| Revision as of 13:23, 3 February 2007 editDogru144 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,941 edits signed reference← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:48, 9 February 2007 edit undoHailFire (talk | contribs)10,642 edits Proposed merger of Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy into this articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Importance of retaining NY Times references== | ==Importance of retaining NY Times references== | ||
| The link to the NY Times article are essential, so that readers can see the truth beyond this story. And the links are to keep wikipedia with verifiable documentation, otherwise, reference-less articles are no better than Insight's sourceless accusations. ] 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | The link to the NY Times article are essential, so that readers can see the truth beyond this story. And the links are to keep wikipedia with verifiable documentation, otherwise, reference-less articles are no better than Insight's sourceless accusations. ] 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Proposed merger of ] into this article== | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| | Copied from other article's talk page by ] 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC). | |||
| |} | |||
| I'm thinking that this page should be redirected to the page for ]. The ''Insight'' page isn't really large enough to warrant a controversy page of its own, this is just ''one'' controversy, all of this information is already being updated on the ''Insight'' page, you have to go to the ''Insight'' page to even find this one, etc. I'm going to redirect it within a few days if nobody objects.] 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support your decision. I tried thinking of a way to standardize this article's format/content, and couldn't. I agree, this controversy can easily be covered within Insight Magazine's main article. To be honest, this controversy is the only reason Insight itself is notable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. ] 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. --] 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. -] 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Added merge discussion templates to both articles. --] 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:48, 9 February 2007
Importance of retaining NY Times references
The link to the NY Times article are essential, so that readers can see the truth beyond this story. And the links are to keep wikipedia with verifiable documentation, otherwise, reference-less articles are no better than Insight's sourceless accusations. Dogru144 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy into this article
| Copied from other article's talk page by HailFire 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC). |
I'm thinking that this page should be redirected to the page for Insight (magazine). The Insight page isn't really large enough to warrant a controversy page of its own, this is just one controversy, all of this information is already being updated on the Insight page, you have to go to the Insight page to even find this one, etc. I'm going to redirect it within a few days if nobody objects.Athene cunicularia 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support your decision. I tried thinking of a way to standardize this article's format/content, and couldn't. I agree, this controversy can easily be covered within Insight Magazine's main article. To be honest, this controversy is the only reason Insight itself is notable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Italiavivi 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --HailFire 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. -Silence 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Added merge discussion templates to both articles. --HailFire 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)