Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

SYNTH

This edit by Atsme seems to be a violation of WP:SYNTH, my highlight.

In a 1995 CBS interview, prior to any knowledge the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, Emerson reflected what the FBI and local law enforcement suspected when he said the bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait".[31][32] Some 20 years later, Emerson's critics occasionally recall that 1995 interview referring to him as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh".[33]

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This was the previous version, previously deleted by Atsme and restored a few days ago by Binksternet

Six hours after the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building (by Timothy McVeigh), Emerson said that the bombing bore the "trait" of "Middle Eastern terrorists" because it "tried to kill as many as possible."[31] He was labeled as an Islamophobe for falsely identifying Muslims as being the perpetrators of the bombings.[32] Emerson responded to criticism of his comment by saying that he was referring only to a fanatical minority in the Islamic community, and pointed out that he was one of many experts interviewed after the bombing who concluded that there were similarities between the Oklahoma City bombing and Middle Eastern terrorism.[33]

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also the problem of Atsme putting this thought into the mouths of law enforcement: "That is a Middle Eastern trait." The problem is that the thought was purely Emerson's, not the consensus of law enforcement. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh. Excuse me? Then what was CBS News KFOR-TV saying about three hours after the blast about? This was hours before Emerson and it was about the WTC connection.. to which Emerson acknowledged, but did not originate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The previous version was superior, and NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually corrected WP:SYNTH that Binksternet created when he added back that factually incorrect passage. Emerson wasn't labeled an Islamophobe because of the OK City bombing. Read the relevant passage in the book - it's a short parenthetical phrase that probably doesn't even belong in this article because it is a biased slur and far from being noteworthy. And read the inline citations - I didn't put thoughts into anyone's head mouth - I wrote what Emerson said and what is actually stated in the sources I cited. You should try doing that sometime instead of doing what you accuse me of doing. I probably should have removed it all together. To begin, the CBS interview took place in 1995, 20 years ago! His critics have taken it out of context, misquoted him and painted their bias all over it. It's ancient news. Yes, critics are still referring to that one gaffe because they have little else to use against him. If there is something substantial, show me the RS that back it up, and we'll add it. The only substantial and noteworthy gaffe he's made was his Birmingham screw-up. I wonder if the latter doesn't represent WP:RECENTISM, which is actually what brought the attention to Emerson to begin with, but I'm actually glad it did. I enjoy collaborating with GF editors who are good at writing prose and understand NPOV and the restrictions we're under when writing a BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 23:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you recall - Emerson merely acknowledged the trait, but the rumor of it being Islamic terrorism was spread widely by the speculative media. Emerson acknowledged the "Middle Eastern" (not Muslim as Cwobeel states) trait, but he did not originate the accusation - law enforcement personnel and journalists did that. Leaving out this comment and sourcing it to the man's political and legal foes is not NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH agree, the edit attempts to isolate the theory which was not unique to this BLP. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The highlighted section at the top of the section is an example of inappropriate editorializing actually... just so we are clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm confused - my passage said Some 20 years later, Emerson's critics occasionally recall that 1995 interview referring to him as an Islamophobe and the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh Are you saying that statement is SYNTH? Atsme☯^Consult 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's some really horrible written fluff in that. Inappropriate editorializing? Synth? Really doesn't matter much, either way that part needs to go. In addition other parts present BLP issues. Emerson has responded to his critics saying they failed to recite the rest of his statement, "That is a Middle Eastern trait and something that has been generally not carried out in this soil until we were rudely awakened to [it] in 1993."[1] This is presented with a self published source and runs contrary to WP:BLPSELFPUB in my view as it does seem unduly self serving and it involves claims about third parties. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is a rebuttal and even without a better source, it is allowable because it is directly countering that accusation with Emerson's position.... but I tried finding a transcript and the original. The context surrounding that day and that comment is also interesting because I flipped through the channels and it was all "they have defused the second bomb" and "this could be Islamic terrorist or a Waco-style..." and oh so many WTC references. I particularly like the "according to the FBI source" which calls it middle east terrorism about two hours before Emerson makes his "gaffe". I doubt many of you have access to TV records from 1995 or the "live coverage" of the day, but watching even 10 minutes of it (I flipped to slightly after noon) shows how breaking news reports are clearly primary sources and are really unreliable in such situations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Add note - if you have the exact time and channel which Emerson was on, I probably could verify what was actually said. Big events like this are widely recorded and kept over regular news because they are of great interest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the NYTimes article which basically says the same thing? [2]. I was going to add it just before my edit was reverted without any discussion. The claim that it is WP:UNDUE... not representative of published opinion. is nothing short of ludicrous. The minority view that refers to Emerson as an Islamaphobe is contentious and unsupported. There is also no "fluff" in the statement, just factual information based on the cited sources. Where is the fluff? The part that says 20 years later? The part that says his critics occasionally recall the same 1995 interview? Perhaps I should have added "incorrectly recall" to further substantiate the fact and what was stated by the Cambridge source in a parenthetical passing mention. As for not being useable because it's self-published, read the guidelines, WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Atsme☯^Consult 18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Chris give me a little time and I'll see if I can find a day and general time. I'd actually found this in a uni archive before. I can't recall which, I think it was an archive they have set up at Vanderbilt. And the problem is that the rebuttal is not much of a rebuttal. Hold that thought, who are these unnamed critics? In the fluff prior the critics are unnamed. With the Cambridge companion whatever as the source, are the two editors of it the Critics of record? It actually seems they are, though they source Emerson being a "discredited terrorism expert" to think process. They do not quote only a part of Emerson's comment as outlined by Emerson's rebuttal. Unless I'm mistaken the 'Cambridge Companion' use this [3] as a source. Ali Abunimah is the only critic of record in the rebuttal. He leaves the other critics unnamed. While the 'Cambridge Companion' source evidence does what Emerson highlights in his rebuttal, it also says more. He does not rebut any of the rest of that. This source is being used to discredit the 'Cambridge companion' yet it does so poorly. It's usage here is unduly self serving. Perhaps it can be used usefully in an encyclopedic manner but as is it simply is not.

Atsme, you should actually read other responses before responding. It would help your ability to respond to others. That's a real great way to have people simply ignore what you have to say. There's an Irony here but I'll just keep it to myself. I did not say that it couldn't be used because it was self published, I said that and more. It was quantified. When you say, It basically says the same thing what do you mean? Do you mean it contains the quote? It does that. It doesn't however basically say the same thing. Your statement if, that's yours, is nothing but fluff. Readers are capable of math, they do not need to do the math for them. 1995-2015, 20 years, They could figure that out before when it said 1995 or it was mentioned that it was said on the day of the OKC bombing. It's 2015. They don't need it and the article doesn't need the undue weight. Perhaps you should find a source that says that they incorrectly recall. Please take more time before you respond to others.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, in the interim I can only offer, 4/19/95 and CBS News. My assumption is this was out of regular news programming hours. It'll take me a few weeks to do any real searching. But if you already weren't aware there's a heads up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[4] Archive of the program "Terror In The Heartland" - CBS News. Don't think it's available for download, but it is on DVD. Atsme☯^Consult 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - LexisNexis has the transcript, but I don't have access to it right now. Right now I have several dozen examples all before Emerson's comments which include FBI and law enforcement officials, ABC, NBC and CBS news reporters wildly speculating and other terror experts like Stephen Sloan of the University of Oklahoma who went on the air about the "Middle East" aspect. Connie Chung of CBS and John McWethy of ABC.... yep, Middle East.... The air was thick with speculative fervor and Emerson acknowledged what FBI, law enforcement, terror experts and wild media already had been pushing since before noon. CBS is the worst offender in the matter though.

As for the "Islamophobe"-thing, I've repeatedly asked for this "view" or "views" so it can be addressed and given clarity. I find name-calling to be problematic and the half-sentence quips are pretty weak in general.. There has been some petty back and forth going on for quite awhile with CAIR, CAP and a few others - of which three of the "Islamophobe" sources are connected to. Without going into the details about Emerson and CAIR - I think Emerson is over-reacting and he's sloppy at times. Being Muslim in the world right now is difficult - Emerson acknowledges the hijacking of religion and makes strong defenses of Palestine, but I'm sorta at my limit for this back and forth. I don't like Emerson and I don't like playing devil's advocate - but Gale's biography shows Emerson to be deeply polarizing. I dislike "reception and controversy" sections in BLPs for good reasons and I wish it was more in tone like Obama's page. But eh... what will be will be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly you stepped into a battleground, when you stepped in here. There's a little filibustering going on both sides. What was the page locked for a month, but the discussion stopped two weeks before. to many problems over all. Hopefully, that's winding down and there's possibility for discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

True - which is why edit warring of the issue since January by Cwobeel lead me to AE because two months of this back and forth instead of a resolution was not helping. Though reinserted, it was quickly changed and made less of an issue - still... moving forward in these cases means establishing that editors are acting in good faith and that they want to come to a conclusion. MrX met my requirement and the article is improving. One step at a time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The content reinserted by Cwobeel, and Binksternet, would also have been reinserted by me, had they not beat me to it. Yes, the content had been brought to RS/N and BLP/N multiple times for discussion, but each discussion failed to demonstrate or substantiate any policy violations. There was no BLP issue; a fact which surely would have become quickly evident to administrators through discussion at AE, had that process not been prematurely sidestepped. But, moving on...

A transcript of the news interviews during the immediate aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma bombing would be most informative. Atsme has linked to a "Terror in the Heartland" CBS source, and Chris recalls seeing something in LexisNexis, but we are still left wondering exactly what words were spoken in these news interviews (and exact timeframes). Is anyone here able to access those sources? Following information provided by Atsme in a BLP/N thread, I was able to find partial news video clips from the day of the bombing in this YouTube video: here (starting at 28 minutes in, Emerson appears twice over a 3 minute period). The timestamps on the video excerpts indicate his two comments are in reverse order. Also, for an excellent summary indicating that Emerson was certainly not alone in advancing a "Middle-East Terrorism" connection (although he may have been among the earliest), read pages 43 and 47-48 in this government analysis: 1999 Gov't assessment PDF file. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The video has marks that suggest Emerson's interview was cut, his body language and position owe to the fact (and the split record) show an unresolved statement. The editing is interesting, but effective. The fact that "Middle East" was all over the news by noon shows that Emerson wasn't the first, but even Sloan was interviewed for this and has the same statements as Emerson despite being a real expert. Which holds a lot of weight, but Emerson did recently get the Polk award and forecasted this type of event... A lot to think about here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There's two conversations going on about the something in two places. BLPN would seem to take precedence over the talk page here. I've responded with my criticisms to the content changes there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some RS, and a few reasons why the Islamophobe label is disputed as contentious

• [5], [6], [7] See section titled The Labor Era, [8] Page 3, [9], [10] Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to hat that comment per WP:NOTFORUM, because it doesn't appear to indicate what sort of edit to the article is proposed. Separately, I don't see what the JCPA piece does for your agenda -- it merely mentions him without any analysis. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2015

In the section Steven_Emerson#Voiced_concerns in the sentence, In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Please change this to Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi have referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Suggested change based off WP:INTEXT, inclusion of this book title presents unnecessary cluttering best left for the citation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support this obvious edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent about it. Giving the title of the book adds some weight to the claim; it's not just two random wackos. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally wouldn't think that. Omid Safi doesn't seem to much in the way of a random wacko. Seems to be respected in his field and the same can be said for Juliane hammer. Any weight that a Cambridge publication would be giving them would really be undue if they can't carry the weight themselves. I think they can.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• My concern is that Hammer and Safi should not lose status as scholars. They could each be credited with their university affiliations and positions, but then the sentence would likely be longer than it is. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the part where they incorrectly state that he "falsely identified Muslims". Their introduction falsely accuses Emerson of something he never said which makes them factually incorrect. WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:V - we should not be repeating it. I'm ok with the inclusion of their opinion of him as an "Islamophobe" but we should not include their falsehoods. I am also opposed to giving UNDUE WEIGHT to what is now old news (20 years ago), especially considering the ME trait was the prevailing analysis based on evidence at the time. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted the above request to also hotlink Omid Safi as there is a wikipedia article about him. Juliane Hammer lacks one but both seem to be both known and respected in their field. I don't really consider that removal of the book title from the text would diminish their standing and if I would I'm not sure they would be the best source to use. The citation contains the name of the book. You could perhaps list them with their phd's (Omid Safi, Ph.D.). Would that assuage your concerns, @Binksternet: and @Nomoskedasticity:?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme:, this proposal adds nothing to the article but the word 'have'. If you think that it would be better to remove this content perhaps you could open a protected edit request to get it removed. Your opposed does not remove any content from the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been studying it, and I'm actually ok with Cwobeel's initial suggestion which starts off with In the introduction of the book,.... I can live with that because it actually is a perfect inline text attribution, and it should also satisfy Nomo's and Bink's concerns. I would think @ChrisGualtieri: would be ok with it, too, but I pinged him just in case. I'll just strike your suggestion, SJP, but if that's not ok with you, please just undo the strike. Atsme☯^Consult 02:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to unstrike it. I'm not sure what you mean to Cwobeel initial suggestion, if you could link that, as Cwobeel seems to support this change. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd will ask that the reviewer of this postpone review until the individuals pinged can respond. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not make any suggestions about leading with the In the introduction of the book. That makes no sense, as it does not really matter. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I scanned it instead of reading it. I think the first part of the sentence should be included as it identifies the two authors of the introduction. There are several co-authors who wrote material for the book. Some readers will recognize the names of Hammer and Safi, most won't, and will see them as biased individuals who don't like Emerson. Specifying the introduction and book title gives them the scholarly connection. Atsme☯^Consult 04:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Being two scholars, both with a Phd, One being a professor at Duke University, and the others professorship at UNC Chapel Hill, it would be preposterous notion that this is necessary. wp:intext is a guideline. We can ignore it but there need to be a common sense reason to do so. That's not been done.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you know who they are, but try to think about the average reader who might be looking up Steven Emerson for whatever reason. We're talking about all ages, and all levels of education, so it won't hurt anything to leave the first part of the sentence alone. If you think we need to trim down the size of the article overall, trim down the IPT portion, but please let's not skimp on important information for the inline text attribution. Atsme☯^Consult 05:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Think about the reader? In the case of Omid Safi the reader can click on the hot link and read about him on his own Wikipedia article. The title of the book will remain in the inline citation. It will just be removed from the in-text attribution. Again per wp:intext. Wikipedia is full of articles with people used as sources that other people may not know. This is not a reasonable justification for not following this guideline. This is not about trimming the size of this article but removing the unnecessary clutter. This material already has a place in the article, a required place. In the inline citation. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the wp:npov policy requires that you attribute bias statements to the individual or individuals presenting them and links to the guideline wp:intext. wp:intext can be switched out with wp:iar but we have to justify that. This seems to simply be a plea to pity, being wielded as an argumentum ad passiones. This does not justify this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose- as an incomplete improvement. Some of the attribution may indeed be removed as "unnecessary clutter" per WP:INTEXT (example 4), but also per WP:INTEXT (example 3), the sentence presently misleads the reader by implying only two editors of that one source have described Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are for this change and agree this change lines up with the guideline in question, but you would like to see this change withheld until you can get your way on something else?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Xeno - that is exactly what happened. They are the only two authors whose names appear as authors of the Introduction where the bigoted slur was made about Emerson. There are several other authors who contributed to various chapters in the book, but none that reference Emerson in that regard. SJP, please don't jump to conclusions about my motives. I'm just trying to cover all the bases regarding potential liability as required by WP:BLP. Perhaps if we left the book title out, and add "in the Introduction, they referred to Emerson....yada yada"? Mention of him is limited to the Introduction which may or may not even warrant inclusion, but for the sake of compromise. Atsme☯^Consult 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: That is a total misread of my position, which is odd after you and I went over this exact issue in tedious detail in this BLP/N discussion. No, I am not "for this change" which purports to address WP:INTEXT (Example #4 of what not to do) while ignoring WP:INTEXT (Example #3 of what not to do), resulting in no improvement to the sentence.

@Atsme: You have misunderstood, but it is my fault due to my poor choice of words. Of course Hammer and Safi are the only two authors of the intro to the Cambridge book. My concern was that the sentence presently misleads the reader by implying that only that Cambridge book has described Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert, which is not true. There are numerous sources which also describe Emerson that way, so attributing it only to the Cambridge book violates WP:INTEXT. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

When I raised my concern that the present sentence could misleadingly leave the reader believing that only the Cambridge source described Emerson that way, Serialjoepsycho said that I could just add more attributions, but that he didn't feel it was necessary. I cautioned him that adding more attributions to the descriptions would likely open the floodgates to the numerous sources already introduced, resulting in an unwieldy section which would look like:

In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". Former Fox News producer Joe Muto explained that Emerson was on Bill O'Reilly's shortlist of guests too risky and extreme to appear on the show, but for some hosts and producers "at a network that traffics in outrage and over-the-top, factually questionable claims, Emerson is an irresistible guest." In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders"...

If we are trying to convey to our readers that a significant number of sources describe Emerson as Islamophobic and a discredited expert, I suggest the NPOV way to do it is simply and succinctly say it: Emerson has been described as an Islamophobe and a discredited terror expert, and then append just a few of the strongest sources to the sentence. "Emerson has been described as..." is a factual, unbiased statement which avoids the need for attribution because it does not assert that he "is" these things. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• • comment - Xeno, you do realize the Islamophobe statement in the book cites Think Progress, who is basically an outlet for CAP, (Fear Inc.), and they also work with CAIR, [11] So that quote pretty well covers them all because of the mirrored or circular references. [12] [13]. Regardless, they are actually the only ones who used the bigoted slur "Islamophobe" for Emerson. It is difficult for me to accept it even as a compromise. If other editors were to oppose it on the basis of a BLP violation or noncompliance with NPOV or V verifiable but false, I would have no objection. Atsme☯^Consult 18:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you forgotten already that we discussed this at length on your Talk page? That's when we discovered that the Cambridge book does not cite Think Progress, but instead cites an article by a journalist posted at their website. In that article, we also learned, were citations and links to numerous other sources including Emerson himself, Slate, The Tennessean, FAIR, and yes, also the FEAR, INC report, so it appears that the scholars had a rather extensive pool of information. We also learned that the Cambridge book is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only source describing Emerson as Islamophobic - nor are the descriptions "mirrored or circular". (I certainly didn't see that conveyed by your links to CAIR, Horowitz and Daniel Pipes.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question - Does everyone here realize that while we are discussing a sentence in the "Voiced concerns" section which begins "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an 'Islamophobe'", there is another sentence in the "Reception" section which begins "Emerson has been criticized for espousing Islamophobic views, with The Cambridge Companion to American Islam..."? Is this redundancy intentional? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PS - Xeno, in response to your question, I must reply no, I did not notice it. I was focused on the one passage. That whole paragraph needs to be deleted as it is UNDUE, and carries far too much weight as a minority view that is not factually accurate. It based on opinion only. I vote delete the entire paragraph. Atsme☯^Consult 19:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence which begins, "Emerson has been criticized for..." is "factually inaccurate"? I respectfully disagree; he most certainly has been criticized. You may disagree with the specific criticisms, but I don't see how you can disagree that he has been criticized. Presenting the information is not undue, although repeating it several times in the same article probably is, which is why I raised the concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I really admire your patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Xenophrenic has posted that example over at BLPN after consistently ignoring what has been said. You would not include the book titles. The example would more properly be, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi have referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Former Fox News producer Joe Muto explained that Emerson was on Bill O'Reilly's shortlist of guests too risky and extreme to appear on the show, but for some hosts and producers "at a network that traffics in outrage and over-the-top, factually questionable claims, Emerson is an irresistible guest." Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders". Note that while the guardian has said he has made a mistake before, the mistake that he had made before was that he had said, “Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centres of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East”. This is not a source to be paired with that of Julianne hammer and Omid Safi. I removed this. That could be placed in the paragraph but it should follow the material it actual discusses. It's not necessary to mention this is from the guardian, I wouldn't think because this is an actual statement of fact. Note that you could also place this in the section, Comments on Fox News about Birmingham, England. There is a voiced concerns section and a reception section. Perhaps we could do something crazy and combine them. That would be a great thing to consider opening a talk page section about.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to suggestions. Quite frankly, I know of no one during my lifetime who hasn't been criticized, so we could actually keep he has been criticized provided the intent is to complete it with factually accurate material in proper context. His Birmingham gaffe definitely belongs in the article. I see no issues with bringing to light the fact his analyses haven't been 100% accurate, so a little of the Oklahoma bombing criticism is ok, too, as long as it is not WP:UNDUE. The label of Islamophobe is pejorative, and it doesn't represent either mainstream or majority opinion. See BLP Balance - Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints;. The sources cited are books written by proponents of Islam who are expressing a particular viewpoint. Sorry, but I don't think bigoted slurs belong in any BLP no matter how well they are sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiable_but_not_false is an excellent essay to follow. Criticizing Emerson for "espousing Islamophobic views," is an opinion, verifiable but false. Biased proponents of Islam called Emerson and Pipes "the two most prominent Islamophobic voices in the US." which again is opinion, and it is not factually accurate. Emerson doesn't rank as the most prominent anything, except for maybe for his Birmingham gaffe, and right now that is just the product of WP:RECENTISM. Other than the CAP and CAIR networks and those who mirror their views by fomenting biased claims of Islamophobia, where is the evidence that Emerson is an Islamophobe? Also, in much the same way CAIR and the Fear Inc. report exposed the funding arms of what they call the Islamophobia network, who funds the Islamic studies at Cambridge, and the distinguished scholars? [14] [15] [16] [17]. Yes, writing WP articles from a NPOV does require patience, and lots of it. Atsme☯^Consult 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that you as well as ChrisGualtieri, are still harping on the argument that opinions are not facts, as if that characterization would help your case to suppress the material in question. What we do in Wikipedia is to describe significant viewpoints as reported in verifiable and reliable sources. "Veracity" has nothing to do with our content policies, the only thing we can prove about opinions is that they have been made, and all we can do in this case is describe the numerous and significant opinions on the type of discourse Emerson has advanced. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Thank you for your considered and productive reply (well, except for the "after consistently ignoring what has been said" unsubstantiated personal attack, but hey, you kept it down to just one in this post - progress!). Regarding whether or not to include book titles, professional titles & positions, academic institutions, location of the reference (in the intro, etc.), when attributing the sources, there will be obvious disagreement. Looking at the few comments above, it's clear that some editors would prefer to emphasize the legitimacy and stature of the sources while others would prefer to de-emphasize their legitimacy. I don't have strong opinions either way on what should be included or excluded (although I lean more toward trimming per WP:INTEXT), probably because I'm not sold on my first example as the solution here. I much prefer the summary style used in my second example, on which you did not comment for or against. The idea of combining the 'Reception' and 'Voiced concerns' has merit (along with moving the content out of the "Controversies" section, per WP:CSECTION), as I mentioned at BLP/N. I'll write something up to open a discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: You say that the Islamophobe description of Emerson "doesn't represent either mainstream or majority opinion." May I ask for the source of your information? I'm not saying you are incorrect or correct, but I haven't seen that assertion from reliable sources myself, so I am interested. There is one thing I find a little disturbing, however. Did I just hear you say:

The sources cited are books written by proponents of Islam who are expressing a particular viewpoint. Did you mean to say "proponents of radical Islam" or "Islamic terrorism"? Because what you typed sounds like a criticism of Islam, the religion and its proponents.

...who funds the Islamic studies at Cambridge, and the distinguished scholars? Did you mean to ask who funds terrorist organizations, or perhaps distinguished extremists? Because what you typed sounds like you object to the funding of academic studies of a mainstream religion with 1.6 billion adherents.

You recommended and linked to a "RS" above which concludes, The purposes of Islam could not be more different from the purposes for which the ACLU was created ... Is there an American institution of any importance which has not been infiltrated and corrupted by Islam? That source sounds like a polemic screed against Islam the religion, not extremism or terrorism. Am I reading this stuff right? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: Sorry, but despite all the words written here, I don't see a consensus emerging on what to do. If you manage to find one from further discussion, please reopen this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Are you sure? I only see a single editor opposing. Consensus does not mean unanimity. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri hasn't weighed in, yet. There's no hurry. Atsme☯^Consult 03:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have no further part in this god-awful dispute in which the personal and legal enemies of the subject are used in place of the New York Times and Gale. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

His enemies? You mean terrorists? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

He means that he is done taking part in this discussion it would seem. Cwobeel, Xenophrenic offers a great point in mentioning that two sections seem related. Perhaps the discussion should shift there. In finding a solution there this issue here will likely be worked out.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I understood the part of Chris' comment where he backs away from the discussion. He'll be back, if the last couple times he has expressed similar sentiments are any indication. My question to Chris was to have him clarify what he meant by "enemies". Emerson only goes after terrorists, extremists and militants, right? Are we really citing them in this article, as Chris says? Who are they? And the 2-dozen cites to the New York Times, and the half-dozen cites to Gale already in the article are not the sources Chris spoke of? I think Chris' comment is more revealing than he intended.

I think you may be on to something when you suggest that fixing the "same stuff in multiple sections" problem may help us resolve the above issue. I'm trying to formulate a way to present the several issues in a way that allows us to resolve pieces of them individually, so we don't get bogged down. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll begin a list of small separate steps below which, if approved through consensus, can be easily turned into protected-page edit requests. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Improvement steps

(1) Remove the "Controversies" header per the reasoning expressed at WP:CSECTION, and move the three paragraphs of content to the existing "Voiced concerns" section. The Boston and Birmingham paragraphs should be moved chronologically to the end of that section, and the Al-Arian paragraph should be appended to the first paragraph in that section, which already discusses Al-Arian. This edit should preserve all the present content.

• Support. Nothing is lost with this edit except the "Controversies" header, which Wikipedia considers problematic anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Partial-Support This is a reasonable first step.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the move to a NPOV section header, Voiced concerns, but consider the content being moved to that section still under discussion. Atsme☯^Consult 00:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support Support merge, but naming a section as "voiced concerns" is unusual and un-encyclopedic. Just merge everything to the section "Journalist and commentator". - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A solution may be to move this into the "Reception" section instead. The essay WP:CSECTION is being used as a logic for this proposed change and this essay proposes that a section titled reception does avoid negative connotations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It can go into a Reception section, yes. But we may need to move some of the material from "Journalist and commentator" into that section as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to agree here with Cwobeel that "Voiced concerns" is a lousy subheading. Voiced by Emerson or voiced by someone else? Concerns about Emerson? Concerns expressed by Emerson about something? The heading is heinously vague and unhelpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well as it stands the reception section and the voiced concern section are similar. We could in addition to the above as I said before combine the two under the title reception.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Reception. Content can be discussed later. I don't want this biography of a living person to become a list. I advocate for more prose with a limited amount of listing, so please be follow guidelines per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Prose_versus_lists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by atsme (talk • contribs)

(2) Simple punctuation. In the following sentence, remove the extra comma and period after the word "intelligence", and append a period to the end of the sentence: Emerson has been referred to by The New York Times as "an expert on intelligence",.,[52] and a "self-described terrorism expert",[53] and by the New York Post as "the nation's foremost journalistic expert on terrorism"

• Support. Non-controversial copy edit. (Note: This "Reception" section, which appears to be nothing more than an "Insert flattering or unflattering descriptions here" section, is being considered for movement and consolidation to the "Journalist and commentator" section.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support this change as both obvious and uncontroversial.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• OK - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by atsme (talk • contribs)

Discussing improvement steps

I've copied the voice concerns section and the reception section to User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox. I put the Al-Arian section from the controversies under the first paragraph. I've just posted the other parts as they were. I also added the reception section so this all can be easily edited. Feel free to edit this based on the discussions here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, I started to go through the sections in your sandbox, and made some corrections regarding syntax, semantics, and punctuations. While copy editing, I discovered a few problem areas we need to discuss and resolve. They can wait until the proposed changes are completed, but hopefully they can be addressed shortly thereafter. Following is a preliminary list for review:

Boston Marathon Bombing

Passage inaccurately states, "Emerson reasoned that United States handles Saudi nationals differently to appease Saudi Arabia and not to embarrass the country." Not quite what he said according to the cited source - Emerson said, “This is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens, you deport them because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.” It isn't about embarrassing the country rather it is about embarrassing the arrested citizen(s), so to appease Saudi Arabia they are deported. See [18]

Passage inaccurately states, "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose department supervises the ICE, dismissed Emerson's allegation during a meeting with the House Homeland Security Committee, as being incorrect.[74]" The source cited doesn't state that at all. In fact, Napolitano never mentioned Emerson, so the connection to him is a violation of WP:SYNTH [19]

As I continue working on copy editing, I will bring up other issues I happen across so they can be discussed. Atsme☯^Consult 15:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Easily fixed, by staying close to the source which states: It didn’t take long for a lawmaker to pick up the latest right-wing conspiracy theory about the Boston Marathon bombings. Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity’s show that unnamed “sources” told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The passage needs to be rewritten for compliance with NPOV, BALANCE, and UNDUE, somewhat like we did the Oklahoma City bombing segment. The correct information is that it was Rep Jeff Duncan who questioned Napolitano. She dismissed the premise of Duncan's question by saying, “I’m unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston. I don’t know where that rumor came from.” A report in Forbes references Steven Emerson as follows: "This leads to the question of the injured Saudi national called a 'person of interest' in the immediate aftermath of the bombing. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal arrived in Washington the next day, had an unscheduled meeting with President Obama, and a meeting with Secretary of State Kerry that was abruptly closed to the press. Counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson, citing sources in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said the result was that Al-Harbi would leave the United States. 'This is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia,' he said. 'You don’t arrest their citizens, you deport them because they don’t want them to be embarrassed.'" [20]. There is also a report by CNN which demonstrates that Emerson wasn't alone in mentioning the Saudi suspect: "Late Monday, authorities searched the apartment of a young Saudi man who was among the wounded at the race. He was found to have no connection to the attack." [21] The New Yorker quoted an FBI agent, "'The range of suspects and motives remains wide open', Richard Deslauriers of the F.B.I. said early Tuesday evening. In a minute, with a claim of responsibility, our expectations could be scrambled. The bombing could, for all we know, be the work of a Saudi man—or an American or an Icelandic or a person from any nation you can think of. " [22]. Emerson was saying what others were saying all over the news, including the fact that the young man was not a suspect. Fox video can be seen here: [23]. There were a lot of reports: [24]. John Price, resident scholar at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, also provided noteworthy information mentioning a map by Emerson's organization that "identifies 127 terrorist training and teaching centers in more than 36 states. It also shows an al Qaeda presence in Ashland and Quincy, Mass., even though bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly has told authorities that he and his older brother Tamerlan acted alone in the Boston Marathon attack, which killed three and injured more than 180 on April 15." [25] Complete information is required, not cherry picked statements to fit a particular view. Atsme☯^Consult 19:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, make a proposal on how to cover it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I will when I get a chance which is one of the things I really appreciate about editing WP articles. No deadlines. Atsme☯^Consult 02:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So again, My sandbox User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox I've moved some of the above discussed sections there so they can be edited. Atsme and Xenophrenic have both made changes, none of which seem controversial and all in relation to the above discussion. Xenophrenic has found a sentence is not properly sourced, They left it in I assume to give an opportunity for the proper source to be found. The changes that have been made have not negatively effected the article in any way that I can see. I support these changes in principal but I do note the concerns above about the 'voice concerns' title. To move the conversation forward, should we now combine the reception section and voiced concern sections?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

SJP - there were some additions that were irrelevant in the 1st paragraph, so I tightened it up and deleted the irrelevant passages. I also deleted the stray unsourced sentence about the HLF prosecution relying on Emerson's think tank just below the Al-Arian paragraph. I'm okay with you combining. We can always work on content later. Atsme☯^Consult 06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm making changes as time permits, starting with the top of the content in SJP's sandbox. We may need some discussion on which content in the first paragraph Atsme feels were irrelevant. I returned some of the content which mentions that the lead investigative reporter for the Tampa Trib went to work for Emerson, which may be viewed as a feather in Emerson's cap, but not unduly promotional. I also thought it odd that Al-Arian's contempt charges were added, but not the fact that they were dismissed. If there is disagreement on how this content should be handled, do we discuss it here or on the sandbox Talk page? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've started a draft section to combine the two sections in that sandbox.I've only transferred a portion of the reception text to it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Xeno - it was late, so I quit editing that paragraph in exchange for sleep. I actually would rather see a brief recap of Emerson's role in that case rather than elaborate on anything else. Emerson played a role in either or both the arrest and conviction, or did he simply provide information, and if so, what did he provide. We don't need the details of the case beyond Emerson's participation in it with a brief overview. If contentious material needs to be added, then it has to be high quality RS with inline text attribution. While I don't want to see this BLP become a list, we do need to focus on relevance. I'll be happy to help as soon as I finish another project I'm working on (and I could use some collaboration on that if anyone has the time because it's a table, and I'm not the greatest at creating tables)User:Atsme/sandbox I'd like to help them get this list promoted to FA. Will discuss on my TP. Atsme☯^Consult 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We can start cut things away in a minute. We should first get everything combined and then move the discussion to chopping things out.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best, SJP. One thing I wanted to mention to Xeno regarding his changes. There appears to be some confusion between the civil contempt charges I wrote about and the criminal contempt which I avoided and you added. The guy spent time for civil contempt - see the last sentence in [26], "he spent most of 2007 in jail on a civil contempt citation." Big difference between civil and criminal. We actually don't want to include allegations, or threats so please replace what I had. The part about "and hung on 8 other charges" reads badly. Use what I had before (deadlocked) because it is far more encyclopedic than the terminology used by a news source, and please don't use plea deal, either. It was a plea agreement. Also, kill the gossip column stuff including the part that reads "who's lead investigative reporter subsequently went to work for Emerson and dated a prosecutor in the Al-Arian case." They are not notable and we don't care about his/her dating life in this BLP. And finally, it is not our job to portray Al-Arian as an innocent victim who was wrongly accused, and that is exactly how it reads right now. NPOV, please. He pled guilty, and that is what we focus on but only in the regard that it relates to Emerson. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd propose that we scrub the Reception section. We rename the voiced concerns section "reception" And change the current text to that here:User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to evaluate an alternate text to discern how it is different. I suggest explaining the differences between the current text and your proposed alternate, perhaps point by point. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a Reception section doing in a BLP anyway? It doesn't follow MOS for a BLP, and typically belongs in articles on books or other works of art. Atsme☯^Consult 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is all discussed and explained above, Nomoskedasticity. Talk:Steven_Emerson#Discussing_improvement_steps. Atsme, Choose a different name other than voiced concerns or reception then.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception is neutral and accurate. I see no problems whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions - a reception section should only include reviews about books, films, artwork, etc. - how they were received, what critics said about them and so on. The Criticism section needs to disappear per the suggestions in WP:Criticism. Jimmy Wales said (of criticism sections), "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms. Voiced concerns sounds strange but then it goes back to criticisms being incorporated in the passages, not as separate sections. There is far too much information about IPT in Emerson and it needs to be trimmed down. For example, his congressional testimony, television interviews, etc. Anything prior to IPT (1995) should stay in the BLP, such as his stint at CNN and CBS as an investigative reporter. As it currently sits, this BLP is over-weighted with too much IPT information and warrants a merge. Atsme☯^Consult 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant a merge now any more than it warranted a merge in the failed AFD of Investigative Project on Terrorism that you started last year. Your have already beat that dead horse so much that you are just pounding dirt now. All though if you would like to discuss removing some of the little IPT information here, by all means start a new topic. But to get back to the subject here, I see no problem with starting a discussion to integrate the reception, voiced concern, and controversies section into other sections. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2015

Please change | Time=1:38 to | time=1:38 (lower case) to fix the red citation error in reference #4. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

It appears from the number of talk page archives that this article has a number of editors more familiar with the subject matter, so I thought it best to bring it here for discussion. The fifth line of the lede states:

Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe.

This appears to refer to an incident over a relatively short news cycle in which Emerson stated a few errors on Fox News, Emerson and Fox News were criticized for it, and then Emerson and Fox News apologized for the errors. The material in the article is a bit misleading in that I expected with multiple citations to see multiple examples of inaccuracies and criticisms. In fact, the only criticism I see is in the article is from Joe Muto of The Guardian who, as the self-described "Fox Mole" does not appear to be entirely neutral on the subject. Emerson appears to have had a lengthy career, so the one-week incident likely should be placed in a less prominent position in the article per WP:WEIGHT. Unless there are other examples of criticism, the statement should also be re-worded to something like "...statements have been criticized by Joe Muto of The Guardian for inaccuracies..." so as not to be misleading about the amount of criticism he has received. - Location (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disregard. I see that this is a summary statement for the sub-section later in the article. - Location (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References