Talk:Steven Emerson/Archive 30

Omitted Information

Why are more of Emerson's incendiary comments not being reported as part of his BLP? These are his own words which go to his history as a commentator. For example, under the section 2.3 Voiced Concerns, in regards to the Oklahoma City Bombing, it is omitted that Emerson also made the following false and ridiculous statement: "“Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centres of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East. [1]

Second, Emerson also stated to the Jewish Monthly in 1995: "The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's greatest religions somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." Third, the Jerusalem Post reported on September 17, 1994 that Emerson has "close ties to Israeli intelligence."

Fourth, the Jewish Forward newspaper found in November 2010 that Emerson was funding his for-profit company using his non-profit org's funds in order to hide his revenue sources and tax-exempt disclosure requirements. Experts said Emerson was 'whitewashing the contributions'. The Forward's investigation follows an investigation by the Tennessean.[2]

Lastly, the Daily Mail UK reported that Emerson has failed to apologize to the Islamic community of Birmingham, UK for his absolutely incendiary and false comments about them. He merely apologized for his 'factual error'. As shown above, he makes a lot of these errors. [3]

The above are all credible and important facts about Emerson that are being omitted in this page. They need to be added.KAhmed20 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)KAhmed20

The Daily Telegraph headline which I refer to below: David Cameron: US terror 'expert' Steve Emerson is a 'complete idiot' is encyclopedic and a factual description of Cameron's views. I don't see any reason why a summary of the article can't be included.

JRPG (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors versus lies

If this article is to adhere to WP:NPOV, it should not repeat uncritically that deliberately lies spoken by Emerson were "errors". An error implies a mistake, a confusion with another fact, and that the error could be corrected by substituting the correct fact. --feline1 (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV means the statement cannot be accusatory. How exactly did you determine Emerson was lying? Atsme☯^Consult 11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By reading his words and using my brain to process their meaning. --feline1 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This chump's ridiculous remarks about Birmingham should disqualify him from being taken seriously as an authority on terrorism or muslims, or the UK ever ever ever again. What a fool. 199.168.151.168 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he made a stupid blunder - one he publicly apologized for making. Let's AGF, maintain NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and remember WP is an encyclopedia, not a message board where editors can vent. Atsme☯^Consult 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There you go again. "Blunder" is not a neutral term. It implies he made a mistake, an error, that he meant to say "Bradford" or "Belfast" or somewhere else, that instead of "Muslims" he meant "Mammals" etc etc. Clearly that is nonsensical. There is no city in Britain that fits his description. There is nothing to get confused about. It can only be a deliberate piece of misinformation propaganda. By uncritically repeating the perpetrator's own characterization of his words (an "error"), the Wikipedia article is retaining that bias. And come on, that's not a difficult concept. If you don't feel competent as an editor to understand that part of [WP:NPOV] you probably should refrain from editing.--feline1 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has made a career of purveying hatred with false information. According to LA Times, 'Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, acknowledged a "terrible error for which I am deeply sorry."' Errors CAN be intentional, though the word is used here to imply accident or mistake. The laws on perjury provide that "affirmations of facts not known to be true are treated as affirmations of facts known to be false" (with various wordings in the various jurisdictions, such as the California penal code section 125. In short, honest folks do not make an "error" of this magnitude. When others are relying on the truth of your words, you say only what you know to be true or you say nothing at all. There is no room for "mistake." Sfarney (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)