Talk:Ernest Emerson

Reference to Black Hawk Down movie

The Wikipedia article reads "Ridley Scott's 2001 film Black Hawk Down portrayed soldiers carrying Emerson folding knives in the hangar scene..." this is in the Emerson Knives in Popular Culture paragraph. I could be wrong - and will try to check - but the only knife I recall in a hanger scene is a young Ranger holding what looks like a Gerber Gator. The Gator was introduced then (cir. 1993 ? - I owned one in 95) and was a hit with troops. Its sort of a "descendant" of the original Buck 110 Folding Hunter - as are almost all such lockbacks. Point is, I'm not sure the Wiki article is accurate about an Emerson knife being represented in that movie. ????Engr105th 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of an anachronism from a film standpoint. The soldiers clearly use a CQC7 with G10 handles, etc...however that knife was not available in 1993 (Emerson did not begin factory production until 1998). Harry Humpheries was the technical advisor with regard to weapons and tactics on BHD and due to his relationship with Emerson he chose to use CQC7's in this film. That section of the article isn't about technical inaccuracies in Black Hawk Down, but Emerson's knives in that movie. For what it's worth, if Humpheries had used Gerbers or Bucks it might have been more historically accurate, but he didn't so that's why the article reads the way it does. Mike Searson 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Background: The links are puzzling. Korean Jodo takes us to Judo, but nowhere on that page do the words "Korea" or "Jodo" appear. There is an article Jodo, but, again, no Korea, and Jodo is not Judo. Also, Kali [now] takes us to Eskrima where it says that Kali and Escrima are the same thing. Jun Fan Gung Fu takes us to Jeet Kune Do, the next school mentioned. I know next to nothing about these things, and neither will most of the readers on FA day who will end up as confused as I am now, and some of whom will assume that the article doesn't know what it's talking about. Incidentally, I decided to treat the names of the schools as if they were religions as regards capitalization. --Milkbreath 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jodo is the Korean form of Judo. There was not a Jodo article at the time this one was written(edited to add...and there still isn't...I'll add an explanation as I don't have time to bang out an article on Korean Jodo this week so non-Martial Arts people don't think it was the Japanese art of stickfighting as opposed to the Korean style of wrestling with handles). Jun Fan Gung Fu was the original name of Jeet Kune Do, kind of...it's a bit deeper than that...Kali and Escrima are similar but not the same. On these I suspect "disambiguation" and/or merged articles to be the culprit. I fixed them, sorry if it confused you. Thanks for the copyedit help. --Mike Searson 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm far from done, by the way. I'm always relieved when the primary contributor isn't all pissed off that I barged in and changed everything at the last minute. And I don't mind being confused, it's my default state. --Milkbreath 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you found some good things that alot of other reviewers missed. Thanks again! Mike Searson 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Specwar: The image makes a point of something called "the WAVE", but the article doesn't mention it, at least in this section. If the WAVE appears later on, then never mind, although it would have been nice to know what the WAVE was before. I'm working through section by section. --Milkbreath —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Inc.: OK, I found the Wave, but it's "Wave", not "WAVE". Hmmm. And damn you, now I want one of those NASA knives. --Milkbreath 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those NASA knives are pretty cool, aren't they? --Mike Searson 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop cult: Morrell's quote is missing a quotation mark, and there's no way for me to know where it belongs. --Milkbreath 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! --Mike Searson 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Popularizing: What happened at "the Blade Show in Atlanta, Georgia that same year"? --Milkbreath 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In 1995 one of Ernest's designs was submitted to the US Navy for evaluation as an issued knife. One of the parameters was the knife had to be made by a commercial company...Ernest went to Timberline who mass produced the design. The knife was a little too "radical" for the Navy Brass...but it went on to win the "Knife of the Year Award" at the Blade Show that year. The Blade Show is THE Biggest knife show in the world and the awards are among some of the highest awards given to knife makers. I restructured that sentence to help the flow.--Mike Searson 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask the right question. The sentence says that the knife won the magazine's award called "American Made Knife of the Year" in 1995. Did it win a different award at the Blade Show called "Knife of the Year", or did it win the magazine's award at the Blade Show? By the way, groovy article about a guy who lived his dream. <envy>I'll bet his wife is hot, too.</envy> I loved the part about the Search and Rescue knives; knife design can save lives. Who knew? --Milkbreath 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...it is the same award. Blade Magazine sponsors the Blade show.--Mike Searson 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad tag

I ad-tagged the guitar section. The guitar is not notable. It should be mentioned when it's notable. If he went and made a custom video camera, that ought not be a big section of the article, either, because it would have no notability in the world of video cameras. Tempshill 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: There are a grand total of 49 Google hits for "ernest emerson" guitar. I'll remove the section and make a note of it elsewhere in the article. Tempshill 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanto Point

Is the link "tanto point" meant to aim to Tantō - A Japanese weapon? I don't know what a "tanto point" is, but in "Tantō" I also can't find an exact explanation. Mpeylo 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A tanto point looks like this: http://www.glendraneknives.com/american%20tanto%20glen%203%20narrow.JPG

It refers to the relieved part on the sharp side of the blade, which is common only to that sort of knife. --Baylink 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Separation

I suggest that the sections of this article Emerson Knives and Emerson Combat Systems be made into their own articles. Simply because this article should only talk about the person not the companies that he founded. And this article is 55 KB which is way over the prescribed article size. Phil ryans 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to make a usage point that's related. I would expect "the Emerson Combat System". Is the *name of the system* really pluralized as he uses it? IE: who doesn't understand common English namimg protocol: us or Mr Emerson? --Baylink 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the name is pluralized as a variety of systems are taught in a modular fashion. For example, there's a course taught only to the Military, a system only taught to police officers and various systems around different knives.Mike Searson 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the separation. I had the same thought when I saw the company info. in his bio. article. —Nricardo 04:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with article separation, bio is comprehensive as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Originally this was two seperate articles. However, it was decided during the "Good Article Review" to combine them. I liked them better the other way, personally. Size does not matter for a featured article so the 55K rule doesn't apply.Mike Searson 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The current prose size as measured by Dr pda's script and per WP:SIZE is 25KB, well under the recommended guideline of 30–50KB readable prose. The size is perfect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with separation. However, if anyone wants to expand the sections into new articles, go right ahead :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement??

I think this whole article is an ad. What do others think? Too Old 04:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. For the record, the knives mentioned in the article are for the most part not generally available from Emerson. The Raven and Specwar knives are long discontinued. Timberline no longer makes the specwar fixed blade; it is mentioned because it was a museum display piece and a contender in the trials for a Navy SEAL issued knife(and the article mentions specifically that it did not win the contract). Benchmade hasn't produced a CQC7 in almost 8 years, The NASA knife is not available for purchase outside of official NASA channels. The custom knives are only available through lotterys at a few shows per year, you cannot call Emerson and buy one of these. The only 2 knives mentioned in the article in any great detail other than the CQC6 and CQC7(and i'm sure there are controversies over which knife is the more significant between these two models )are the SARK (which is there to demonstrate the man's ability to produce a successful prototype to fill a need for the Military in 24 hours as well as being an issued piece of gear to a police agency and certain units in the US Navy) and the Commander which features the Wave,a simple yet unique blade opening device and won Knife of the Year in 1999. An article about a company or a business does not make an article an advertisement. Especially when the models mentioned are not for direct sale from the maker/manufacturer to the public. It's been a featured article for nearly 6 months, representing the best work on Wikipedia, it's impeccably sourced and footnoted and unanimously passed its nomination. Sorry if you think it's an advertisement. Mike Searson 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles cited seem to only be from US gun, knife and wannabe fanzines. These are not really to be regarded as credible sources are they? Albatross2147 11:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think they're credible when discussing knives, guns, knifemakers, etc. If they were discussing politics, etc and this article were about a politician, I would go along with your argument. So now it's the quality of the sources? Should articles about Sportsfigures not use Sports Illustrated? Articles about musicians not cite Guitarmagazine? Periodicals are a perfectly acceptable source last time I checked on Wikipedia. Or should I check the Automotive articles for using Road and Track or Motor Trend? Mike Searson 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather irresponsible to call the work of another editor an ad, especially without even providing a reason. 17Drew 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article, especially a "highlighted one", is symptomatic of why Wikipedea has credibility problems.

Yes, it does read like an ad, and it's difficult to read it in any other way.

Sure, it does contain "encyclopedic information", it is informative and relevant, but, it still comes across as a vanity piece, as a commercial. 71.209.255.225 06:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right, this is tacky publicity, not bibliography. it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.85.241 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible that this advertorial has become a featured article? 80.61.14.21 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole piece reads like a P.R. brochure. Are you serious that this represents the "best work on Wikipedia" ?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.123.211 (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this has an advert-like tone to it. 'Edged weapons authority'? What's wrong with 'knife expert'?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to nominate this jingoistic bumpf for deletion? This is a vanity piece. The guy is a cutler for heavens sake. There's been a million of them down the centuries. If this is the best the people who select articles for this status can come up with it's time they either stood down or we abandon the exercise. Albatross2147 10:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How many of that million have created knives for NASA? How many of those cutlers have ever built a $14,000 guitar? Designed knives for US Navy SEALs? How many were also accomplished martial artists who designed their own fighting systems? Lastly...how many of them have become so highly sought-after that the only way they can sell a knife is to have a lottery system at a show where thousands of people compete for the chance to buy one? Let me know and I'll get started on a piece about them, too.Mike Searson 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous- this guy isn't encyclopaedically notable, never mind a candidate for featured article. Has he donated a bundle of loot or something? Albatross2147 is dead right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.73.6 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey an anonymous IP from the UK! Who would have thought it!Mike Searson 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. However, if it is rewritten to Wp standards I would not complain. Albatross2147 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone who has a bit more time on their hands should look at the question of the images used in this article. Sources cited don't seem to hold up. Albatross2147 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It reads like PR piece to me. The cash value of this publicity seems huge. How is he notable - he's just a bloke who makes knives. Chump Manbear 12:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chump, why don't you actually read the article? I think it answers questions of notability.Mike Searson 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The second i saw it on the main page it struck me as being an add. That said im assuming that for it to achieve FA status this issue must have been looked into previously. 80.80.176.20 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems less like an ad the more you think about it... but this is still one of those articles that you just shake your head about, that it got through FAC then that it was run on the main page when FAs like Daniel Boone are sitting around waiting. I think the problem no one has managed to put into words yet is that it's hard to have an encyclopedic article on this guy, apparently, because no one has really written much about him, they've written about his knives. A proper encyclopedic biography puts a person in a historical context, compares him to his peers, explains his legacy... there just doesn't seem to be the sources to do that with Emerson. I could be wrong though... but that's how it seems at a glance. --W.marsh 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so Featured articles should only be about dead people?Mike Searson 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Yes, it does read like an ad. And it also shatters any illusions i may have had about FA standards in this here project. --Janneman 13:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the (now closed) AfD page, though the article is probably created in good faith, featuring it on the main page shows very bad judgement by Raul. Lampman 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's incredible that an article got featured with stuff like 'edged weapons authority' or 'highly sought-after' in the intro. It reads like an extended version of those 'meet the artist' blurbs in Franklin Mint adverts.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the FA nomination, everyone was just concerned with copy editing, following the manual of style, and tagging fair use images correctly. They could have been reviewing a cookbook entry or a personal essay for all the FAC told... there was one vague mention of the neutrality and encyclopedic value of the article, but that was brushed aside. This is really the poster article for what many people have been saying is wrong with FAC... it can often be wholly concerned with dotting I's and crossing T's, with no one really thinking about it's fitness as encyclopedia article beyond whether it follows the superficial style rules, which are concrete, but ultimately can be followed perfectly and the result still being a very problematic article. --W.marsh 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to talk about replacing this article with another FA on the main page? I think that is unprecedented, but the more I read this article, the worse I think it is. I still think we should not have a big AfD notice plastered on it, but if we could replace it with a worthy article right now, I'd support that. How would this be accomplished with a minimum of drama? --Fang Aili ^talk 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you hadn't made your extraordinary intervention dear sweet FA, we would not be having to try to turn somersaults with inward pikes (aka the Wisconsin Wriggle :-) Albatross2147 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would not suggest it unless Raul agrees. I am almost certain it's an unprecedented move, and it just seems like drama waiting to happen. There's no easy solution here... and while your suggestion is interesting and thoughtful, I just see it creating more problems than it solves. Others may disagree though, just giving my opinion. --W.marsh 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A little poll couldn't hurt? Nothing binding of course, just to gauge opinion: Lampman 13:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's not fair to say that this article reads exactly like an ad. Were it an ad, one would see the little "shopping cart" icon at the top of the page and maybe a price list. Setting that aside, it seems that the article doesn't know what it wants to focus on, the knife designer, or the knives themselves. Let's say that Emerson does merit this much page space (he might, and even if he doesn't, I don't want to get stabbed for questioning his significance). Wouldn't it make sense to have separate articles for his products, some of which are genuinely innovative or influential?

In that regard, I agree with the other posters who note that the actual bio on Emerson might have been made much, much shorter, with links to some of his better known (and admittedly cool) inventions. The content is in some ways already here. He was born, went to school here, studied this and that, made first knife, got licensing agreements, developed martial art, etc. What's written thus far seems good, but perhaps what's making people suspicious of the "ad" nature of the article is that there's a great deal more (glowing) discussion about the inventions than the inventor.

By the way, the korean form of judo is also known as "yudo." I've actually never heard it called "jodo," but then I'm no authority.

http://www.usjjf.org/articles/yudo.htm

C d h 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So you think I should make individual stubby articles about each knife? Someone else suggested that, but after seeing how anything that can be purchased written as an article must be an advertisement...I'm having second thoughts. I guess what I was trying to accomplish was show how he went from "making a knife for a Martial Arts class" to becoming a custom knifemaker...to building specialty cutlery for the military...to starting his own knife company. When discussing an artist or an inventor, the art and inventions are a large part of the story. There was more biographical information earlier, but an editor objected calling it "unencyclopedic". Can't win for losng with some people here.Mike Searson 16:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace:

1. Lampman 13:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Fang Aili ^talk 13:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Janneman 13:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
4. 80.225.146.205 14:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Chump Manbear 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Starkrm 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 John joskins 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep:

1. Anyone who thinks a well-sourced bio is an advert had better be prepared to AfD or defeature for example most of the Video games, and quite a few other categories, at WP:FA, most of which are far worse on reliable sourcing and far more advertorial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
2. I copyedited the thing just before FA day. The guitar part, for one, was pretty obviously a cut-and-paste advertisement that I tried to tone down, but I think that was mere laziness and not spamistry on the part of the contributor. Yes, it's a little rah-rah, but I chalked that up to grunt style, and I thought the style fit the subject. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, however much we might want it to be. It's this other thing that it's evolving into, something the world has never seen, and I think there's room for articles like this one in it. I enjoyed the article, and I learned about the importance of knife design and about the evolution of the combat knife. --Milkbreath 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Again, just because something is about a company does not make it an advertisement. I guess if you're a socialist it might seem that way.Mike Searson 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   This is a biographical article, though. The fact that it's more like an article about a company is part of the problem. And calling people who disagree with you "socialists" is not productive. --W.marsh 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I used an if clause, for the record and it was an uneducated guess. Seriously, though...the Emerson Knives section is the only section about Mr Emerson's company. Should an article about the CEO of a company not contain at least a section on it? If you read that section it talks about the creation process behind 3 or 4 knives of which only 2 are available for sale. It only mentions these knives because they've been deemed significant...a rescue knife developed and delivered in 24 hours to the US Navy and modified for US Police departments, an innovative invention for opening a knife, and the NASA knife. This section was originally a seperate entity that was mostly a list of every model Emerson made. A sole-reviewer objected that the two articles shared a hyperlink. It was decide to combine the two. I trimmed that, highlighted the more "significant knives" and now people say it's "Ad-copy".--Mike Searson 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this poll is being run; Raul isn't likely to replace a mainpage article, period. Just ask him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy is correct. Raul654 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you getting some sort of back-hander for this Raul? What's the going rate for the front page these days? Chump Manbear 19:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

two or more people have put this item up for deleation but Raul keeps reversing the edits maybe he should try to see the bigger picture and not try to play god. John joskins 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• This article is a disgrace and brings the whole Wikipedia project into disrepute. It's a shameless PR puff that belongs in a trade magazine. 62.56.123.211 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

I have a few small issues here:

• The image description is redundant, we know hes a knifemaker (it says it in the lead), we know who he is, because it says so at the start of the article, and at the top of the infobox.
• Should we have the flag icon of the USA next to his Birth (in the infobox).

..just some small thoughts? Twenty Years 06:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points, I edited the first one. Flag Icon sounds good, I've seen it elsewhere and thought it was here at one time. Mike Searson 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the flagicon template to the article in the infobox. Twenty Years 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image description it is redundant, as his name is mentioned both above the image (in the infobox) and in the lead of the article. Twenty Years 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cutlery

Is "cutlery" the right word? It may be a regional difference, but to me (UK) it implies eating utensils rather than working/combat knives. Gordonofcartoon 12:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cutler Albatross2147 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That Wiktionary link discusses "Cutler" as the origin of a surname so isn't entirely relevant. In English (i.e. the language as spoken in England :-) I think he'd correctly be termed a bladesmith not a cutler. Noting the discussion of deletion, I think the article was technically interesting in that it discussed steel grades etc. and socially interesting in that it discussed (alleged) customers. I wonder whether it would be worth categorising it as "Living minor artisans" (or similar), where the entire category could be spun off to a wiki of its own if it became self-serving rather than encyclopaedic. MarkMLl 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that cutler originally referred to the makers of knives and swords well before other forms of eatin' irons were invented. Albatross2147 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential AfD

User:Albatross2147 nominated this article for deletion. I do not think it prudent to have an AfD notice on a main page-featured article, so I removed the AfD notice and temporarily closed the AfD. Personally, I am not interested in arguing the merits of the article. My only issue right now is the fact that a main page article is going to have a deletion notice on it. Frankly, this looks terrible. This article has had featured status since March and I see no reason why we must discuss its possible deletion right now. However, Albatross feels strongly that the AfD should go forward immediately. If a third party agrees, I won't have a problem with the AfD going back up. But nothing could be accomplished in the next 11 hours or so; this page is, in all likelihood, going to stay on the main page for the rest of the day, and the deletion discussion will continue for a few days. So I say please wait a few hours to start the debate, for the sake of the thousands of people who will view this page today. Thank you, Fang Aili ^talk 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

* Or to put it another way... Will someone please think of the children? They might and might be confused by a so called FA being argued about.. Never mind that the Deletion notice specifically states "this notice must not be removed" It is hard to take an admin seriously when they can't get the title of their contribution on such a serious point spelt correctly. Albatross2147 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're in favor of imposing 1984 on the article? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree closing the deletion rather for now rather then removing from the main page is the best idea. I believe I've also seen it before. There is IMHO a general consensus it's best to avoid major disputes if possible while an article is TFA. While I don't think it was wise for Fang Aili to delist the article while keeping the debate open it seems a fairly minor issue to me, ultimately he/she was simply trying to deal with a messy situation and he/she quickly resolved it in an alternative fashion once the problem was pointed out Nil Einne 14:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The AfD can always wait, but that’s not the real issue here. The problem is that “thousands of people” (more like 12,9 million) will come to the main page and see a Featured Article that looks like an advertisement! There seems to be a clear consensus that this article should never have been featured. Lapses of judgement like this are fortunately rare, but when they do occur, there should be some procedure for the community to amend it. Lampman 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a procedure to amend it; four days after it's off the mainpage, you can bring it to WP:FAR. But if you think a well-sourced bio is an advert, you'd better be prepared to bring a slew of video game articles as well. Oh, and have a look at Baby Gender Mentor if you want to see a precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Only this is _not_ a well-sourced bio just because there are enough footnotes and inline citations and such formalities that FA-reviewers have grown so fond of. Just look at the sources: mostly Blade Magazine advertorials and such stuff. It's plain ridiculous. --Janneman 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jane, have you actually ever READ a Blade magazine? The subject is about a man who makes knives, the bulk of information about him is going to be found in knife and gun publications. Mike Searson 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In four days the damage will already be done. And I don’t see how you can compare this drivel to Baby Gender Mentor. That article is a critical assessment rather than a one-sided panegyric. And it quotes sources such as the Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph, rather than a bunch of fawning fanzines and self-righteous autobiographies. Lampman 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are aware of critical commentary from reliable sources that has not been included in this article, you should certainly bring that to light. Again, if you think only sources like The Washington Post can be used in Featured articles, I suggest you seriously review the entire Video games category at WP:FA, among others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are indeed no reliable sources for the subject then that's a problem. As has already been pointed out by User:Albatross2147: these publications are "notorious for their inclusion of advertorial content", and a quick reading of the sources makes it clear that they don't seem to care too much about the distinction between editorial and advertorial content. If those are the only sources available then I guess that's better than nothing, but we shouldn't be putting this stuff on the main page. I don't know much about video games, but I'm pretty sure the major publications adher to sound, critical and un-biased journalism. If you find any that don't, then you should take issue with that. Lampman 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, where is your proof that Blade Magazine is the type of publication that is "notorious for their inclusion of advertorial content"? These magazines publish the good and the bad of the cutlery industry. Video games get a pass because you are "pretty sure the major publications adher(sic) to sound, critical and un-biased journalism", yet you make the direct opposite assumption about knife and gun magazines? Sounds like a double-standard to me. Mike Searson 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Major publications" adhering to "sound, critical and unbiased journalism" as the sources for our video game featured articles? You're kidding, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m dead serious. Real quick: show me an FA video game article without a single word of criticism. Then see if you can find a critical word in this article; I don’t think you can. Now that could be because everything about this guy and everything he’s ever done or made is absolutely perfect. More likely though, is that we’re dealing with publications that are so afraid of loosing advertising revenues that they end up as simple mouth pieces for their major advertisers. I don’t care if those magazine are about knives or video games or hamsters, you can smell them a mile a way, and I don’t consider them reliable sources. Lampman 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- :::::::: Again with your original research! Emerson spent exactly $0 on advertising with any of these magazines except for a series of ads in 2006 marking the 10th anniversary of the company. If you don't believe me, go ahead and look it up...call Blade Magazine and ask them. The only ad ever placed since he started the company was for the HD-7 knife in 2006. That knife was purposefully not mentioned in the article because the arm-wavers would cry "advertising"! I heard one anecdotal story about one person's linerlock failing and had a tight pivot on a knife I purchased one time....how would I cite these when they are not a printed source? I can't. It would be as irresponsible to include it as it would be for me to say "these are the best knives made in 100,000 years of humankind!". I write articles based on reliable sources, not opinion and original research. Mike Searson 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're the one with the complaint here, "real quick", show me criticism of Ernest Emerson that has not been included. And you don't think gaming magazines get advertising revenues from the products they write about? LOL, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What's next, Bill Gates? Lots of "company advertising" over there, according to the critics here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the online references is this one, a blurb for a police equipment expo, almost certainly written by Emerson himself or an employee. It's used to substantiate the claim that Emerson has all these martial arts teaching credentials. One of these credentials, 'Director of the Combat Research and Development Group', hardly exists on Google outside of this article.[1]--Nydas^(Talk) 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually substantiating as a supporting document as an argument was made that "most references were from 10 years" ago with regard to the martial arts information and I'd end up crucified if I used Emerson's home page as a source. Can you prove it was written by Emerson or an employee?Mike Searson 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the gushing, promotional nature, it's very likely. If his martial arts style is so big, where isn't there more information about it from independent sources? Looking at the various magazine articles archived on Emerson's site, they don't strike me as objective or detached either.[2]--Nydas^(Talk) 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible article for the front page, clearly an advert and a bad one at that it does not even try to hide the fact.It reads just like a sales catalogue. I was in Switzerland recently and every shop had adverts and flyers for knife company's and they all read just like this. John joskins 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be considered bad advertising as the article isn't trying to sell anything. A catalog would list all of the models offered, prices, how to buy, etc. Good thing I guess I didn't use a Swiss magazine for a source. --Mike Searson 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

further to Mikes reply, the flyers do not have prices in them as shops set there own prices and most do not list models only a bio and advertising blurb like is on this page. this is a terrible reflection of wikipedia's failings at stopping adverts they have now made it on to the front page! John joskins 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in Switzerland they publish what you refer to as flyers with no prices and don't list the model of what is being sold. Again, I fail to see how that is advertising, but if that's what you perceive advertising to be...well, then I can see how some people could be confused. --Mike Searson 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

advertising takes many forms just because it does not contain prices etc. it is still considered advertising as it is increasing brand awareness etc John joskins 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So every article is advertising in your opinion if it increases "brand awareness"? You do realize the bulk of the knives that are covered in the article are not available for sale, are no longer made, and are collaborations with what would be perceived as competition, don't you? Honestly...call Emerson and ask for a "NASA knife", a "CQC-6", "Gerber Alliance", "Timberline Specwar", "Benchmade 970", or a "Viper" and if you're not laughed at, you'll be politely told that you cannot purchase them for a variety of reasons. Visit www.emersonknives.com and see for yourself that none of the offerings such as gear, airsoft weapons, or 90% of the knives they make are not listed here, and for good reason. On second thought, don't...maybe you should give a running commentary on how Bill Gates is an ad for Microsoft as it increases brand awareness.Mike Searson 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

omega and rolex make watches that are not for sale to the general public, certain car comanys make F1 cars to boost sales of there road cars, but to advertise these means that people buy into the brand and purchase the normally cheaper items that they can. so i can not see the point you are making it is about brand awarness. John joskins 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Dude! Can I see a list of all the great works on wikipedia that you've written so I can learn from you? You obviously have this dialed in and locked down!--Mike Searson 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (whatever Dude!) that explains it! should have known you would be a gun loving redneck John joskins 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL but fair-use image?

Image:ElbowStrike.jpg, used in this FA, is tagged with both {{GFDL}} and {{Non-free fair use rationale}} (the article author originally used {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} and {{Fair use rationale}} which isn't any better). You'd think obvious things such as this are on the check lists people use with FACs. Rl 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather incongruous. See, however, this dialogue (User talk:Mike Searson#Image:ElbowStrike.jpg and User talk:Iamunknown#Emerson Page) and this request for confirmation (User talk:Zscout370#Request for OTRS confirmation). Hopefully the image description page will soon be clarified.  :-) --Iamunknown 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)