Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 8 February 2008

Template:JournProjectArticles

Media Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Archives

Archive 1 Feb - Dec 2007

Controversies section

I don't see how David Brock leaving is a "controversy". Where are the two sides?

The story about the "non-military" burial also shows only one side, i.e., the government moved the remains out after a report by Insight. Again, where are the two sides? Is there anyone who says Clinton was right in what he did? Or who says Insight coverage was inaccurate?

I would say only the "pin dirt on Hillary" thing (i.e., Obama raised Muslim) is an authentic controversy. The two sides are the Democrats, who all deny the story; and Insight, which still stands by its story in some way.

I intend to move the first two paragraphs out of this section, and also to rename "controversies" to something like "Obama controversy". (could use a little help on the wording here :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the Paula Jones thing back. The problem is that the only time Insight gets mentioned by the mainstream is when it gets something wrong or stirs up a "controversy". I would not object if you went ahead and took out the word "controversy" and replaced it with "notable events" or "notable stories" etc. Redddogg (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, leaving 'Barrack Obama' as a heading can't be right. I've tried "Unsourced report of alleged Hillary Clinton plan to attack Obama". I thought of adding '(on since disproven grounds)' but it's long and complicated enough! It's about Insight first and foremost as the story remains notoriously unsourced (and it's the Insight page) - and then it's about Clinton - the alleged attack plan for Obama - and then it's about the fact that the basis for the alleged attack has been disproven. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. You might take out "alleged" since "unsourced" kind of gives the reader the same info. Redddogg (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "alleged Hillary Clinton plan to attack Obama". This lets the reader decide for himself whether Insight had any sort of source for the alleged plan. This has a bearing on the type of magazine which has succeeded the print version. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me...you want to use Misplaced Pages to parrot the unfounded, unsourced and discredited Insight story for the purpose of leaving Misplaced Pages's readers to "decide" whether Insight "had a source"? Kuhner may not need to WP:PROVEIT, but Misplaced Pages does. This encyclopedia DOES exist for them (our readers) and not for us...and oh-by-the-way, WP:BLP applies to this article too. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the heading reads Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" - but it's totally unspecific, and being so, kind of makes it look they it's an unusual event for Insight (and whether it is or it isn't, that's a POV impression). I'll try appending "surrounding Obama" to it. It's the type of heading that requires some kind of focus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the point is that it is absolutely not "unusual" for Insight, see my post below for proof via WP:GOOGLEriverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks very long now. Surely the older headings were better? Such as Unsourced allegations against 2008 Presidential candidates, or one of the varients such as Allegations against Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, see below...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton and Obama

Perhaps we should rewrite the section on the Clinton campaign's approach to Senator Obama.

Kuhner wrote:

• What we did claim—and stand behind 100 percent—is that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted an investigation into Obama's Muslim background, and they had concluded he had been raised and educated as a Muslim. In fact, our sources close to the Hillary camp confirmed that the investigators were planning to leak this information to their media allies later this fall—just before the '08 primary campaign. Moreover, our sources also confirmed that the Hillary camp was going to make the issue not so much Obama's Muslim background, but the fact that he had concealed or downplayed it.

I would recast the section as follows:

• Insight claims Clinton campaign was investigating Obama's background.
• It claims they were planning a sort of October Surprise (?) in which they would hurt Obama's election chances by accusing him of hiding his "Muslim background"

1. (Obviously playing on fears of Christians about "Muslims, foreigners and people of color".)

The question is whether Hillary would ever stoop so low. Let's not try to answer that!

What remains is the chronology of events.

1. Kuhner publishes his article online.
2. The "Madrassa" is proclaimed secular or multi-religious.
3. Obama clarifies his religious background
4. Clinton camp denies any scurrilous plans.

An interesting point of speculation is whether Kuhner helped or hurt the Democrats by publishing his report. If it helped Obama, by preventing Hillary from attacking him? (But this speculation is probably beyond the scope of the article.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is what it is, a "double smear splatter", "black propaganda" "hit job" on both candidates.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable opinion. Now all you need is a source, and you can turn your personal speculation into a well-referenced point. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the MediaWeek source sufficient? C'mon Ed...do you really think of me as someone who would make such a "personal speculation" if I didn't have a reliablesource? Please don't get me going by implying such things, when you get WP:personal and WP:impugn my character, it's not WP:nice, ok?

FYI, I'm farming this source now, just not sure which article to put it in yet as I haven't cross-checked the references to Rev. Moon yet. Man, I love Google Scholar!!! riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you say I'm in Puning. That's one part of China I've never visited. I do all my Misplaced Pages contributions right here in that great Democratic bastion, New York. Next month, however, I'm planning an excursion to Nice; shall I bring you back some French bread? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed...sorry if I misunderestimated you, and thanks for the chuckle...I needed that, and I appreciate the offer of bread. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple smear

Soon after, Mediaweek described the report as a "double smear", and reported "The lies, amplified not only by Fox but by Headline News' Glenn Beck, originated with a Web site blandly called Insight. Allegedly owned by the Moonies, the Web site purportedly was once part of the ostensibly right-wing Washington Times which is reportedly also owned by (some say—though off the record—and only in the sense of "proprietorship") the Moonies." -- Mediaweek reports "Double smear" by Insight http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Insight_(magazine)&diff=prev&oldid=188167147

Why use words like allegedly, purportedly, and reportedly to describe the relationship of the web site to the Unification Movement? Can there be any question in anyone's mind about whether the movement owned the monthly World&I magazine, the weekly Insight (magazine), and the daily Washington Times newspaper?

Is someone trying to smear Rev. Moon indirectly, by portraying the media he founded as so obscure that even MediaWeek can't keep track of their ownership? Sheesh. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pen is mightier than the sword. Live by the pen, die by the pen???? But yeah, I caught that...given the business that MediaWeek is in, I chalk it up to their lawyers suggesting an extremely conservative approach... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote leaves off the final sentence of the paragraph: "Media Person is taking no chances with his accuracy." And if you want to get an idea of the tone of this opinion column consider this earlier paragraph:

Didja hear? Obama went to one of them mattress schools where the Muslimofascists turn kids into terrorists! Yeah, he was in Indochina then. And guess what his middle name is? Hussein! Same as Saddam. No, really, Hillary's dirt-diggers dug it up to use against him. The bitch.

Wndl42 wants to use this column as the basis for asserting that MediaWeek is a RS for the "fact" that the Insight report was a "double splatter smear". No, this column is a RS for the fact that Lewis Grossberger adopted the Clinton campaign talking point as his own, a fact hardly remarkable enough to merit mention. It's not as if Grossberger claims to have done any digging. And if you look at this link to the same article you will note that it is clearly labeled "Opinion". Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

...your argument "Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" - same article, different url. note heading "columns/opinions". Grossberger doesn't claim to have done any reporting" is purely not relevant...the point is that MediaWeek is a WP:RS for commentary on MEDIA, and if they picked up Grossberger's "opinion" and decided to publish it as a "commentary" on Insight, it's still MediaWeek publishing Grossberg and MediaWeek is a reliable source for the subject of the article, which is a MEDIA organization, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (preceding copied from my talk page)Andyvphil (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the job of a responsible journalist is made extremely difficult by Rev. Moon, given an almost incomprehensible ownership and complex subsidization chain (that sucks $300 million/year out of Unification Movement), I wonder why it's not just called "Unification News World"??? UNW is a catchy name, no? By the way, in contexts like this, does headquarters prefer "Unification Church", "Unification Movement" or some other variant...what is the preferred name for entity that owns News World Communications? Or is it just that the stockholders all belong to the Church? I share the journalists frustration..., can you blame the writer for treading gingerly? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever tried Google? Here is the result of nearly 30 seconds of searching:

• News World Communications is a newspaper publishing company owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. The company publishes "The Washington Times," which reaches more than 100,000 readers in the Washington, DC, area. It also produces the news magazine Insight Magazine, as well as international publications "The Middle East Times" (Cairo) and "Tiempos del Mundo" (weekly Spanish-language newspaper distributed in Latin America and the US). In 2000 the company added struggling news service United Press International to its portfolio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Touche Ed, you made your point better than I made mine. The MediaWeek author has no legitimate journalistic excuse for using that kind of characterization, he clearly did it to make a point. Columbia Journalism review says it straight up, "News World Communications is the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.", that characterization has been there for at least two years before you personally took the lead in creating the clear article above, to your credit. My characterization of "obfucsation of ownership" on the part of Rev. Moon is unwarranted. Thank you for pointing this out.

MediaWeek article a "smear" of Moon?

But was the MediaWeek piece a "smear" of Rev. Moon? If I got a little testy above it was perhaps for the same reason the MediaWeek guy was. In responding to well warranted allegations that Kuhner perpetrated yet another politically biased, factually incorrect and irresponsibly published "double splatter smear", Kuhner's response to NYT is to cry "foul", "It is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by implying that we are owned by religious zealots." Credibility? What credibility??? You gotta have some credibility before claiming "smear". And why did Kuhner use the word "implying" to refer to a statement of fact? And Kuhner's whining about "religious bigotry" in the context of his own religious bigotry as he smeared Obama...well, whoever said "hypocracy is the only unforgiveable sin" could have been describing behavior like this. Now...wrt "zealots", from a journalist's perspective, certainly the UC's flushing $300million per year into subsidizing politically and ideologically driven media (including garbage like Insight) is pretty "zealous", so if NYT characterized Unificationists as "zealots" (as Kuhner claims), and if NYT they implied by association that Kuhner is the journalistic equivalent of a religious zealot then this is (especially in the context of this story and Insight's long history) totally fair criticism. As I've commented before in private space, I allow room for the interpretation that Rev. Moon is benevolent at heart...but if that's true then where is HIS (or NWC's, or the UC's) criticism of Kuhner, and why does this clown still have a job? The questions of critics...is this the UC's idea of "heavenly deception" as "advocacy journalism" are fair. Couldn't Kuhner get with the Board of News World, show them his sources and say "I've shown my sources to x, x has made a statement, I still have my job and that's all I need to say". Where is Preston Moon? The Unification Church's silence is deafening, even Fox News came out against Kuhner's story!! My issue, and the real question that is "obfuscated" by the Unification Church is; Where does the "buck" stop at News World? There is not a single instance I can find of anyone on the board of News World Communications ever returning a a phone call on this topic, please correct me if I'm wrong, but for a story this big, when Fox News Sr. Execs will comment publically, NWS silence is just too wierd, and if it fuels well founded speculation...well, that's the Church's big problem...would you agree?

As for Kuhner's weasle-whiney excuse..."we weren't guilty of implying that X was a madrassa trained muslim and closet islamofacist, we were just reporting that the EVIL Y was plotting to say that about X.", wow...I struggle for a wiki-appropriate word for Kuhner's "explanation", even in the context of WP:SPADE.

Last point. Another media "owner" abuse of power for comparison. Once upon a time, Walter Annenberg was so frustrated with Gov. Milton Shapp for opposing a profitable (to Annenberg) railroad merger, that Annenberg had one of his employees plant a question in a press conference..."Have you ever been in a mental institution?". The stunned but unflappable target Milton Shapp replied simply "no" to Annenberg's filthy lying implication by proxy of one of Annenberg's employees. Next day, Annenberg's paper ran the front page headline and five column story "Shapp Denies Ever having been in a Mental Home", destroying Shapp's political career. Milton Shapp was, by almost any standard, an american hero, and whatever minor human flaws he may have had don't erase that. Later in life, Annenberg became disgusted with his behavior, or perhaps began thinking about his legacy. He founded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Annenberg's legacy now also includes the Annenberg Foundation and (one of my favorites) "Annenberg Political Fact Check". Annenberg's legacy now speaks volumes, in stark contrast to the filth he once practiced. Insight's tactics are the modern internet-equivalent of Annenberg's, but Insight has been doing it for 25 years, according to very reliable sources. What will Moon do on behalf of his (and his Church's) legacy?

Anyway, I am working from this perspective on expanding the article. Looking for comments from others on how to portray criticism of Insight. Specifically, I am concerned about WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism, but from what I can see, reliably sourced criticism is all over the place and I am seeing very little in the way of praise for Insight or Kuhner. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I showed my edits to the Insight article to a church official, and he had no objection. I refer to the part where I described Insight's "she said he said" as unfounded. I stand by my characterization, and I think you agree with me.

By the way, if NYT were ever to characterize me as "zealous", please let me know. I haven't had a really good pat on the back in over two months. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, case in point...(deleting my only-partially-sensible-but-mostly-unnessecary comment) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need a "criticism" section here?

Bordering on an edit war over the language used by journalists to describe Insight's tactics...

Let's discuss, OK? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit:. You disimproved the cite, changing from a version which clearly identified Media Person as editorial content to one which did not, for no other evident purpose except to warn me I was approaching 3RR, which is pretty rich as you thereby violated approximately 5RR...

Have to start counting reverts with the first revert, and then apply the "count" from the beginning. If you'd like, I could take the time to comb through your 16 edits in 90 minutes, publish the revert count beginning with your first revert, point out the fact that you didn't make a single comment on the talk page, nor did you seem to be even aware of the discussions here. I mentioned 3rr twice, once to gently direct you to the talk page (thanks for joining us) as after I began restoring your first round, and a second time after you began reverting my content restorations. Now that we're all here, let's talk. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not up on 3RR policy, either. Consecutive edits by one editor count as one edit/one revert. Keep that in mind, go back 24 hours from the edit I specified, and start with your first block of edits that restored previous text. You violated 3RR by a bunch and someone less tolerant than I (or maybe even I, depending on whether you prove educable) is going to use it as a club if you keep it up. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• (Dude, an edit is not a "revert", an edit doesn't revert anything. Read 3rr, specifically..."An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I tagged you for it because you weren't discussing my edits here before you reverted them.) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't consult a general dictionary to find out the meaning of jargon. The relevant sentence in 3RR#What_is_a_revert? is "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." Which is not well written, but is well established to mean exactly what I told you. For the purpose of 3RR my "16 edits in 90 minutes" count as one revert. Got it? Now, "go back 24 hours from the edit I specified, and start with your first block of edits that restored previous text..." Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit:. You are replacing an NPOV description of Insight 's article ("Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign") with an unattributed POV characterization ("Insight identified as source of 'anonymous smears'") on the grounds that the former "propagate the Insight smear", which is nonsense. The former doesn't endorse the allegations, the latter does adopt a partisan interpretation of the facts.

• (Stuffing Google's search indices with Misplaced Pages articles headings containing "foo's plan to attack fee" does, in fact, propagate. Misplaced Pages's policies (including BLP "do no harm") make this quite clear, and again...this article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am undoing your revert, which has the effect of using the article's heading structure get the words "Hillary Clinton's campaign" into the act, as a means of "headlining" the discredited Insight allegations. Not withstanding your passion for highlighting the charges against Clinton, This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice, it's NOT about "foo's presitential campaign". I have made this point in my edit summaries several times now. Please don't use the article on Insight as a soap box for airing your riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that the Insight piece was widely reported by reliable sources to be an "anonymous smear", in the context of a long history of such behavior. Try a google search on your choice of keywords and "smear" -- it's not NPOV to characterize Insight as the overwhelming majority of reliable journalistic commentator's do, in fact to use a weaker word would be NPOV. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk)

Claims of consensus must be attributed, and a citation in a header is a MOS violation, as the header you insist on is on other grounds. (All the newly itialicized quotes are also a MOS violation, btw.) Your assertion that my insistance -- that the header not be a POV attack on Insight (but instead suggest it accurately and neutrally describe what Insight wrote) -- has some partisan motive is an AGF violation, as well as being wrong. (I do in fact believe that it is probable that some Clinton flunky was tasked with doing opposition research on Obama and self-importantly gossiped to some "reporter" - maybe Kuhner himself - and Kuhner rushed the half-baked buzz into print, where it sucessfully produced a lot of buzz for Insight. Kuhner has no reason to "burn" his source, obviously, but I don't see any reason to think he lied.) Andyvphil (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• (a) I just checked the MOS on section headings. Unless I missed something, the MOS says nothing to contradict a heading using the phrase "anonymous smears". If you caught something in the Manual of Style that I missed, please direct us to it. (b) Let's get the article right and then we can work on style points. Right now the discussion is about content and basic structure. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit: The verb "reported" is an inappropriate characterization of "Media Person"'s statement of opinion. The NY Times is at least as much a RS as AdWeek, but even though they published Nicholas Kristoff today calling Pat Robertson a "self-rightious zealot" you cannot write that "The NT Times reported that Pat Robertson is a self-righteous zealot." The NY Times is not a RS for that statement. Your assertion that it is "purely not relevant" that the Media Person column is identified a "columns/opinions" and that Grossberger doesn't claim to have done any reporting is absolute nonsense. An outlet that is generally considered a reliable source because it has a responsible fact checking process is nonetheless not a reliable source for statements that are not subject to that process. Grossberger may believe that Kuhner lied in order to construct a "double spatter smear" but barring a documentary discovery that has not taken place neither he nor anyone else is in a position to fact check that belief. There is therefor no RS, anywhere, for that assertion (except Kuhner, should he confess). Andyvphil (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Insight. Insight is not a "living person", this is not a BLP, so your comparison to Pat Robertson is irrelevant here. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are utterly missing the point. I'm not making a BLP argument. I am attempting to educate you about what "reliable source" means. Try. Reading. It. Again. Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• (Ok..but why did you use a BLP as an example?, and the madrassa story was reported to be a lie by CNN and several others, and and attributing the lie to someone else is a smear.) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) I didn't "use a BLP as an example". Reporting "Nicholas Kristoff today called Pat Robertson a 'self-rightious zealot'" isn't necessarily a BLP vio and "The NT Times reported that Pat Robertson is a self-righteous zealot" wouldn't be any more so if it wasn't first a non sequitur.

(b) As I've already pointed out, CNN's fact-checking department is no position to "check" an assertion that Kuhner "lied". Again, CNN is therefor not a WP:RS for that assertion. Andyvphil (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT your concern over "The verb 'reported' is an inappropriate characterization", lets see if "characterized" looks better in context. If so, I'll go for that, but FYI, MediaWeek and Columbia Journalism Review are non-partisan sources. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your authority for the assertion that Grossberger is "non-partisan" in his "opinion" pieces? Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My assertion was/is that Mediaweek is nonpartisan. But since you mention it, allow me to oblige you with the evidence on Lewis Grossberger. Per WP:Google, a search of the Google News Archive (note, not a "web" search) yields the following 89 hits from the Google News archives, demonstrating that (a) Grossberger's publication history since the 1970's makes him an expert on Media, and (b) shows clearly that not a single article he's written can be characterized as "partisan" based on the summaries provided by the Google News Archive. So, any assertion that either or both of Mediaweek or Grossberger has a partisan bias is unsupported. Grossberger is among those rare examples of media critics who writes purely from the perspective of criticising media and journalism on their merits solely, and is clearly notable per WP:Google News. Sure his piece has satirical elements, but Satire is a valid vehicle for criticism (especially criticism of media), and Grossberger's piece is 100% accurate in the facts he cites. Grossberger's use of Socratic irony to chastise Insight, Fox, etc. is a tradition as old as Socrates. Does this evidence in support of my argument suffice? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assert that Grossberger was partisan. You asserted that MediaWeek is nonpartisan, and since you've insisted that the article read

Mediaweek described the report as a 'double splatter' smear, and said 'The lies, amplified not only by Fox but by Headline News' Glenn Beck, originated with a Web site blandly called Insight. '

without distinguishing between Grossberger's opinion piece and MediaWeek it's a bit late to assert that it was only MediaWeek, not Grossberger, that you were asserting is nonpartisan. You've also reverted a longer version of the quote that would make it clear that Grossberger is a humorist, leaving no evidence that irony is being deployed. Next, partisan is the default assumption for an opinion piece. That's why its called opinion. Lastly, you still haven't grasped the basic concept of "reliable source". Grossberger's opinions on the media may be "expert" (it's the wrong word, but it's the word used in Misplaced Pages policy, and "notable" is already misused for something else) and quotable as such, but it is not a reliable source for a factual assertion (that Kuhner lied) that Grossberger cannot possibly know to be a fact. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• (Huh?? What?? You asked (above), "What is your authority for the assertion that Grossberger is "non-partisan". I answered your question, even though I'd made no such assertion about Grossberger. After I demonstrated Grossberger is non-partisan, in response to your rhetorical assertion that he was, you now come back with "I didn't assert that Grossberger was partisan." Nice try, but do you care to address the points I actually raised and talk to the actual evidence I provided? And as I said, Grossberger's use of irony does not negate the reliability of his facts, nor his expertise in the subject. There are plenty of facts in Grossberger's piece (it is, as I said, 100% based on established fact), so...do you care to address the factual accuracy of Grossberger's criticism?) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While I was at it, I thought I'd also check Google Scholar, and I note that Grossberger's work is also referenced in a number of university textbooks on media and journalism. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he can consult his navel and produce "facts". Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken Louis Grossberger "double splatter" and "lies" quotes out for now, pending a little more discussion and some cooling off. I still think the quote is appropriate to describe Insight's brand of journalism, but want to turn down the heat so we can discuss it more... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another "scoop"

"The Clinton-Obama article followed... a widely discussed report on the Insight Web site that President Bush’s relationship with his father was so strained that they were no longer speaking to each other about politics..." Sounds vaguely familiar. RS for this? Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, because you have to "subscribe" to Insight, and their "subscription only" stuff is not in google's index or cache, but Colombia Journalism Review is generally impeccable. Meanwhile here's a domain specific search, which works fantastic for CJR but sucks with Insight

Maybe look here too...I found a reference to the "strife" buried in the "story" that Cheney was set to retire in 2007. That's Insight for ya! riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Heading accurately characterizes Insight as a historical source of smears?

This Google Search (per WP:GOOGLE), which excludes the word "Obama" yields over 1,800 hits. When I get some time I will begin farming the hits for additional examples, but in the meantime I think it's somewhat disingenuous to try to characterize Insight's behavior as an "isolated" event. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, The Google News archive timeline may also be helpful -- here and here should help narrow down the hits, by limiting the search to Google's archive of reliable news sources riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment on my edit was is the 'Controversy section' above - where I've been posting. I've seen a few title versions, made plenty of successful edits on the issue (esp on the linked-to Obama page) and have been part of the AfD on the Obama fork - so I'm not new to the argument as your edit note suggests.

• This is not a place for re-hashing the charges in Insight's discredited voice, in this article we are discussing Insight in the context of it's journalistic practice. As you know, there are other places where readers will hash out the "who did what to whom". As regards Insight, the discussion should remain focused on Insight and it's critics. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There being a 'disingenuous' nature to the title is my very problem - your own version of the title Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" does make it seem to me like it's a rather isolated event for Insight as a whole (and hence a POV assumption)! Your Google stats are irrelevant to the point I'm making - that a WP heading like this needs a focus! It's a simple style matter. Think of new people reading through the contents. I don't understand why you want the detail out of the heading - some of the older ones were fine.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Matt, I understand your point a little better now, and I was moving too fast when I mistook your argument as another effort to use the headline to say "criticism of Insight's report's on Sen. Foo's evil plan to expose that evil Sen. Fee is a closet muslim", and I assert that "Foo and Fee" should remain out of the headline altogether. I'd suggest that a separate section for "Criticism", and a subsection under that heading for "Smears" would be the wiki-way, and would yield nice, clean, one word encyclopedic headings. Maybe that's already in the section above, if so count me among supporters. Thanks for slowing me down, sorry if I mischaracterized you or your edits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A Criticisms or even 'Notable events' section would be better I agree, but currently the article has virtually no content other than stuff that would move under that! The 'print era' and 'internet era' sections would then either need filling out (if there is anything to fill them out with - they don't even have intros at the moment), or even removed, with a line added to the main introduction (or background section) on the magazine having a print/internet history. Looking at it, the article has virtually nothing on Insight itself at all (its history etc) - its like a stub with a few scandals thrown in! I'm not following the non-Obama issues here - maybe they are better dealt with elsewhere too(?) (if they have ay validity). More or better sections or headings are sometimes the key when things get bogged down, validity allowing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To your first point Matt, I think we're in agreement on need for a better structure. Kuhner's complaints notwithstanding, I see no reason to sectionalize the article into "magazine era" and "internet era", it was/is the same journalistic model in both "eras", and all of the controversies and criticisms were the same then and now, and the era-wise stuff seems only to serve the purpose of distancing Kuhner from the previous EIC, which suits him but not the article.

To your second point...I don't know how we can be NPOV without accurately reflecting the overwhelming consensus of non-partisan authorities on journalism. To create an article that looks like more than a "stub with a few scandals thrown in", one would have to balance the negative with reliable sources that have anything good or even interesting to say about Insight, other than Insight itself. Insight is notable because it is notorious, and NPOV requires us to present the topic as the world of reliable sources does, not through any 'lenses' that we would invent to present a 'balanced' view on Insight, a view that does not exist in the real world. If we do our jobs here, this article will reflect the "consensus" POV of reliable sources, and if that POV looks "ugly", well...so be it. Any "softening" of our presentation would violate WP:UNDUE, which cuts both ways.

That said...an idea or two. Supposedly Insight has gotten "scoops" that were not smears, so..."Notable Scoops" would be a good one, and as long at those "scoops" were not smears, then we will have some balancing content. I have an idea, I'll add it and see what you think.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see that Insight is clearly gutter press, I meant more that it was lacking the usual biog filler, rather than needing any positive stories to counterweigh the scandals with. I'd be amazed if there were any. If no one's interested in filling it out then we should get rid of the 'era' headings, and create a kind of 'notable release history' or something like that (I'm tired, so cant think of better name!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More ink  ;-) Wndl42 (talk 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The '"Anonymous smears"' part is looking a bit of a narrative at he moment, rather than the unambiguous facts - you're doing good stuff, though I think the first few lines of this were better phrased before. I'm going to try and stick to a single article today(!) - one I seriously need to catch up on, but will look at this soon. It seems Insight may be a 'tad' better than 'gutter' - my main interest is in the Insight/Clinton/Obama smear, to be honest.

Remember we don't know if Insight really gave the unsourced 'story' (made up?) actual credit themselves (so should it be 'later discredited?' And when later? - it's a bit ambo at the moment - simpler, like before, is sometimes better). My point of title-focus still seems to stand. What if you find other 'anonymous smears'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few quick points..

These following 2 lines are simply not as useful as the ones they replaced;

"In January 2007, Insight published unsourced allegations that presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign team were investigating rival candidate Senator Barak Obama's early childhood schooling at a madrassa in Indonesia, which Insight falsely characterized as an Islamic religious school.

Though the story would be quickly discredited, it was picked up and repeated by Fox News Channel, ..."

the better previous lines were;

In January 2007, Insight published unsourced allegations that presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign team were planning to attack rival candidate Senator Barack Obama for concealing that he was educated in an Islamic religious school (madrassa) during his youth in Indonesia.

Insight's story was initially taken seriously by Fox News Channel, and other media outlets, leading to criticism of their journalistic practices.

The madrassa line (which at one point I had changed to 'a madrassa') can be removed, or changed to '(a religious "madrassa")'. (I had worked on the muddled madrassa page to make the meaning clear - the wiki-link will properly explain it).

My 3 points on your newer version again:

1. Insight are claiming that Clinton's campaign team had found out the madrassa was a religious seminary - it's not Insight's definition as such (and we can't prove they up 'made up' the story, remember).

• Matt, this is an article in the "journalism" and "media" categories. I appreciate your passion for the political angle, and that angle is given due weight, but please be aware of the categories we are editing in.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2. The 'quickly discredited' line needs a citation (is there one?) - the CNN story wasn't until after the Fox report, so it can't refer to that.

3. It's not a good idea to use the word 'discredited' at this point anyway, as it implies Insight originally felt it had credit (and as it's unsourced we just don't know that they did).

4. Also - I can see that you have since changed 'attack' to 'investigating' which i can now see is clearly pro-Clinton misreporting of the article!

• The language "attack" is pejorative and unencyclopedic. The original Insight article charged that the campaign was "investigating". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some other points;

• The "see also" line is supposed to be at the top where it was (per WP style), not at the bottom.

• Clinton's name should be back in the heading, and Obamas too arguably (though less so - and it can get a bit long, of course)

• Also, where's the 'double splatter' quote gone? - it's at the heart of it.

• Matt, as I am the one who added it (the Mediaweek "double splatter" quote, and others here objected (including you), I removed my own edit to reduce contention here so we can discuss, and I put that in my edit summary. Dude...slow down...read the edit summaries.

This section was looking fine at one point, it's gone backwards now.. I propose returning to this diff, and using the earlier heading "Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign". I can see now that you changed all of these! I felt that they had all settled (even if just for a day or two - nobody made immediate changes to them), and I can't agree with your edit notes for changing them as you have;

• The above '2008' title didn't 'propagate' the smear on Clinton (it's just a title! - about allegations on Clinton!)

• This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice and so the titling you propose is inappropriate, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to "clinton's thinking" as opposed to Insight's journalistic practice riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for 'simplification' (it isn't simpler now anyway).

• I don't see how the 'double splatter' line is suddenly a bone of contention to the degree that it has to be 'temporarily removed'. (scanning the other arguments above - I can't see why you'd want to remove it based on them. It is certainly worth including as a valid take on the Insight report - which IMO was a pretty obvious 'double smear' too.)

• Sorry you haven't noticed the contention here on the talk page. I found and added the Mediaweek stuff, defended it when it was challenged, and then I removed it to give the editors here (all of them) time to air their views...in an attempt to facilitate a calmly derived consensus. You'd know that if you were reading the edit summaries before mass reverting. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see good reasons for all of the above changes, otherwise I'd like to see the stuff I and others have spent time working to consensus on back. My earlier point (made at the top) was simply about the rest of the article being like a stub (and you've found more stuff, and improved the layout which is great) - but I was personally pretty happy with the Obama-related parts as they were, as I've said.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now you have the reasons...to bad you didn't wait for the answers before you slaughtered three days of work. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers?! You lost less than two days (not three) - a period I came to the conclusion you were stringing me along, which is why I got angry and called you a 'time waster' - you kept ignoring all of my clear points as if I hadn't written them! When I looked and saw your first edit note regarding this particular issue (that Clinton's name in the title is propagating the smear!) I suddenly felt you'd been seriously taking the mick, when I could have focused elsewhere. I still do to be honest - you keep softening the Clinton bits, but it just makes the article utterly silly!

According to Insight, Obamas so-called 'Islamic madrassa' was "ammunition" that Clinton planned to use against him - read it again (the first paragraph especially). You insist 'attack' is too strong for what they claimed Clinton was up to - but you really are wrong on that. Please, read it again. As for me 'slaughtering' your new work - the top of the section had actually settled down when you made your changes to it! We can moan that our work has been removed. You took backwards this crucial section unfortunately, and I kept giving examples all along - but to deaf ears it seemed to me (even on the citation and wording issues I've been mentioning).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the title of the Barack Obama controversy section be Barack Obama controversy? Why does it have to keep changing? Let the reader read the section to find out the rest.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided Wndl42 is a time waster, pushing a clear POV agenda (a pro-Clinton 'softening' agenda, taken to extremes now) - so I'm removing his/her changes and adding the proposed change to 'madrassa' (to 'a religious "madrassa"') that I mentioned above.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because it's NOT a "Barak Obama controversy", it's an INSIGHT controversy, and this article is about Insight. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the controversy surrounds Barack Obama. All of the other headings in the section are titled based on their subject. Why are you fighting so much over a ridiculous heading? Changing it every day is no better. Pick something, like "Barack Obama," even. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the Insight/Clinton/Obama introduction and title back to where it was yesterday. Can I have support that this is a better place to work from? It seems simple and unbiased to me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Matt, you are way off base. Your charges of "POV pushing" on behalf of a political candidate are (a) blatantly false (as you would see if you took a moment to check my overall edit history), (b) a personal attack, for which I will report if you if you continue.

If you so badly need to attribute a POV to me, then examine the facts, get them right, or simply ask me rather than assuming. I am interested in Sun Myung Moon's media properties in the context of "Straussian lies" and "heavenly deceptions", please see (a) George Mason University's article on Straussian lies at "Stop the Straussians before they lie again", and how that topic is related to this topic. I am a critic of Sen. Clinton's on the basis of her failure to "speak truth to power", and on her acceptance of corporate funds for her campaign, but I see the real problem here on Misplaced Pages in the editorial focus by WP:Tendentious editors on "perpetuating the myths" that have been so successfully propagated through the moonie media machinery. I am a "Cato institute style" libertarian-(paleo)conservative and an ardent critic of post-Reagan neoconservatism, just like Francis Fukuyama is. Matt, by posting personal attacks on my talk page, you are being a WP:DICK, please stop. Wndl42 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You copy and paste exactly the same response here and on your talk page and you call me a dick? You've wasted a lot of my time, pal simple as. I've been busy (and am busy now and yoou are a ML:timewaster)--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you made your personal attack in both places here and on my talk page, and as such I responded in both places. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikiquette alert filed

Fyi, the Wikiquette noticeboard has been updated as follows:

• see here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed bot signage above riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record (if it's needed - surely not), my above arguments are pretty hard to read now, but I still stand by each one. The page is a lot better now - that's all I care about. (ie it's now this and it was this --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I am in the process of (carefully) re-doing your latest reverts, and I ask you to consider that this article needs to focus on the event from a non-partisan journalist's or media commentator's viewpoint. Your edits (again) shift the focus to the "he said, she said" aspects, and to the political implications, but these are covered (thanks to your efforts) well and fully elsewhere. In this article, our focus should be on a journalistic interpretation of the event, and should therefore be as de-politicized as possible. People who are interested in either (a) candidate Obama's religious background, or (b) candidate clinton's campaign tactics, or both, can go elsewhere. Also, please review Misplaced Pages is not news.

I sincerely hope that just means rewriting and fiddling with my recent hard work. I based all my new stuff on the original consensus (all your own changes to that consensus were done on your own initiative). Your version is NOT the base, and I HAVE SEEN NO ONE AGREE WITH YOU. Play with my graft by all means - but do not revert it to your philosophical/POV idea of removing all allusion to politics out of a story about politicians! You have reported me, and I am very serious with you now - please do not think I will be easily pushed over. You didn't make a 'base' to revert to, as no consensus was involved in your edits - I watched you patiently for that time simply because I thought you were listening to me (and got angry only when I realised I was being strung along). I'm not happy chappy mr Wnd142.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To all, allow me to provide some historical context. Walter Annenberg once smeared Milton Shapp by planting an "ambush" question for candidate Shapp in a news conference; "have you ever been in a mental home?". The next day, Annenberg's paper ran a five column front page story "Shapp denies having been institutionalized", ruining Shapp's political career with this famous "smear". Now, to this day, what is notable is not whether Shapp was a mental patient (he was not), but how Annenberg's smear became a "journalism 101" textbook case of a pre-meditated character assination. We should write this article, not from the heated context of the current presidential race, but from the context of how history will remember it. Long after the 2008 election, this event will go down in history of journalism and media as one of the most famous "double splatter" smears ever. Does this make sense? Thanks... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually realise you have made a complaint about someone?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable "scoops"

I deleted the Scoops section and moved the content to the Events section. First, I'm not sure why we're defining the journalism term "scoop" in an Insight article. Not only is it a commonly used term that everyone should know, but the section defining the term was full of bad grammar and unnecessary quotation marks. Plus, there is only one item listed. Has Insight only had one notable scoop? Probably not. I don't see any reason why it can't be included in the events section, or why the events section can't be renamed to include all items currently listed below it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Athene, us editors may know what "scoop" journalism is, but the people we write for probably do not. If you saw something you thought was "bad grammar", then by all means, feel free to wordsmith it, but the section I wrote passes my grammar checker, so do please elucidate what you thought was bad. And do it specifically please, rather than making vaguely worded statements to characterize my edits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Scoop" is not an obscure journalistic term. I am sure that everyone is familiar with the cliche "What's the scoop," and I feel no need to define it here. The main grammar problems I saw were "It's" vs. "Its," various missing punctuations, and overuse of quotes. I didn't know who made the edits, but I do see current problems with the article come from hastily made or edited changes. I think that everyone should take a step back and focus on quality for a while, not necessarily the controversies. Constant re-wording and squabbling isn't going to help the article by any stretch.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for the cool head, thanks for your fixes, and hopefully I've made an acceptable offer to Matt. WNDL42 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice

Template:JournProjectArticles

Media Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

There are other places to "hash out" all of the political issues that the Insight article raised. This article is in the categories of "Media" and "Journalism", and it's entire structure and focus should be from that perspective, with only enough (bare minimum) detail on the politics to preserve context.

Please, all, lets take the politics elsewhere. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok...with out referring to specific POVs of editors who have (until recently) been more attentive to the page than me, the matter of a previous consensus has been raised. When I got here, I read (for example) this section, and quite frankly along with the rest of the talk page, the entire debate seems (probably quite naturally) to reflect the intense feelings about Islam, the candidates, the "thinking" of the candidates...all fueled by Insight's speculation...and as a "media critic" who is not totally devoid of my own political leanings, my reaction was purely one of "where is the POV that merely wants to reflect on Insights journalistic integrity?" as opposed to the contents of this talk page, of which about 90+% appear devoted to the "politics" of the victims of the smear. Honestly, the only consensus I see looks like a general agreement with Kuhner's speculations about the "attack planning".

So what I'm really looking for here is about 90% of the article to be devoted to the journalism and media perspective, just enough of the political stuff as is needed for context, and absolutely no reinforcement of Kuhner's speculation in the article or it's sectio headings -- partly because Kuhner does not, and (conveniently) cannot WP:PROVEIT, but mostly because I think this article should reflect the "media" and "journalism" categories to which it belongs. That is why I gave the "Scoop journalism" angle a shot, and I'd still like to pursue it. Anyway, from my POV, I think we should not in any way give further voice to any of Insight's idle and politically motivated speculations other than as needed to identify them clearly for what they are. This is the discussion I am looking for, and it has not been happening here until I "got busy" on this article, so I suggest that we please view whatever consensus existed before as an evolving consensus, which now includes a "different" POV.

Thanks and please lets discuss. WNDL42 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was going well (in the typical WP sense) until you made your own radical departures from the road-paving of consensus. People have their various deeply-set POV's (we always do of course) but between us, the balance was getting in. That is how Misplaced Pages works!!

The problem is you made lots of changes that took it into a 'PG version' direction, from the intro downwards! After initially standing back and giving you my trust, I found the changes way too much, as you know. I have to say that I disagree 100% on what I see as 'non-politicising' philosophies. My objection is from a solid WP viewpoint. Kuhner, Insight - what's the problem? Your now deleted introductory paragraph explaining what "scoop" means was extraordinarily un-WP - we needn't explain any such think if it's developing in the right way. We must all have a good grasp of the various guidelines - I think you've made the common mistake of focusing on policies (like Good Faith etc), but without properly knowing the guidelines (like Style and congent issues). You have at times reeled-off the 'WP:'s' (to me anyway), and are just not listening to others IMO - so you can't really complain if I'm strong with you, as I am.

Myself, I want to see a balanced article without undue weight IN ANY WAY. Insight is entirely a political entity - I can't sress that enough - and it's what we are dealing with! If anyone doesn't like seeing the grit of politics, they ought to go somewhere else and certainly not 'intellectually' bully people into softening it! Attacking people for politicising, whilst always being vague on why, is not right. I feel I'm a target, yet I work hard to be objective and balanced all the while.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Best title for Insight/Clinton/Obama section.

If someone new to the article is reading the contents, then Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign (or suchlike) is surely much better than Indonesian "madrassa" media controversy (or suchlike).

Any views on putting Clinton in the heading?

This Insight article should be an acurate and dispassionate record of Insight's reporting - any "media controversy" is surely a side-issue to that - so why struggle to formulate it in a heading at all? Insight wrote the article about Clinton having so-called 'plans' - so lets keep it simple. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, please review WP:NOT and allow me to remind you that WP:NOT is a POLICY, not a guideline, and it is non-negotiable. Specifically, see "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy", "Misplaced Pages is not news" and also, "polling is not a substitute for discussion". There is a discussion in play, points are being made from non-negotiable policy perspectives, you are free to offer your own policy interpretations, but given your passion and your edit history on this topic, you appear to be engaging in tendentious editing and I think you've crossed the line into disruptive editing. Suggesting that you slow down a bit and work through the process of generating an encyclopedic presentation. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven’t made any main edits in 10 hours - and none since you filed a report on me for losing my temper with you! I've had no need to make edits - the section itself is fine now (largely thanks to me I'm obliged to say - and you now 'suggest' that I look at "encyclopedic presentation"!). fine - you've now changed the title back (though entirely without consensus as User:Athene cunicularia clearly isn't happy with your take on an apropriate title either). The title is my only issue now - and I'm entitled to discuss it!! RE your comments above - you're making error after error after error. Or its abusive 'head games', one or the other. I ASK YOU - GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF THE DISRUPTIVE EDITS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Rather like with your report about me to Wikiquette, you are just trying to make me look like a villain (3RR and complete rubbish like that - you are getting very close to plain lies, and you mentioned something about me complaining about your 'double splatter' edit, which was just not true either - why would I?). People can follow edits you know - it's not all based on impressions given.

If this was a populated article you simply would not get your own way, as you have done here, with no other support. Unfortunately nobody is around. I am simply asking for discussion and two-way dialogue for heaven's sake! - your problem is that you simple just don't read anything properly - I honestly don't think at any point you have read a single comment of mine properly. And you are now telling me to 'slow down'! From doing what? What an utter wind-up! Apart from addressing you (and boy I wish I held my tongue when I realised what you were like), all I've contributed in 10 hours or so is this new Talk section on the best heading! You've pretty much done my head in - keep the title however you flipping want it. I'll only come back if the Clinton/Obama content needs help again. You can try and get me in trouble again if you like - you are either an idiot or the biggest wind-up merchant on Misplaced Pages. There are plenty of ways to be uncivil - you seem to know all the nondirect ones in the book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok Matt, cmon...you make 13 edits here without commenting on the "journalism v. politics" arguments I have been making, then you go off on me on my talk page here and here in the article talk. I'm sorry I subsequently referred you to as being a WP:DICK, but whaddaya do when someone goes off like that? So, if you will WP:AGF, and kindly go to my talk page and delete entire "bias" section, I will likewise retract the Wikiquette alert, and then we can discuss politics v. journalism. Deal? WNDL42 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

half of those edits were m's - I did a lot of work on the links (a couple were in a mess anyway) and the code got skewed - took me about 6 to get it right.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget you 'went off' in the same way yourself! I was at least getting it back to consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, (1) I did not go off in the "same way", see here. (2) I apologized for the retort I gave you in response to your personal attacks, (3) I invited you to simply remove them from my talk page as a means to end the Witiquette report, and yet you (4) respond instead with more personal attacks, and this frivolous claim that I "went off in the same way". I could cite WP:SPADE and reply candidly, but instead I will just characterize your comment above as a smoke screen. WNDL42 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on - any observer can see that I simply took it back to consensus, after you steered it away entirely along your own personal (and entirely unsupported) 'this myth propagating is not WP policy' route. Of course you 'went off yourself' - without any possible doubt! When I got it back to normal I carried on improving it. It took a consecutive row of edits to get it back - that is NOT a '3RR', like you are now boasting (with your link above) that you have complained to WP that I made!! The 3 Reversal Rule is a fundamental WP policy you have refused to understand. I've actually not 'edit warred' with you even the once! (It involves more that 1 revert). You have actually got your own way each time you reverted my all-different changes back. This section without question became an improved base to work on since you finally stopped simply reverting my various edits. Your individual change of direction did not represent a new Genesis! You displayed a crazy 'how dare you 3RR!' attitude to all attempted changes to your misguided 'no to propagating myth' route. It's just been improved again by someone I notice, which it what happens when the details are actually there for people to edit!

I also don't want these constant curve-ball WP:'s flung at me like 'wp:spade' etc (which is a pretty cold projection). Have you thought what might happen if I actually reported you, the way you (unsuccessfully) reported me? I'm not the type at all to do it, but you should think for a minute - you just may yourself get the 'warning' you have said you wanted me to get. Your retorts to me have at times been underhand and just too far from the truth (which is far worse than my own temper-loss and subsequent curtness). You won't fool people with the 'persuasive' comments you've been writing - they will simply look at the evidence, and weigh it up against the various accusations you have all the while been making (supposing I did make the equivalent complaint - but what would be the point of that?) This started when I complained in your Talk page that you 'wasted my time' by only pretending to listen to my patient reservations over your 'edit run' - and you then promptly went and reported me for rudeness, wasting loads more of it. You then stubbornly protected your edits as if they were the consensus! Aaaaaaaggh! You wonder why I've been so p*****d off. Underneath every squabble there are always the facts, however the waters have been muddied.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am okay with Indonesian "madrassa" media controversy if it gets people to stop squabbling, but I personally think heading could easily be Barack Obama or Barack Obama madrassa controversy. In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to use a basic header and focus on maintaining a high standard of detail for the section's content.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep referring to an old consensus but nobody is around. I'm going to take a break till there are more people. In importance Insight is 1, clinton is 2, Obama is 3 - it just so simple to me. We all need to read the Insight article closely again. I made my thoughts clear in one of the sections above, a while ago. I am also worried now appeasement is getting involved here - it is no basis at all for proper consensus. We clearly need a break! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article quality dropping

I don't know what's going on here. These petty little fights are too much to wade through. Whatever it is, the quality of this article is suffering at its expense. Please pay attention to spelling, grammar, weasel words, references, etc. when editing. I just made numerous copyedits that were necessary only because it's obvious that someone or some people are letting their emotions get in the way of making constructive edits.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Athene, I like your fixes, agree with your assessment and will admit to some frustration as a result of some pretty extensive and noisy disagreement over what this article is and what it is not. I am presently taking a half-step back to digest this flurry of edits to see what can/should be done, and awaiting some feedback on the perspective I offer as to how this article should proceed.

Would appreciate your comments on my discussion point as to perspective re: politics vs. journalism. Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see how this is distracting, but things are not so petty when you have actually been reported by someone, as I have. Wnd142 is now 'in the process of reverting' me, as he says. He has never looked at current consensus! If ANYONE has any comments, please say!! I've put nothing but real graft into this subject for a few weeks now. It could now get grotty if we don't look for consensus. Don't be shy!!!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to even look at the page, but distinguishing between what he thinks and what he knows is evidently not Wndl42's strong point. Andyvphil (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look for arbitration if things don't settle down here. Personally, I think that both of you should take a deep breath. On a side note, if you're truly proud of everything you've done, then you shouldn't have to worry about being reported. I want to see some semblance of stability for this article and will closely monitor edits made over the next few days.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Block quote removed

I took off the block quote from Insight itself that just repeated the charges against Obama. The article should be about Insight not a coatrack for what they have to say about people. 67.101.44.217 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it back. I think that Insight should be allowed to explain. Let's discuss it here first. Perhaps we could shorten it to the first two sentences, since they seem to be the meat of Insight's rebuttal. Any thoughts on that?Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was another quote from Insight removed awhile ago that was much more favorable to Obama. Let me get back on that. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quote that was removed. If we want to include a quote where Insight defends itself I think this would be better:

On January 31 Kuhner responded to the New York Times story, saying in part:

The Times is trying to obscure the real issue: Hillary Clinton's campaign had been conducting extensive opposition research on her main '08 Democratic rival, and they were zeroing in on his Muslim background. This is the truth. This is exactly what we actually reported. This is what actually happened. We got it first and we got it right. No amount of spinning and mud-slinging from the liberal media can change this.

Absolutely not. Insight has used the entire issue (a criticism of it's "journalistic practice") solely as an opportunity to repeat it's idle speculations about the candidate's "thinking". Misplaced Pages should not be used serve the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's "media arms" as part of the "echo chamber". FYI, WP:BLP (which, contrary to popular misconception applies to all articles) and WP:NOT#NEWS are two policies that preclude the echoing of Kuhner's "titillating claims" here. Let's just keep it in the journalistic context, refer back to Kuhner's defense of his sources, and maybe contextualize that with the statement from Insight's web explaining anonymous sourcing policy. Also, I think my first sentence above (in italics) should go into the article to characterize Kuhner's "defense" of his story. I know this is a politically popular topic, but this is an article on journalism and media. The politics of the issue are well covered elsewhere. WNDL42 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, may I gently remind you that you have a conflict of interest here that you and Ed and I have discussed repeatedly and I believe we reached a gentleman's agreement on this. Your post above could be construed in the context of providing "cover" for Rev. Moon's propaganda operations. Of course you are welcome here, but please respect our efforts here to provide an objective POV in this article. Thanks.WNDL42 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am holding off from doing much editing on the article itself. I just made a suggestion on the talk page. The editor of Insight is not a church member and seems to have a personal dislike for Senator Clinton which drives much of his editing on the subject. For the record, I think he made a mistake by not waiting for Obama's team to get back to him before running the story.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor who removed the quote. The article is supposed to be about Insight, not a forum to repeat what Insight says about people -- especially if they are running for president. You are right about WP:BLP Wndl42. I am considering mentioning it on the BLP board. Redddogg (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of the block quote was already in a pragraph, but was a bit awkward I felt (and I found it hard to improve)- I made it the big-ish block as it seemed best in their own words (the idea of a block after all!). I think it's OK as it covers what they have had say, and plenty of balance can be found around it (even more than is already on the page - a lot of it is in the long NY Times article). Ther was another smaller block too, which I removed, but could always be included again - I was just trying to improve, basically.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another quote that shows Insight's hostility was more towards Clinton than Obama:

Indeed, Barack Obama has exceptional qualities and deserves kudos for his achievement. He is genteel, articulate, poised and charming. He is a Harvard-educated lawyer, yet he remains accessible to the common man. He has been married since 1992, has two lovely daughters and is by all accounts a devoted family man. He is a pious Christian and a member of the United Church of Christ. He has virtually sky-rocketed into the national spotlight—winning a landslide victory in his Senate race in 2004; he became the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only current African American Senator. His fame has been enhanced by the publication of two-bestsellers, Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). He now trails only behind Hillary in his bid to secure the nomination of his party. And he has done all of this even before he celebrates his forty-sixth birthday later this summer. -Washington Watch: Obama's fund-raising record reveals weakness of Hillary's campaign Steve Dufour (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We must always get "Madrassa" right - it's not radical in itself.

The word "Madrassa" is not one-dimensional - it has negative connotations. (Which are even connected to the story too).

I had previouly edited the intro to this section, to indicate that it simply meant 'school' - but that sentence has been re-written. Why? Nothing at all was added - only taken away. At various points the 'definition' issue has been there - at the moment it's confusing - which is very frustrating.

I'm simply not going to have Madrassa look like a radical word - at the moment it does (becuase the connecting Obama details have been moved down, and the defining word "religious" (relating to the Insight version) has simply been removed.

Please take the word "Madrassa" into account when re-writing prose. And why re-write decent prose if nothing is being added? We are not going to be able to just 'simplify' all this - we have to get the valid and relevant detail and balance right.

I'm going to try and blend it in from the better version here --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a new title in here too - please revise not revert!--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the use of "madrassa" should be referenced back to this, specifically:

Negative connotations applied to the word

The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization examined bias in United States newspaper coverage of Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and found the term has come to contain a loaded political meaning:

"When articles mentioned 'madrassas,' readers were led to infer that all schools so-named are anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist centers having less to do with teaching basic literacy and more to do with political indoctrination."

In recent times, various American public figures have used the word in a negative context, including Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell.

The word madrasah literally means "school" and does not imply a political or religious affiliation.

Feb 08 AM edits, comment here please

(new subsection for discussion WNDL42 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC) )

Matt, I liked the direction you went in this edit of yours, but I think my recent changes go further in the same direction and add some clarity around this, I think that with all the damage that's been done using the word 'madrassa' (which only means "school") we really need to be strong here. Look forward to comments. WNDL42 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd discuss this morning's changes here and not a new section, this talk page is getting too long and needs some organization of ideas and topics.

Anyway, responding to the comments about WP:OR below, I'm not sure I understand them. the section "Criticism by CNN...etc." seemed to present the idea that this was merely a left-right controversy between CNN and Insight/Fox. The 'Echo chamber' metaphor is well known and has been used for years to describe this kind of journalism, for just one specific and notable example (Also traced back to Sun Myung Moon)...see here:

"The story is familiar: A distorted claim is fed into the echo chamber, where it is increasingly twisted as it is repeated over and over until it becomes conventional wisdom."

The use of 'Echo Chamber' in academic and media research is found extensively in Google's Scholar archives here

If anyone has a critique of exactly what might be WP:OR in the changes I made this morning, please see diffs I provided above and post anything that looks like OR here and at the BLP noticeboard. WNDL42 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More "bumping" up against WP:3RR

All, there's a discussion pending, please discuss changes before making extensive changes like these. I have gone ahead and undone the reverts. WNDL42 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• and I personally don't consider this to be discussion. WNDL42 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a new change which is hopefully a better base to work on - please give opinions--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

Matt, thanks, but I think we should settle the issues before making more changes, as Athene has suggested (I think). WNDL42 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RE - your revert! Heaven's sake!!! The current Madrassa title is yours and yours alone (it is no consensus) - you have no right to dictate the way you do!!! I discussed my change!!! Stop bullying people into your own personal 'one at a time' process - this is Misplaced Pages, not your classroom. And try revising not reverting too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the overwhelming perspective on this whole incident is that it was a "smear" that caused a major news organization (Fox) a great deal of embarassment. That is what is notable, as I have demonstrated per WP:GOOGLE. Your revert was also in conflict with WP:NOT#NEWS, I have brought this issue to the fore and you have not addressed this in any of your comments. Also, failing to acknowledge that the primary notability of the event was the resulting "mess", which caused a Sr. VP of Fox to publically rebuke his staff and apologize to Obama, while moving focus to the candidates and away from Insight is in conflict with WP:UNDUE. From a media and journalism POV, (the categories to which this article belonds), the failure of journalistic integrity and Insight's role in that failure is the primary element and failure to reflect that is WP:NPOV.WNDL42 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal...can we agree to use a heading that includes neither candidate's name, but clearly identifies the "controversy" in the context of a journalistic failure that was sparked when Insight yelled this word into the media "Echo Chamber"? In my view, that's the journalistic/media angle that reflect the story most accurately. WNDL42 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In preventing names in the titles you are simply stopping play here.

Can you actually prove that the connotations of the word "Madrassa" are more notable and central to the story than it being about Clinton? Remember WP:Original Research. The heading we originally ended up with (which wasn't mine) was this;

Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign

I was happy with it, and it seemed others were too. Both the headings after it were your changes: "Anonymous smears" then "Indonesian "madrassa" media controversy". You call it a 'contentious issue' in your revert notes, but you are basically speaking for just yourself in WP terms. Others must have their say too.

I've tried 'Events surrounding Clinton/Obama story' and you remind me WP is not News. YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP REMINDING ME OF THAT!! Sorry but it really annoys me - its so rude and believe me, I know WP is not journalism or a newspaper. The article has to be reasonable, balanced and objective though - and nowhere does it say in WP that we should avoid using news in a title just because it is or was once news!!! It's just a warning about notablility!

The Clinton element is clearly both central and notable - I'm not "guilty" of anything wanting her name in!

The current "Madrassa" title I am seriously not happy about. Madrassa always needs some kind of explanation of meaning, now that it's been abused the way it has.

"Clinton/Obama story" is minimal - and contains Obama's name too, if you are unhappy with just 'Clinton' being highlighted (as you once said).

By the way, stop saying I ignore your arguments too - I always address them. You're not playing fair saying stuff like that. I've written loads in here and its been so difficult to advance on the main page, as you are policing it so pointlessly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:COAT

I would like to present the issues here in the context of WP:COATRACK, and please, let's keep the discussion cool and concise. Wndl42 20:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit too concise! What issues are you presenting?

The article itself can't possibly be a coatrack - it's clearly about Insight!

I assume you just mean the Clinton story section on its own. But what is it is a 'cover' for? Surely it's a valid section! And what do you think are the coats in it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that presenting it in terms of Insight's speculation about Clinton's thinking is a coattracking of Kuhner's speculation. WNDL42 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's stretching coatrack way too far! As I've said before, your argument is WP:Original Research. You may well be right - but it is clearly pushing your POV. We must present the straight details - you are trying to rearrange them to bring out some kind of 'hidden truth'. We are not reporters you know! We probably agree on things, but I insist on doing it the WP way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try a different tact. Let's take an imaginary person, call him "John Doe". Now lets create an entry on Misplaced Pages "Allegations that John Doe was planning to attack Barak Obama". Even though you have described the charge as an "allegation", it perpetrates the "idea" of John Doe as an attacker. Here is an example of the psychological basis on why we should not WP:COATRACK Insight's story lines in the headings. The Persistance of Myths. Does this clarify my objections to using the heading to reinforce the allegations?

• "When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual." WNDL42 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Only in the USA' as they say. But we can take stuff like that way too far. If we get over-moralistic we are in real danger, and can land on dodgy grounds - throwing 'babies out with the bathwater' and creating teenage rebels through our desire to hide evils and not corrupt! Keep to policy is best! Lets not risk being censorious.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, "Only in the USA" hits the nail on the head (read first hit). When I was in Ireland in 2004 during the Kerry v. Mayo football championship (which just happened to take place in late September frenzy of our Kerry v. Bush election, I got my eyes opened to how others see what goes on here, "Only in the USA". For a more international viewpoint, see also here. WNDL42 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't agree with your arguments. I recently spent a lot of my time helping to get a 'fork' article on this story deleted (you might like to read the AfD) - ironically I used the same arguments (coatrack and perpetuating mud). I would never dream of applying either to a heading in here though - especially not if it just simply mentions the names!

Matt, what has been most frustrating (honestly, hurtful) about previous comments is that I think you and I agree strongly in many areas...and yes, I did see your work in the previous area, and I applaud it. I am here to do what I can to see the entire area in which Insight's brand of journalism operates represented as the world of reliable sources reflects it back to us, and if the opinions of scholars and reliable news sources reflect an unflattering view, so be it. To mitigate in any way the harshness of these views would fail WP:NPOV badly. WNDL42 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Headings must mean something to interested, or potentially interested parties. To risk rendering them ambiguous on 'myth propogating' grounds is all wrong! The 'converse logic' is that people who don't know of it mustn't be told of it. This is only the Insight article, not the local church hall! The heading is looking better now though - we may have found a compromise, if it sticks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are on a good track, but there's more to go. Let's build on this. WNDL42 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The article is much better now. The ironic thing is that Insight might have ended up helping Obama. For one thing he was forced to put out the word on his Christianity and that could have only helped him in the black community. Redddogg (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Tobogganoggin's recent go at the first half is an improvement too (Tobbogganoggin's rewording). As long as the first half and the title are decent and representative, I'm personally happy. Lets hope we've got there! Not sure it's completely perfect on my main bugbear ('madrassa') but this edit is certainly good enough for me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(breaking in) Matt, it seems (against all odds) that you and I are in agreement. The misrepresentation by Insight of a simple arabic word for "public school" as a means of smearing Barak Obama is despicable, and one of my earlier section headings "anonymous smears in 2008 election campaign" seems to be where you and I both wind up happy. ;-) WNDL42 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Redddogg, the article is improving, but still coatracks the second half of the "double splatter smear". I am doing some work per WP:GOOGLE to illustrate my point more fully.

• The technique I am using is a comparison of general www hits (using that result as an "all sources" control population, which includes unreliable and reliable sources) and then performing a lightweight statistical analysis comparing:

(a) the "all sources" control population to both of

(b) a Google News Archive search of generally reliable news sources and

(c) a Google Scholar Archive search of generally reliable academic sources

For right now, anyone who wants to join can begin with these sample search query examples for (a), (b), and (c), modify them as you see fit, post the search querys you wish to draw inference from, and we can discuss. WNDL42 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Story still being used to harm Obama...this time by neoconservative "human events"

The idea that neoconservative www.humanevents.com published a scandalous new report attacking Sen. Obama, a report that is still parroting the Insight innuendo is not surprising. What I thought was cute is that "Human Events" have a paid advertisement for their latest Obama hit job posted on...you guessed it...the archived copy of the "Insight madrassa smear" report by Kirkpatrick. The ad was found this morning at the bottom of "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It's false" as I was reviewing our presentation of that reference. Here's the little paid ad that popped up here (note I've obscured the url, intentionally).

"Barack Obama Exposed"

A Free special report on the real Barack Obama - get your copy today!

www.H***nE***ts.com

Sadly, the "echo chamber" just continues to reverberate.

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!

A fundamental official policy.

I can't work with somebody who repeatedly demonstrates he has no regard for the basic rules, works for only himself, and ignores all discussion, so like someone else unfortunately said a couple of days ago - this is now going 'off my watchlist'. (Sanity and my time are no.1!). If the Insight/Clinton/Obama section fundamentally changes regarding the word "Madrassa" being fairly represented, maybe someone could let me know - I'll help put it right.

All I can say now is: WP:No Original Research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal of Kuhner (discussion moved from BLP discussion about WP:COAT

(Slightly O.T. from WP:COAT, but relevant side discussion

Responding to WNDL42, Andyvphil said:

OK, "Misplaced Pages should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner 'lied',..." If you meant it, it would be progress.

But, "if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication...". Please supply one RS "fact" that gives "weight" to the "view" that Kuhner "fabricated" (i.e., lied). Be succinct. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the WP:SET analyses, comparing a "control" population of hits to both Google Scholar and Google News populations several times, these analyses indicate that the "ugly" characterizations of Columbia Journalism Review are in fact strong majority views. But this in not my point. I will re-present the data again here in as succinct a manner as possible, re-state the meaning of the results, and let's keep the argument to the evidence, elsewise I don't know what we're discussing.

Google Scholar

• Control population = 446 hits

• Add the word "lying" and it's variants to the control query = 279 hits

With this lightweight analysis we are already at 63% positive in support of the expert opinions like CJR that have already been analyzed. If we were to invest the additional work to remove spurious hits from the control population, the "postive" support would increase. Therefore, "the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources" is demonstrated, and presented for critique. WNDL42 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(further comments were maybe relevant - adding them) WNDL42 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, no one has suggested language to the effect that "Kuhner lied", we're not going to say "Kuhner is a journalistic hack and a political stooge of Rev. Sun Myung Moon", we're not going to use the article to post the Bush family photo album from December of 2007 with Rev. Moon, and we're not going to feature the article titles of academic works like "Lying in Politics: The Case of George W. Bush and Iraq" and "Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying", even if those reliable sources explicitly connect to Rev Moon and Insight, OK? But the language of the critics themselves, specifically and explicitly in the context of THIS topic, properly attributed and weighted according to the quality of the source, is appropriate. I think the existing Columbia Journalism Review quote, and the quotes that we've already introduced are about right, indeed they are "gentle".

Now, back to the issue here of WP:COATRACK. Kuhner stated publically that he reports directly to the BOD of News World Communications and to NO ONE ELSE. Every board member is not only a Unification Church member but is a proxy for Rev. Moon himself (he is, after all, the "messiah"), so the association is clear and undeniable. Now, that fact (a), combined with (b) the statistical analyses per WP:SET, plus (c) the unanimous opinions of the many non-partisan sources (Columbia Journalism Review, non-partisan Mediaweek, Salon.com, etc. etc. etc.) already analyzed, plus (d) the historical and ongoing interference in the article by Kuhner himself and Wikipedians from the Unification Church, plus (e) Kuhner's failure to WP:PROVEIT either here or in the media, and (f) the news out this week all provide an overwhelming weight of evidence that Wikpedia should not provide a rack on which Kuhner/Moon can hang their politically scandalous laundry. WNDL42 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Kuhner: Distortions and lies at The New York Times
2. ^ Moeller, Susan. "Jumping on the US Bandwagon for a "War on Terror"". Yale Global Online. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.
3. Rumsfeld, Donald (2003-10-16). "Rumsfeld's war-on-terror memo" (Transcript). USA Today. Retrieved 2008-01-14.
4. "Madrassas breeding grounds of terrorists: Powell". The Tribune. 2004-03-11. Retrieved 2008-01-14.

• Start-Class Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Biography articles of living people