Talk:Ernest Emerson/Archive 2

Reference to Black Hawk Down movie

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

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

Copyedit

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

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

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

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

Yudo is the Korean form of Judo. Jodo is shorthand for luminous intensity. Iconoclastodon 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad tag

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

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

Tanto Point

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

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

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

Article Separation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement??

This article was first called an advertisement on 20 sept 2006 why is it been allowed to stay for so long! it is all there in the discussion page history, this brings the whole creditability of wikipedia down. John joskins 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was thinking the same thing. This reads like a lengthy ad or autobiography. Who else would post all this but the subject or somebody close to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.171.202 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an autobiography would mean that Mr Emerson wrote it. I am not Mr Emerson, nor do I work for him, etc.--Mike Searson 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole piece is untrustworthy and stinks to high heaven. This 'Mike Searson' character that so passionately defends the piece is into 'guns' and 'wars' and 'hunting'. I guess that tells us what we need to know...The whole thing is a pointless jerk-off and it disgraces Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.123.211 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! --Mike Searson 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right, this is tacky publicity, not bibliography. it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.85.241 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Actually the article contains a bibiliography in the references. Thanks for your concern!--Mike Searson 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nice comment coming from a vandal. Sorry they banned knives in the UK and the article frightens you. Mike Searson 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A vast number of living people have enough material written about them for there to be a line or two of non-glowing praise, some context on their overall role in their industry, their legacy, etc. --W.marsh 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace:

Keep:

Anyone who thinks a well-sourced bio is an advert had better be prepared to AfD or defeature for example most of the Video games, and quite a few other categories, at WP:FA, most of which are far worse on reliable sourcing and far more advertorial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the thing just before FA day. The guitar part, for one, was pretty obviously a cut-and-paste advertisement that I tried to tone down, but I think that was mere laziness and not spamistry on the part of the contributor. Yes, it's a little rah-rah, but I chalked that up to grunt style, and I thought the style fit the subject. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, however much we might want it to be. It's this other thing that it's evolving into, something the world has never seen, and I think there's room for articles like this one in it. I enjoyed the article, and I learned about the importance of knife design and about the evolution of the combat knife. --Milkbreath 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just because something is about a company does not make it an advertisement. I guess if you're a socialist it might seem that way.Mike Searson 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biographical article, though. The fact that it's more like an article about a company is part of the problem. And calling people who disagree with you "socialists" is not productive. --W.marsh 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

That last comment was uncalled for, but to answer the question: I put up the poll, not with much hope that Raul would actually replace it, but maybe that he might at least take notice of the general community's attitude to this kind of FA's. So far we have 9 people against it, while on the other side we have the two people who wrote it plus the copy-editor. In other words: no unbiased editor wants to ever see anything like this again featured on the main page. Lampman 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SO FAR 9 VOTES TO REPLACE AND ONLY 3 TO KEEP I THINK IT IS CLEAR WHAT WAY THIS VOTE IS GOING!!! Listen to the majority get a unbiased article up instead! John joskins 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to put this comment on this jumbled talk page, but I might as well post it here. I don't see anything wrong with these kinds of articles. Unless Wikipedia has specifically addressed the issue of articles reading like ads, I would go with two guidelines: (1)report on both sides, not just the "good" sounding stuff, and (2)don't make obviously POV or inaccurate statements. Does this article break those guidelines? No. Just because it reads like something out of a trade magazine (or "fanzine") doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. P.S.: Mike Searson should stop making low jabs at people's nationalities, political leanings, etc. Brutannica 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

I have a few small issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

Cutlery

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

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

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

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

That's no longer the usage today, even in American English. "Cutler" should be replaced with "bladesmith" as suggested by MarkMLl. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutler is fine. My grandfather worked for Wolstenholms in Sheffield all his life, and he was proud to be called a cutler. The made superb blades. Excalibur 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link actually went to kitchen cutlery as opposed to pocket knives or fighting knive, which is what Emerson is known for. Digression...Sheffield blades are nice, I have a small collection of them, myself!! --Mike Searson 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: It is true that gaming magazines as sources for articles should be used with care. However it's also true that I don't think any video/computer game FA is without criticism (speaking of articles on games here, obviously an article on a character is a somewhat different matter). On the other hand, this is supposed to be a biography article not an article on knives so criticism of the product is perhaps less important. Nil Einne 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever Dude! Can I see a list of all the great works on wikipedia that you've written so I can learn from you? You obviously have this dialed in and locked down!--Mike Searson 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice personal attack, John! Gotta love the ad-hominems! --Mike Searson 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, what both a sales brochure and this article have in common is that they include promotional photos coming directly from the company. This alone makes the whole page look like product placement, like an article written around some advertising material. Because it is.

More importantly, most of this content lacks encyclopedic saliency. Assuming good faith and all, and fully recognizing the possibility that enthusiasts can happily churn away on a niche topic until Wikipedia's neutrality and notability controls kick in, but this page is cruft. It should have never grown to this proportion, let alone make it to the front page. 84.129.140.84 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far too long, grossly out of proportion to the very minor importance of the subject biography, and clearly an "advertorial". Delete or cut right back. Excalibur 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very problematic. It appears to be a promo piece put together by one or two macho-obsessed retards and really has no place in what purports to be an objective source of information. Twizzlemas 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's one of the lamest personal attacks I've ever read. Surely you can do better?--Mike Searson 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to nominate it for WP:FAR Jbeach56 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, has any punitive action been taken against those that have launched flagrant personal attacks against Mike Searson? I'll refrain from answering my own question. Let this be a record of the POV tendencies of any and all administrators aware of this ongoing discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are various ways to request action be taken against people who violate WP:NPA. The talk page of an article isn't one of them Nil Einne 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all should be policing yourselves - like adults. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. But I wasn't involved in any personal attacks on this page. And you were the one who brought up the issue of wanting admins to take action against users who violate NPA. As I've said this is not the place. There is nothing wrong with reminding all editors to obey NPA here but this is not what you did (initially anyway). Unfortunately, it appears to me even Mike Searson himself has been drawn into personal attacks as I noticed on at least 2 occasions he brought up the residency of posters in an irrelevant and one time offensive way. Again, if you had wanted to remind all editors to obey NPA, you should have done that rather then bringing up punitive action and then going on to an off-topic diatribe about admins. Oh and if you have a problem with the way admins handle things, there are places to deal with that, this isn't one of them. Nil Einne 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mischaracterizing what I stated. Everyone here knows the rules and I shouldn't have to be the one to remind everyone of NPA. Since there clearly are personal attacks being flung, I once again expect everyone here to know that such attacks must be reported. This has failed to happen. Therefore, anyone witnessing this discussion is complicit. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would respond to this as most people who are responding seem to have an emotional investment in the article and its success and I'm not bothered really. I am not personally interested in knives at all and have no prior knowledge of Emerson knives, instead I am someone who enjoys reading featured articles when I can as they provide an interesting way to learn about something new. I believe therefore I can provide a brief objective assessment of the article. When I was reading it I did not initially get the feeling that it was advertising a company rather than describing one but did get the feeling that it was just simply a rote discussion of all of the companies blades and their features and uses and was therefore missing perhaps an alternative viewpoint of them. Based on my own response I can understand why individuals may view the article as advertising and therefore I believe it is flawed enough certainly not to be listed as a featured article. Is it enough for deletion? No I dont think so, because going back to my original intentions in reading featured articles I believe I have gained a reasonably good insight into Emerson and his knives and therfore the article has proved educational and of value. It doesn't merit a deletion but I think it does merit a very serious rewrite. Thank you Tyhopho 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page has been flagged as AfD many times and every time Mike Searson removes them i feel it must be about time he listened to the majority and leave it place if this is indeed not an advert it will be edited to sound more neutral in reality the pics that make it look like a company brochure should be removed and maybe some mention of the failings of the company should be included. John joskins 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed it after it was closed and a new one was placed by an IP-Vandal: 67.71.143.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has done nothing but spew profanities at me. Guess that's ok, though. --Mike Searson 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Niven's 16th Law: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. The IP is a jerk; that's irrelevant to the merits of this issue.--Orange Mike 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that you are the one spewing profanities (as you seem to have called the person a coward) i think you should take things less personal! why not leave the Afd up and let someone who is not so personally involved make the call if this page needs changed or are you to afraid to do that? John joskins 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL but fair-use image?

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

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

AfD

As the article is no longer Today's featured article I have restored (I hope) the AfD. For the record my beef is not the notability of Emerson or the mature of the subject matter but merely the way in which the article is written. It really does read as though it is a brochure. I am sure this is unintnetional and is a consequence of MS's enthusiams for both the man and his products. I would be happy for the AfD to fail if as a result the article was reviwed and rewritten in a more appropriate tone. Albatross2147 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you twice if you were sincere that I would work on a rewrite, yet you exect me to believe you nominate it for deletion hoping it fails?--Mike Searson 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is as brilliant as the logic behind it; we now have a closed and tagged AfD reinstated in article space. Wrong. Albatross, please remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of AfD. If you think the topic is notable, but the article is badly written (a view I don't hold to) the process is to propose changes on the talk page, or mock up a new page on a subpage of the main article, not to propose the whole thing for deletion. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Too many nutters around here for me. I'm off to a land where knives are cutting tools ~~and not some onanist lurve object~~ and articles are well written and not too controversial. Albatross2147 07:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks from an outside point of view. I myself think as well that the article reflects to much the enthusiasm of its author for the subject and thus looks a bit like advertising. I support as well a second vote on featured status, a deletion request is IMHO not ok here, however I do not support the current arguments against an AfD.

GeeJo argues that if an article subject is notable the article does not belong on AfD. This is a very problematic point of view. At first it will create a lot of trouble cause people will start creating and fighting for their requirements of notability for a certain subject (we have this right now in German Wikipedia) and in consequence you will see a lot of highly controversial deletion requests. On the other side focussing on notability only will not improve overall quality, cause bad articles on notable subjects will be kept (and very likely not improved soon).

A better way is focussing on article quality for a decission on a deletion. If the article is too bad written although the subject is relevant do a deletion request based on quality arguments. If it happens withing the deletion request period that the article improves a lot then the article will be kept, if not well then it will be deleted. In consequence fringe subject articles will have little chances, while articles on widespread topics will have much more chances. This works for everything but topics prone to advertising (like articles on people, companies and other associations). I'd be interested in an exchange of experiences from several Wikipedias how to do the necessary deletions best. Feel free to contact me on my talk page on this matter. Arnomane 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the German wikipedia but generally speaking on the English wikipedia the only grounds for AFD are usually taken to be notablity issues. Specifically, if the article does not adequetly demonstrate the subject's notability. Nil Einne 13:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this guy notable? No one's ever heard of him. Who cares about some dime-a-dozen custom knife-maker. Also, there isn't any proof that NASA or the Navy SEALs have ever used his knives or been trained by him (why would they want to be trained by some know-nothing guy with no combat experience?) 67.71.143.76 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing a subject is a pretty bad criteria for a deletion request. Arnomane 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well de.wikipedia has sadly the same attitude, notability is too often the most important criteria. I think notability is a good concept on articles about persons, companies and other stuff that in itself is already an inapropriate advertising. But notability fails on all other topics. I just realized that two en.wikipedia articles in a short period made it into the english language press cause they were considered non-notable and thus I got the impression that en.wikipedia now starts following a stricter approach after a long time of way too liberal article keep policies. Thus I am interested that en.wikipedia does not make the same mistakes like de.wikipedia at this necessary step and that maybe de.wikipedia can learn something from en.wikipedia in turn. Together with some others I currently try to change the deletion criterias from notabilty to quality points in de.wikipedia (if you can read German, you maybe want to read [3]). Arnomane 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible stupid question

How does an article get on the main page, get to be a Featured Article, if it is a brouchure piece? or blatant advertising as the Afd nomination says. either the FA process is broken to bits, or there is some questionable activities going on. --Rocksanddirt 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the FA process. We need more people working on the FACs to catch stuff like this. But the current system isn't friendly enough to attract people.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix that is to change the FAC time period to a time period or a certain number of reviewers, whichever comes last. Acct4 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarially "blatant advertising" but it is a puff piece that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Starkrm 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an article about Keith Olberman or Jimmy Carter written in the same way, you wouldn't be calling it a "puff piece." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoL - with all due respect, Ernest Emerson is hardly Jimmy Carter is he? 62.56.123.222 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at both articles and the Keith Olberman article is also a puff piece IMO. But I'm very confused at your comparison with Jimmy Carter. You do know he was the President of the United States, don't you? Having a puff article about an obviously egotistical knife maker be the Featured Artice is embarrasing for Wikipedia, again, IMO. Starkrm 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I read through this article i didn't really think of it as advertising, it just seemed to me that it was a bunch of company articles attached to a biography stub --Cloveious 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a puff piece, and the FA process is shoddy. The "stringent reviews" are not taking place, presumably because this is less interesting work than editing articles. Tempshill 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

This article mentions Emerson as a Baseball player who got drafted by St. Louis, why is there nothing about his baseball career? If he played in the minor leagues, who with what were his stats? --Cloveious 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tagging

Per this edit summary:

1) The readable prose size of the page is a very modest 25KB, well under the page size guidelines at WP:SIZE. The size of the page is not an issue, and is well below many FAs that run to 70 and 80KB of readable prose, 120KB overall size. Please read and understand WP:SIZE.

2) No peacock terms have been identified; tag removed.

3) Not a single example of advertorial content has been provided or change suggested, tag removed.

4) The article passed WP:FAC with about half a dozen supports and a good review base; clearly, it wasn't viewed as a fan site by a stringent review.

If you tag an article, you need the justify the tag with specific examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock terms included 'edged weapons authority', 'lifelong study of martial arts', 'drawing on his experience', 'custom handmade electric guitars', 'personally developed fighting technique', 'highly sought-after combatives instructor', and 'noted authority'. That's from the intro. The rest of the article is not so bad.

I have already identified a piece of advertorial content, Emerson's martial arts credentials are sourced from the blurb for a police equipment expo. If you look at articles from the knife magazines which form the core of the references ([4], [5], [6], [7]), they do not strike me as detached or objective. A sample:

"Does it sound like I'm sold on Emerson knives? You'd better believe it! I rarely endorse any products that I test and write about, but in this case, I feel so strongly about Emerson's knives, I have adopted the Raven line as the "official" knife for my school-Combat Martial Arts Academy and will recommend it to my martial-arts students at my seminars.

One last note about Ernest Emerson: He's not content to sit back and rest on his past accomplishments. Over the next year or so, Emerson wants to train a hand-picked cadre of instructors in his knife-fighting techniques and send them out to instruct classes.

In addition, a book and perhaps a video will be forthcoming on the knife-fighting techniques that Emerson uses. Where Emerson finds the time (and energy) to do all the things he does is beyond me."

That this puff piece got through FAC on five support votes (including the nominator and you) suggests there was no 'stringent review'. The article has some pretty hefty claims, such as Emerson's knives being used by NASA and various special forces. These need better sources than just what Emerson says to knife magazines. Note that the 'NASA knife' image just shows a knife sitting next to a commercially available NASA patch.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you also object to Lung cancer being promoted on one Support. WRT peacock terms, if the sources call him an edged weapons authority, it's not a peacock term. It's a sourced statement. And so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sourced statement, it's slanted industry lingo presented without any indication of who said it or why. As for lung cancer, yes, it shouldn't have been promoted.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson's martial arts training is originally sourced in the opening of the article. "Early Life" consists of no less than 7 independent articles chronocling the arts Mr Emerson has studied and/or gained instructorship in. This is further followed up in the "Emerson Combat Systems" section with additional sources and footnotes. As well as the fact that he has written and published over 30 articles for US and European Martial Arts magazines. Sorry if that's not up to your standards.

I think where you are confused by what you term as "peacock words" is the "Lead" section. If you read the original peer review, I had 7 sources in the Lead and was told not to do this, as the Lead is written to be a stand-alone summary of the article and can make use of compelling prose. Each of the claims mentioned in the Lead is sourced throughout the rest of the article.

You point out a section of copy from an article in a knife publication. It is the author's opinion during his "wrap-up". The final 3 paragraphs of a much longer piece. [8] You appear to be selective in the evidence you bring forth, i made no claims of the sort used in the 3 paragraphs you choose to share. That article was reinforcing other claims within the article.--Mike Searson 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the martial arts training in the early life aren't all independent, one of them is Emerson's own testimonial on a martial arts club website. The Emerson Combat Systems section lacks information on the supposed importance of his being the 'Director of the Combat Research and Development Group' or 'Hand-to-hand Combat Instructor for H&K Defense Group'. There is a lack of critical information on the uptake or acceptance of this fighting style, just Emerson's own words. We are only told that 'hundreds' of 'law enforcement agencies, members of the US military and civilians' have been trained in this fighting style. One wonders if the police and soldiers were trained as part of their jobs, or simply in a personal capacity. The guarded wording and lack of confirming sources suggests the latter. The sources claim that Emerson's wife is one of the world's foremost female Jujutsu experts, yet Google knows nothing about her.

The lead should be worded in a neutral manner, rather than regurgitating promotional jargon. We don't need redundant phrasing like 'custom handmade', 'noted authority'. That the sources lavish him with praise does not change this.

My selection of paragraphs was random, the rest of the article is in the same sycophantic style; anyone can see for themselves by reading it [9].--Nydas^(Talk) 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame to muck up a lead with a lot of citations, but if people are getting hung up there, you might go ahead and add citations back to the lead. As to the other complaints, specific issues should be identified so they can be addressed. So far, there has not been a valid example of a WP:PEACOCK term or advertising content. Tagging an article without providing specific examples so that they can be addressed isn't helpful. The complaints so far amount to IDONTLIKEIT so I'll tag it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issues include the lack of stronger sources for the grand claims in the article. Specifically, supplying NASA and various special forces, the jujitsu master wife and being an expert witness. The 'NASA knife' is just a knife next to a NASA patch, rather than a NASA knife (the article says it has a NASA logo). The reader is left in the dark about the importance (or lack thereof) of 'Emerson Combat Systems', all we get is puffery about how awesome it is.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Nydas's last two paragraphs, it's not just him who thinks the article is a sycophantic puff piece. Tempshill 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree as well this piece needs sorting out before it sets a precedent for other articles appearing that are as badly written as this wikipedia needs to be unbiased and not just a forum for advertising pieces John joskins 19:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

puff piece

Every editor who complains about this being a puff piece needs to find reliably sourced criticism of Mr. Emerson to balance the piece out. Quit complaining and find the criticism. If he's as bad as you indicate, then there should be something out there. --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the man isn't truly notable enough to have any "reliably sourced criticism" written about him. This whole article strikes me as something that a friend or colleague of Emerson's came up with one day, and then sat down and wrote, polished and published it, complete with tons of "sources" that gush over the non-notable subject. That this made FA is very odd indeed. Mr Which ^??? 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't odd at all The man is an American who has achieved some notoriety in a field that is mainly of interest to Americans. Therefore FA status every time. Albatross2147 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]