Talk:Steven Emerson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steven Emerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403104658/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/national/21PROF.html?pagewanted=1 to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/national/21PROF.html?pagewanted=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Emerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150315213855/http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240374/Anti-Muslim-crusaders-make-millions-spreading-fear to http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240374/Anti-Muslim-crusaders-make-millions-spreading-fear

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Consistent total-reversion by a particular ECU

Talk pages are for discussion regarding actionable proposals for changes to the article. Please start a new section if there is a succinct proposal to add or remove specific text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear @יניב הורון:, may you please explain what issues do you have with my seemingly-reasonable edits? (Originally made vide ID 832263638) Even though you don't WP:OWN the article (regardless of your bias) and all of my attempts to gain clarification have resulted in either consistent-conduct of WP:DIS by WP:REV and the addition of WP:H8RED when notified of the same on your WP:UP discussion.

Regardless of your history, let me have a grace to explain: WP:NPOV tagging for the reason, as adequately [and consistently] indicated in the descripts, for the multiple usage of the term "terrorism" and its derivatives. Add to that, for someplaces without any citation/footnote whatsoever, too. Now, couple that with a mere, single-coverage of the opposing viewpoints under a single sentence at the end of the WP:LEAD supported by the maximum of 5 citations. And yes, did I "nit-picked" the dead-links ascribed to unquoted usage of such terms? I guess not since I was hopeful that whilst consistently rolling-back my single edit, you would give me a benefit-of-doubt as is generally encouraged in Wiki-projects, but apparently, your consistent-conduct is to view my edits cynically. And thus, perhaps you didn't consider it worth your time to try investigating thoroughly, at least when there's "some" to spare.* Now — WP:NOCVS tagging for the reason that apart from the frequent focus on his works on [Islamist] "terrorism" (so much so that certain other policies have been sidelined), therein contains a 2 separate sections of his works (including multiple sub-sections), again predominantly focusing on the aspects of "terrorism" (save for few words about his "Islamist" exposé i.e. conspiracy-theories). And as if seemingly that's not enough, therein lies an independent section listing every single one of his [published] work (alongwith constant linking avoided earlier). Every single one which has already been mentioned elsewhere [in the article]. Again, this could be argued as Repetition, even though loosely IMHO.* But the fact remains that constant coverage of his works serves as a perfect-case for a resumé writeup. Obviously, if the editors taking care of the article would've naively made it look simply like an explicit, pure CV, I would've already taken harsh-steps rather repeatedly trying to foster communications with some opponent party.*

Is that enough [for now, at least]? In retrospect [and needless to add], I'm of the opinion that trying to understand your viewpoint was a clear waste-of-time since I was already preoccupied and therefore, I regret this so far. But nevertheless, I am using this as a last-resort feasible, rather taking you to the point of WP:3RR to foster and avoid the demolition of chances of WP:LOVE. Contrary to what I've endured along the lines, particularly by editors with higher status (i.e. edit-counts).

And *in spite of glaringly-obvious other notable issues in the overall writeup, I didn't choose to pick-them in hopes to avoid WP:OVERTAG from a single-account. Even though, you [rhetorically] accused me of WP:DRIVEBY as the only comprehensible point-of-contention.

At last, given my prior-experience, I'm restricting the deadline for rational counterresponse (if any) till a certain period-of-time, failing which I assume it well within the obedience of dispute-resolution policies to go ahead with my tagging-edit. Also, the same will be applicable if the consistent disruptive-editing persists and unfortunately, escalates into [the pattern of] WP:WIKIHOUND. ~~ Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You asked me to comment, but I can't parse all of this. You should read WP:TLDR and rewrite succinctly the issues you have and the resolution you seek, without commenting on other editors. And with minimal use of links please. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Given that your wordings are derived from a mere essay, and that too is based on something which I already cautioned you against. If you couldn't bother to read it, it's cool. I concur this is in the best interests of all of us that given the arguments so far ("your edit-descripts are so shallow, elaborate on talk-page!!!" and then ironically persistent protest when I do what is commanded to me: "your points are too-long, can't understand it!!!"), this would be better for all of us to not drag-down this originally unsubstantiated issue further. And moreover, since you're not an arbiter, there's nothing of substance to discuss. Thanks for showing the interest to chime-in here. Have a good day... And Cheerio! Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Addressing @יניב הורון, @Doug Weller and anyone else sharing the similar opinion: Kindly note that only [exact] 3 hours and 57 minutes remaining into the culmination of the deadline. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mohd.maaz864: There are no arbiters on Wikipedia. And there are rarely deadlines. You said "till a certain period-of-time," without being specific, where does this new time come from? By ECU, do you mean extended confirmed user?

I'd like answers to those questions. I'd also like you to be clearer about the issues. Do you want the word terrorism removed because you don't think he's known as an expert on terrorism. Or "faux expert" as the SPLC says? The Guardian calls him an expert but uses quotation marks, which we wouldn't unless it was in, well, a quote. Then there's the BBC, ThinkProgress, Conservative review, and of course his organisation. Exactly what violation of WP:NPOV is being made by what specific text or group of texts? And please note that I won't be around 4 hours from now and am asking you not to retag until you've made it clear what your problem is concerning NPOV and I've had a chance to respond. As for resume, what I always look at is whether or not someone's words, deeds or writings are cited to themselves or independent reliable sources. We expect the latter and often remove material that isn't. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would've to disagree, there are certainly arbitrators on Wikipedia even though they're not encouraged to take suo motu actions [as already linked to the relevant knowledgebase]. And I saw you were one of them so that means I only missed adding ‘here’ in my original statement. Also, as you've yourself reluctantly acknowledged, there definitely are deadlines, depending upon certain factor. Else, a dispute may keep going on "till eternity" because people are still speaking-up (even though they're only rhetorically reiterating their nullified arguments per se just to have a picture that "there's no consensus") or don't engage in discussions after striking a dispute, at all (my personal experience) and things can't remain lingering as is because the "plaintiffs" can't be compelled to either comply with the change or posit their arguments.

And yes, you're accurate about the abbreviation.

Now, since you're apparently showing genuine interest in understanding, it has become slightly easier to restore good-faith. So here's my counterresponse: I didn't imply anywhere (including edit-descripts) that "I want the term "terrorism" and its derivatives removed in entirety". Since inception, I've been crystal-clear is what my analysis finds 'problematic' is that multiple usage of highly-political and geopolitically-inclined terms including and derived from "terrorism" (in news cycles) has been used enough for the article to appear as "monkey-balancing puff-piece (not an oxymoron)" [of him]. So I'm merely pointing-out that. Now, you want to know what my objective is? (Still?) Now, if you want me to single-out every instance where I “believe” neutrality has been violated. Because my personal experience tells me not to revert to old-mistakes, again (spending hours on wiki, hopelessly). So unless you're willing to guarantee personal-liability to fix that in entirety, I don't see any rational basis for you to obstruct me from tagging. Also, by “exactly what violation...”, did you seriously meant for me to quote an exact passage of the policy for you [which is being contravened]? Because if that's what you intended, making me go through all that trouble would be ludicrously (read beyond) hypocritical.

And about the resumé thing, yes, I somewhat agree. And here are multiple passages detailing his "analysis" from his works and then, listing them by WP:LINK (whether they exist or not), one-by-one at an altogether separate section. So how a WP:BLP article detailing on a person's work can consider the authored work of the individual-in-question to be “independent reliable sources” is beyond me.

Anything else you're looking for an answer to? Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I still have no idea what changes you want made. You said in an edit summary "usage of terms "terrorism" and its derivatives in some unquoted and unattributed statements". Surely you can be specific about which statements you are complaining about. We can't have a meaningful discussion about generalities. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, it's funny you're "trying to have a meaningful discussion" with me when the basis of discussion is itself meaningless and is forced on me. And unlike you, I'll acknowledge that I've said this enough number of times* that neither there's a mandate under WP:NPOV policy to first start and HOPEFULLY, end a discussion and then tag an article for it. Yet, I did because Mr יניב הורון was anal-retentive over having a discussion so much so that he name-called me after consistently repeating his conduct of wholesale-reversion [when I tried to listen to his perspective in a fair manner], even though he's absent so far. Then suddenly you jumped-in in his defence (apparently uninvited, unless he emailed you), which could be fair given your status but moreover, dependent upon your conduct afterwards. And I must've to say: Why I have a constant-feeling that all obstructive rhetorics are a red-herring to prevent me from tagging the page because certain editors' personal-bias[es] is leading them to fret over the Wiki coverage of the public figure in question [on the externally-visible page] getting questioned will not only "threaten the reliability of Wikipedia" but may also raise questions over the cause the covered-celebrity makes his living on? And yeah, by the usage of “feeling”, I certainly didn't mean it in the context as it is mostly used across pop-culture.

I clearly implied multiple times it's a clear contravention of neutrality policies (particularly WP:UNDUE leading to WP: STRUCTURE) even though certain cultural perspectives, i.e. Ameri[cano]centrist [in this case] may (read will) choose to disagree with the assessment, but unless it's given in the written (read typed) record that Wikipedia is Ameri[cano]centrist based on crucial factors such as geographical base-of-operations, infrastructure, ownership, yada-yada-yada — the English Wikipedia can't simply keep covering viewpoints per Oriental/Western lens.

Above all, your tactics so far have been the cliché formulae of wiki disputes — *reiteration. The only amusing/interesting thing here is that you're 'creatively' reiterating my points back to me expecting me to keep hovering around clarifying those for you every single time afresh.

By now, since this discussion has come full-circle, largely Thanks to your lack of direct-[counter]responsiveness (i.e. addressing each of my points chronologically/sequentially). So unless you comeup with something new along the lines of like, say — "Wiki respects/obeys the system of hierarchy in which "inferior" (read juniors [in ascending-order]) users have a [significantly] greater burden-of-proof for their actions against a user with higher status, even if the contribution is as short as a single-line in a fairly-lengthy article". I'm gonna have to do what's becoming inevitable by almost every single progress in communications pertaining to this topic. And ideally, you should not obstruct me for contributing merely because you don't "approve of it" (read like it). Unless of course, you're implying you're "well within" your "rights to continue obstructing" me without either of you having ever contributed to any version of the page yourselves, "because WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is a practical commonplace granted by the status (read WP:UAL) alone". Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

intro section insufficient & Ari Ben-Menashe connection

Hi, just an editing dabbler here with a request for someone more experienced - the intro section of this article is very short, considering especially that the article has a Controversy section with four separate subheadings. If you didn't see that though, the main takeaway from the intro is an award that appears prestigious, and no indication whatsoever that Emerson is considered controversial, inflammatory, biased, what have you - not to mention that he's an originator of the infamous 'Birmingham is an all-Muslim no-go zone' comments. In any case, the intro is not doing justice to the article or the subject.

Also I ended up here from the Ari Ben-Menashe page, which notes Emerson's role in Israel's campaign to discredit his assertions of high level intelligence access, which is probably worth a mention here as well. Cheers! 2601:445:801:8520:E43F:80C9:A15D:167E (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)