Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:16, 20 November 2007.

Ernest Emerson

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified SandyGeorgia, Mike Searson, Alkivar, Fang Aili, Bradford44, Albatross2147, Orangemike.
Notified Dreadstar, Martial arts, MilHist and B&E.

This article caused controversy when it was featured on the main page a few days ago. Since then, there's been discussion on the talk page and an abortive AfD. It is my opinion that this article falls short of our featured article criteria; it is neither neutral nor factually accurate and should be de-featured.

  • Unreliable sources. Some of the claims are sourced from sources which are unambiguously unreliable. The section dealing with his martial arts career uses Emerson's self-written testimonial for his martial arts club for a source. Note it includes a dubious anecdote about Emerson's fighting instruction saving a firefighter's life, though thankfully this is not reproduced in the article. Emerson's fighting credentials as 'Hand-to-hand Combat Instructor for H&K Defense Group' and 'Director of the Combat Research and Development Group' are sourced from a blurb from a police equipment expo. There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than advertising. The testimony of one of Emerson's employees urging the government of Nevada to allow the sale of Emerson knives is also used to back up Emerson's teaching credentials. The only source for the claims that Emerson knives are used in upcoming films John Rambo and Alien Vs Predator 2 is Emerson's newsletter. Some of the other 'sightings' of Emerson knives in films are unsourced.
  • As a sample, I checked your first two sentences: what you call a "dubious anecdote" is not included in the article, so it's not relevant to this review. The "self-written testimonial" you refer to is only used as the sole source on two statements:
  • After graduating with degrees in physical education and world history, Emerson moved to Southern California for the sole purpose of continuing his martial arts training at the Filipino Kali Academy.
  • According to Emerson, he could barely afford the US$12.50 monthly dues, and performed maintenance and janitorial duties in exchange for instruction.
  • Are you asking for an additional citation on his degree in world history, or that he performed janitorial duties in exchange for instruction? I didn't go through the rest of your comments, as the first two revealed the same sorts of vague complaints raised on the talk page. What "several editors have stated" or what Google coughs up or criticism that some imagine must exist aren't actionable complaints; if you know of reliably sourced criticism that needs to be included, please point it out. Articles are not de-featured based on IDON'TLIKEIT, so please keep comments focused on ways to improve the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking for additional sources, I'm asking for reliable sources. You appear to think that what Emerson says about Emerson on the testimonial page of a martial arts website is reliable, though you pointedly do not state this explicitly. Despite your effort to muddy the waters, my claims are not vague, they are clear statements of the form 'X is unreliable'. Having already subjected this article to stringent review, you should be in a position to make counter-arguments explaining why police equipment expo blurbs and lobbying from Emerson's employees are reliable sources.--Nydas(Talk) 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources. Several editors have stated that the knife magazines which constitute the overwhelming bulk of the sourcing are advertorial in nature, though the article's defenders deny this. Some of the articles are available online, many on Emerson's site. I invite editors to read them and make up their own mind: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Lampman remarked that the article has not one word of criticism, and this is true. But it is only following the sources, which are considerably more gushing in their seemingly endless praise of Emerson. American Handgunner states that "So popular are his knives among elite and clandestine forces worldwide, they are often traded on the black-market as barter for goods and favors." One wonders what editorial oversight and fact-checking process these articles have gone through, if any.
  • Inadequately sourced grand claims. Emerson supplying the US Navy SEALs is sourced from a published book, Weapons of the Navy SEALs, although article inexplicably uses this only twice, preferring to rely on the magazines instead. The claims about supplying other special forces and police are nowhere near as compelling. For example, all we have is say-so in the magazines that Emerson knives are used by the SAS. This is a strong claim, and needs more convincing sourcing; a book about the SAS would ideal. On his website, Emerson says that "Emerson Knives has long had a relationship with certain elements of the British SAS, albeit a secret one. Well, a secret it shall remain, until someday when books can be written and perhaps we shall all sit around, tip a pint a two and have a chance to tell our tall tales." Lucky it's not so secret that he can't talk about it. One wonders what these 'certain elements' are. In any case, in the absence of any stronger evidence that the SAS use these knives, we should not assume that they do.
  • We are told that Emerson has supplied knives to NASA (they 'approached' him) for use on the Space Shuttle and the ISS. The article claims that his knife replaced the Randall Model 17 Astronaut Knife, although a Google search reveals that the Randall was only ever used on the early Mercury missions, so this is incorrect. The sources for the NASA claims include a personal website and Emerson's site, where we are told that NASA never endorses any products, so conveniently they will never confirm the use of this knife. There is no evidence whatsoever that this knife has ever been used in space, despite what the intro says. Note that the picture of the 'NASA knife' just shows a knife next to a commercially available NASA patch, without any logo.
  • Comment I took out the bit on the Randall Model 17. That model was the last knife that was as an issue item by NASA, so it's inclusion was probably extraneous on my part or a previous editor. As for the logos on the knife, you are right, it's not on the knife in the picture. I have seen that logo on the knives themselves at Emerson's factory. I can't recall if you can see the logo when you see the knife being used to cut cables in the IMAX tour of the ISS. --Mike Searson 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are told that Emerson's wife, Mary, is one of the world's foremost female practitioners of Jujitsu. There is no solid evidence for this.
It's sourced in some of the older material, however I did not realize it was reading as present tense...I changed it to reflect the time they met. --Mike Searson 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emerson's fighting style, Emerson Combat Systems, is described mostly from Emerson's own words or from blurbs in knife magazines. There is no real information about the uptake or acceptance of this fighting style, we are only told that 'hundreds' of 'law enforcement agencies, members of the US military and civilians' have been trained in this fighting style. Were the police and soldiers were trained as part of their jobs, or simply in a personal capacity (as civilians)? The guarded wording and lack of confirming sources suggests the latter.

In closing, I would ask editors to consider whether this article would be featured if it was about a minor politician, using criticism-free sources and repeating grand claims without a hint of doubt.--Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The material covered in this article reminds me greatly of our original article on Ashida Kim, sourced solely by the subject's own work. Well I too can publish a newsletter that states I have a diamond encrusted, platinum belt in Zero-Gravity Ninjitsu... doesnt make it factually based. Secondary sources are required for our articles, PARTICULARLY those which maintain featured status.
I still don't understand how an article could make featured status with its references being 90% primary sources and advertisements from catalogs. What ever happened to Featured Article Criteria 1 (c) or 1 (d)? What happened to FA's being required to comply with our Reliable Source policy which states "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." ? AND "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." ?
Was WP:NPOV also entirely overlooked in this FAC process? There is not 1 negative statement or criticism to be found anywhere in the article. WP:BLP does not say under no circumstances must a living person not be criticized, but it does say criticism must be verifiable and reliably sourced.
</rant>  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a link of a video of Russian astronauts using the Emerson-made NASA knife on the Space Station, an additional reference is a press release within the article, I suppose you could also ask former SEAL and astronaut William Shepherd, here's a picture of Emerson and Shepherd together at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas with the press release on the NASA knife: [5] The use of various knives used by the SEALs is also well-documented in Richard Marcinko's books, Dennis Chalker's books and I would think sworn testimony in a hearing would be a reliable secondary source as it's given under oath and it also coroborates who uses his knives. The "Martial Arts Club" you refer to is the school owned by Richard Bustillo, one of Bruce Lee's original students and is used to corroborate that Emerson was a student there. What you cite as "unreliable" are being used as secondary sources...and in some cases much more than merely secondary, such as when 12 different articles make the same claims. --Mike Searson 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware 90% of Marcinko's books and 50% of Chalker's books are works of FICTION right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using video of a cosmonaut and comparing it with a photograph of a knife is WP:OR. However if you can find a flight manifest for that russian space flight, I'm sure you can prove one way or another whether an Emerson knife was used in it. HOWEVER that still does not prove his knives are NASA endorsed as Cosmonauts don't work for NASA. As for a photograph of Emerson and Shepherd together, that proves nothing. I've got a photo of myself and Ron Jeremy. That doesn't prove I'm a porn star, all it proves is that I know the guy. If I was marketing a knife as a NASA knife, I too would pay for an astronaut to show up and flog my product to the masses. You are aware he was paid to be present right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Emerson NASA knife is not for sale to the public, it can only be purchased by NASA, don't get the marketing quip....I guess they hijacked the Space Station and paid actors to do that too. I have no knowledge of Shep being paid to show up at Emerson's booth, if you have proof of this, please bring it forward...thank you.--Mike Searson 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've described four unreliable sources; Emerson's own testimonial, the police expo blurb, his employee's statement and his newsletter. Why do you think these are reliable?--Nydas(Talk) 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is the list that was canvassed yesterday for the AfD,[7] but I may have missed some:
  • Addps4cat
  • C d h
  • Chump Manbear
  • Cloveious
  • Excalibur
  • Janneman
  • John joskins
  • Lampman
  • Nydas
  • Rocksanddirt
  • Starkrm
  • Tempshill
  • Too Old

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • the last statement does not ring true i was not notified about the poll and i voted to remove and was not canvassed to do it, so if there was a percentage of people who thought it should be kept they could have put there name forward like i did to have it removed to say they didn't know it was there is just a fible excuse! 9 to 3 in favour of it going shows the true feeling towards this puff piece John joskins 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above voted for it to be deleted! just to make it clear John joskins 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i too feel this article needs cleaned up or sorted out it reads to much like a sales brochure at the moment, and any tme any one comments or tries to do something about it eg, AfD there are about two people who keep overriding it all the time surly this is not in keeping with wikipedia. John joskins 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've given no examples of "sales brochure" content. Please focus on specific issues that can be addressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is a sycophantic puff piece and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that it was a front page feature article. Feature article status should be removed. I'll add that notability of each piece of content should be scrutinized; there was formerly a detailed section on guitars with Emerson's name on them. These guitars are not notable; Googling "ernest emerson" guitar yielded a grand total of 49 Google hits. I removed the section by means of this edit but it is crazy that this content made it past the FAC process. Tempshill 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Remove are not declared during a Featured Article Review; please see the instructions at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started to tabulate and cross reference the references and footnotes on the page and gave up for laughing. Many are to novels, others which look respectable are to fanzine web sites. There seems to be a complete of proper secondary sources. The telling points, I feel, are his baseball career (which could, so I understand, be normally easily referenced given the total comprehensiveness of stats available for baseball) and equally the status of Mrs E's expertise in a form of martial arts which seems to go unremarked elsewhere. Another point is where did this fellow attend high school - we should be told. Such a stellar student and athlete would surely be listed among the notable alumni Albatross2147 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, some citations are to novels; they are citing that the knives are mentioned in the novels, which is a correct citation since that is part of their popularity. Vague criticisms won't help improve the article, which is the purpose of FAR. Do you have a specific example of a statement cited to what you consider a Fanzine and why it isn't reliable? Please give specific examples of improvements needed; if reliable sources don't say where he went to high school, that can't be included. We can't make things up on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the degrees were cited in the Combs article in Knives illustrated. Mary's jujitsu expertise was cited in the Tieves article and at least one by Pat Covert or Cameron Hopkins...I'll have to go dig them up to be 100% sure. The only thing I can think is that the references got jostled around in the numerous copy-edits over the past year. Marcinko's books are often cited as a contributor to Emerson's popularity among collectors outside the military. I don't know of any links to "fansites". I understand reading a knife magazine may be beneath an intellectual or outright frightening to some, however that does not make them less factual, especially when discussing a knifemaker or knives.--Mike Searson 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stumped about why Albatross considers naming his high school important for a 52-yo man. Curious, I explored the other FA bios in the same category with Emerson, and none of them mention high school (Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Glynn Lunney and Joseph Francis Shea, although two of them played baseball as well). I'm equally stumped by this idea that industry magazines are "fanzines"; if that's the case, we'll need to defeature most of the video game FAs because they're usually based on gaming magazines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've been told, if something is really bad or does not live up to how it has been promoted, they simply won't cover it. However, there have been bad reviews given as well to a number of companies and models over the years. They're not going to give a glowing review to someone who doesn't rate it for the simple fact that credibility will suffer. If you really think this is all BS, don't you think the knife-buying public would have discovered it by now? These articles go back almost 20 years. If it's all a sham, why would they continue to write about a company or a man that spends no money on advertising with them? Why are there crowds of hundreds of people at a time trying to buy these knives through a lottery system that are then resold for double to triple their price on the aftermarket?--Mike Searson 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's all BS, but I think the articles are exaggerating the biographical aspects. About the technical aspects of the knives, there's much less of problem. Making Emerson sound cool is unlikely to cause any problems with their readership, indeed, the cloak-and-dagger mystique they build up is likely to be popular. This has been toned down for the article, but it's still there. For example, "In 1999, NASA approached Emerson with a special request" (cue theme music) is an overly dramatic way of saying they bought some knives from him. It makes it sound like Emerson was the only one who could provide them with knives.--Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK....I see where you're coming from. So if that were changed toIn 1999 Emerson accepted a contract from NASA to build knives for use on the Space Shuttle and ISS..." or Emerson has been making knives for NASA since 1999 that would be more acceptable? I don't see it as "overly dramatic" but can follow your reasoning.--Mike Searson 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much better.--Nydas(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More then just knives If this article was well rounded, shouldn't there be something on his Baseball career? He was drafted by St. Louis, when was that? what round? Where did he play minor league ball? What were his stats? He must have been at least note worthy as a Ball player to get drafted, Isn't that worthy of a section at least? My problem with this article is it seems to focused on one thing, while this other notable aspect seems undeveloped. --Cloveious 08:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cloveious, that's a good point. I just have to ask if playing minor-leauge ball for a year or two really that notable outside a sentence or two? I'm not a sportswriter or even a fan outside of competitive shooting, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that sort of thing. It was mentioned in the biographical articles and in this one in the very beginning (For the record...I did not create this article...I just tried to source it and fix it).--Mike Searson 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a comparison, George S. Patton, the famous American World War II general, was an Olympic pentathlete (1912 Olympics). It gets two sentences in his article, and (as an Olympian) Patton was certainly more notable in his sport than Emmerson was in his. But in both cases, they became famous for other things. His baseball stats are unnecessary trivia. Raul654 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article obviously suffers severe problems under our Neutral point of view policy, but if it could be balanced in some way (what are testimonials doing in an encyclopedia article?) it might one day be regarded as a reasonable Wikipedia article, and thence might come to be regarded as one of the best of all such articles. We're really not shown doing our best in this article. It's basically an extended advertisement for a knife seller. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a personal note Emerson is well known throughout the military and law enforcement for making quality tactical knives. Many of those sources I personally read and know to be fully acceptable sources, not catalogs. I don't think it's FA quality, but it's certainly fine enough to stay on Wikipedia. Also for those of you comparing him to Ashida Kim, Emerson Combat systems is a legitimate combatives system, though not one of the best quality or best known. That's really fucking pathetic to compare him to the Bullshido master. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not comparing the fighting system with Ashida Kim... i'm comparing the poor quality of the sourcing with Ashida Kim's article. That's something completely different.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the sources you are talking about...and look at what they are backing up:

"Emerson has written over 30 articles on hand-to-hand combat, knife fighting, history, and knifemaking for publications including Blade Magazine,[73] American Cop Magazine,[74] Martial Arts Experts,[75] Journal of Modern Combatives,[69] Inside Kung-Fu,[71] Black Belt Magazine,[76] Police Magazine,[77] and American Handgunner Magazine.[78]."

The reason those sources "from Emerson" were put in there were to source the fact that he is a published writer. Some editor asked for that way back in the beginning. There's a few others by Emerson about his Combatives system. I'm sure if one were writing about Aikido when it was 10-15 years old, the bulk of source material would be Ushebia or Jeet Kune Do...the bulk would be Bruce Lee's writings. To say these form 90% of the source material is simply not true. I think if I wanted to learn something about a martial arts system, I'd read what the guy who developed it had to say and his thought process behind it...but that's just me.--Mike Searson 01:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've got three paragraphs, an infobox, a picture and other mentions for a fighting technique that does not seem to have been discussed by anyone except the creator. That raises serious neutrality concerns. Who says that ECS is 'unique'? Does ECS actually work? What do other martial artists think of dubiously capitalised concepts like 'Integrated Fighting Skills' or 'Weapon Transition Skills'? --Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any experience in ECS, so I can't say how unique it is or whether it works, but "dubiously capitalized concepts" are pretty much par for the course in modernly developed military-oriented combat systems. Take a look at this link to an Army field manual for an example. The description in this article implies to me that, at least philosophically speaking, it is similar to other modern military combat systems such as Combatives, Krav Maga, Sambo, and the Marine Corps LINE combat system. Given that this article doesn't actually say whether or not ECS is any good, or if it works, but just states its philosophical and technical goals, it seems reasonably neutral to me. As far as the word "unique": technically speaking, I'm sure it is (no two teachers teach alike, even if ECS was copied wholesale from another system, the way Emerson teaches it would still be unique); probably the word could be deleted, I think it's a trivial difference. Bradford44 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Emerson Combat Systems being capitalised is dubious, but the capitalisation of generic words describing a fairly generic concept is. No-one but Emerson uses them in this way. You are right that the section doesn't say whether ECS is good or bad, but it does use Emerson's own words (rather than a third party) to buttress the importance of these concepts.--Nydas(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didn't look at the Army manual I linked? It contains sections on topics such as "2-13. Execution at Combat Speed", "3-6. Finishing Moves", "3-8. Defense Against Headlocks", and "7-1. Angles of Attack", to choose a few at random - these are examples of capitalization of generic concepts that I was referring to as commonplace within military combat systems. As far as the use of Emerson's own words, wouldn't the best source of information about which concepts are most important in ECS be the guy who invented ECS? Maybe I'm missing something; could you point to a specific sentence or assertion that you find problematic because Emerson himself is the source of the assertion? Bradford44 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are only capitalized in the headings, as indeed they should be by any style manual, but in the actual manual they are not. --Janneman 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are direct quotes per the footnotes and in the original writing they were capitalized.--Mike Searson 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a bank started offering what it called Integrated Refinancing Solutions, which were really just loans, would we use the term? Using dubious proper nouns lends an advert-like tone to the article.--Nydas(Talk) 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Point 1-- W.marsh said it best on the talk page, "A proper encyclopedic biography puts a person in a historical context, compares him to his peers, explains his legacy..." There is very little of that here. (W.marsh also noted the possible lack of sources for this kind of information, which could be part of the problem.) This article is really more about Emerson's knives than the man himself. It his almost entirely devoted to the development of his knifemaking career. While this is the bulk of his notability, the article should be much more well-rounded. The extensive knife sections could possible be broken into its own article, so the knife detail doesn't drag on and on. Point 2-- The Emerson Combat Systems section needs cleanup--parts are written like an ad, specifically, "This system is unencumbered by the ritual or "sport" aspects of martial arts"; "He has accumulated close to 40 years of experience in a variety of styles and philosophies of combat.[9] As a result he has developed a combatives system known as Emerson Combat Systems" (italics mine). Also, key information is missing--when did he start developing this system? When was it first taught to others? Has the martial arts community responded in any way? Point 3--the bit about guitars doesn't belong in the intro; there is only one other sentence about this in the article. Generally, a lot of the advertising language has been cleaned up, which is a big improvement overall. I won't comment on the issue of reliable sources, since I haven't looked into that. --Fang Aili talk 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-feature - the large number of questionable sources and the fact that the thing reads like a hagiographic advertisement for the guy's company should have kept this article from featured status, let alone the front page. 1of3 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a neighbor who is highly respected as a carpenter. Despite charging substantially more than the going rate he is offered more work than he can take. He is also a superb cook and a superior gardener. Should I write an article about him? I can cite people who have repeatedly had him do carpentry for them, designing as he went. I can cite those who have eaten his food.
I know other people who are similarly creative in their fields. Perhaps they also deserve articles? Or is it only the fact that his craft is that of a maker of snazzy weaponry that makes EE worthy of an article? Too Old 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If his work has been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles, ... yes. Bradford44 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the more you look at this article, the more outrageous it is that is continues to exist at all. Why should making expensive knives in rather small numbers be any more important or interesting than making soup or toilet rolls? There is no evidence of any really new invention or radical design, these are just expensive "toys for the boys" . I'm even thinking of writing a new page on my local village butcher, Paul, who has won numerous UK and Scottish awards for his pies and sausages, purely in protest and to show what could happen if this kind of material is allowed into the 'pedia. Time is running out on this article. Excalibur 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you did not even read the article, you just know it's about someone who makes knives and you don't like it. The Wave was a radical new design and is patented. Emerson popularized the chisel ground zero-bevel blade on folding knives and along with Allen Elishewitz, Bob Terzuola, and Chris Reeve ushered in what is known as the tactical folding knife. The production aspect of the business makes tens of thousands of knives a year and according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Emerson makes over $10 million a year between the knives and the training. Again, the knives are not expensive from Emerson...production models are from $69-$250 or so and his customs are only $550. They get expensive when collectors resell them on the secondary market. What do you mean by time is running out? Are you threataning to vandalize it again?--Mike Searson 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See featured article, Baby Gender Mentor. Has your butcher Paul (to quote Bradford44) "been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Sought after' is advertising lingo. We know he's supplied knives to the US Navy SEALs and NASA, the rest are not so strongly sourced. Given the vast numbers of books churned out about the SAS (often by ex-members), it should not be difficult to find a solid source stating they have used Emerson knives.--Nydas(Talk) 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bradford44 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys serious? Can you show me any wikipedia article about a contemporary person of, at best, middling importance that includes information like "he was born (...) in a 400-square-foot log cabin built by his grandfather"? How is such unnecessary detail (some might say hagiographic twaddle) encyclopaedic? Who needs to know that he travelled to his Judo classes "twice a week"? Or what qualities he is credited with in diverse novels? The article is written with a lack of distance, in a non-encyclopaedic style, and, in my opinion, without a sense of proportion regarding the importance of the information it conveys. athinaios 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is sourcing and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Some of the problems have been addressed, but others remain. That the SAS and the GSG 9 use the knives (and consider them a status symbol) is a grand claim, and needs a stronger reference than the knife magazines. Some unreliable sources (the employee testimony and Emerson's martial arts school testimony) are still used. The ECS section is severely lacking in independant commentary, and the infobox only adds to the confustion. How are boxing, Jeet Kune Do and Brazilian Jujitsu the 'parents' of ECS? There's nothing else about boxing or Brazilian Jujitsu anywhere else in the article. As noted above, the background section is filled with trite details like '400 square foot log cabin'. We are told that he was 'raised in a family of farmers, craftsmen and teachers'. We are not told what his parent's jobs were (or even their names).--Nydas(Talk) 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of the article talks about Emerson's background in the arts you claim are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Three independent sources cite this (Combs, Tieves, and Norman). The Testimonial you are waving your arms about is from the actual school run by the teacher who taught JKD to Emerson. It's not Mr Emerson's website...it's Mr Bustillo's. The testimonial further mentions that Emerson performed janitorial duties in exchange for tuition and how learning the balisong knife intrigued him and sparked his interest in making knives. By your rationale, should all biographical articles be purged of any statements made by the subject? I guess a testimonial from the man on the webpage of the school run by the instructor he trained in is not up to your standards? Edited to add for the non-martial types: Gracie Jujitsu is Brazillian Jujitsu --Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying about the Jujitsu. Statements made by the subject which cast them in a positive light (the janitor thing indicates a hard-working, humble background) should be taken with a pinch of salt.--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually showing how crude the first knife he made was. I, too was practicing the same art in the same time period and I can remember laying out $75 for a balisong...which was alot of money 20-30 years ago. I personally had saved up a month to buy one...so the thought of someone with access to metal and tools making their own knife isn't that farfetched.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are aware of a reliable source that discusses his parent's jobs or names, please bring that forward. Wiki reports what reliable sources say; we can't make it up. Please give a concrete example of sources you claim as unreliable; others have stated (in the discussion above) that the sources are reliable, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources is Emerson writing about Emerson on the testimonials page of a martial arts club website, the other is Emerson's employee lobbying the government of Nevada to legalise the sale of Emerson knives. Neither of these are reliable due to the conflict of interest and lack of editorial oversight. If you can clearly state why these sources are reliable, please do so. No-one else apart from you has defended them.--Nydas(Talk) 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I addressed the school and why I used that reference above, if you care to read it. Are you calling Mr Guzy a liar and alleging that he lied under oath while giving sworn testimony?--Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I assumed because it was before the legislature that it was sworn testimony (Nevada has a brief legislature compared to California's; that and Mr Guzy is also a Police Officer), I did not realize it was just a "meeting". My apologies on that. The actual origin of Guzy's testimony in the article was to point out how the Company was doing things "legally" as a previous editor (who was also terrified of weapons) was very concerned about legality, etc. since Mr Guzy was corroborating what those of us from the Military and Law Enforcement know about the knives...I thought the quotes were appropriate as they are backing up what the magazine articles are saying. I believe Guzy's testimony to be reliable.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable butchers and bakers

OK, I give up, trivia like this stays put. So I have risen to the challenge, and created a page for my local butcher. see: Paul Conway, Butcher Maybe this proves that almost anything can be notable if one is prepared to make the effort to write about it. But at least I've kept it to a few hundred words ;-).Excalibur 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Point? That said the article is referenced and has three separate points of notability, having frequently come accross far worse I can't realy see a problem with it, probably more notable then the average fictional cartoon monster... --Nate1481( t/c) 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ernest_Emerson/archive1&oldid=1138476890"