Talk:Steven Emerson

Merge and delete the IPT article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Investigative Project on Terrorism article needs to be deleted, and any accurate, verifiable, properly sourced information should be merged with this article. Following are valid reasons for doing so:

1. In late 1995 "The Investigative Project" was organized as a "counterterrorism think-tank" by Steven Emerson. There are no reliable sources that confirm the "Investigative Project on Terrorism" was ever established as an official "non-profit organization", or anything else other than Steven Emerson's "think-tank". See the following links: [1] [2] [3] There are many more reliable sources that will confirm this information.
2. Emerson's for-profit company, SAE Productions, was incorporated in 1995 in Delaware. He initially organized the think-tank, IPT, in late 1995, but did not launch the non-profit "Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation" until 2006 in Washington, D.C. The IPT self-published website does not disclose the information, but CAIR, and The Tennessean have published it. [4] Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear
3. With regards to the BLP violation in the very biased WP:POV, false statement about Emerson WP:BLP, be advised the only reference Emerson made was as an individual counterterrorism expert BEFORE he even thought about starting his "think-tank". He was correctly quoted by John F. Sugg of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting as follows: Emerson's most notorious gaffe was his claim that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." (CBS News, 4/19/95) [5]

I will now proceed with the request to merge. Atsme☯^Consult 00:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for merger. IPT is suffiecently notable to have an article of it's own.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is also to say that none of your reasons are remotely valid for merging.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• IPT is a non-profit. IPT was founded in 1995. They make these claims on there own site. Here is there 501(c)3 tax ID Tax ID: 13-4331855. That came from their website. Their website is unquestionable a reliable source for this information. The claim that they are a non-profit is not controversial. This is not a reason for a merger. Your option 2 is not a reason for merger. Your option 3 is not a reason for merger. You offered no valid reaon for merger. A BLP isn't a reason for merger. That's if there even is a BLP. You discussed an issue on the IPT page that wasn't a BLP. I'm going to wait for you to give a valid reason for merger then delete the tag. Or you could just remove the tag.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• IPT does not exist as a legal entity. If anything, it is Steven Emerson simply referring to his think-tank project as "IPT" which does not make it a separate entity worthy of being a separate article in WP. You are referring to three different entities, and trying to lump sum them into one, randomly adding inaccurate information at the discretion of whoever is confused enough to add it to IPT. WP should not have an article about an entity that does not exist. I'm surprised the article made it through the review process.

1. The Investigative Project = a "think-tank" led by Steven Emerson;
2. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation = a non-profit 501(c)3 foundation, tax ID Tax ID: 13-4331855, organized in April 2006;
3. Steven Emerson = a terrorism expert, former news correspondent, etc.

Application for the incorporation of IPTF was received on April 28, 2006 by the Delaware Secretary of State - see Narrative Part IV, Addendum to IRS Form 1023.[6] If the entity did not exist prior to April 28, 2006, it has no history prior to April 28, 2006, therefore, any references to, statements made by, or work done by Steven Emerson prior to April 28, 2006 belongs in the Steven Emerson article under the section The Investigative Project, including all references to his statement about the Oklahoma City Bombing. Wikipedia editors are responsible for providing accurate information, therefore the inclusion of random statements that don't belong in a particular article, such as the comment referencing something Steven Emerson said about the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 when he was working as an individual terrorism expert does not belong in an article about the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. Furthermore, since there is no separate entity under the actual title, "The Investigative Project on Terrorism", there is no justification or need for it to be an article on Wikipedia. If you want to create an article for The Investigative Project On Terrorism Foundation, which has the above referenced tax ID number, then do so, but stop trying to lump sum everything under the IPT article. Atsme☯^Consult 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is a link to IPT's website. They don't share your differentiation. Your differentiation is original research. Any problems you have with the IPT article should be posted there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No convincing reason for merger. Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose- There is no case for merger.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete (sorry, wrong word)
• Approve - This article is not even named properly, and is nothing more than a hodge podge of 3 different entities including The Investigative Project, Steven Emerson, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. It is an embarrassment to what is supposed to be an online encyclopedic resource readers can depend on for accurate information. Atsme☯^Consult 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• I feel the need to remind you WP:VOTE that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A topic up for discussion is why we should use your original research as a reason for merger. That would be abit of an embarrassment since there is a prohibition on original research wp:or. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation (as you are calling) it makes no distinction or differentiation between it and what you are calling The Investigative project. In your original research above you mention The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation was not launched until 2006. http://www.investigativeproject.org/about.php There website claims they were founded in 1995. Your source above for your original research only shows they they incorporated in 2006. This does not disprove IPT's own claim of 1995 founding or that claim by multiple sources. Is this related to your previously stated purpose of removing Islamophobia from wikipedia?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The original research you refer to happens to be cited from both a television report, and the Tennessean, which are the same reliable sources used in this article, and not WP:OR. I do not need you to remind me about discussion, either, especially considering I'm the one who began this discussion. Everything else you mentioned is incorrect, misleading, and further validates the need for merging, deleting this article, and creating an accurate article for The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. Wiki editors are supposed to understand the information they include in the articles they create, and at least know enough about the subject to provide accurate information for readers of Wikipedia, yet you continue to provide misinformation. Again, as editors our obligation is to provide accurate information, and that is not what this article represents. Atsme☯^Consult 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry which sources? You'd have to be more specific. You wouldn't mean this Tennessean article would you? This article doesn't make the distinction between your IPT and IPTF. It tries the remove the distinction between IPT and SAE. Let's see your sources so far all we have is your synthesis. Is this related to your previously stated purpose of removing Islamophobia from wikipedia?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would read the information I provided in this discussion, all of which is available as sourced references (inline citations) in the article, you wouldn't be asking silly questions. You should also read the discussion in the article's Talk page because the sources were already questioned, and validated by other editors, particularly the Tennessean which published the documents, and wrote an article about them. The same with the television report. Bottomline - two reliable sources exposed IPT as basically non-existent, or at least not legitimate until it was actually incorporated, and recognized by the IRS as a non-profit foundation named The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. I don't see how you can possibly fix the current article - possibly a rename - and then when that is done, you can focus on and add information relevant to the foundation from April 2006 forward, not including the other two separate entities. Accuracy - accuracy - accuracy. If editors can't distinguish the difference between an individual, a think-tank, and a legal foundation, they don't need to be editing Wikipedia articles. Atsme☯^Consult 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I could but then there is that original research. There is a reason for the policy against it. The illegitimacy is your synthesis. The sources don't say it was illegitimate. They say it was incorporated as a non-profit in 2006. IPT the foundation suggests they are a continuation of the think think. They didn't proceed it, they are it. Multiple sources suggest the same. This isn't about accuracy at all. This solely you trying to push POV. This is you Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system. Wikilawyering policy in bad faith. Promoting original research to continue your previous effort to remove Islamophobia from wikipedia. There is no differentiation between your two IPT's. As far as the Material you dislike on the IPT there are about Emerson, Two editors have a consensus against the one you that the material is relevant. Due to your bias there is not much of a willingness to further discuss it. That leaves you the option of soliciting outside opinions. Gaming the system like this is disruptive. You should take a moment and consider changing course.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have no interest in this dispute, but Atsme has violated WP:CANVASS regarding this discussion with a distinctly non-neutral message. Please take notice in case other editors show up. See [7], [8], [9]. Thanks. --cyclopia^speak! 16:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also attach this [10] as an example of Atsme's canvassing. Also for it's use of a non-neutral message.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Neither Cyclopia nor Serialjoepsycho understand the WP:Canvassing guidelines which state: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. That is exactly what I did, and in good faith. The message I included in my post to the Talk pages of 3 editors (2 involved, and 1 uninvolved Cyclopia) was the "merge rationale" which was done according to the guidelines in WP:Merge, the latter of which neither editors have been able to grasp. Webster's definition of "rationale": a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief;. My rationale included facts, not opinion - the goal being to fix an incorrectly titled, poorly cited mess of an article by merging the worthy portions of the article into Steven Emerson in an effort to clean-up the overlap, and then replace (or rename) the incorrectly named article (IPT) with the correct name, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, and include accurate, properly cited information, and updates. For that I am being castigated by Serialjoepsycho and Cyclopia. I must have been on vacation when good faith editing became a violation. Atsme☯^Consult 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is actually evidence that Atsme doesn't understand WP:Canvassing. Nothing in WP:merge overrides the requirements of WP:Canvassing. You mean "facts" the scare quotes being necessary as we aren't actually talking about facts. Your position doesn't stand at all without your commentary and honestly it doesn't stand with your commentary. Your sources do not support your claim. But back to canvassing. You essentially saying that your statements were neutral because you feel you are right. I missed that exemption in WP:Canvassing. But if you feel that you were right then why don't you go post the same message on another editors pages? Dougweller was an involved editor, by your definition, on the IPT page. And It's easy to find uninvolved editors.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stop cluttering this merge proposal with utter nonsense. You continue to divert attention away from the merge proposal with nonsensical allegations that are clearly disruptive. Give it a rest. My focus is, and always has been on trying to improve and expand this article from being an ambiguous, hodgepodge of a stub that is filled with inaccuracies and misinformation, and turn it into a reliable, accurate article deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Atsme☯^Consult 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be hard to do as this merge proposal is utter nonsense. Which is what my "utter nonsense" highlights. They clearly are disruptive... To your efforts. Your efforts that you lack a valid reason to pursue. Your sources are subordinate to your conjecture. Your sources don't actually support your claims. This "utter nonsense" needs to be said. They serve a purpose of stopping your POV effort.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger RFC

Do you support or oppose the above proposed merger of Investigative Project on Terrorism with Steven Emerson and Why?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Previous discussion above this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Strongly Oppose This merger proposal is based of wp:synth Synthesis of published material. The merger proposal should be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Agree Support The merge proposal was made because information is being lump summed into IPT (an entity that does not exist), including Steven Emerson's work as a former CNN reporter, or independent reporter/terrorism expert, and/or leader of The Investigative Project, most of which took place 11 years PRIOR to the formation of the non-profit foundation legally titled, "The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation". Look at the infobox on the IPT article to see how WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH is being abused. Where and how did the information originate for the infobox? I am currently working on an article titled, "The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation", and it makes perfect sense to merge the work Emerson did independently into his own article, and keep the Foundation work separate in the new Foundation article. The IPT article is nothing more than a stub, and contains WP:BLP violations because it is not a legal entity, and refers back to Steven Emerson in a defamatory manner. There is an ongoing discussion about it now at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive203#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism. Atsme☯^Consult 01:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The argument for merger depends as much on the conjecture of Atsme as it does on the sources. The sources in question don't actually support his claims. It's purely original research. WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Atsme's provided two sources that suggest that suggest SAE productions was the only organization Emerson founded in 1995. This does nothing to support Atsme's position. It also does little to discount IPT's own claim of 1995 founding. This stands as an exceptional claim but the source isn't strong enough to support it. But then again the sources don't actually support Atsme's merge rationale anyway.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to make sense of the above and failed. Far too much reliance on Primary Sources from both sides and I am unclear as to the reasons for the merger. If there is very little involvement from anyone else other than Emerson in the Investigative Project on Terrorism I would be inclined to merge it here. Everything else just looks like window dressing. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a poorly written article. Lorenzo G. Vidino was formerly the Deputy Director of IPT. Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra is a senoir fellow. There are others. It's not only his involvement.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see any mention of IPT in Lorenzo's or Hoekstra's Wikipedia articles. The Jewish policy center link does not mention IPT either(I just did a find search in the link so let may have missed it). The source provided for Hoekstra comes indirectly from IPT so is not ideal either. AIRcorn (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It mentions it at the Bottom saying, "Lorenzo Vidino is deputy director at the Investigative Project and author of Al Qaeda in Europe: The New Battleground of International Jihad (2005)." Which I believe is for the purposes of SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure requirements. [11] I pulled that link from there. Lorenzo's article is a stub and Pete's article has been edited little since he joined IPT. Pete has also had few edits overall since 2012 when he lost the senate election.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The infobox included in the IPT article is what is based on WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH, not the merge proposal. Atsme☯^Consult 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry - forgot to add a link to some very important information that should be read before making a final decision - [12] Atsme☯^Consult 02:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• The merge proposal is synth. The sources for it support the info box (supposedly based on original research) more than the merge rationale.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

offtopic

Furthermore, Serialjoepsycho - you just violated consensus policy, Wikipedia:Forum shopping, by opening Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merger_RFC before the merge proposal had run its course. Atsme☯Consult 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC) @Atsme: That's an interesting claim. You know what the biggest problem with it is though? Mergers don't have a course to run. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Serialjoepsycho I will rephrase it - you opened a merger Rfc knowing full well there is an ongoing discussion at the BLP noticeboard [13] regarding your WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources violation in the IPT article. You know full well the discussion at the BLP noticeboard is directly related to the merger proposal. We have the merger discussion, the BLP noticeboard discussion, and now your recent Rfc request. What you are doing is disruptive. Atsme☯Consult 06:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Well if you want then you can take it to wp:ani. Go wikilawyer there. It matters little that you posted your bunk claims on the BLP noticeboard. Since they aren't a BLP issues no one will respond to them. I opened this neutrally worded RFC to counterbalance your canvassing effort and to expedite the matter. Again take your complaint to ani. Here's the link again wp:ani.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.