers to the WSJ in 2001 not the Senate in 1998. (It is also a no-brainer since four al Qaeda operatives had just been convicted in court.) Is there another source, or is this an error? Zerotalk 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found his congressional testimony in 1998 on a subscription service. He mentions Osama bin Laden but doesn't single him out:
"These include: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizzbullah, Hizba-Tahrir (Islamic Liberation Party), Islamic Salvation Front (Algeria), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria), En-Nahda (Tunisian), Muslim Brotherhood, Ga'mat Islamiya (Egypt), Islamic Salvation Front (Algeria), Abu Sayyaf Group, followers of Osama bin Laden, Taliban (Afghanistan), Jamat Muslimeen (Pakistan and Bangledesh), and support groups of mujahideen (Holy Warriors) in Bosnia, Philippines, Chechniya and other places." (Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information February 24, 1998)
So bin Laden is 11th in the list. Only hindsight can make this into a notable prediction. The article is technically correct but misleading, and the source is insufficient. Zerotalk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us

I have suggested that American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us be merged here as the book is apparently not notable aside from its author. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My google search suggests it is notable in and of itself -- based on the number of reviews of the book. In such circumstances, a merge isn't appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

edits by Epeefleche

The extensive additions of Epeefleche have turned this article into an advertisement for Emerson and a platform for his views. This is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. To start with, all claims for which the only source is Emerson himself should be deleted or clearly indicated as Emerson's claims. Zerotalk 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which claims are those? (btw, I think you are wrong, and am surprised that a sysop would be so off-base).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has become Puff Piece

I agree with Zero000 that the article has essentially become an advertisement for Emerson. I don't understand why the FAIR articles were removed. It seems to me that if David Horowitz and The National Review are considered legitimate then so should FAIR.

I also don't see how edits like these can be considered neutral:

That was met, however, by assertions by some prominent people on the political Left that Emerson was "Muslim-bashing" and engaging in "McCarthyism".
Emerson has been vilified as an anti-Islamic bigot by pressure groups such as CAIR, which rejects his claim to be a terrorism expert.

Doesn't seem like NPOV language. I also don't understand why we need a whole section devoted to his concerns.

As I stated on the Sami Al-Arian talk page the reason I haven't made any edits is because I'm pretty sure it would result in a long drawn out edit war. Those can be pretty debilitating and I frankly don't have the strength for one of those right now. I only hope that by adding the tags and posting here on the talk page that others will come to the article in hopes of improving it. annoynmous 08:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First, FAIR is not an RS. Second, what specifically are you objecting to that is in the article, supported by what source? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought I gave two examples above of POV language. Again I don't understand why David Horowitz and The National Review are considered respectable, but FAIR isn't. It seems to be that the only reason you object to them is because of there politics. It's perfectly fine to indentify them as the "Liberal Watchdog" gorup FAIR, but I don't see why there criticism can't be included. annoynmous 09:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR isn't an RS. What DH and NR refs are you referring to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Who says FAITR isn't a respectable source. I wouldn't use them for general information, but in the criticism section there perfectually appropriate as long as there indentified as a group with a political viewpoint. abboynmous 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_the_F.A.I.R._website_and_reporters is a recent discussion on FAIR at RSN that I contributed to, with links to earlier discussions. Might help here.John Z (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
@Annoy: Jimbo says. "I just wanted to weigh in with one remark. "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself....--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 10:59 pm, 1 May 2010, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags and edits

I think whoever put up the tags or agrees with them, ought to note on this page what specifically concerns them. I personally find the article balanced, with sufficient references etc. There should be a list of POV concerns and "puff piece" concerns so that they can be addressed if they are indeed valid criticisms. If the tags can't be supported, they should be removed! Stellarkid (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well first off I did note what I found wrong with the article. I mentioned two POV language passages above and the fact that the FAIR articles were taken out. The reason I feel the article is a puff piece is for the concerns section. The main reason for this section exists is to say all the stuff Emerson was right about except for the fact that he wasn't right. His claim that Sami Al arian was the North American head of Palestine Islamic Jihad is flat out false. Al Arian was never convicted of being the head of a terrorist organization. Even if I agreed that he was right on a lot of things (I don't) why does the article need a whole section devoted to his predictions. It seems to me when that when you factor in his Pan Am Flight claims and his embarrassing Oklahoma City predictions, Emerson as a much longer track record of getting things wrong than he does getting things right. annoynmous 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Well it isn't right just to tag stuff and walk away because you "don't have the strength" to make appropriate edits, though I am sympathetic to the point. I suggest you make the edits and see what happens. If they are honest and fair, they should not trigger and edit war. Stellarkid (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well stated Stellarkid. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can raise points here that you wish to discuss, and make edits after discussion upon achieving consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I've done that in the past and the usual result is that no matter what my edits were automatically reverted. You apparently think theres more reasonable people at wikipedia that I do. I've decided this time to take a different approach and start with tags in order to trigger a discussion. I don't understand why you and Ism schism are so opposed to tags. They don't harm the article in any way. annoynmous 05:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag-bombing is a deprecated practice, because it is too easily used by editors lacking a legitimate issue w/an article rather than their own POV. It is for that reason that there has to be manifest evidence of legitimate issues as evidenced in the tags, rather than sweeping generalizations that are too often proxies for idontlikeit. I also don't see reason for the tags.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well stellarkid I took your advice and made some minor edits to the article. There are many other things I'd like to edit, but I've decided to start out small. annoynmous 05:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have a legitimate issue with the article. I gave several examples above and said that I felt that the article has become an advertisement for Emersons views. The reason I added the tags before making any edits is as I've said before that I've had bad expieriences with edit wars in the past and don't want to repeat them. I also don't want to be the lone editor fighting to change in the article and by adding the tags hopefully people like me who have problems with the article will come to it. I know that there are editors out there who feel the same way I do about this article, but like me they don't want to deal with the hassle that will result from them actually doing something about it. annoynmous 05:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you said that. But you didn't say how it was "an advertisement" for his views. BLPs of people famous for their views tend to reflect ... their views. That's not reason for the ad tag. Are the views not sourced to RSs? What specifically is your issue -- again, not broad brush-stroke non-specific "I feel". If you've had edit wars, it could be because of other editors, because of you, or both. I don't know. But you seem not to be listening carefully to what the three of us are saying here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I thought my saying it was puff piece made it pretty clear I thought it was an advertisment for his views. You seem not understand the purpose of tags. All tags mean is that there is a controversy with the article. The procedure from there is to discuss the controversy on the talk page until a consensus is reached. You seem to not be listening to me that the main reason I've been careful here is because of bad experiences in the past and becasue I'm hoping that other editors will come to the article who have the same concerns as I do. I didn't want to make edits and get ganged up on by several editors without trying to get some backup. Disputes are better when theres more than one person advocating a position.
An for your information, no his views aren't sourced to RS links, as least not all of them. It's filled with sources like these:

^ The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005, ISBN 1-59555-014-3, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=UasfK4zQnecC&pg=PT43&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=52#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010. ^ Terrorism today, Christopher C. Harmon, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 0-7146-4998-8, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=F4AYGALitgsC&pg=PA176&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=68#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010. ^ Gabriel, Brigitte, "Because they hate: a survivor of Islamic terror warns America," Macmillan, 2006, ISBN 0-312-35837-7, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=NTJnnJNinSgC&pg=PA210&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=21#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

How are these authors respectable. annoynmous 06:26, 26 April 2010 (UCT)
I found another one. Theres a passage about testimony he gave to congress that has this as it's source:

^ Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism, Sean Hannity, HarperCollins, 2004, ISBN 0-06-073565-1, accessed January 29, 2010. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bco44op7ArEC&pg=PA100&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=32#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

I don't see how Sean Hannity is considered a reliable source on senate testimony. annoynmous 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are books put out by publishing houses with reputations for accuracy in fact checking. Some of them, in fact, are publishing houses of the highest reputation. I believe I (and the others who have opined) do understand the reason for tags. And that the reasons you have presented so far fall somewhat short. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh my the great fact checkers of book that says there was a middle eastern connection to the oklahoma city bombing. A Link to the actual senate testimony would be more credible than publishing houses that are mostly concerned with selling books. Not to mention that people like Sean hannity and Brigitte Gabriel have no expertise in terrorism. annoynmous 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay I've made a number of edits to the article and believe that it's neutrality has been improved. I still have a problem in general with the voiced concerns section sense it seems to me that it's only purpose is to say how right Emerson was all the time. However, I guess sense I've expanded the criticism section that the concerns section serves as balance to that so it would seem fair to keep it for now. annoynmous 09:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I can see how you fell into an edit war elsewhere. Most of your deletions were lacking in wiki-based rationale; you cant just delete on the basis of idontlikeit. That said, I've left in the substance of your additions in the criticism section, and cleaned them up (copy-edited them), and started to look at the underlying refs. FAIR is not considered an RS. What I will look to see is whether you are using it as an RS (which on the surface it seems may be the case), or if not -- if as an opinion -- whether we can clarify the text to reflect that.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well this is exactly what I afraid when I started to make edits. Instead of trying to reach a consensus on the talk page Epeefleche decided to arbitrally remove the majority of my edits and remove the tags and declare the debate over. Apparently several people on this page are confused on the purpose of tags. The point is that the tags are supposed to saty up until a mutual consensus is reached. Sense that hasn't happened removing the tags is unjustified.
As for the supposed RS sources Epeefleche claims I removed, I ask again how are Sean Hannity and Bridigitte Gabriel considered respectable sources for quotes. This is especially ridiculous seeing is how there is already a New York Times article source for some of these same quotes in the article, so why are these books necessary. Also, once again how is a book that claims there was middle eastern connection to Oklahoma City considered reliable.
I'm going to restore the tags and my edits, but if this type of behavior continues I'm going to simply just give up and only restore the tags and hope other editors will come along to improve the article. This type of behavior is exactly why I avoided editing, but I took the bait from Stellarkid that people would be reasonable. annoynmous 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Was about to shorten the lead again when I saw you did; the longer version has too much puffery. The first sentence should tell a reader what he does and is known for. It would be better not to overrely on Sugg/FAIR, to track down and use the sources that Sugg cites. I just did a little cleaning up and cutting. Article doesn't look too bad now to me, not sure if there was material Epeefleche wants restored. G'night!John Z (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As I already explained: 1) you can't just delete RSs because "Idontlikeit", and 2) you can't just tag-bomb the article w/out legit issues (which you have not evidenced), and 3) there is nothing "ad-like" at all about this article. You can't make illegitimate assertions and tag-bomb the thing, without consensus. Also -- as to the Sugg -- are you intending to use this as a source, or as an opinion? On top of the publication not being considered a source for facts (certainly ones that may be controversial), the author is clearly not a reliable one; nor one who is notable enough that his opinion is of note. I agree w John -- if you want that info in, look for the sources that he cites to (that are RS), and cite to them.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think FAIR is soo bad, or Sugg so particularly unreliable, just that it would be an improvement and avoidance of difficulty to go to the originals, especially in a BLP. What is the content that your sources are supporting? Editors can get too bogged down in source analysis; the readers care more for content. I think it is usually best to leave tags on for a little while, warring over them can get lame; it would be a bad thing if anyone got 3RRed. I think the shorter version of the lead and the criticism section remove the justification for the advertisement tag, so I'll remove just that one.John Z (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Says you, I feel the article gives way to much attention to his views and to details about the Jihad in America documentary. Discuss it on the talk page and stop removing tags you don't like because they don't fit your bias. Also once again how is a book that says Oklahoma City had a Middle Eastern connection considered credible. annoynmous 09:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring and tag-bombing. That is unacceptable. I'm asking yet again that you stop. I had thought you didn't understand. I know gather, by the fact that your deletions of RSs are on one side of the aisle, and your insertion of non-RSs on the other side of the aisle, that my assumption of your good faith was not well placed. Stop, kindly. And its not "says you". I've read all the refs. If anything, the article gives less attention to what you "feel" it gives too much attention to -- based on wiki standards. The standard is most certainly not what you "feel". Same w/details on the documentary. You don't have consensus support for the tags, your edits are (as to the deletions) outrageous, and you are filibustering. I don't like the advertisement tag because it is markedly unsupportable, and unsupported -- and I've given up thinking you don't get it, but now realize that you just "feel" it should be there. Well, ma'am or sir -- your feelings are not what decide the issue. And your against-consensus editing is not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not against consensus editing, that would be you with your arbitrary removal of edits and tags without discussion. You and I obviously have very different standards about what constitutes a reliable source. While I acknowledge that FAIR is a paper with a politcal viewpoint, it's in a section where there giving there opinion of Emerson. Whereas you feal that a reliable source for quotes are right wing talk show hosts and authors who think there was a middle eastern connection to Oklahoma City.
John Z agrees with my edits, so if you continue to revert my edits it will be you who is against trying to build a consensus.annoynmous 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I took the ad tag off because I think the article is getting more neutral, though I am a bit too sleepy and confused to know for sure.John Z (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if an organization or person e.g. CAIR, has a blue link, it is usually better not to describe it much in the text. It can be OR or WP:COATRACKing or well-poisoning and just leads to avoidable fights. My removal of the sentence about Libyan avowal of responsibility - a complex matter - seems to me to be effectively pro-Emerson if anything.John Z (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...looks like Annoynmous has attempted to totally rewrite the article according to his own specifications, removing sourced material at will, with virtually no discussion on the talk page. These were not "small edits" as you claimed, Annoynmous. I am sorry now that I urged him to contribute to the article because you have not done it in a fair collaborative manner. Stellarkid (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well John Z disagrees with you. For crying out loud all I really did was restruture the article the somwhat. All I've done is remove 2 redudant passages, change the opening somewhat so it doesn't read like an advertisement and got rid of a bunch of dubious sources for quotes of which there were better sources anyway.

I have discussed my changes on the talk page, I mentioned the dubious sources above for which the only defense epeefleche could give is that there published by houses with fact checkers even though one of them says the Oklahoma City bombing had a middle eastern connection. This is why I avoided editing intially, because no matter how modest or small your edits are you are treated like you've mutulated the article to the point where editors leave intimidating messages on your talk pageannoynmous 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to start with something epeefleche posted on another users page:

Keef halik. Charah. Or ... shtooyot. Take your pick. Tx for the head's-up. Seems like on-wiki canvassing to me. And I'll point out -- it directly followed a 3RR on him. And Carol and I being on the opposite sides of an AfD -- where her side did not prevail. At least now I know, if editors from that project appear on my pages, that they are there due to improper canvassing. BTW -- editors have differences, but that editor's 8 blocks so far, and my experience w/him, suggests to me a lesser appreciation for the rules here than I would hope for in my colleagues.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaum75"

Aside from the odd verbage in the beginning, this strikes me as particularly rich on epeefleches part. He not only reverts my edits, but also reverts the tags when the purpose of them is to leave them up until a consensus is reached. Also because I posted on a noticeboard about what I felt were some biased edits by him on several articles I'm accused of canvassing. I don't understand why it matters that I have 8 blocks, so that means I'm forbidden to argue with the great epeefleche who only has 2. Many of them by the way were from when I was new to wikipedia and wasn't sure about the rules. It's because of those blocks that I was extremely careful in how I operated on this article.
I frankly don't need this nonsense in my life. I don't need editors pretending that they actually want to discuss the article when secretly there saying "can we get him on 3rr" or "can we get him on canvassing". Instead of listing there problems with my edits on the talk page, there looking for every single concievable way they can to get me banned so I'll go away and they can perserve there version of the article. It's because of this type of stuff that I only added tags in the beginning.
I'm almost at the point where I don't care anymore. It makes me want to walk away completely if this is how my contributions are going to be treated. annoynmous 07:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
annoynmous, your use of there in place of their and ther're makes it hard to follow your argumentation sometimes. You would benefit from "their" proper use. --capmo 18:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Philip jenkins passage because I don't see what It adds to the article. Jenkins doesn't goe into any specifics as to what is wrong FAIRs report, he just says they try to defame him. Okay, he's entitled to his opinion, but unless he gives specific things that are wrong than it doesn't serve any purpose other than as an ad hominem attack. Anyway, Emerson is already given his response to the criticisms against him in American Journalism review article. annoynmous 03:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've decided in the interest of fairness to put back the philip Jenkins passage and wait for input from John Z. I've left a message on his talk page asking him if he thinks the passage should be in the article or not. annoynmous 03:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again I'm at the point where I'm not gonna do this anymore if all Epeefleche is gonna do is restore the article to to it's previous version. If he insist's on continuing in this manner than I going to give up edting all together and insist that the advertisement tag go back up. annoynmous 09:49, 30 April 2010 UTC)
I've removed the robert spencer piece because it's only claim against the book review is that the New York times is biased. Also a mistaken impression is given by spencer that he actually read the piece when he says it only refers to "mistranslation of Arabic names" when in fact he's referring to another FAIR article on Emerson from 1992 by Jane hunter describing the review.
The article by Spencer is specifically referring to the Muslim Public affairs council criticism of Spencer. I would consider this significant except for the fact that Spencer has alomost no sources to back up his claims. The section where he deals with Emersons lawsuit against Sugg doesn't have one source to back it up. The only sourced defense Spencer has for Emerson is that the other people were just as wrong as he was at the time. I'm willing to acknowledge that FAIR is a politial newspaper, but there articles at least have sources for there claims. annoynmous 10:12, 30 April 2010 UTC)

Edit warring

Annoy -- you are edit warring again. Please explain here why you deleted each of my entries just now. I gave you fulsome explanations in the edit summaries as to why each was appropriate. You keep on deleting RSs, and insisting on putting in the non-RS by an alternative newspaper writer that appeared in FAIR. This is utter POV, and improper.

My reasoning for each edit is as follows. You gave no rationale for your deletions, so until you do I will revert.

  1. 04:53, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (→Criticism: clarify -- its not even an article by a FAIR writer, but rather a Creative Loafing writer -- should probably all still go, though -- not RS for facts)
  2. 04:49, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (→The Investigative Project: Format -- moving pic up slightly so it doesn't move the below title)
  3. 04:46, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (adds w refs)
  4. 04:44, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (→Voiced concerns: clarify the AA matter; put in the full bit about violent acts, not just the one pov side; put the sig fact first)
  5. 04:33, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (add Macmillan book ref describing document)
  6. 04:30, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (add statement used to kick of doc)
  7. 04:25, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (Providing ref to existing text)
  8. 04:20, April 30, 2010 Epeefleche (making first para in lede 2 sentences (rather than one); reflecting past experience and why he is notable; ref NYT, etc.)

--Epeefleche (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you didn't give any explanation on the talk page. All you did was give tiny edit summaries that explained nothing. All you did was once again restore the article to the old version you liked before. The one that I and John Z have rejected. annoynmous 10:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
These aren't reasons there edit summaries, you haven't given any reason why Bridgitte gabriel and sean hannity are legitimate sources, the new york times an post entries need to be in the beginning and why we need a big quote from him saying the familys need justice. If your going to insist on these edits that I'm going to restore the advertisement tag. annoynmous 10:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I made 8 separate edits. The first was making first para in lede 2 sentences (rather than one); reflecting past experience and why he is notable; ref NYT, etc. The second was providing a ref to existing text. The third was adding a statement that E used to kick off his documentary. The fourth was adding a Macmillan book reference describing the documentary. The fifth was clarifying the AA matter; I put in the full bit about violent acts, not just the one pov side that you had put in while leaving out the other side -- that is outrageous POV editing, and I put the significant fact first. In the sixth I added refs. In the seventh one I moved the picture slightly so that it does not screw up the title below it. In the eighth I clarified as to Sugg -- its not even an article by a FAIR writer, but rather a Creative Loafing writer -- should probably all still go, though -- not RS for facts --Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me without giving any cogent reason for doing so. That's edit warring. I've explained my edits, and supplied you with RSs. You keep on deleting them, and asserting that your non-RS had to go in. This is out of control. Please note that the wp definition of vandalism includes deletions that are inappropriate. I believe yours fall into that category. Please stop. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You can use all the subterfuge you want, but the fact is you restored two biased sources, a quote that adds nothing to the article and moved two generic descriptions of him to the top of the article. If you had took the time to look at the article you would see that I added a sentence to the Al-arian passage about him acknowleging he knew PIJ was a violent group. Finally, who cares whether he works for creative loafing, the point is he wrote the article for FAIR. annoynmous 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've had it, epeefleche has refused to abide by consensus and has reverted to a previous version of the article that 2 editors have rejected. I've put back the advertisement and as long as epeefleche insists on this version of the article then I'm going insist on the ad tag. annoynmous 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What biased sources did I use? What statements did they support? The quote adds a great deal, though I recognize youmaynotlikeit. The two descriptions of him, by RSs, are far from generic and as they summarize those RSs view of him they are perfectly fine in the lead. I was the one who added info on AA saying he knew PIJ was a violent group -- when you edited it, you only put in the part that made him look (relatively) good, while leaving out the part that made him look bad. That's pure, unadulterated, POV editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm gonna go through these edits one by one. First theres this:
an American former staff member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been referred to by The New York Times as "an expert on intelligence", and by the New York Post as "the nation's foremost journalistic expert on terrorism".[1][2]
Why is the Senate foreign relations center thing mentioned at the beginning of the article. It's not what he's known for and it's already mentioned later in the article which comes off as redundant. Plus the "Expert on intelligence" line is from an article written in 1988 and is very generic in description. The New York Post quote is sourced to a harvard Crimson opinion piece, not to mention that the Post is more a tabloid than a newspaper. Either way they don't belong in the lead which should be about a general disciption.
  • Because that is part of his significant background. The quotes describing him are RS quotes. They are general descriptions of him, and how he is viewed, so they belong in the lede. And as to it being "redundant" -- the lede summarizes the body, and therefore of course will be redundant in nature.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is relevant because, along with the other matters in the lead (which is rather short), it is one of the more notable positions he has held.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Second this:
The survivors of the explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 are still suffering from the trauma, but as far as everyone else is concerned, all this was a spectacular news event that is over. Is it indeed over? The answer is: apparently not. A network of Muslim extremists is committed to a jihad against America. Their ultimate aim is to establish a Muslim empire."[4]
This is a POV claim that adds nothing to the article. This section should be devoted to a simple description of the documentary not voicing emersons opinions.
Third this:
Blood must flow. There must be widows; there must be orphans, hands and limbs must be severed, and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion can stand on its feet",[14][15]
Okay we have a perfectly good source for this in walter goodmans New york times review why do we need Bridgitte gabriel. She is not an expert in terrorism so as a source for a quote she is innapropriate
  • The publisher is a top-notch RS. Plus, as you don't have a problem with the text, I'm not sure what the problem is.
  • I have a problem with using a biased source for a quote when theres a more reliable source. So if we agree it isn't necessary then it should go.annoynmous 12:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Fourth the Sami Al Arian passage. If epeefleche hadn't been in such a hurry to revert he would have noticed I made this edit:
However Al-Arian was acquitted on 8 of the charges against him and another 8 were dropped after he plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to help a "specially designated terrorist" organization, PIJ, and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. While Al-arian admitted in the agreement that he knew of the groups violent activities, no evidence was ever offered that connected Al-Arian to anything
I put back the part about him admitting he knew they were violent, but added more neutral wording.
fifth theres this:
On February 24, 1998, Emerson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "The foreign terrorist threat in the United States is one of the most important issues we face.... We now face distinct possibilities of mass civilian murder the likes of which have not been seen since World War II."[30]
Once again Sean hannity is not a legitimate source for a quote. Not to mention that quote isn't about anything specific and doesn't add anything to the article.
Finally who cares whether Sugg now works for Creative Loafing. The point is that the article he wrote was for FAIR. annoynmous 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • People other than you care that Sugg does not work for FAIR but rather for Creative Loafing. He's clearly not an RS, nor is he speaking for FAIR (which isn't an RS for facts, anyway).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Well the article wasn't written for creative loafing, which wasn't even his employer at the time. It was called the weekly planet at the time. It is your POV as to whether Sugg is a RS or not. FAIR is clearily allowed as long as it's stated as there opinion, which is what the article does. annoynmous 11:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article appeared in FAIR. The article in question is apparently the only one that John F. Sugg wrote for FAIR (which suggests that his "opinion" is not necessarily that of FAIR). Sugg's full-time job at the time was as a senior editor for an alternative newspaper then called Weekly Planet, now named Creative Loafing, in the Tampa Bay area.

My understanding from this prior discussion and this one is that FAIR would not be an RS for such controversial facts. Especially with regard to a living person. See WP:GRAPEVINE, which instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced."

Sugg's personal opinion is expressed (accusing Emerson of "exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists", a willingness "to push an extremely thin story--with potentially explosive consequences," and "mistakes and distortions."). I don't think Sugg is notable enough for his opinion to be reflected. And as it his only piece for FAIR, and not presented as an op ed, its not "FAIR's opinion".

Specific facts asserted by Sugg that you have insisted be in the article include:

  1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India.
  2. That Emerson claimed that the Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.
  3. That Emerson stated that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a bomb.
  4. That the Columbia Journalism Review alleged that passages in Emerson's book The Fall of Pan Am 103, "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
  5. That a New York Times review (5/19/91) of Emerson's 1991 book Terrorist that "chided that it was 'marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias,'" and said that "his 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations".
  6. That "veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of 'creating mass hysteria against American Arabs'" in a 1995 article.
  7. That Emerson said the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." [FYI -- something along the lines of this final point was said by Emerson I believe, and there should be RSs to reflect it rather than this]

Under the circumstances, I don't think either the "facts" or the Sugg opinions are permissible in the article, for the foregoing reasons.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Absent consensus objection, I'll archive threads where the most recent post is more than 21 days old.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR

FYI -- I've opened up discussion as to whether it is appropriate to use the Sugg article in FAIR as an RS, as it is used in this article, at the RSN here.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a hacksaw to the paragraphs cited to the source in question, trying to separate out statements of Sugg's opinion, from Emerson's own statements, from statements Sugg cited to other individuals (adding citation requests to those statements, in hopes that we can cite the original source for them). I've also tried to rip out of lot of well poisoning as well, while cleaning up the flow a bit. Please have a look. ← George talk 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I think any of the statements that I tagged with "citation needed" can be removed under WP:BLP, though if editors are able to find proper sources to support them, they could be re-added with those sources. ← George talk 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that, as unsourced contentious statements about a living person, they should be removed pursuant to WP:GRAPEVINE, which says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Though if people want to wait until the conversation at the RSN closes to do so, to avoid any confusion, that would be fine with me.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Epeefleche and George. Stellarkid (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored consensus version

Once again I have restored the consensus version that I John Z agreed to. Epeefleche still hasn'r explained how Sean hannity and and Bridgitte gabriel are reliable sources and why the Post and Times desciptions belong in the lead.
I've also restored some examples to the FAIR article like TWA and Pan am. Emerson doesn't denie that he made these statements and Sugg cites sources where he said this. Plus I don't see why we can't cite what paper he wrote for.
I'm hoping that this time editors will try to respect my edits and instead of reverting will work to resolve differences on the talk page, but frankly I'm not holding by breath. annoynmous 11:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but your version was by no means the consensus version simply because you and John Z agree to it. Epeefleche and George and I above have agreed it is not appropriate. Further, at the RS noticeboard here uninvolved editor Ink Falls weighed in with his opinion and the weight of that opinion falls on our side. Finally even John Z has said it would be better to have the original articles, and has said that "the fact that there has been litigation indicates we should tread very carefully." So I think I will revert you here if someone hasn't already, and see if we can't redo this section to avoid any appearance of BLP violations. No offense intended. Stellarkid (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your revert made way too many changes, even to the point of totally wiping out the established lead. There is no way to resolve differences if you make so many changes at once. Please try to find some neutral RS source besides FAIR to make your points. If you can't, please do not make them because "Emerson doesn't deny that he made these statements." You can't say that unless you have a source for that even. And unless you have written read his every word, such a statement is WP:OR. After we have dealt with FAIR, we can deal with Sean Hannity and Bridgitte Gabriel if you like but one thing at a time. Stellarkid (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Ink Falls commentary was specifically to do with the FAIR article, not the other changes. Even in that case he wasn't saying that FAIR wasn't allowed, just that it needed to be sourced. John Z has added some links that confirm what was in the FAIR article.
The fact of matter is that John Z agreed that my edits made the article more neutral. That's why removed the Ad tag afterwards. Two editors have agreed to these edits. It is not up to me to to argue fro them, it is up to you to argue for why the article should be the way you want it on the talk page. Instead of reverting my edits why don't you argue for them.
Plus how is what I've done "many changes". At best what I've done is likely tweak the article. The bottom line is that I won't accept the previous version of the article without the advertisement tag. As long as Epeefleche insists on that version than I'm going to insist on the tag. annoynmous 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree w/Stellar. Annoy: Your edit warring is out of control. I don't see John Z edit warring; only you. The filibuster reasons you present are empty, and POV-tinged. Please stop. This is no way to edit collaboratively.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Your the one who wouldn't accept the version me and John Z agreed. Even when Stellarkid made edits he didn't revert to the version you created until recently. Your are the one who is edit warring and refusing to accpet consensus version. annoynmous 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
John, Stellar, and I have all edited the article the past few days without any of us restoring the baseless deletions/etc. you keep on restoring. I've patiently discussed above ad nauseum why your edits are not appropriate. You also have turned a tin ear to the RSN discussion of the Sugg source. Your edits are disruptive, and after all this discussion continue to be disruptive. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
An I have responded to each of your objections. You haven't given any reasonable answer to why the lead should be as it is or why Bridgitte Gabriel and Sean hannity are reliable sources. John has never commented on anything to do with this article except the FAIR article. Therefore it is only you and Stellar arguing for this version which me and John Z have rejected. annoynmous 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) reply to Stellarkid : The established lead (for about 3 months) indicates non-neutrality to a reader far better than any tag. Cf Zero's 2nd comment here. Annoynmous's lead, similar to the one at the beginning of the year, is better and more standard in tone and style, so I restored it, and removed the advertisement tag, for which it was the main justification in my mind. I hope we can collaborate effectively, a kind editor who doesn't want to jump into this pit has been and is emailing me some of the hard to find Sugg sources, I will send them to anyone once I get them all.John Z (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Anon: I did--I pointed out to you that the publishers in question are clear RSs, and that in regard to at least one of them you don't even disagree w/the proposition that it supports. As to John Z, I'm not aware that he and I have any editing differences at the moment other than the ever-smaller one that is being discussed at the RS/N, and our discussion of the lede. And Stellar and I (and, to the extent that they have edited, the others who have edited this article the past day or two) seem to be in accord.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
John: Can you clarify why you would seek to delete from the lede the summary view of the subject given by the New York Times and Post, and his former position as staff member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee? It strikes me that that is just the sort of thing we want in a lede. Surely, that sentence stub is not so large that its deletion is required to keep the lede at an appropriate size. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead has to be neutral and should summarize the article, and should inform an ignorant reader just who the hell this person is, what he does, why he is important, what his day job is. Steve Emerson has received significant praise in RS's, but also significant criticism. If one is included, the other must be. Unlike Monica Lewinsky, he is not known for being a former government staff member, but as a journalist. So I think these things belong in the body, not the lead.John Z (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, John, it was hard to find your comment in here. But I did. I would qualify your comment, though I believe we are saying the same thing, and that leads me to making a suggestion for you to consider. I think that the key is not that the lead be neutral, but that it be balanced (reflecting RS opinions w approx weight to that in which such opinions appear). I think that the lede does actually have another problem -- in addition to the sentence stub that has been deleted, I would suggest that it have a sentence reflecting the criticism. Would you like to work with me on that sentence? I would be happy to look at what you come up with, and share my thoughts if you would like to take the first crack. As to the few words about him being a former govt staff member, its quite common for bios to summarily reflect prior different work.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An I pointed out that you are just plain wrong. I don't care who publishes him sean hannity is not a RS for Senate testimony. Epecially when he doesn't give a source in the book itself.
As for Bridgitte Gabriel, okay you admit that we already have a more reliable source for this quote, so why would you object to her being removed. It subtracts nothing from the article.
Finally "expert on intelligence" is a generic desciption that could be interpreted many ways and doesn't belong in the lead. The Post quote comes from a Harvard Crimson editorial and the post isn't exactly considered a top notch source. annoynmous 01:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another reference for Emerson's rep as an expert: ...1989, the journalist Steven Emerson, who would later become the well-known as an expert on Islamic terrorism,... [1]

Doesn't make him an expert on terrorism. He's referring specifically to his work as an intelligence analyst in the 80's. Anyway I didn't remove the links, they just aren't right for the lead.
Outside of Clarke, has Emerson ever gotten an endorsement from any repected terrorist analysts like Peter Bergen, Marc Sageman, Jason Burke or Lawrence Wright. annoynmous 05:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Shorrock source refers to him as a "well-known expert". He is not the only one. He has a reputation which includes his expertise and it is fair that we put it up in the lead. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another reference to Emerson as an expert in Hazardous Duty: An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century by John K Singlaub, Malcolm McConnell "Steven Emerson, an investigative journalist and expert on national security matters, notes...." . His information is referenced in The terror timeline: year by year, day by day, minute by minute : on page 279 by Paul Thompson. I figure referencing someone's information counts as an endorsement. Stellarkid (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

More to be found: The Truman legacy: American foreign policy 1945-2004 : fascism-communism ... By M. Lawrence Waxler "In April 1995, terrorism expert Steven Emerson informed the House International Relations Committee..." pg 83.

Stephen M. Chermak [2] in his book Searching for a demon: the media construction of the militia movement, says on page 154,"Emerson, who is an expert on international terrorism, focused primarily on ....". It goes on and on. He is referenced by others as an expert. eg Tim Shorrock. There is every reason to put this in the lead, ie that he has a reputation as an expert in the field. Not to mention the fact that he was a staff member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is big-time information. These are relevant points to make in the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How is being part the Senate foreign relations committe relevant for the lead. It's not his profession or what he's know for and the lead is supposed to be about basic desciption. It's already mentioned later in the article so I don't understand the problem.
The issue isn't whether he is an expert. He clearily knows somethin on the issue. The question whether or not he's "the nation's foremost journalistic expert on terrorism". That's a POV claim with very little to back it up. annoynmous 07:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone has held an important post in his or her lifetime, it is generally a highlight of his career. As such, it is appropriate in the lead. WP does not call him "the nation's foremost journalistic expert on terrorism," an RS that is quoted, does. It is not in the lead but under "The Investigative Project" section. Stellarkid (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine if you don't like it in that section then put wherever you think it belongs. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. It's a POV claim from a biased source that is very subjective. Also we don't know if this was a general article or an editorial because the source is a Harvard Crimson editorial.
Plus in my owm purely subjective viewpoint, how can it be said that emerson is held in higher esteem than Steve Coll or Lawrence Wright. Not to mention former CIA officers like Marc sageman or Robert Baer. annoynmous 05:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't have strength anymore at this moment

I have to say that this whole episode has, like most wikipedia disputes, has thoroughly depressed me. I mistakenly thought that the other editors actually wanted to try make the article better. Apparently all they wanted was to look for ways to get me banned. First they falsely claimed I violated the 3rr. Then they tried to get me for canvassing. They complained to every noticeboard they could, everything to avoid actually arguing for there edits on the talk page. This Post on a noticeboard blew me away:

Please, there's no way in hell that Jimbo can be considered to be a "random editor". Whether one believes that he should be or not, it is clear that Jimbo is the holder of significant power and authority on Wikipedia, and bringing disputes to him in the hope that he will intervene is not in any way unusual. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is, and to pretend that going to Wales is "canvassing" is ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
So people aren't allowed to canvass with the exception of Jimbo? Is that in the guidelines somewhere? I gotta say this whole dispute, like most disputes on wikipedia, has left me in a depressed state. I'm regretting getting involved at all. annoynmous 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, going to Jimbo is not "canvassing", because the intent is not to get an editor involved in the dispute as it stands, but to short-circuit the dispute entirely by going to the top. I have no idea if that's in any rule, but it's an accurate description of the system as it functions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Where talking about the fact that Epeefleche left a message on Jimbo Wales talk and I was noting the irony because Epeefleche had repeatedly accused me of canvassing. However, according to Beyond My Ken the canvassing guidelines don't applie to Jimbo. So basically if you can't cut it on your own, don't worry if you complain to the top you'll get your way.

I should note that another on the noticeboard also noted epeefleches complaining:

But gee whiz, this has been at 3RR, WQ, RS, and now here, hope I didn't miss any. Shopping isn't nice either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've decided I'm not going edit the article anymore. At least not right now. Maybe I'll reurn to it sometime later, but right I need a break from this nonsense. As I've said before, these are the types of disputes that made me only post tags in the beginning. They leave you wondering why you bothered.

The one exception I will make will be if someone tries to remove the NPOV tag. Frankly, I feel this article can't be neutral as long as epeefleche and stellarkid are editing it. In my opinion the these two editors bias prevents them from contributing to the article in a neutral way. This article needs the input from multiple editors and until that happens the NPOV tag should stay.

I will make 3 editing suggestions right now. Bridgitte Gabriel should be removed as a source because she isn't a RS and there already is a relaible source for the quote. It should be indentified that Sugg wrote for FAIR because I see no reason why the publication the articles appear in shouldn't be mentioned in the text.

Finally the section on Sami Al Arian should be changed. Here is the version I created:

However Al-Arian was acquitted on 8 of the charges against him and another 8 were dropped after he plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to help a "specially designated terrorist" organization, PIJ, and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. While Al-arian admitted in the agreement that he knew of the groups violent activities, no evidence was ever offered that connected Al-Arian to anything violent.

It's essentially the same as epeefleches, but with more neutral wording.

Hopefully some dilligent sole will come along and try and clean this article up. All I can say in support is don't let yourself get bullied. annoynmous 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. SilverserenC 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor agrees epeefleches behavior in this matter was innapropriate. annoynmous 05:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

*Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo distinctly says: "Consider these views with discretion." Furthermore you are concluding that Epeefleche went on that talk page to "short-circuit" the discussion, a conclusion that does not strike me as good faith since a small book of discussion has already been written. Finally in opposition to what was said in the essay your referred to, Jimbo actually did reply, both on the noticeboard, and to actually make an edit in the article. Stellarkid (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't become involved until epeefleche contacted him. Furthermore were we really at such a deadlock that he needed to contact Jimbo? annoynmous 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Jimbo didn't remove Sugg when he edited the article. All he really said was that specific claims by sugg that can't be sourced should be removed.
So basically you couldn't make your case on the talk page and decided to complain to the top. annoynmous 09:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Epeefleche made the case alright, you just didn't hear him. And this is what Jimbo said:"I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. " So to translate, everything needs an independent (not Sugg) reliable (not Sugg) source, and Suggs comments are not noteworthy. So scratch Sugg. To coin a phrase, what part of this don't you understand?? Stellarkid (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche and I are at the point where were not even arguing about the article anymore. This is why I avoided editing in the first place. I've added back Sugg and removed Gabriel. I also once again changed the wording of the Al-Arian passage. I'm done editing with the exception of the tags. I don't need the aggravation of this back and forth. I hope the article will fall into better hands than mine in the future. annoynmous 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No you misunderstood. Jimbo said at the beginning that we should proceed carefully. He said this the context of the lawsuit filed by emerson against Sugg. I pointed out that this was faulty reasoning because the lawsuit was dismissed and nothing was proven in a court of law. It is significant that when Jimbo edited the article he didn't remove Sugg. You would think that if he was so dead set against it that he wold have removed it. There are numerous editors on the talk page who feel Sugg is perfectly fine for the article, as long as his article isn't used to claim unsourced allegations. annoynmous 08:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SteveEmerson.com

The first reference listed for this page is a self-published source. The lead is highly reliant on the subject's official website. Is this okay, or should we find alternative references that provide a similar type of information?Mickmontez (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tim Shorrock. Spies for hire: the secret world of intelligence outsourcing. p. 79.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Emerson/Archive_1&oldid=1235844326"