Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 2

NPOV

I just added material to the Steven Emerson stub. This note is just to say that I haven't finished it yet. There is quite a bit of criticism of Emerson that I have yet to add. I'll be doing it over the next few days to make sure the page is NPOV. Slim 19:46, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I've added quite a few references, a Criticism section, and a number of links to further criticism of Emerson. Slim 09:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Biased Bot??

SlimVirgin has a pro-Isreal agenda. All I did was add the word "conterversial journalist" as apposed to "prominent journalist." Also, instead of using the loaded words, Islamist & Muslim, I used the word simply "terrorist." She/he has reverted my changes 3 times on sept 12, 2005. More than a litle unfair for an admin. Looks like a full time job. At the speed at which my changes get reverted, I think there may be a bot doing this work.

Not NPOV

The first introductory paragraph doesn't mention criticism against Emerson or his false claims about Oklahoma city bombing. The introductory paragraph needs to be NPOV, not just lavishly praise the guy OneGuy 04:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is NPOV, in my view. It is straightforwardly factual, highlighting the issues he is best known for by the general public and his journalist colleagues. Emerson is not primarily known for his Oklahoma bombing claim. If you want to insert a criticism in the first paragraph, then it should be a more prominent one than that. Also, could you check the bios of other similar figures: journalists, academics, writers, and the like, to see what is done there? I have never seen the intro of a bio launch into criticism immediately, unless it's a statesman e.g. Arafat, Tony Blair, Sharon. I'm not saying none do, just that I haven't seen it. There's quite a lot of criticism in this article and in the links at the end. In fact, I started to feel I was overdoing the criticism, because a lot of it came from the journalist called Sugg, who is not a well-known journalist writing for a minor publication, yet I gave it a lot of play, just to make sure there was balance in the article. SlimVirgin 05:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Besides criticism from John Sugg, Steven Emerson is far more well known for his disputes/criticism with Islamic groups in the US. I remember Emerson once complained about getting blacklisted by NPR. He is considered Islamaphobe by almost all Islamic groups in the US. That's the only reason many people know of Emerson. Anyway, yes, I can give one example of a religious figure Yusuf al-Qaradawi where the introductory paragraph was even more inflammatory until User:Mustafaa edited it (but it still has criticism) OneGuy 05:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't write articles from the point of view of Islamic groups in the U.S. I think the article does make clear that the Islamic and Islamist groups don't like him, which is why he lives undercover. Are you able to find an example of a journalist, writer, academic, broadcaster or similar bio because I'm not sure a religious figure is comparable? I can certainly stick in something about him being regarded as controversial by Islamic groups but I don't feel it's appropriate to labor it in the intro. SlimVirgin 06:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've added this to the intro:

"Regarded as an Islamaphobe by Islamic and Islamist groups, Emerson has been the target of at least one serious death threat, and now lives undercover in the United States."

I think you're being a little unfair because if you look at the criticism section, it's longer than any other, and my guess is, if I were to count up all the words, it would have more words than the other sections combined (though that's a guess; i haven't actually counted). SlimVirgin 06:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Emerson is an extremely controversial figure and the introductory paragraph fails to mention any of this. I have modified it to give it more balance. BalancingAct 19:08, Nov 4, 2005 (UTC)

Emerson and Israel

I found this on the web:

Alexander Cockburn writing in the Wall Street Journal, 6/14/1990

"Mr. Emerson's prime role is to whitewash Israeli governments and revile their critics."

What exactly -- if any -- is Emerson's connection with Israel? Was his movie funded by pro-Israeli groups? OneGuy 08:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. His Islamic critics claim he's financed by Israel, but I've never read any specific allegations, He is genuinely a very good journalist, in the sense of knowing where to look for stories and having excellent intelligence and law-enforcement sources. He had these sources before he took any interest in Islamism. If you read his Secret Warriors, which is about U.S. covert operations, it's very clear that senior government people talk to him off the record, and so he's able to sell stories and books because he has that reputation. I can look further for Israeli funding accusations if you like; or you can. I have no problem putting it in the article so long as the source is reputable. SlimVirgin 08:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit mistakes into the article. You wrote that he had received "at least one death threats". Also, "Regarded as an Islamaphobe by American Muslim groups, Emerson has been the target of criticism by them," (and it should be "from them"), is an odd sentence because being regarded as an Islamaphobe IS criticism, so the second clause is pointless; and it starts to look POV, because you're rubbing it in. If you add any more criticism, it will outweigh any positive or neutral stuff, and the piece will be POV in the other direction. Of course, if you can find a solid source for the Israeli funding claim, that should go in. SlimVirgin 08:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - You have a clear bias, indicated by your statement that Steven Emerson "is genuinely a very good journalist". Emerson is a VERY controversial figure whom no one without an agenda can claim is "genuinely a very good journalist". He is criticized and praised with equal force by his critics and supporters. He warned of the threat posed by bin Laden before 9/11 but has also made a number of allegations that are demonstratably false. He has worked with a number of reputable news outlets but his journalistic methods and standards have been criticized by many of his peers. The opinions on Steven Emerson are simply too varied for anyone claiming impartiality to say that he is "genuinely a very good journalist." In the context of a neutral analysis, that is, quite simply, an absurd statement.

BalancingAct 19:43, Nov 4, 2005 (UTC)

slimi's bias

Content of article shows author's bias. What is the point of describing in great detail how steve emerson lives in hiding? Is it not enough to include his claim he lives in hiding? It should be flagged for lack of neutraliy.

slimi's agenda

Slimi is bias on Middle East\terrorism topics possibly because of her Jewish heritage\Israeli loyality. Even if other side is presented in the article, it is riddled with subtle bias. I am reporting it to the admin. Other should do the same.

If you have genuine concerns, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, but the way to air your concern is not to spend the day vandalizing pages and insulting people. You vandalized my user page, and you "edited" this article to the point of removing words from quotes. Emerson is a respected journalist, though you may not like him, and so the article has to reflect that. However, if as you say, there is "subtle bias," I would be very willing to talk to you about it, though you'd have to get a user name. SlimVirgin 01:59, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Slim: There are many biases in the article and I have pointed one of them above. Addressing that would be a good start. Introduction to the article should not be the lines that can go onto the back cover of official biography. Article does not stand up to the Wikipedia standard. When you say Steve is a "respectable" journtalist, you are expressing a POV. Another POV: he is not someone who works for a reputable news organization or does any in-depth investigation of muslim terrorist groups like the New York Times or the New Yorker. Rather, his specialty is television one liners with a clear PoliticalThinktankLobbyist agenda. I guess that is why he is attracted to you. Bottom line is you have a strong emotional political tilt and not the person that can write it in a neutral manner even if you are including a critique.

You pointed out that you didn't like the description of the security precautions he takes so I will go back and take another look at that and perhaps reduce that section, though I feel they are relevant because most journalists do not have to live like that. I can't write the article from the point of view of certain Islamic groups.

>> Nobody is asking you to re-write it from "certain islamic groups". Just needs to be neutral setting aside politics. If I was threatened by a terrorist, I would not publish details of my security unless I wanted to get political milage out of it and perhaps deflect critics. common sense to me. I do not know how you feel about it.

The fact is that Emerson is an extremely sought-after journalist. He was sought-after before he ever got into studying Muslim groups, and remains so. If you go back to read his earlier works, where you might feel less strongly about the subject matter, you will see how high-level his sources are. He works for NBC, which is a respectable news organization. He has worked for all the networks, and used to be employed by U.S. News & World Report, whch is a respectable news organizations. His books are published by reputable publishers.

>>No objection to adding this information to the article!

I haven 't done a word count, but I bet there are more words of criticism in this article than of praise or neutral description. The point is to be fair to both sides of the debate, and I have made it clear that Muslim groups detest him, and have given some of the reasons (in fact, the description of his security precautions make it clear how much he is detested, so I'm surprised you want that out). I would feel better debating with you if you would get a user name. Finally, you don't know that I have any strong political tilt. Please don't resort to ad hominem arguments. SlimVirgin 19:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

>> This is exactly what is the problem with the article. You are liking his critics ("Muslims" according to you) with the threat against him. This by default deligitmizes any critisim against him. The threat against him should be mentioned by all means but not associated with the legitimate criticism by non-violent individuals who are linked to the threat only because they share same ethnicity or religious as the source of the threat. I wil get my own user name which I hope makes you feel better:)

I just did a word count. The material you regard as positive (which I think of as factual, rather than positive) is 533 words. That includes the description of his security precautions. The negative stuff comes to 607. I therefore can't removed the security precautions, unless you can find something positive to replace it with. I know a word count is not the only way to measure POV, but I already feel I added too much criticism, so removing a completely factual description of his daily security precautions seems a bit much. SlimVirgin 03:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

>> Word count is not important for impartiality. Positive information can be 1000 words with one or two lines of criticism as long as it is neutral.

respected by peers? (and other random comments)

slim: you often claim that Steve Emerson is well respected by his peers, but everything I read suggests the exact opposite. For example, Seymour Hersh, a journalist who is undoubtedly one of the most respected investigative reporters alive, when asked about Emerson's standing amongst other journalists, said, "He's poison." Please see this FAIR article for that and more criticisms of Emerson by fellow journalists. NPOV would suggest that you should at least consider this.

That's just two journalists you cite, one of them (from FAIR) a complete unknown. If anyone has problems with their colleagues, it is Sey Hersch; and the reason for that, in part, is that he makes on-the-record comments about people being poison. If you're talking about journalists who make mistakes in their work, look no further than Sey Hersch. Steven Emerson is widely respected, and is known to have excellent sources, which is 90 per cent of what being a good journalist involves. Also, could you sign your comments please? SlimVirgin 22:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I reread the article I see POV everywhere, more than I have time to comment on. One example: "victim of a sustained campaign of criticism" is total POV. To offset that kind of POV would require describing Emerson's work as "a sustained campaign of criticism against Muslim victims," the ridiculousness of which, I assume, is readily apparent. At the VERY LEAST a neutral word like "target" should be substituted for "victim". And speaking of "target" the phrase "target of at least one death threat" is an odd statement to insert, especially in the intro, since most every journalist of note has received numerous death threats, and ESPECIALLY ODD in the same sentence where his (alleged) anti-muslim bigotry is mentioned. And the mentioning of the death of that grad student is little more than ominous fodder for conspiracy theorists. The sentence, "The FBI has refused to say whether they are investigating Korsower's death," is really beyond the pale. If you want to sex-up the security issues Emerson faces, consider adding:

People who visit Emerson's D.C. office must be blindfolded en route, and employees call it "the bat cave."

As I reflect more, this article really needs an entire rewrite by someone with time and a little NPOV.

I take your point about "victim" instead of "target," and will change it. But it is a sustained campaign of criticism, involving several Muslim groups who target him simply because he criticizes other Muslims. It isn't true that most journalists of note receive death threats, and especially not threats so serious they have to go into hiding. I take your point about the grad student and I'll delete it if there have been no developments. I'll also check out the Slate link you gave and will add the bat-cave material. Are you the same person who used to call me slimi, by the way, or do I have more than one fan? SlimVirgin 22:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Changes: I added that it was a "serious" death threat to underline why it was mentioned; that he is the target, not the victim, of a campaign of criticism, not a sustained campaign of criticism; I removed Korsower; and added the batcave claim, and a link to the Slate article. SlimVirgin 00:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

layout too POV

The layout of the article is so pro-Emerson propaganda. The reader is first introduced into emerson, then is led to read a long paragraph about emerson's "contributions" in saving "civilization" from so-called "terrorism", followed by an equally biased paragraph about so-called "death threats" by the evil terrorists. By the time the reader reaches the criticism article, he is already overwhelmed with tears and sympathy for oh so poor emerson being persecuted for saving humanity from evil terrorism, that he is unlikely to be affected by the criticism.In my opinion, criticism should come right after praise, to balance matters, with the death threat coming later. (posted by User:69.158.142.91)

Biased Bot??

SlimVirgin has a pro-Isreal agenda. All I did was add the word "conterversial journalist" as apposed to "prominent journalist." Also, instead of using the loaded words, Islamist & Muslim, I used the word simply "terrorist." She/he has reverted my changes 3 times on sept 12, 2005. More than a litle unfair for an admin. Looks like a full time job. At the speed at which my changes get reverted, I think there may be a bot doing this work. User:65.43.126.98. September 12, 2005

Hi, you've just violated 3RR. As you may not know about the rule, I'm leaving this warning for you, but in future you may be blocked for up to 24 hours if you revert to a previous version of a page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more information. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this with you if you sign in for a user account and start signing your posts. As it stands, I can't tell who's posting what, so it's pointless discussing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't make "lines in the sand" type demands. #1, I made 3 reverts, you made four. You are being unfair you reverted my changes four times without a single comment. I explained each of my changes as I posted them. Also you brought in one of your buddies (who happens to have a star-of-david Barnstar) to make the fourth revert. If that isn't an "in effect" violation of 3RR, i dunno what is. Emerson is a commentator, and not an "unbiased journalist" -- he has an anti-palestinian agenda (kinda like yourself). That needs to be clarified in the article. The very reason Emerson shows up only in selected rightwing publications is that he is conterversial. Also, I didn't like the fact that you used the words Terrorist, Islamist, Muslims interchangably. Be consistent. You obviously believe those 3 words are interchangeable.

This is my last response until you get a user account and start signing your posts. You're introducing POV, you're introducing spelling mistakes, you've reverted five times, you're making personal attacks and snide insinuations, you're not signed in, and you're not signing your posts. So really, there is no point in talking to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV from this article.

All right folks -- we need to calm down here ...

1) it seems a sticking point here is that this person does have controversy associated with him. We need to make that clear in the beginning. EXAMPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist) -- she is also controversial, and the article states it right of the bat.

2) The assertion that he predicted "9/11" is silly. A whole host of people have been predicting that. I.E -- may commentaters/experts expected this aftr the first WTC bombing, are you saying that this somehow makes him prescient

3) We need to use the word terrorist, and drop using Islamist or Muslim. CAVEAT: I'd be willing to allow using "Muslim Terrorist" but not "Muslims" or "Islamists" .. those are vague and unclear terms -- and are used in opinion articles, and not neutral enclyopedia articles. I still dont' think it's COMPLETELY fair..(kind of like identifying pedophiles by race)..

I have made change #1, made change #3, in the first para. I'll sit on this for now, and will make other changes later. Please tell me what you think thanks! 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Slim reverted for 5th or 6th time in 3 days. I just re-inserted the word controversial. 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" is just a meaningless scare-word, which you keep reverting into the article. The WP:3RR prohibits more than three reverts by one editor in one 24 hour period. It does not prohibit multiple reverts by multiple editors over a period of many days. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done 2 changes to a single sentence in the last 24 hours, I'll be doing a third. You two are violating the spirit of the rule if not the actual wording. You aren't supposed to revert articles which you 2 have done 9 times now, over 3 days. Additionally, controversial describes this person aptly, just like Judith Miller(see above). He is controversial and we need to state it in the begging.

Finally, I expect you two to counter my arguments above before reverting the article again.

Controversial is your own POV, and a meaningless scare word. Just about every public figure is "controversial", but I don't see the word in the descriptions of George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Prince Philip, or Dan Rather, etc. As for your claims regarding WP:3RR, you inserted the word "controversial" in the article 4 times in well under 24 hours, and your understanding of the policy is sorely lacking. Please spend your time away from Wikipedia reviewing the policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to Jayjg & SlimV.

I actually haven't made but 3 reverts -- a revert is putting an older version in place. I made edits to the top parts twice after that. The two of together you have made 6 actual "reverts" in the past few days. Please refrain from making anymor reverts, and plese look at my previous post -- . Thx & Cheers. --65.43.126.98 01:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

actually not 6, but seven revents by SlimV, and Jay -- as of 5 minutes ago, we are up to 8 Reverts in 3 days by the two of them. If you look at the last few hundred, there seem to be many many dozens of reverts, mostly by SlimV

Death threat?

Is there any evidence other than Emerson's claim that this "serious death threat" actually occurred? If not, it has to be presented as a claim and not as a fact. --Zero 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zero, it is presented as a claim: "Emerson says he has been the target of a serious death threat." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, sorry about the false alarm. I must have been looking at an older version. Something odd is going on with the database; twice recently I editted an article and it showed up as changed but then the following day all trace of the change (incl. the article history and my contribs list) had vanished. --Zero 04:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Balancing act, your additions to the intro are highly POV. He's controversial in your opinion, but not in others, and we can't accuse him, even by attributing it, of loose journalistic standards in the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I agree with you about those additions, but the alternative is not so great either. The intro has to at least say that he is a controversial figure as indeed that is one of the most notable things about him. It also should not state as a fact that he is an expert on anything as that is a matter of widely-disputed opinion. --Zero 08:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I see him very differently though. He may have become controversial since he started his work on Islamism, but he wasn't controversial before that, at least not that I'm aware of, and was a very notable journalist then, as he is now. Also, I don't think anyone who knows his work would dispute that he is, as the intro says, "one of the world's leading authorities on Islamist financial networks and operational structures." We do say he's controversial, without using the word, when we say he's regarded as an Islamophobe, and it's also implied by the information about the death threat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are admitting that he became controversial since he started his work on terrorism and Islamism (which is what he is now known for), then that's it, he's controversial. Saying someone is controversial is not POV; it's simply an objective assessment of how that person is perceived by the public. Furthermore, there are PLENTY of people that dispute Emerson's claim to being an 'expert' of any kind, and the fact that he stuck his foot in his mouth on Oklahoma City, TWA 800, and Pakistan's nukes shows that their views are not altogether unreasonable. It's best to say that his supporters regard him as an expert, because I know that Muslims and many left-leaning people do not. I do not consider the addition of Emerson's statements on Oklahoma City and TWA 800 to be POV; you mention that he is "best" known for having predicted a major terrorist attack and warning Congress of the threat posed by OBL before September 11, but to others he is known for his gaffes on Oklahoma City and TWA 800 and other wild accusations he has made. Mentioning the former and not the latter is, in my opinion, POV. -BalancingAct 18:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't "admit" that he's controversial; as I said above, I see him very differently. Also, his expertise has to be judged by other experts. Can you produce a source who is an expert on Islamist financial networks who has cast doubt on the quality of Emerson's work? There are plenty who support it. He's best known by his peers for his warnings regarding 9/11 i.e. by other experts, Congress etc. I don't even know what his TWA 800 gaffe was, despite you saying he's best known for it. What other "wild accusations" has he made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

CAIR

CAIR is a Islamic advocacy group located on Capitol Hill. It is not a "radical Islamic group" as stated in this article. I doubt the US gov't would allow a radical Islamic group to have their headquarters two blocks from the Capitol. I am changing the description to advocacy group. If someone disagrees with me, please say so. Fkh82 20:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fkh, it's a quote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference request

Could we have some sources for the passages below, please, which were added by anons? I'm removing them in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1. In July of 1998, Emerson brought an alleged Pakistani nuclear scientist to the media claiming he escaped Pakistan after refusing to participate in a Pakistani 'plot' to use nuclear weapons against India. After being grilled by nuclear experts, the man admitted to being an accountant at a small plumbing company in Pakistan.

2. The Investigative Project is widely believed to have provided support and conducted research for the recent trial of former Univeristy of South Florida professor Sami al Arian. In a recent court decision, al Arian was aquitted on the most serious charges made against him, although the jury deadlocked on lesser charges. Having staked its reputation on the outcome of the trial to a large extent, and having used the trial as an effective fundrasing tool, the Investigative Project's reputation has been tarnished a bit. It is not clear if the organization will be able to continue its successful fundraising in light of the fact that its material was not sufficient to convince the Florida jury of al Arian's knowing support of terror. In light of a recent suit by the Islamic Society of Boston, and other libel suits, the future of the Investigative Project is not clear.

Dispute

This isn't neutral. It doesn't take into account the fact that Emerson is, at best, half a journalist, as well as subtly belittling every organization, credible or no, that criticizes him. "The liberal media watchdog group" refers to FAIR, which is a strenuously non-partisan organization.

Having a different point of view does not make him a bigot.

Instead of writing in slander, perhaps we should stick to facts? Reverted the article to a more balanced version.

BLP

To the anon, the issue you keep trying to insert was discussed in court and the agent testified that he had never said that. Because it is defamatory, if you add it again, the article will be protected against your edits, or you may be reported and blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

can you please cite source. if something is defamatory, a rebuttal can be added with proper sourcing. If you keep removing it, I will have to report you to review your status.

The counterpunch artilce begins with the words "terror slut". It basicaly them moves on to do nothing more than attack emerson repeatably. Can't the same thing be achieved without the slanderous title which is causing this problem? I see the words "terror slut" and think yellow journalism. The same information can be conveyed without the insulting language.

CltFn

CltFn, when you add material to articles, would you please read them first? The Investigative Project material you added, and the award, was already in that section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)