Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Steven Emerson - Part 3

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing Emmerson as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.

References

ChrisGualtieri is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here based on his argument that The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Steven_Emerson
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216#Steven_Emerson_part_2

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify something once and for all: Wikipedia (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion? You can't have it both ways. What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources. There's no question that the sources meet WP:RS. (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern, and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that "[...] any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe." [1]

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest WP:CLOSE closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually agree with Serialjoepsycho. Prior comments supported WP:BLP policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV: [2] and [3]. Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject. Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Atsme☯^Consult 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a plan to me, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯^Consult 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by Binksternet, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse. Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations in an op-ed for Fox News, stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."

References

Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page [4] The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what ChrisGualtieri and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? Atsme☯^Consult 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all. Atsme☯^Consult 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in WP:DR besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in WP:ADMIN). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, WP:ANRFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the very wise suggestion of Serialjoepsycho. The fact that policy supersedes consensus is paramount, therefore an admin who is well-versed in NPOV and BLP policy issues should close in an effort to avoid unnecessary drama as well as future disputes. Atsme☯^Consult 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross".[16] Apparently, Atsme doesn't think it worthy of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just "his guess" - that should be clear because local police and the FBI also specifically considered Islamic terrorism. Reports surfaced almost immediately following and Emerson was one who agreed it had the hallmark. He made the statement, but he isn't the origin of the claim. The gaff itself has been used against Emerson and it is appropriate to include it - as well as the context surrounding it. Though in the big scheme of things - its sorta lame as "the biggest error" they refer to for him, but it is what it is. Political drama is like toilet writings for me - but I disagree with Atsme only because it is too prevalent to omit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This should have never been removed. This should be put back in as neutrally as possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should have, and the reason follows. The misleading comment Binksternet made about me is not unlike the misleading comment he wants included in the Emerson BLP...both are misleading and factually incorrect. Per my edit summary: removed poorly written paragraph stating that Emerson was "labeled an Islamophobe" based on incorrectly stated, unverifiable opinion. Emerson never mentioned Muslims. BLP violation) Binks, I'm curious - you removed an entire section I included in IPT (which is inextricably linked to Emerson and mirrors much of the same info) with the following summary: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.) [17]. And now you think a 20 year old interview on CBS wherein he only suggested that the bombing had a Middle Eastern trait is important? I think the Boston bombing is far more important because (1) it's recent, and (2) Emerson was doing his job which is what we're supposed to write about. Now what could be the difference between the two that makes you think a 20 year old brief interview is so almighty important...let's see...could it be that with the Ok City bombing Emerson suggested a ME trait when it was actually homegrown terrorism, and with the Boston bombing it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was correct? Interesting angle on NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that is not what we do in WP. We don't bring our own opinions, rather, we report what reliable sources say. Adding your own commentary to somehow dismiss or diminish the RSs provided, as you have done (see Talk:Steven_Emerson#SYNTH), is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not bring my opinion in. I provided an inline citation for my source, and the source said precisely what I stated in the article (no copyvio) which is actually what we do on WP. The SYNTH and POV is what was in the passage I modified to be policy compliant. Do I need to include that whole ball of yarn here with inline text attribution for each phrase? I hope not. Atsme☯^Consult 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel doesn't understand the point you make Atsme. This is clear because his use of "reliable source" here translates to - the biased non-neutral assessment by a political think-tank which Emerson has been in conflict with for decade and that it uses a quote fragment and a lack of context to attack Emerson personally. I mean sure... the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post were going on about the Middle East trait, live coverage well-before Emerson was already hard pounding the WTC and Islamic terrorism angle. CNN identified four innocent Arab Americans in connection with the bombing.... Emerson also criticized CNN for this act... yet it is "Emerson the Islamophobe"? American Journalism Review is better source than Emerson's personal enemies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel blocked

So Cwobeel was just blocked for violating WP:NEWBLPBAN, which is a method I had never seen. ChrisGualtieri filed a case against Cwobeel at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel, then HJ Mitchell read the case and blocked Cwobeel. The immediate complaint was that Cwobeel restored disputed text to the Emerson biography during this discussion here at BLPN, the text in question described as a BLP violation by ChrisGualierie and Atsme. My problem with the Arb case and the block stems from the persistent mischaracterization of the text as being a violation of BLP. The sources are scholarly ones, the highest quality sources we have. Yes, they characterize Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes as being the two most prominent voices of Islamophobia in the US. It doesn't particularly matter whether Emerson is happy with this assessment or not; the description accurately represents the opinion of these (and some other) scholars.

If we are to institute a rule disallowing any re-posting of BLPN disputed material (no matter how highly sourced the text or how misrepresented the complaint) then we will open ourselves up to those who would game the system: any I-don't-like-it text can be perpetually discussed at BLPN to keep it from being re-posted at a biography. That's a change I would not like to see. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Half a sentence quips from parties involved in a dispute with Emerson is not "scholarly" by any means - it is name calling. The real issue is repeatedly edit warring to reinsert the material which is at BLPN when there is no consensus to include the material is the problem. And you have done this yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your original research does not take the place of reliable sources, and Arbcom can not (nor do I believe they intended to) set a higher standard for BLPs than established by the community. What I see is editors tendentiously pushing their own POV by using BLP as club to keep legitimate criticism out of articles in violation WP:NPOV. I think this discussion needs to happen at ANI.- MrX 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was restoring content removed under BLP, acknowledged by Cwobeel to be valid and then restored during the dispute. Citing Gale was me and the American Journalism Review was Atsme's source - and the information is not "original research". OR pertains to article content, not highlighting that Cwobeel's source was non-neutral, cherry-picked and unsupported name-calling. By this logic, it would be fine to include racist and bigoted "scholarly criticism" on Obama's page. Sorry bud, but BLP needs to have high standards. I've seen this same stuff directed at Al Sharpton calling him every vile nasty epithet you can think of, but yet we do not include such filth either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires good sources, not neutral sources. Cwobeel added well-sourced content here based on 3:1 support at BLP/N here. You ignored that consensus and reverted Cwobeel's edit here claiming "Remove per BLP Policy". BLP Policy requires good sourcing, the absence of which you have flatly failed to demonstrate. I've seen you do this repeatedly on this and other articles such as Shooting of Michael Brown. I would like to know why you haven't been sanctioned.- MrX 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have thought it would be common sense for any established editor to know that you don't restore content removed on BLP grounds until and unless the discussion concludes in your favour, much less an editor who has previously been blocked for BLP violations. I have no comment on the content; whether or not it should be in the article and if so in what form is a matter for discussion on this board to resolve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: I don't think it's going to be possible to address this one properly without evaluating the content. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds for disputing it on a BLP basis. ChrisGualtieri and Atsme think so, and they've been arguing about it for months. Multiple editors coming to it "cold", however, have reached a different conclusion and have added/restored the material (sometimes in revised form). In that context, "content removed on BLP grounds" means something different, in contrast to a situation where someone sees a BLP violation and removes it the first time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Evaluating the content is absolutely critical to understanding whether this was or was not a BLP concern. Otherwise any editor could block any negative text at all from a BLP, just by complaining about it here at BLPN. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Harry, at least look at the fact the Cwobeel's edit had 3:1 support and was well-sourced. There is a fundamental problem when a single editor can stonewall by simply crying BLP without showing that the cited sources fail our reliable source guidelines or that the content is not supported by the sources. Please see Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.- MrX 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So @Atsme: is a non-person? The content evaluate is separate, but the offending material should not be restored by the BLPN filing party while the dispute is ongoing at BLPN. You made a false dichromy argument because no one is saying negative material is a problem. It is name-calling that is the issue here, and name-calling is not encyclopedic or productive and its not in the Gale biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your issue seems to be with the fact that Emerson as been characterized as an Islamaphobe or a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, a fact which he acknowledges. Several editors clearly disagree with you that it's not encyclopedic.- MrX 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding contentious material to a BLP that is verifiable but false or that is unsupported by the cited RS is quite simply noncompliant with NPOV. Sources that mirror each others' bigotry may be RS for a particular claim, but in this case, one of the sources included only a parenthetical reference to Emerson in an unrelated chapter in a book containing fewer than three sentences about the guy. Another source did not even include what was actually stated in the BLP. Since NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and the contentious material is clearly noncompliant with NPOV, how is that not a BLP violation? Furthermore, Binksternet made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours: 21:22, March 6, 2015 21:46, March 6, 2015‎ 08:29, March 7, 2015‎ 09:14, March 7, 2015‎ which not only violates 3RR, it appears to have violated BLP DS. Atsme☯^Consult 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand how WP:3RR works. Try to understand the notion of consecutive edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Verifiability is a foundational policy, and sources are how we evaluate "truth". If you want to challenge content as being unsourced, then do so with diffs and a link to the source. Binksternet did not violate 3RR; concurrent edits don't count as reverts.- MrX 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Refer to the evaluation by HJ Mitchell above because Binksternet reverted the same material that caused Cwobeel to be blocked. Edit warring is edit warring and when it involves contentious material about a BLP that is not properly sourced, it requires immediate attention. The revert happened so quickly it became a job in itself just to keep up. I don't understand why the same action that applied to Cwobeel should not apply to Binksternet per BLP DS. There are substantive grounds for removal of that contentious material. Furthermore, closure requires a close review based on the substantive argument, not a vote to see how many editors agree despite BLP policy. Atsme☯^Consult 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Several editors restoring content is one of the signals of consensus. If only one editor supported this content and reverted without discussion, they should be sanctioned for edit warring. What instead seems to be happening is filibustering, original research, strained interpretations of policy and appeals to non-existent policies. Also, BLP/N discussions do not require formal closure.

Now a specific question for you: What exactly in the disputed content do you claim is not properly sourced? - MrX 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I've included a classic example of the NPOV issue at Emerson:

• [18]<--factually accurate information in a published transcript (pg 11) of the actual 1995 CBS interview with Emerson as indicated by an academic source. Another source I was going to cite (had I not been disrupted from editing) is a NY Times article: [19]
• [20]<--example of the misinformation Binksternet insisted on keeping, and in doing so prevented me from completing the last segment of the paragraph. The reverted passage reflects an unsubstantiated bigoted opinion (and biased slur) that was expressed parenthetically (in passing mention). COI - several authors of the cited book are paid proponents and/or teachers of Islamic studies at various universities. The passing mention of Emerson in the book was clearly incidental. The source demonstrates how Emerson's statement was taken out of context: [21] Atsme☯^Consult 01:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's heartening that you would try to figure out whether the scholars are correct or not in their negative assessment of Emerson, but frankly that is not our concern, and it smacks of original research. The scholars looked at Emerson's contribution to the issue and they determined that Emerson was expressing Islamophobic ideas. Let's not try to second-guess these scholars who we accept as experts in their fields. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Except WP:OR - does not apply to talk pages so pointing out that the quote is incomplete and inaccurate is acceptable. Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in conflicts and label people as bigots based on the quips of their political and ideological opponents. Not one case has been presented to show Emerson as an actual bigot. It is rhetoric and name-calling, all without merit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What is an "actual bigot"? Who is to judge what behavior deserves that label? Why, the reliable sources are to judge, and if we are concerned about BLP (we certainly are) then we must use the highest quality sources. Scholars are our highest sources. Let's not try and out-think the scholars in their areas of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm? ABC, CBS, and NBC which had FBI sources on the day of stating this connection. Oliver Revell (not Emerson) stated that it was most likely a Middle East terrorist which appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Plenty of figures made this connection, the Wall Street Journal even ran a story featuring it. Emerson's award winning documentary was released several months prior and apparently he wasn't a "Islamophobe" for predicting such an attack and of such a style. Your use of the word "Scholar" as some unimpeachable standard is pretty telling that you have no experience in such research... I am also very confident you have not watched the tapes and while I do not have access to the Hillmann & Carr collection (containing the tape of Emerson) I have found many instances of the "Middle Eastern" aspect including Emerson condemning the identification of four innocent Arabs by the media shortly thereafter. So much for "bigotry", but keep sticking to your non-neutral sources and claiming it to be the gospel - I take the New York Times, American Journal Review and the FBI over those sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As soon as you publish your book about this issue, your opinion will be considered a reliable source on the matter of what the media was saying and how Emerson was viewed. Until then, a number of scholars have separately and collectively determined that Emerson espouses Islamophobic ideas. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: You answered a different question than the one I asked. This section is about the material inserted by Cwobeel for which he was blocked for violating WP:BLP. So I ask again, what specific words, phrases or sentences in this edit do you assert is not properly sourced?- MrX 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Interested parties are invited to comment at the Arbitration request by Cwobeel to be unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution attempt

Due to Binksternet's reinsertion and modification, it is not the same offending text that Cwobeel was edit warring. But we need to resolve this. Let's begin by finding some points of discussion to resolve the dispute. Let's break the section down:

Emerson has been criticized for espousing Islamophobic views...

Specifically, what "views" are Islamophobic? This requires clarification and none of the sources being used support a single example. Three different sources are saying he is an Islamophobe, but none provide any argument or example of said Islamophobia. I see verification that an accusation has been made, but this is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If the slightly different way I worded it is not a BLP violation, how is it that you insisted on Cwobeel getting blocked, when the solution was simply a bit of rewording? It seems to me that you could have suggested some rewording at the article's talk page and thereby saved the community's time along with their patience. Or you could have reworded it yourself instead of blanking good sources.[22][23][24][25][26] Not to mention striving to get an editor blocked for no good reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a core misunderstanding here. Cwobeel edit warred over the content, took it here, edit warred it in, month long protection, added it again, took it here, added it again after acknowledging the "restore part of BLP" and doing it during the dispute which has been requested to have a formal close. So I took it to AE to stop this and also asked for 1RR on the page. You reinserted it, but you did it once and while I and Atsme disagree, edit warring is not productive and its not a top-tier BLP issue. I even asked Atsme to let it stay because we need to more forward. If I undo the material you reinserted and modified - I'd be continuing to stall the situation. You weren't even warned of the AC/DS, but this has got to stop and be resolved. I don't think anyone wants this dispute to continue for another month so can we focus on the issue with the content now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris makes a good point. It shouldn't be enough to just report that some individual has called Emerson a name. If someone has, do they have reason for that position? Otherwise there would be undue weight it seems. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• This demonstrates it is both notable and due for this "terrorism expert's" biography. It goes into extensive explanation but obviously you are not going to just present one "side". So, you all should move on and get with exactly how you present it in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue with including the 1995 "gaffe" material and everyone agrees that it needs to be include. Despite WP:BLPSELFPUB objects as it is "self-serving" by one user - Emerson's statements and other sources about this need to be given. The issue here is name-calling, specifically labeling Emerson as a bigot without identifying what specific views of his are "Islamophobic" or "fomenting Islamophobia" as previously claims. Verification of the name-calling is WP:UNDUE without at least a single argument as to why Emerson is Islamophobic in the eyes of his critics. That's the core issue we have been trying to resolve for weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources do talk about why they say what they say. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but that is another matter entirely. "Islamaphobe" is not in the sources only an epithet, it is a critique of his expert approach, which the critics see as revealed by him. They may be right, they may be wrong but in discussing the biography of a terrorism expert, you have to discuss the "albatross" around his neck, which leads to the "islamaphobe" critique. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So by the logic Obama it is acceptable to call a communist/radical/worst president in history because "critics state" and nothing more? You seem to think I am sympathetic to Emerson because I don't think allowing unexplained bigotry in retaliation for labeling their organization as being related to a terror organization - a fact backed by a federal judge's ruling in the case. By that logic you could call George Zimmerman a racist and a murderer because "critics say". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What? No. I don't think anything about you, except now I think you indulge in irrelevancies. I think the sources show there is a prominent critique of this terrorism expert. Your swerve to irrelevant Obama commentary notwithstanding, Emerson is not Obama, two very different biographies of two very different lives, which will have very different demands of subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable in one BLP, it is acceptable in all BLPs. We cannot pick and choose whose BLP we allow contentious material to be included. Please be specific in your argument to keep a contentious statement because if it applies here, it is likely to apply elsewhere - it's referred to as establishing a "precedent". Atsme☯^Consult 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, no one covers disparate lives the same -- only those who seek to indulge logical fallacies of a pretend parade of horribles would even attempt such reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue about Obama, start a section about Obama. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This subsection title is Resolution attempt. Can we please stay on topic? Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's why we would do well not to discuss Obama. Agreed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris correctly drew attention to an established precedent. [27] Attempts to dismiss the comparisons only serve to make it more relevant. Established policies are just that - established policies which means they apply across the board and are not subject to POV. If compliance with NPOV applies to one BLP, it applies to all BLPs. Atsme☯^Consult 22:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no precedent, despite your logical fallacy -- we are dealing, here, with terrorism expert, Emerson, who has this sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we are dealing with a BLP, and as such strict adherence to policy is required. Strict adherence to BLP policy includes the 3 core content policies, no exceptions. Any attempt to individualize BLP is not NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And multiple editors note that all policies are met, the critique is verifiable and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be definitive. What passages are you referring to as having met the requirements for NPOV, and how did you determine the requirements were met? Atsme☯^Consult 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X has a proposal he has asked you to comment upon already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X asked a question that was already answered by ChrisGualtieri. I see no reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. This subsection is titled Resolution attempt, so if you have any suggestions for resolving the NPOV and RS issues, I'm interested. Atsme☯^Consult 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then you're done, here, if you have nothing left to say and others can just move on with the consensus version, which does not require unanimity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential edits in the Barack Obama article or the George Zimmerman article have zero effect on this article, and divert us from determining if there are reliability issues with the sources, or if the sources have been misrepresented, or if they represent a fringe viewpoint. Atsme, you have made several appeals to policy, but have been a bit evasive when pressed for specific examples. You also seem to rely on ChrisGualtieri's argument which has now been refuted by three editors as being logically fallacious.- MrX 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Logically fallacious is an opinion, not a substantive argument to restore material that was removed for noncompliance with BLP policy. The burden to restore such material rests with the editor who wants it restored, not with the editor who removed it. Atsme☯^Consult 02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make sense. I was refuting ChrisGualtieri's argument because it was based on something bad that could happen to another, unrelated article. It's not logical and it's not grounded in policy. "Non-compliance with BLP" implies misrepresentation of sources, or unreliable sources, yet you have not substantiated this alleged "non-compliance" with anything more than generalizations about policy. Once again, what specifically violates WP:BLP and why? If you can't or won't answer that question, which I have now asked three times, then would you at least refrain from claiming that there is a BLP policy violation in the disputed content?- MrX 03:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

MrX - I'm sorry you could not comprehend the example and importance of NPOV I was highlighting. The name-calling is undue and is not conducive to a disinterested biography on the subject. I was comparing the fact that other biographies for which no end of such "criticism" exists - are kept clean of it because of NPOV and BLP. Would calling Emerson a bigot survive at a Featured Article Review? No, because it is name-calling. I gave a simple request - provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed. It only takes one example to make me agree that such a view can be stated, and so far no example has been given. So far there is none so I think that without clarification - the name-calling must be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If you find "bigot" in the Emerson article, I'd support it being removed. But I don't see it there... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The request "an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed" makes no sense. Wikipedians attribute sources, Wikipedians don't attribute anything to Emerson (other than when needed, his own words), Wikipedia has no view with respect to Emerson. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*Nomoskedasticity are you unaware that Islamophobia is a bigotry based on religion? This is like saying someone is the key proponent of antisemitic discourse. That is what these non-neutral and minority sources claim. Alanscottwalker, you don't understand the problem I am referring to - perhaps someone else can explain my points better to you, but for the sake of it - swap "Islamophobia" with racist. Emerson has been criticized for espousing racist views.... Is that acceptable without stating at least one example of a "racist view"? That is why I am asking for that one view before I change my position. I am not asking for much - if these sources are as high-quality it should be easy to make an example that is not WP:SYNTH. Namely something like "Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia for stating...." you fill in the blank. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the idea that Emerson has espoused racist views, extrapolated from the fact that a number of scholars have observed that he has espoused Islamophibic views. Accusations of racism can and should be discussed in a biography when they are appropriate, for instance at the David Duke article. Emerson and Islamophobia are connected by enough high-quality sources that we would be remiss not to mention them. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I don't think I have comprehension problem. NPOV (a separate policy from BLP) is served by inclusion of significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in sources. AFAIK, no one here has called Emerson a bigot. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, yet you keep bringing it up. I am on record as preferring not to label Emerson an Islamophobe, but it is necessary to mention that Emerson has been criticized for fomenting Islamophobia. In addition to the sources we already have, there are these:

"There is a growing cottage industry of Western commentators and politicians who thrive on bashing Islam. The War on Terror has provided a substantial level of cover for their views.39 While initially terror experts such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, and Robert Spencer led the anti-Islam charge, it has spread widely."
— Fawaz A. Gerges, The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 21, https://www.questia.com/read/121489747.

"Yet following September 11, 2001, there was a surge of Islamophobia in the West, which portrayed all things Islamic, and in particular Islamic banks, in the worst possible light.88 The outrage provoked by the terrorist attacks gave credence to anti-Islamic views, which moved quite close to mainstream and policy-making circles. Thus, journalist Steven Emerson, whose primary claim to fame until then had been his assertion that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing “could only have been perpetrated by Middle Eastern terrorists,” said that the days following September 11, “he has fielded 1,000 calls, many from news organizations,”89 thus becoming one of the most ubiquitous “terrorist experts.”"
— Ibrahim Warde, Islamic Finance in the Global Economy, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 109, https://www.questia.com/read/121094053.

"“This small network of people is driving the national and global debates that have real consequences on the public dialogue and on American Muslims,” the report said. “Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America.” ¶ The five key misinformation experts identified by the report: Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy (see also here); David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence (see also here); Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum; Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America (see also here), and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism." "
— Southern Poverty Law Center

To answer you specific demand "provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson" how about this:

" "In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones," Emerson said. "There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire." "
— Steven Emerson on Saturday, January 10th, 2015 in an interview on Fox News

"“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.”"
— Steve Emerson

I hope this helps.- MrX 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri might now be tempted to argue that these views do not actually display Islamophobia. I hope we can avoid that sort of WP:OR. What matters is whether significant sources meeting WP:RS perceive Islamophobia in these and/or other statements by Emerson. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No... MrX has fulfilled my requirement, while they are not as strong I would have preferred he has certainly met my requirement. He certainly made that Birmingham gaffe - which was quickly corrected, but it still was a dumb thing to say. The 1995 one is more of a matter of context, but this recent one is definitely a major error for which no real excuse can be made. Nomo, you might want to look into WP:OR because it does not apply to talk pages or evaluating sources, it applies to content. Now... we need a way in which to resolve the accusations by using the example - I believe some occurred in direct connection to the Birmingham comments. That way we also remove the dramatic claim that Emerson is "clearly a complete idiot" from Cameron, who has made a serious mistake of this nature as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's great -- except that you've been aware of that example for many weeks now, so one naturally wonders what all the fuss has been about, over dozens of posts by you about the topic.... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

.... I am certain you do not understand my argument because of that comment. I could also do less without the bad-faith accusations, but the battleground atmosphere is not pleasant. Is there a direct non-SYNTH case of this or not? MrX has an example, but you can't use OR to claim a connection to something published prior to the gaffe - which those cases were. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok so if that is going to be added, we can add the following: [28] and [29] Atsme☯^Consult 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I'm not interested in using WP:OR for adding anything to the article; I thought I had made that clear. Atsme, the same response is needed for you -- and it's especially appalling that you want to use Breitbart.com as a source in this context. Yeech... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

- Since Xenophrenic has resolved the issue, I'm announcing that these changes more than resolves the issue and is NPOV in my eyes. I don't support Breitbart - but that gaffe thing is different from the issue and beyond this BLPN notice. Atsme - do you have any issues with Xenophrenic's changes - or are we all in agreement that the now-current wording is acceptable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, if you're referring to the changes already implemented by Xenophrenic at Emerson, I am Ok with them. I will address the plurality issue about the CBS interview(s) on the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Xenophrenic changes have addressed Chris' issues. His changes have mostly, if not completely, removed Atsme's Synth (improper editorializing, Undue weight, over all BLP violations, or what ever anyone wants to call this [30]). It would probably be a good time to ask the other BLPN contributors here if there are any issues of note brought up here that aren't addressed.If not we can just put this baby to bed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• If an Admin is following this discussion, I ask that you please take some form of remedial action for the unwarranted PAs against me by Serialjoepsycho (^^see his comment above this one). His false allegations of my editing being overall BLP violations, SYNTH, UNDUE, editorializing, etc. are unwarranted, but this isn't the first time he has done so. A comparison of the two diffs will confirm my position: My edit is here: Revision as of 16:37, March 6, 2015. Xenophrenic's edit is here: Revision as of 12:40, March 9, 2015 In fact, I am still researching one of the sentences he attributed to Emerson to confirm it is factually accurate. Atsme☯^Consult 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is not a personal attack. Simply pointing out the truth, is not a personal attack. Synth pretty much sums it up, someone else called in improper editorializing on the Steven Emerson page. Parts of it were undue. You could even point out the fluff. Overall it was a BLP violation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no personal attack Atsme. Also, I've had several person attacks lobbed at me, it is the tensions. De-escalate the situation and don't get upset about anything less than unfettered name calling. Now... I'd give it another 12 hours for objections to be raised and then I suggest for a formal admin close to finalize it. Since me and Atsme were "the opposition" in a sense and we agree on the material, I doubt any objection will be raised. I prefer a formal close despite a clear consensus - I don't want a "part 4". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just check back in 4 days and take it to ANRFC if someone else hasn't. That will be plenty of time to respond and one day before it archives.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder how many times it is actually necessary to say that Tim McVeigh was behind the Oklahoma city bombing. Probably worth scrubbing the first mention of it. It's not very well written and detracts from the tone. Further thru it mentions, "Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe"" but ot really doesn't mention by whom. This sourced to the 'Cambridge companion to American Islam'. If it's worth mentioning it would be worth mentioning who's views these are. This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply. Leaving these critics unnamed seems to benefit the following sentence where Emerson criticizes unnamed critics. This also detracts from the tone, though less than before.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Sources attributed. Still problematic though, In 1995 CBS interviews, prior to any knowledge the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, Emerson said "Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East", and that the bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. This negatively effects the tone of the article. Originally added to the article it stood as fluff that seemed to defend Emerson, now it seems as if it was written to make him look incompetent. Neither of which seem to carry a dispassionate tone. Emerson's actions already make him look incompetent, he doesn't need our assistance. This part is unnecessary as the same paragraph later says, 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".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, still problematic... but I don't want to be attacked for "stonewalling" and such. If Sloan stated the connection - completely independently of Emerson - and Sloan is an actual terrorist expert instead of a new person in the field (which Emerson was at the time) then there is very little wrong with acknowledging what the prevailing, albeit wrong view was. The way it reads is that Emerson was the source of the material - when it was leaks in the FBI and law enforcement, three different news networks and other experts. There is hours and hours of TV coverage on this stuff on April 19-20. To criticize Emerson and act as if he was alone responsible for the "fomenting Islamophobia" is dishonest. The stark difference in reality is the reason why I was strongly opposed to the inclusion of the accusations in the first place - they lacked substance and context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

re: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Serialjoe, you say "This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply." I would be interested in hearing your rationale for that. WP:YESPOV ("Don't attribute fact as if it were opinion") is also likely to apply. If you are going the attributed-opinion route, then your job is not complete. Ernst's academic book describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe"; the previously noted Washington Post article conveys that Emerson has been described as such (without naming names); etc. I'm sure there are also "critics" who have used the description. The previous wording was probably an attempt to avoid a long list of "critic" names followed by a list of non-"critic" sources.

re: Mentioning that Emerson made his remarks before knowing about McVeigh in the first sentence - I agree that it is redundant, and support its removal, but not because "it was written to make him look incompetent". It still appears to mitigate his interview comments, but it is unsourced and unprovable.

re: Many saying the same thing at the same time. Chris is correct that Emerson wasn't the only person pushing a "Middle East terrorism" theory during the first 8 hours after the event, but there is no evidence (is there?) that Emerson was parroting Sloan or anyone else, rather than giving his independent assessment, or that Sloan had or hadn't first conferred with Emerson or others. (And just a note, the "fomenting Islamophobia" description is demonstrably not based on 1995, but rather his overall history, as far as I can tell from the sources.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So "professional [Bigot]" is a fact? There is a different between citing name-calling as a fact and citing an accusation of bigotry as if it was true. Also note that these labels are less than half a sentence and Emerson is not discussed at any other point in the sources. 300 pages and only "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" is it? Seems undue, but since we've established this name-calling is suitable for inclusion, ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the description of Emerson as a [insert "name-calling" indicating bigotry here] factual, you ask? Isn't that the question every editor here has been asking? I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact, which is why I raised WP:YESPOV as just as likely to apply. I remind you that your "these labels are less than half a sentence" argument (formerly known as the "passing mention" argument) has already been refuted and buried, as it was discovered that those "half sentences" were also accompanied by citations indicating that people looked into the matter with a bit more thoroughness. Do you really wish to resurrect that line of argument yet again? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be a major BLP issue to point out certain connections here - I thought we were in agreement that the accusations exist and are trying to handle them appropriately within policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that Emerson has been "accused" of Islamophobia, at the very minimum. I certainly haven't disagreed. There appeared to be no disagreement with the previous article wording that Emerson has been "referred to as" or "described as" ... as long as we don't say in Wikipedia's voice that he "is". However, once you start listing where he has been described as such (Cambridge book...) or by whom (Hammer, et al...) as if those were merely opinions, you are opening a very large can of worms. Once we start adding actual "critics" to that list of sources, do you know how large that paragraph will grow? Is that what we want? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: You asked, "but there is no evidence (is there?)" Yes there is, and I already provided the sources, one of which included a timeline of events, others that included statements from Emerson confirming he based his information on what investigators and other reports were saying. In fact, that's what Emerson does - he gathers material, documents, testimony and various bits of information from the internet, videos, television, radio etc. and maintains an extensive data base. You also said, "I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact...", and I strongly disagree. Consensus cannot magically turn a contentious opinion into a statement of fact in WP voice. A similar argument occurred on Griffin, and the closing admins supported BLP policy, and the fact that such contentious labeling is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A "timeline" showing that other people made equally wrong speculation does not mean that Emerson's comments were in any way based on theirs. After the comments were made and quickly criticized, of course he claimed he based his comments on other people, but while he was making those comments - and even for a brief time afterward - he gave no indication he was only parroting other people. As for your strong disagreement to Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources for the assertion of fact, and consensus, everyone is welcome to their opinions. However, Wikipedia policy trumps editor opinion where BLP articles are concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, no reasonable person could accuse you of stonewalling, when it relates to my comments there is still something wrong. The section does mention that others said similar. Xenophrenic, can you show me a source that factually states he is an Islamophobe and that he is a discredited terrorism expert? That's a rhetorical question. The fact is both are value based opinions. His work has been been discredited but he still seems to be very active in his field. So YesPOV doesn't seem to meet any real scrutiny and attributePOV does. That would not be my job but our job. As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. Emerson did make his comments before they knew that McVeigh did it. What ever, mentioning McVeigh in the lead is excessively verbose, redundant, and should simply go. The article and sources indicate that others had made similar statements. I do think that meets the scrutiny of policy. As far as Sloan, yes I'd agree that lacking a source it doesn't seem all to important, and inclusion may very well border on synth or least it would be giving undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, yes, I can provide sources which factually describe Emerson as discredited, to answer your rhetorical question. Perhaps you consider the question rhetorical because even Emerson concedes that he has been discredited and even "blacklisted", although he insists it was done unjustly? The objective description of someone as discredited or bigoted can certainly be factually asserted (David Irving serves as a handy example of both). The degree of bigotry or amount of damage to reputation are value based opinions and can be subjective, obviously — as are any changes in those descriptions over time. The fact that an avowed racist can run for office and still get votes, for example, or that FOX News seeks someone's opinion, do not negate factual descriptions.

Regarding "fixing" the text about Emerson being referred to as Islamophobic, I will do as you request and implement my fix by removing the "Cambridge book" and "Hammer, et al" attributions. Attributing the descriptions to just one book misleadingly implies they are the only source of those descriptions. If you would like to re-add your attribution, please do a more complete job by also attributing the description to the Ernst book linked at the top of this thread, and the reports by SPLC, and actual "critics" like CAIR, CAP, the 2 dozen sources listed on the article Talk page, etc. That's not my preferred method, of course, as it will produce a rather unwieldy and huge block of text, but I won't object to a complete listing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No you can only provide me with opinions that he has been discredited. While I agree with these opinions, the sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven. Fox News and others not only view him credibly but present him credibly. I'd love to see the source where Emerson concedes that he's been discredited. I see where he mentions that he was black listed. Do show the source. Sounds like synth. By the way I never said the Cambridge companion had to be attributed. Being the source the book is already attributed. I said the opinions have to be attributed. Ernst book is already attirbuted with inline citation but guess what he's also attributed to his opinion. I'll go ahead and undo your change and ignore your edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll "ignore my edit warring"? Huh? Rather than edit warring when I noticed the problem, I came here instead and voiced my concerns for discussion. You then suggested that since I found the problem, I might be willing to fix it — so that is what I did with a single edit. Please don't derail the discussion and try to drag it into the gutter by playing that kind of game, Serialjoepsycho. Agreed?

Back to the matter at hand, we appear to have a misunderstanding. You are technically correct that descriptions, like "water is wet", "1, 3 and 5 are numbers", "the earth is round", "Emerson was discredited", can indeed be called "opinions". But for the purposes of this discussion, I was referring only to Wikipedia's policies regarding fact and opinion as asserted by cited sources. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. I'm still interested, in case you missed my query. You agree that "sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven", which is the textbook definition of how a person's reputation becomes discredited. He has referred to his wrong assertions and the resultant damage to his reputation as an albatross around his neck he has struggled to remove.

Is there a reason why, in your recent edit, you only "attributed" the descriptions to a single source? You don't see how that misleads the reader into thinking the description comes just from that source? (You mention that the Ernst book is already cited elsewhere in the article, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the paragraph we're working on. And by the way, that Ernst cite is wrong and attributes to him in the footnote a description made by a completely different person. But that is another matter.) Is there a reason why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added? Is there a reason why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is now locked for another month. As much as I hate to say it, it is a BLP issue and the fact it had continued for so long was the reason I took the matter to AE in the first place. BLP violations are different from violations of BLP in a sense of material versus the actions. Serialjoepsycho has been citing BLP policy and making proper and reasonable assertions on a very sensitive BLP matter and I must thank him for handling it in such a fine way. It is still clear the content and wording does not have consensus... but progress is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Serialjoepsycho handled it well, and I also thank him. Atsme☯^Consult 04:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that the content and wording does not have consensus. (And it's locked for 2 months, not "another month".) Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually Xenophrenic, I said since you found it you could fix it or, "be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." You can put emphasis on the part where you do something fruitful but it doesn't erase the actual part where you were asked to provide more clarity so that your position could be reviewed and so that I or someone else could take action in regards to it. Text book definition? That could be argued one way or another. Honestly wouldn't likely be such an interesting conversation. So let's not bother with it because in the end there's this whole BLP policy. This detracts from the tone. That is not written responsibly, cautiously, or with a dispassionate tone. It's written specifically in wikipedia voice to attack Emerson. He has been discredited in the past in his field as a "Terrorism expert". He's also continued in that field since then and has been received as a credible source by mainstream media, government, law enforcement, and perhaps others. It's not wikipedia's place to endorse this opinion, only to record it. Yes there is a reason why there I attributed this to only one source, because there this was the only source used[31]. No I don't think that misleads readers into thinking it comes from one source. I think this is the first time I've ever seen this particular argument. I find it ridiculous and unnecessary, but I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well. In regards to Ernst, I was referring to the final paragraph of the section titled "reception" the only place I see specifically where Ernst is mentioned as a source (Not sure if that's in a foot note section of the book. Doesn't look like it. I don't have a full copy of the book but it does seem to be in a section of the book written by Juliane Hammer. Does anyone have a full copy of the book that can verify? The citation seems to be fine but the article attribution directly to Ernst may not be.) Your prior comments were rather verbose. I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article. I also in relation to that asked you to either fix it or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however. The lock on the page is for two months but it can actually be unlocked before that. So lets get a consensus and move on. So is there anything that hasn't been addressed in some way and we should address the current Ernst attribution that is already contained in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked that either I fix it, or have someone else fix it. When I followed your suggestion, you offensively mischaracterized my edit as "edit warring", and reverted it. Your revert also undid other noncontroversial article improvements without explanation. You still haven't answered when I asked why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added. You still haven't answered when I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support.

As for more clarity on the issue, I can only repeat what I already said above - with even more verbosity - until you confirm there is no further confusion. Since there is disagreement as to whether our article can factually state in Wikipedia's voice that Emerson "is" an Islamophobe, or "is" a discredited expert, let's set that matter aside for later. We can certainly agree that Emerson has been (referred to/accused of/described as) such by other individuals, and that much can be stated in Wikipedia's voice as long as we don't present the descriptions as true or false. We agree so far? Reflecting that position, here is the previous sentence written in responsible, cautious and dispassionate tone (but still a little long, in my opinion):

Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe" and, recalling his 1995 interviews, "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Source 1, Source 2

So instead of saying "Emerson is XXX & YYY", we say that people have merely "Referred to Emerson as XXX & YYY", as explicitly conveyed by the WaPo source, and demonstrated in the Cambridge source. But then you cited WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and suggested we name the source of the description, which gives us this 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". Single Source

While I understand the reasoning behind your suggestion, it appears you did not implement that guideline properly for several reasons. Go to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; do you see where the first line tells you to See: WP:INTEXT for proper use of in-text attribution? If you'll look at the examples in that guideline, you'll see that your proposed sentence violates example #4 with clutter, and violates example #3 by misleading the reader into thinking that Cambridge source is the only one describing Emerson that way. It appears you are unaware of the sheer volume of sources conveying those descriptions. You say, "If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however." Seriously? Have you been following the several Talk page discussions and noticeboard discussions? Following your suggestion, the result would look something like this at first, and only get worse over time:

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". 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". In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as...

You see where this will lead? Your suggestion to attribute the descriptions doesn't appear to produce a very encyclopedic paragraph (an "unwieldy and huge block of text" I called it, above). More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if my concerns are clear now; I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said. Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it. I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it. That I in the sentence stands for me, as in after you are more specific I can review what you are talking about and fix it. I did not tell you to go find others to fix it. I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific. Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it. Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here. And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it. And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article." We can move on.

What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said. In the final example you provide, of what the text would look like, you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation. But now that you have pointed out WP:INTEXT, following example 4, you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,". and the clutter is gone. As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that, how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do. I find this unnecessary myself. Reviewing your example, In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as... I'd have to say that's just over the top and putting alot of weight behind a guideline. WP:GUIDES, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. To read this example, According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous. If it was actually the case that this made it seem as if they were the only ones that shared this opinion, it would be only necessary to list and attribute 1 or 2 more sources. But then reading the entire paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article I can see no reasonable basis for this conclusion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said.

Yes, it was. Read what you wrote again. It's just above, in bold print. I think my paraphrase of what you said conveys everything necessary to establish my point. Given the choice of me or someone else, I chose me.

Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it.

Exactly. Me, or someone else; as I said. I chose Me (that's the meat & potatoes of my comment, by the way) rather than leave it to someone else.

I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it.

Correct. You did not. But then, I didn't say you asked me to find someone else, either. But you sure killed that straw man dead. Cheers.

I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific.

No, you said "...be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." It's still right there, just a few paragraphs up. And I did not chose that option, I chose the option before the word "or".

Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it.

I suppose so, but they didn't. Perhaps they will chime in now and propose a fix, now that the problem has been even further clarified.

Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here.

Um, duh? (I know such an obvious sentence doesn't require a response, but I didn't want you to think I haven't "actually followed" what you were saying, or "cherry picked" what I respond to.)

And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it.

Following policy is a wise decision.

And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article."

I don't disagree with that at all. (But I also have no idea where you are going with that.)

We can move on.

Please!

What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said.

...and you smell bad, wear funny clothes and have a third nipple. (See? We can both say silly, unsubstantiated stuff. Can we get back to article improvement now?)

you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation.

No, I didn't ignore that. You ignored that and used the unnecessary title.

you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,". and the clutter is gone.

That is a brilliant idea; wish I'd thought of that. Oh, wait, I did. Then you put the clutter back.

As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that...

I would ask you why not, but I predict I'd get only silence from you. I asked you to explain why you deleted my Washington Post reference. Silence. I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support. Silence. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. Silence.

...how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do.

You are sticking to the "attribute others" plan? Okay, this is reliably sourced:

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". 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".

That is not the best solution, however. More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if you agree.

To read this example, (example #3) and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous.

I agree, which is why I expressed surprise that you would apparently draw that conclusion and suggest "please do" add more attributions. The easiest solution to avoid making the "example #3" violation is to simply say that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY, and cite a couple of the best reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely WP:UNDUE - mind you that the article already calls Emerson "clearly a complete idiot" from someone with a history of making similar errors. No part of this is disinterest and I am done with all the bad faith accusations and desire to over-represent some tangential negative material and make it the bulk of a person's biography. Sorry, but - I'll wait until the battleground atmosphere is gone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, may I ask you to specify which of the above proposals you feel is WP:UNDUE? When having our article convey that Emerson has been described as "Islamophobic" and "discredited" (which he has to a significant enough degree that it warrants coverage in our article), what would you suggest? My preference (and I believe Wikipedia's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. However, another editor appears to prefer that we also convey (read: attribute) the sources, which are numerous and span the range from scholarly academic sources and top-tier news organizations to the lower-end watchdog groups, politicians, Muslim groups, rights advocates, etc. Perhaps you have a third option to suggest? The present wording in the page-protected version of the "Voiced concerns" paragraph violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by misleadingly attributing the negative descriptions to just one source. (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?")

I share your concern about the hyperbolic wording presently in the article (the "idiot" and "stupid" remarks from high-profile individuals). That is unencyclopedic content which will no doubt be replaced eventually by NPOV-compliant wording describing the remarks he made and the criticism it generated - without the shock-value quotes. There are many other obvious problems; why is there a 'controversies' section in a BLP? That's a no-no which will just become a collection pool of negative information. (The Boston & Birmingham paragraphs should be under the 'Voiced concerns' anyway.) Even the 'Reception' section is odd for an article about a person, rather than a film or a book. Why is Emerson described as Islamophobic in one section, an Islamophobe in another section, and his IPT organization described as advancing Islamophobic conspiracy theories in a third section, with different (or missing) explanation/rebuttal information in each? There are more problems as well, but I stray. I'm with you in hoping the battleground atmosphere goes away, but we're likely to have a long wait as long as editors are more concerned with other editors (nitpicking at what they say, reverting their edits wholesale, casting aspersions at them, etc.) instead of collaborative article improvement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Chris, I think this you have a great idea. Xenophoric, as to your question of why do I feel it's not misleading, I actually answered that. Again, reading the paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article, I find it unlikely. You are also misrepresenting that diff. I gave the position that mentioning the book was unnecessary. Personal opinion. No policy or guideline rationale, pretty much like you did. Such a rationale did not come until two or 3 days ago, after the revert. And this policy rationale only effects your position on cluttering. Your edit summary to the change I reverted indicated that you did it per BLP discussion. The talk here before that change doesn't indicate a clear consensus for your change. Your change wasn't attributed to removal of the cluttering. This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. If you have a policy basis for changes that present some clear rationale and you would like to discuss them then please share them, otherwise for me it would seem this conversation is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond for Xenophoric. Hi, Serialjoepsycho, and thank you for answering one of the five questions I've asked you recently; it's a start. Unfortunately, I've already seen the response you just gave about the misleading attribution, and I even said this about it above: (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?") So your repetition of the same thing doesn't advance the discussion. Of course you are welcome to your opinion that the misleading sentence is not misleading, but since Wikipedia policy gives that type of misleading sentence wording as an actual example of what not to do, we should follow policy over your personal opinion. I don't see in your comment any suggestion of how that can be improved. As for me "misrepresenting a diff", I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about which diff. The diff of me removing the attribution misleadingly (according to this BLPN discussion) indicating only a single source, and the associated clutter? Or the diff of you re-inserting the misleading attribution and unnecessary clutter? Some other diff from another editor? One comment of yours which gives me great hope and relief: This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. You asked me to share proposed changes, so I'll cut & paste one of the many from above: My preference (and I believe Wikipedia's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. Please let me know your thoughts on that format in general, and if acceptable we can fill in the specific text & citations. (Or not; there is no requirement that you participate at any article — but would hate to lose your familiarity with the subject matter.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll respond for you? Ok. That's answering again for the second time. The lead, have you read it? Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. You can pick thru the article and find other things in the article. But really what we have here is you arguing for the simple sake of argument. I already mention that even though I find it unnecessary, "I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well". What I would like to do (and I believe it's wikipedia's preference under wp:attributepov) is present biased statements of opinion with attribution. Though of course that should be obvious. Beyond that I would like to make other changes as necessary based off policy, guidelines, and common sense. What I'd rather not do is spend days arguing with someone for the simple sake of argument about a subject I despise. wp:attributepov is a policy, wp:intext is a guideline. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Policy trumps guidelines. Further this being a blp, that puts further weight on following the npov policy. Again, I do not see this attribution as misleading, 2 named individuals share this view. If you would like to, again as I've said, add and attribute a few more sources. But then this battle ground, your battleground. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll respond for you?

No, I said I'd respond for "Xenophoric" (which I assumed might be a mangling of my user name, but one never knows for sure, hence my caution).

That's answering again for the second time.

Yeah, I know and acknowledged that when I said above: So your repetition of the same thing doesn't advance the discussion. Since I'm already aware, perhaps you are clarifying that for Xenophoric?

The lead, have you read it?

You mean that poorly worded sentence specifically about (and cited to) his most recent "Birmingham" comment on Fox News? Yes, I saw it. A rather odd sentence for the lead which I assume will be fixed to be a proper summary once the article body content is cleaned up. What about it?

You can pick thru the article and find other things in the article.

Um, yeah... and? Is this going somewhere? Because I thought we were discussing how we were going to handle the descriptions of Emerson as Islamophobic and discredited. Are you implying that the sentence in the lead summarizes those descriptions of Emerson in some way? It doesn't (nor do any of the reference citations appended to it). What, specifically, would I find of relevance in the article after picking through it? Let's get into the nuts & bolts of this so that we can resolve it, please. The generalizations are not productive.

But really what we have here is you arguing for the simple sake of argument.

Oh great, now you have resorted to being nasty again. Or perhaps you are projecting. Just so you are clear, I argue to present the reasoning behind whatever conclusions I am advancing. Granted, you are making the process feel like chipping at a granite block with an icepick, but I'm still hopeful more progress can be made.

What I'd rather not do is spend days arguing with someone for the simple sake of argument about a subject I despise.

You say that now, and I'd like to believe you, but as I look at the immediately preceding exchanges between us, I'm left suspecting you will just resume again after reading this.

wp:attributepov is a policy, wp:intext is a guideline. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Policy trumps guidelines.

If you are going with that as an argument in this discussion, I think you are going to end up very disappointed. First, to clarify what we are talking about: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is the policy which instructs us to see the WP:INTEXT guideline; it doesn't "trump" it, or in any way disagree or contradict it. (But that gave me a good chuckle, thanks.)

I already mention that even though I find it unnecessary, "I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well". What I would like to do (and I believe it's wikipedia's preference under wp:attributepov) is present biased statements of opinion with attribution ... 2 named individuals share this view. If you would like to, again as I've said, add and attribute a few more sources.

Yes; you did say that. Since policy dictates that we convey proper weight and prevalence of a viewpoint, attributing the viewpoint to just a single source edited by two individuals is problematic. You say you see no problem with adding more attributions, so may I assume you would have no objections to rewording this text thusly? (With proper cites added, of course.)

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".

Even if you see no problem with that paragraph, wouldn't you agree that a more encyclopedic format would be: to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So it doesn't look like there's anything else. Seems ready for a close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Then would you do the honors of summarizing whatever "resolution" we've reached so that we can ask for a determination and close by an uninvolved admin? That would go a long way toward staving off another repeat (5th?) discussion over similar issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No I won't. The closer doesn't need a summary argument in my opinion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%! But then, I didn't ask you for another argument. Since you indicated you felt this was "ready for a close", I figured you would be the best candidate to summarize what "resolution" (see the header title above) we have reached. I'd wager other editors would be interested in your summary as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You should perhaps go back read this whole thing. I'm not marking this as resolved, I'm not determining the "resolution" or rather consensus, I'm leaving that to the closer, the uninvolved closer. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should I go back and re-read "this whole thing"? Has something been recently added that I might have missed? Then simply point it out, if you would. I do see now why you balk at my request that you summarize the resolution: there isn't a resolution, as evidenced by the renewed discussion over the very same issue at the Emerson Talk page. An uninvolved closer could not mark this as resolved either way. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• This should have been an open and shut case. Are there reliable sources saying he is an islamophobe? Yes. So it should be in the article. I understand biographies of living person shouldn't have fringe stuff but this isn't fringe. Plenty of mainstream, reliable sources back it up. And people are being banned for this? Shame. Popish Plot (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Existence of reliable sourcing doesn't appear to be at issue. The newer disagreement asserts that all those reliable sources must be "biased", for as yet unclarified reasons. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. We need to close this discussion, all I see is filibustering. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

willy moon

the word "cunt" is used heaps of times in the personal life section...

Willy Moon

I removed all but the first instance and tried to rephrase the section in more neutral language. I suspect in 200 years some social science PhD Robot will write a thesis on this sad era of decadence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though there is a source for the negative content, I don't believe that just having a reliable source is always a sufficient reason for including such content about a living person. It needs to be a notable part of his personal life (such as the other text in the "Personal life" section about his marriage) to be included in his biography. But in this case, I think instead it is just celebrity gossip, so I removed it (but it has been added back in). I'm disappointed to see that other editors are edit warring to reinclude this potentially BLP-violating content before any consensus to include it has been established here. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• The text is nonsense and it should be removed. A public figure melted down during a traffic incident, and Wikipedia is used to tell the world and poke the celebrity. If anyone cares, they can wait for a few months then add a report to the article on any long-term effects of the he-said-a-bad-word incident. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it should. The open letter was the only interesting part of it. The section has been watered down so much it is no longer worthwhile. -- haminoon (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! [32] "Popdust.com" is not used as a reliable source for a contentious claim in a BLP! That site also has important and solid news on "Azealia Banks Is Stunning In Pussylicious ‘Playboy’ Shoot—See The Photos!", "In Bed With Lainne—Maggie Talks Sex, Self Doubt, Confidence And BJs", "Patrick Schwarzenegger—I Did NOT Cheat On Miley Cyrus In Cabo!", "Was Gigi Hadid Snorting Cocaine At Miami Event?" etc. Wonderful source, IMO. Will someone tell the cunt aficionados that "Pop Dust" is possibly not quite the normal level of sourcing required? Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok its not a reliable source. However those article titles are only marginably trashier than those found on NZ newspaper sites we usually use. Also wasn't really a contentious claim. -- haminoon (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

First - is the use of the word "of encyclopedic value" for someone fifty years from now? Second - how in heck can anyone think "Pop Dust" could ever be remotely acceptable as a source for anything at all in any BLP? The RS given uses the asterisks - thus we are bound to do no more. And I seriously doubt this tempête dans un verre d'eau is worth the paper we use on it. Collect (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the above; since the reliable source bleeps the word out, the Wikipedia article should, too. Epic Genius (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

re 50 years : probably more than the rest of the article. This guy isn't famous for music - he's famous for the media shitstorms that surround him. But anyway I deleted the offending passage because it made no sense without the surrounding context. -- haminoon (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Trim, trim and trim. A personal life section for anyway no matter how much they have enraged a small island nation should not have five sentances for a traffic tantrum and one for a wedding. Hell I agree with Johnuniq that it should just be removed entirely. AIRcorn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the tantrum is currently out of the article (and long may it stay so). But if anyone seriously considers restoring it, they should describe it as it is described in the newspaper's voice, not how either side reports it. In this article [33] it is described as "Willy Moon swore at a woman in a crowded bakery". No more need be said about the exact language - this is an encyclopaedia, not a creative writing exercise, and "show, don't tell" does not appear to be the rule here - and any reader still curious as to which particular Naughty Word was involved can follow the link to the newspaper article. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

findmypast.co.uk

I've noticed a number of birth dates being cited to findmypast.co.uk, which is a copy of public records for births and deaths. I can see the point of using this to cite dates for long deceased people, but for living people I'm dead against it as it violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. I take the view that if a notable person doesn't want their DOB publicised, we should respect that. What do others think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the site also has copies of newspapers so I guess it depends on what findmypast source is used. AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Joel Osteen

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has added and readded Category:Prosperity theologians to the page Joel Osteen. Since Osteen has specifically denied being a prosperity theologian, which is explained in the article, he should not be placed in that category per WP:CAT/R. Norton has suggested that it's fine because it's not an autobiography, but I don't think that's relevant. We should not expect people to file an OTRS just to have something like that addressed, that is an unrealistic and bureaucratic expectation. Norton has suggested I bring the issue here. As an added note, the entire category seems very problematic, since "prosperity theologian" is a contentious and controversial label which is often used in a disparaging manner. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• He doesn't like the term prosperity theology which Wikipedia describes as "a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will increase one's material wealth." There are half a dozen references using the term to describe his writings and preachings as just that in the article. We have to decide whether we are his biographers or his press agents. This is not an autobiography and the term is not a pejorative or libelous. It exactly describes his writing and preachings even if the term is not one he would use to describe himself. If he finds it pejorative he can file and OTRS and it can be evaluated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• We've got a split discussion going on. I'm copy/pasting my response from Talk:Joel Osteen:

Look, I'm not defending Osteen, but I really disagree that it's not pejorative. I think it has some very serious negative connotations, which is exactly why he has spent so much time denying it. Regardless, it's a religious issue, and he's said he isn't one, I think that's a BLP issue. Categories just don't have any room for context or nuance, so adding him to one is making a value judgment about his religious position that he himself denies. Explain it, expand it, whatever, but blanket categorization seems like a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, expecting him to file an OTRS is unrealistic and bureaucratic. We should not ask people to go through such a process to fix something they've already gone on record about. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CAT/R requires him to self identify and as he himself says: "I get grouped into the prosperity gospel and I never think it's fair, but it's just what it is." It is like disliking being called a US Congressman and being grouped with people that have to resign for misusing funds or soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in an airport. WP:CAT/R says we can't pick a religion for someone by guessing, but he is an ordained minister, so it is not a guess. This isn't a religion like Islam or Christian or Buddhist, but a philosophy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a useful comparison. People take oaths to become Congressmen. By requirement, one must at some point strongly self-identify as a Congressmen. As far as I know, Osteen has never said he was a prosperity theologian. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the subject likes the characterization or not - are there reliable sources that call him that? If so then the category is fine, otherwise it's not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This 60 Minutes clip says "Osteen preaches his own version of what is known as the 'prosperity gospel' ...", which is the only use of the term there. Other than that, most serious profiles have mentioned that he is associated with prosperity theology, but with qualifiers, or otherwise avoiding specifics. For example, this interview asks a question that starts "Some of your critics say that your so-called prosperity Gospel isn't in keeping with the traditional Christian message ..." Other than that, opinion pieces or similar from detractors (of which there are many) often give him that label. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) Disagree. For information used in the article this is fine as it can be presented in context. When it comes to categories context is not provided. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove. WP:CAT/R is [retty clear in this case. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the quotes about him and the cover story in Time magazine:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (talk • contribs)

• While I have to agree that he looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, eats like a duck, flies like a duck, tastes great with pancakes and bean paste, gets shot at by hunters after misdirection from wascuwy wabbits, is referred to as a duck by amateur birdwatchers, hockey fans, professional ornithologists, veterinarians; -- and even quacks on occasion... he has yet to explicitly quack the words "I am a prosperity theologian, I agree with and advocate prosperity theology, and I disagree with its opposing ideas," which is unfortunately the requirement, not other people pointing out that a duck is a duck. We can probably, however, say in the body of the article (and maybe even the lede) that almost everyone but him regards him as a prosperity theologian. We just can't place him in that category. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After looking over the discussion and sources I'd say that the category does not apply here, because it provides no context and cannot be qualified in any way. Categories are absolute - either the subject is X or not, but they brook no ambiguity, and in this case there is some ambiguity if the subject specifically rejects the label. That the material about prosperity preaching belongs in the article is not contestable, the problem is the category. If the catg was called "Ministers considered by some people to be prosperity preachers" or whatever then that would be OK, but that's not how we categorize subjects. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say it doesn't apply. Some sources may choose to apply the term because of what they interpret to be "prosperity gospel", but if he has explicitly come out time and again and said he isn't a proponent of it, there is reasonable doubt. In the case of a BLP, the benefit of the doubt should go to leaving it out. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke

Matthew VanDyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article that's suffered extensive personal attacks in the past. This time it's someone posting psychiatric diagnoses (narcissism, egomania) using newspapers and blogs as references. Talk page discussion here, contentious edits in history. I think it's completely wrong, User:Slugfilm is citing policy as reasons to put diagnoses into a BLP, I seek outside opinions on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have set out a full summary of this disagreement in the talk page discussion. I am not seeking to include psychiatric diagnoses - I am seeking to include descriptions of character traits repeatedly observed by media commentators. I'd also welcome the opinions of other Users. - Slugfilm (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my opininon narcissism should not be used, but egocentric can. Also the criticism of VanDyke in relation to point and shoot should be added under point and shoot not in its own section. Naturally any criticism should be attributed correctly. The problem I have with narcissism, is that even if it is meant as a personality trait to be correct it is assuming he is receiving gratification from the attention. That is original research from the sources presented and we should not be presenting others original research in a blp. I feel this can't be used even with attribution since and narcissism has negative medical connotation. A decent criticism can be written summerising the sources without going into grey territory. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your constructive comment AIRcorn. I therefore suggest the following language is included in the "Point and Shoot" section: "Media commentators have described VanDyke as egocentric and have questioned whether his experiences in the Middle East were driven by desire for fame and adrenaline, rather than geopolitical conviction." - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to the narcissism/egocentricity issue, I would like to make two additional changes as detailed in the talk page discussion: deletion of an unsupported comparison to Che Guevara and acknowledgement of the dispute between VanDyke and the Committee to Protect Journalists. I welcome opinions on these two further changes. - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Controversies section contains allegations of lothario behaviours and other remarks. Does it violate the policy? --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the only source used is the daily mail I would say yes. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the Kashmir issue? --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources seem reliable and it looks like it is worth mentioning. Maybe incorporate it into politics instead of its own section. The last sentence seems minor though, maybe not needed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User with edits to only a single page blanking sections after 4 editors warned them not to

Posted at ANI

Pmesiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made edits to the BLP page of politician Bernie Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only ever blanking sections, after being cautioned not to do so by four different editors, and has breached 3RR twice on 1 September 2014 and on 16 June 2014. The user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and has made no productive contributions. Vandalism tools help to rollback section blanking - but I would recommend at least banning that user from editing that page. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody has started a discussion on the talk page. Anyway, at a brief look at the sources, I believe The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are generally considered acceptable broadsheet newspaper sources, as is the Australian Parliamentary Hansard. The Herald Sun, however, is considered tabloid journalism and should not be used. Finn seems to have a reputation for controversial right wing views that sit uncomfortably with his party, and these have been documented in the broadsheets acceptably. Therefore his anti-abortion views, and criticism to them by other politicians, should stand. I've toned down the anti-abortion remarks, sticking close to exactly what The Age says, and I think that should set the tone for how we proceed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, Pmesiti stated on User talk:Dsprc "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further"

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Pmesiti using SPA declares he is paid media advisor of politician whose page he keeps blanking.

-- Aronzak (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Thrift

The recent addition of paragraph 4 on the controversies section on this page appears to go beyond facts and into opinion. I would be grateful if a wiki editor/volunteer could look at it and act as they think appropriate within the spirit of Wikipedia as it is not appropriate for me to do so as someone linked to the individual concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter J Dunn (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourced only to YouTube, which is clearly not acceptable here. Removed and watchlisted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Judd

Ashley Judd

The following statement "On March 17, 2015, Judd filed mutiple police reports against those who tweeted her, threatening with sexual assault, violence and rape." does not take a neutral point of view. Ms. Judd has yet to show evidence of anyone threatening her. All that has currently been proven is that Ms. Judd received vulgar and classless comments from Twitter followers (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.64.22 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The source used doesn't mention "sexual assault, violence and rape" in the same way it is portrayed in the article so I have rewritten it to hopefully more accurately reflect the source. AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders SENATOR from Vermont

Bernie Sanders is NOT the JUNIOR Senator from Vermont, he is just the SENATOR of Vermont. To call him a Junior Senator is libelous; the person that keeps changing his standing on Wikipedia is only doing so in hopes to discredit him. As Bernie Sanders seriously considers running for U.S. president in 2016, anyone that does any preliminary research on him will be put off or met with false information that will make him seem less legitimate, when he is one of the longest-standing congressman currently serving. Bernie Sanders is the Senator from Vermont. See http://www.sanders.senate.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellthatsdope (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanders is the junior Vermont senator, Patrick Leahy is the senior senator from Vermont. That's simply the order of seniority, not libel. All sitting U.S. senators are thus characterized. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Someone clearly doesn't know what libel means. No libel here.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pat Leahy is also the most senior senator, period. I would give Seniority in the United States Senate a read, Wellthatsdope. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Nisan 5775 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Scott

Rick Scott has repeatedly had material asserting that someone in Florida "banned" the use of the term "climate change." No source asserts that he ordered any such ban, and there is some evidence that no such ban actually exists.

The "Florida Center for Investigative Reporting" is the source for the claim ... and makes no connection to Scott. The "Guardian" report states " In a complaint against the state, worker says he was accused of violating policy and instructed to get a mental health evaluation after mentioning climate change " where it does not aver Scott was the one who called for any such ban, and the worker did not make such a claim.

Is it proper to make the statement:

Though Scott denies banning the term climate change for use by Florida state officials, there is evidence that a ban exists, and there has been one recorded occurrence of a Florida state official having been reprimanded for use of the term climate change. A longtime employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was reprimanded with suspension pending a metal health evaluation from his doctor to verify his “fitness for duty”. after having used the term climate change in the course of his duties.

The BLP already clearly notes that Scott is a skeptic of AGW - that is not an issue here. The issue is an implication that although Scott denied doing it, that Scott ordered such a ban. As I read it, the sources do not support Wikipedia making such a direct connection. Collect (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you haven't participated in the talk page discussion that I already started?- MrX 17:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that this is a valid topic for BLP/N? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not sure why this can't be resolved at the article talk page. There's already a productive discussion underway. I'm guided by the instructions at the top of this page which say "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Of course, you're free to post here if you wish.- MrX 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also a little surprised at the jump to BLP/N. I thought the talk page was working well. As a matter of fact, the above text was deleted through simple talk page consensus. As a matter of fact the editor who contributed the above text thanked me for deleting it. Hugh (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "skeptic" here, as that's very clearly a politicized euphemism for "denier", which is the correct term. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• You can be a skeptic without being a denier. Like an agnostic vs atheist. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I completely fail to see how that analogy could possibly be valid. This is climate change denial, not skepticism. And as our article on the subject makes very clear, the Koch brothers are behind it, as well as financing Scott's reelection. That the two are directly connected is not a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you don't get to make the "oh it's the Koch Bros, so it must be denial" argument until you're doing it for a reliable third party source. In other words, your personal opinion of that connection is meaningless. If he says I am skeptical, but I'm not a scientist, that isn't a denial. That can be someone who hasn't decided where he's landing yet. I'm unclear why you are struggling with the difference between the word skeptic and the word denial. I'm pretty sure you're able to distinguish them, so that really leads me to believe you are trying to paint it a certain way, especially after your Koch comment. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't offered you a personal opinion, I've offered you solid facts that are already published by reliable sources. You don't get to create an alternative reality where "denial" means skepticism. That's simply not how the word is used. Scott was briefed by climate scientists and ignored their findings, research that is supported by the scientific community. Ignoring such research is called climate change denial, particularly when the person in question was financed and beholden to the Kochs, a leading source of climate change denial. Words have meaning and facts are facts. Scott has been advised of the current scientific consensus regarding AGW and denies it. Anything else you need me to clear up for you? Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• When you said that the Koch brothers are behind it, you're starting into personal opinion. They have no place in this conversation. Regardless, I'm not using a personal definition at all. If I am unsure of the truth of something, I am skeptical. "not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations". If I say something can possibly be true, I am denying. "the action of declaring something to be untrue". I can show where Scott has expressed doubt (skepticism). Can you show where he has said that climate change isn't possibly real (denial)? What you (and the climate change community) have done is tried to alter the word for your own point making. I'm using the dictionary to define the word, not making it be what I want it to sound like. The only thing you've cleared up here is to erase any notion that you don't have an agenda. Scott has said he's skeptical. That is amply supported in the article. Stop trying to make it say something factually incorrect just because it fits your cause. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're simply mistaken and uninformed on all counts: 1) the Koch brothers helped fund and get Scott elected. This is not under dispute by anyone nor is it personal opinion. 2) the Koch brothers are directly relevant because they fund climate change denial. This is not in dispute by anyone nor is it a personal opinion. 3) "climate change skepticism" is demonstrably a politicized euphemism for climate change denial. This is not a personal opinion or in dispute. 4) Scott is not a climate scientist, he's a politician who has briefings and advisors to help him understand issues like climate change. He has been given these briefings by leading scientists and he refuses to recognize their validity. This is not "skepticism", this is denial. True skepticism is part of the scientific method, and directly supports the validity of AGW based on the evidence. 5) pointing out your errors is not promoting a cause of any kind. That Scott is directly connected to climate science denial is relevant to his biography. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wow....

1) I never denied that the Koch Bros contributed to his reelection. That's not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the relevance to this discussion. Why? Because it's NOT. There are 4 sources in the article currently supporting this claim of a ban on the term. Not one of them mentions the Koch brothers, so why are you?

2) More about the Koch brothers.....which is to say more of your personal SYNTH. The sources aren't talking about them. Only you are. Your bias and agenda are just clouding the issue by wasting time talking about something that only you are talking about.

3) Oh that IS your personal opinion. I'll make this simple. Can you find me a quote where Rick Scott has said that climate change isn't possible? Can you show me a quote where he has said that man made factors have no influence at all? I bet you can't. I can, however, show you where he's expressed SKEPTICISM. Call it a euphemism if you want, but know that is your opinion and it is in dispute.

4) There is no way to respond to your personal definition. I have a dictionary that tells me the difference between the words. You have an opinion that differs. I can cite my dictionary on Wikipedia. You can't cite your personal definitions.

5) You're correct, pointing out errors is not having a cause. If that was what you were doing, I wouldn't have talked about your cause. Where this becomes about your cause is when you start introducing irrelevant SYNTH (1 and 2), then using a definition that conflicts with the reliable sources (dictionaries) (3 and 4). In the end, half of your argument is about a connection to people that even the sources aren't talking about and the other half is based on your position that skeptic doesn't mean what the dictionary says, it really means denial. (Which sounds like a Bush "if you're not with us, you're against us" position). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Governor Scott's public position on climate change has pretty consistently been one of a skeptic, at least according to the Washington Post. I don't think we can employ original research to assert that he is a denier, although you may well be right about that.- MrX 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I too am dismayed that it seems like "denier" is a banned term on WP. Sort of like "climate change" and "global warming" in Florida. But I guess I trust our readers on this and I lack the will to fight for the one word and I instead try to put my energies into getting in facts that speak. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody has banned it. There's simply a difference between the words. I haven't seen Dumb and Dumber To. It may be hilarious, I don't know. But I saw the previews and I'm skeptical that I'd like it, so I'm not renting it from Redbox. I'm not denying that it is funny because I don't have enough info to say if it is or not. You can call me a "comedy denier", but I've denied nothing, just expressed skepticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's not banned, it's just that in practice it cannot be used, all deniers are changed to skeptics in a nanosecond. And I think you should open your heart to Dumb and Dumber To. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

According to WP there are no climate change deniers. Even Jim Inhofe is a climate change skeptic. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage in the MSM is gradually shifting from the inaccurate "skeptic" to more appropriate terms. By design, WP follows rather than leads. So usage in WP eventually will change accordingly. But not yet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

← WP:BLP states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. The allegation that Rick Scott's office banned state scientists from talking about climate change is well-documented by multiple reliable sources, including:

... and so on. This allegation is extremely well-documented in multiple reliable sources and thus meets BLP criteria. In fact, this seems so clear-cut that I'm unclear on the rationale for claiming a BLP violation here. Collect (talk · contribs), could you elaborate on why you believe this material does not meet the bar set in BLP policy? MastCell ^Talk 06:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP. No source makes any explicit claim that Scott ordered it (other than a headline writer - making a claim not in the body of the article for which he wrote the headline) and the USA Today ascribing a claim to the Miami Herald not found in the MH text (which was written by FCIR - so if the original author does not make a claim - those citing him make any extended claim without a ladder underneath them). Headlines which are not supported by the body of any article are weak sources at best.

The "reprimand" was stated to be for addressing issues not on an agenda, and not for using the verboten phrase.

In short - certainly enough to place in a Florida DEP article, stating "unwritten policy of the Florida DEP" but insufficient to place in a BLP making allegations not actually found in the FCIR source. Once a specific living person is named, then WP:BLP must apply. As the allegation, sources carefully do not say "Scott initiated the policy" (at most - they say the "unwritten policy" was made after a new DEP chief was named in 2011 - which seems to indicate that the new DEP chief might conceivably be the actual person making any "unwritten policy" - Bibler's reprimand for making comments about Keystone at a meeting where the pipeline was not on the agenda was made on 9 March. after Scott appointed a replacement for Herschel Vinyard Jr as DEP director.)

I trust this explains why I feel claims asserting a link to Scott are weak in any specifics, but strong for the Florida DEP as related to that agency. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW regarding strange claims above - FCIR has made absolutely zero assertions abut the Kochs secretly running Florida government - and such claims would fail WP:BLP in a heartbeat. We already have more than enough conspiracies involving living persons already. Collect (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP". The Washington Post article (in the above list of sources) also mentions the Florida Department of Health. The Miami Herald article (same list of sources; above) specifically lists South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of Health and Florida Department of Transportation. In fact, the title of the article is Gov. Rick Scott’s ban on climate change term extended to other state agencies The article also states: "The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting first reported Sunday that Gov. Rick Scott’s administration ordered DEP employees, contractors and volunteers not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications."- MrX 13:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Governor Scott denied that his administration/office has a policy, but of course that doesn't negate the possibility that he used his executive influence to unofficially suppress any mention of 'global warming' and 'climate change'. It also doesn't negate the possibility that he is being untruthful.- MrX 13:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough to include it in its current form. Plenty of reliable sources (shown just above) link him to banning scientists using climate change so no WP:Synth is invoved. FWIW he sees well into the denier camp from a quick read of those sources. Some even directly call him that. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

Earlier today, List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was deleted through an AfD process, subsequent to discussion here at BLPN. Likewise, I nominated List of international political sex scandals for speedy deletion today. Here in this BLPN section, I would like to suggest deletion of a very similar list: List of state and local political scandals in the United States, and I expect to go through AfD on this one unless someone would like to talk me out of it here.

Following are some parts of WP:BLP that seem relevant: (1) "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. (2) "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many of these entries characterize scandalous behavior as fact rather than allegation. (3) "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Many of these entries involve accusations of criminal behavior for which there has been no conviction, and yet they are characterized as scandals and mixed in with incidents that have resulted in convictions. (4) "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." There is inherent guilt by association here, because acquitted people, and people who have merely been accused, are listed together with convicted people. (5) "[B]iographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It is not fair to list people here who have merely been accused, together with people who have been convicted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are available sources for 'state and local political scandals in the United State' as a group, the list should be deleted per WP:LISTN. Unfortunately, this argument frequently looses over ILIKEIT at AfD.- MrX 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ernesto de Lucas Hopkins

This page does not meet many requirements related to Biographies of living persons

Please be specific. What parts do you believe violate WP:BLP? Has anyone objected when you tried to correct the problems?- MrX 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not the easiest to review due to my ignorance with languages other than English. However, there is a section that talks up his achievements that is mostly sourced to https://www.ehui.com. I can't open it so not sure what it is exactly. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be opened, but not as an https: site, needs to be http://www.ehui.com. Since my spanish is sparse, I can't really tell what that site is. It appears to be a Spanish-News site, but I'm not sure. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that immediately appears contentious/negative/poorly-sourced. It would be helpful if you'd describe more fully your issues with the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re. Sam Herman glassblower

Sam Herman came to England in 1966 from Wisconsin where he had set up a glass studio at the university similar to "studio pottery" art work. He taught at Stourbridge College of Art where the first innovative practical glass design and blowing course in the country had just been started (before the RCA).Stourbridge was the centre for England's lead crystal glass industry at the time.He taught the first ever studio glass makers in Britain such as Karlin Rushbrooke who went on to have his own studio.Sam Herman persuaded David Queensberry the then professor of ceramics at the RCA and external assessor to the Glass course at Stourbridge to begin a similar course in the RCA ceramics studios at Kensington Gore in 1968/9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.37.249 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there some particular problem with the Sam Herman article-- or some other reason why you came here ? DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

Two edits by jps on March 19 2015 [34] and [35] add the words "denialism website" about Anthony Watts (blogger)'s blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), in the lead. I claim this could damage Mr Watts's reputation as a blogger, and is poorly sourced.

• The sole source is Michael E. Mann, well known as an expert on climate but not known for qualification to judge whether WUWT is a "denial" site. ("Denial" is the word Mr Mann actually used.) Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier" , calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.
• jps has said several times that there are many other sources, even "dozens", that "the most reliable sources call Watts a denier", etc. But when I asked twice what those sources are, I was brushed off -- see here and here
• I noted six passing mentions in reputable-looking sources which call WUWT a "skeptic" site (a mild word that Mr Watts himself uses): scientific american washington post a book Times Online another book Orange County Register. I claim it is wrong to name-call if the majority of sources are against you, and cited an administrator's statement concluding a denier-versus-skeptic argument last year on WP:ANI: "... We use what the majority of sources use. ...". I claim the administrator's statements were general and apply to cases like this.
• I twice suggested we could use a more bland term such as "climate-related", but was ignored.
• The article already contains 3 critical quotes about WUWT (and zero praise quotes), so even if Mann's opinion was attributed and was outside the lead and had been reasoned, it would be excessive unbalance.
• Discussion of the edits is in the latter part of this talk thread. In that thread are references to jps labelling someone -- presumably me -- a "POV-pusher", to jps threatening to take me to WP:AE for unspecified reasons, to jps suggesting I was into edit-war. Thus I am deterred from reverting, and take the matter here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Although WUWT is by any reasonable measure a denialist site, they are not generally described as such in the mainstream press other than a few British papers. Thus WUWT should be described as "skeptical" following the majority of sources. Common usage is gradually shifting away from the inaccurate "skeptical," but by design Wikipedia lags trends in usage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you should check the sources we have that are not press sources but rather academic sources. They are pretty clear in their evaluation of the site as being part of the "denial machine". jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority of sources say that, but even so, in cases where sources conflict Wikipedia should defer to what the highest quality expert sources say, a strategy that has been used in the past. Wikipedia should prefer quality over quantity. I have noticed that Nature (certainly one of the best expert sources) has used contrarian and contrarianism lately, e.g. [36]. I would be fine with that. Manul ~ talk 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Mann book is, of course, a high quality expert source as well. However there's no need to quest for a perfect word, as if we are trying to save bandwidth. I would also be satisfied with something like "opposes the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change". Manul ~ talk 06:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that before Peter decided to cut short the discussion and come here, we were having a little chat about WP:SOURCECOUNTING which is the dubious practice in which Peter is engaged. Note that the best way to write articles is not to simply provide laundry lists of sources backing you up, but to find the best sources which most reliably explain (or refute) the point being made. I tend to think that one good academic source is better than four media sources, one denialist book, and a book which uses the terms "skeptic" and "denialist" interchangeably, but I now see the number of sources, absurdly, is the only metric Peter seems capable of understanding. It is not difficult to find a source-for-source oneupmanship of Peter's list, but I would prefer not to stoop to such petty gameplaying. What I did do is refute the claim that there is only one source that describes the denial nature of the site. I added two additional academic sources that explain the point about the blogsite and I think we can rest assured that the claim is very well sourced to independent, expert reviews of this website. jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

jps cites wp:sourcecount which in fact is just an essay written by none other than jps, and jps cites this "academic source" which in fact doesn't say WUWT is a denier blog but says that Watts and McIntyre are "global warming skeptics" and "Muller [i.e. Richard A. Muller] agrees that they are skeptics not deniers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:SOURCECOUNTING, you are welcome to try to get it deleted. Otherwise, you should note that cherrypicking quotes from the text of the paper does you no good when any person can see in the quote provided that Watts' blog is explicitly called out as falling into denialism. jps (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• A quick look at the blog site and I don't see how it could be described as anything else except a denialist site. Disagree with following the majority of sources, we should follow the best sources and it is hard to go past the nature one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, first the label is being applied to the blog, not the person. But, secondly, if, say, a living AIDS denier objects to being called an AIDS denier, that does not mean they get a veto option over the label solely on the basis of their objection. If the reliable, independent sources about the person indicate that the label is appropriate, then it is actually a violation of NPOV to remove the label or water it down. jps (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Neither the blog or the person (which are linked) should be labeled using an obviously pejorative term. We would not describe Mann by what Watt's said and the same applies to Watt's. Remove any pejorative labels and use labels provided by Watts. --DHeyward (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Watts is an amateur who did not publish his evaluation of Mann's work in a book published by an academic press. Mann, on the other hand, has published his evaluation of Watts' blog in a book that was published by Columbia University Press. WP:PARITY should be considered here. The fringe viewpoint is Watts', and until he is successful in extracting himself from his marginalization, it is not okay for Wikipedia to simply split the difference between poor sources and good sources. jps (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Watts is among those promoting a misinformation campaign about climate science, framing this as "skeptical" misleads the public and contravenes policy on giving "equal validity" to these fringe views of science. Scientific skepticism denotes standards of open investigation which Watts and others don't meet, so "skeptic" is misleading and pseudoskepticism is the proper term. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• The edit in question does not "label" Watts -- it labels the blog, and it does so on the basis of a high-quality source. I have therefore reinstated the description. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question we should be asking ourselves is how do the majority of reliable sources refer to this topic. Assuming good faith, we have 3 sources which use the term "denialist". What about all the others? Surely, there are more than 3 reliable sources about this topic else the article would be deleted for lack of notability. What do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? Do they refer to it as "denialist", "skeptic", "contrarian", some other term, or no term at all? If, for example, only 20% of sources use the term "denialist", then it's clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to use that same term in Wikipedia's voice. OTOH, if 80% use this term, then it's perfectly fine. Has anyone done such an analysis to see what the majority of reliable sources actually say about this topic? In any case, WP:BLP requires that we be cautious about contentious BLP matters so I have temporarily removed it from the article while this discussion is pending. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's a fine way to put it, but we have to look for sources which talk explicitly about the blog and look at which ones are best. The best sources I have found characterize the POV of the blog as "denial". The marginally worse ones may use the term "skeptic". jps (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's too simplistic in my opinion to just count sources that meet a certain threshold of reliability and use an arbitary percentage to determine whether to use a term or not. Reliability is more a spectrum, some sources are more reliable than others. Quality journals should be given much more weight than magaizine or newspaper articles. How much weight to give each is debatable, but my preference would be to give scholarily pieces a lot lot more, especially in the lead. Almost to the point where they are all that are used. In the body context can be provided between different sources, but in the lead the best current source should always prevail. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge: That is the question that we have asked ourselves, and we at this time have 6 sources which call WUWT a skeptic blog (listed above), and 2 which call it a denialist / denier blog (jps listed 3 but see the refutation above), and "a few dozen" which jps announced but has not shown. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "refutation" of one of my chosen sources is refuted in the quote provided in the citation itself. As for other sources, I'm not of a mind to go digging for comparisons in the media because I don't think the media is the best source for this kind of question. I have given you a peer-reviewed paper and two books published by university presses. When you provide me comparable sources, I think we can discuss whether you have met your burden. jps (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that "denial" reeks of Holocaust denial and it is a pejorative term. Connolley used to use the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" and can no longer edit BLPs out of the ArbCom ruling. This is no different. No matter how many of Watt's detractors use the term "denial", it's pejorative in nature and offers no further insight than "sceptic" (or "skeptic"). I question why anyone would vociferously argue for a term that minimalises the Holocaust when a perfectly acceptable alternative is available. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There really is no term that is entirely suitable. "Skeptic" implies scientific skepticism; "denial" is taken by some (primarily those toward whom the term is applied, and those who sympathize with them) as invoking Holocaust denial; other terms have their own problems. Academic literature uses both terms. There's no obviously correct answer here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Then we should not qualify it at all. "climate change blog" is adequate if it cannot be bucketed. If "denial" was not a pejorative, I have trouble believing that it's innocently being applied when the subjects object so strongly. It's very hard to say he denies global warming. He's sceptical of the cause of attribution. That's apparent from the article. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We need to let the reader know that the blog hosts only climate change denial pieces. I don't really care how we do it (calling it "climate change skepticism" is not an acceptable "compromise" as has been outlined elsewhere), but to pretend it is simply a "climate change blog" would be very misleading. jps (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• We can use some more watchful eyes on this article. We have an editor who continues to edit-war contentious WP:BLP content into the article[37][38] without participating in this discussion which remains outstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the article should be protected until this is worked out, and will ask an admin.

By the way, if you make an allegation of misconduct against someone (namely, edit warring) Wikipedia convention is that you must notify that individual. Have you done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Could we please avoid Godwin's Law here? This kind of argument is not reasonable or convincing. If meant as a joke, it's not an appropriate one. Manul ~ talk 02:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the article I tried the compromise "a website that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change", though upon reflection it still falls short of accurately describing how the website is received by mainstream science. Considering that we have a climate change denial article, and considering that high quality academic sources describe the site as denialism, we need to set aside this argument that there is a BLP violation resulting from an accurate description of a website. Manul ~ talk 03:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The view that "denial" is a slur is, I think, sincerely held, but much more importantly it is false -- the phrase is both accurate and widely employed to describe Watts's blog. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is either one or the other. Personally, I would say that words intended to denigrate / dismiss / ridicule others would count as "slurs" even if widely used and accurate. For example, calling someone a "racist" or a "bigot" is often used to ridicule or be dismissive of someone, but nonetheless the usage is widely accepted when discussing certain people whose racism has been established in detail. In my experience, calling someone a "climate change denier" (or "denialist") is often also used as a form of socially-acceptable ridicule. Personally, I would generally discourage using language like that because it is inflammatory and a contentious label, and only consider using it in the most extreme and well-documented of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware: denial of issues due to climate change is causing unspeakable problems. . . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just say that Watts "does not accept the current scientific understanding of climate change"? This wording is obviously correct, makes clear his position and its relationship to the scientific consensus on the topic, and avoids charged terms like "denialist", "skeptic", etc. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  That's the correct position to take. As far as I am concerned, the entire term "denial" is a ploy to establish camps of believers and nonbelievers and there are many reputable scientists that believe in climate change but disagree as to the severity or short and long term trends.--MONGO 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Got any sources for your assertions, MONGO? jps (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud -- yes, the scientific community contains people with a variety of views on a variety of issues. To think that this natural variation has anything to do with organized climate change denial is utterly deluded. In particular, it has nothing to do with Watts or his blog, which does not host posts by climatologists debating the finer points of attribution or trend analysis. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is maintained by Leif Svalgaard of Stanford. Svalgaard is a solar physicist. Judith Curry is a climatologist and I don't think she would describe his blog or his views as "denialism." There are plenty of non-political scientists that don't consider "denialism" as a part of his views or blog and that's reflected in the press. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support this above phrasing as a description of his personal views... we might note, if this can be sourced, that his website has been described as promoting "climate change denialism, but as to his personal views, we can afford to be somewhat more tactful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is not about labeling Watts; it's about describing his website accurately. The first paragraph of the Gavin Menzies article calls Menzies' work pseudohistory, a word which is at least as charged as "denialism", yet that is the most accurate characterization. That Menzies or his followers don't like the reception of mainstream experts is not a reason to remove it. Like pseudohistory and pseudoscience, climate change denialism is a categorization that conveys useful information, and if experts have characterized something as climate change denialism (or pseudohistory, or pseudoscience), then the reader deserves to know. Wikipedia articles prominently include such information because the WP:NPOV policy (specifically WP:PSCI) dictates it. Manul ~ talk 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Kay Ryan

Vandalised biography in a number of places - offensive in places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.36.2 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerile vandalism, now reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin and libelous descriptors

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have returned this from the archive since no action was taken. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

*Can we say at G. Edward Griffin that he and his book "promotes conspiracy theories"? Consensus on the talk page says we can, but as an outsider to the article before a few days ago, it concerned me as pejorative to appear in a living person's biography, since he describes his book as factual as do several sources including Forbes and Fox News. Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories" to describe his other works. The subject himself has stated the the term is a pejorative: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected." Wikipedia BLP rules demand that we reject it too. The pros and cons of his book on the Federal Reserve are discussed in an appropriate section, this debate is about the lede.

• The word "quackery" has been restored to the BLP which I find libelous. There already was a qualifying statement the the FDA found the drug ineffective which is neutrally worded. I was listening to an interview with Penn Jillette a few days ago and he told about how they could not use the word "quack" on their show Bullshit! because it was libelous, so they so they had a sord of ducks roaming the set making the duck noise, without themselves using the word. BLP rules demand it be removed, but a not previously-involved editor needs to get involved. Consensus should not be allowed to override using such a strong and libelous word, when neutral wording already exists that does not libel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "if one calls people liars and quacks one can be sued ... but 'assholes' is pretty safe. If we said it was all scams we could also be in trouble, but 'bullshit,' oddly, is safe." - Penn Jillette. Note that in an EU court case the word was found to be libelous.

Possibly no action was taken because other editors did not agree that any action should be taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Frances Barber

Frances BarberTrolls have added abusive content with a section called Scottish Independence.