Talk:Insight (magazine)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

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 "Wikipedia is not a democracy", "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Athene, I like your fixes too. I have been mostly staying out of the fray, but I do hope we can achieve neutrality. I recommend a summary of the Obama incident, followed by a balance of the two opposing analyses.

  1. Insight published a story claiming that Clinton's campaign was going to make an issue out of Obama's background.
  2. Clinton's campaign fired two staffers for sending emails related to this.

The rest is analysis, on the part of Insight critics saying variously that Insight either got its story wrong (innocently) or made false claims deliberately. We might also consider putting in a few statements by Insight defenders as well.

What I really hope to do is separate fact from analysis. We can all agree on the facts, right? The chronology of statements and events? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

- The article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice.
- It is not a [[WP:COATRACK|coat rack on which to hang Kuhner's political speculations.
- This article is in the media and journalism categories, not politics. This is not a place for discussing the "news".
- What is notable about the incident is that Insight created a scandal. The VICTIMS of the scandal are not the subject of this article.

Ed, as you have before on many occasions (see your speculative essay above), you again appear to be attempting to rehabilitate Unification Church credibility around it's media holdings by proposing that Kuhner's allegations deserve equal weight. Reliable sources reflect no such "balance", the opinions are overwhelmingly against Insight and that is an unfortunate fact of life. The attempt to "spin" wikipedia's presentation (even here on the talk page) is an attempt to provide WP:UNDUE weight to Kuhner's speculations (in your case) reflects badly in the context of your Unification Church COI as a "writer" for the church. Your comments here have in the past and continue to now to harm Wikipedia by presenting the illusion of a consensus. You should recuse from this and other articles where your COI is (now and historically) presenting every indication of pro-church bias. WNDL42 (talk) 03:57, 9 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.[1]
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". Wikipedia 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)
*Steve, if (as the universal opinion of NPOV, non-partisan experts say) Insight's Jan. 2007 "double smear" was intended to harm "evil frontrunner Sen. H.R. Foo" by inventing and publicizing "Foo's evil plan" to discredit "underdog Sen. O."Hussein" Fee" -- by showing Fee to be a "closet islamist", then OF COURSE Insight's follow-up propaganda would be designed to position Fee as a "sympathetic" character! If the primary target of the smear is Foo, then the Fee must be silmultaneously "madrassa slimed" and also positioned as the innocent victim of Foo. This is Muckraking 101. Again, this is not an article about politics, the "thinking" that Insight ascribes to people, not a place for discussing Insight's "assessment" of the candidates -- all of that is inconsistent with WP:COAT
Now, unfortunately I find myself needing to say again (to you and Ed Poor)that the combination of:
  • (a) your Unification Church WP:COI and
  • (b) your single-issue tendentious editing history as a Moon church apologists and "rehabilitators" of Moon's image, and
  • (c) the fact that Kuhner reports directly to the Board of Directors of News World Communications (his own words), all of whom are known to be Moon Church members and "proxy votes" for Rev. Moon,
...then (as I and many others Wikipedians have asked previously), I'm asking you to recuse yourself from editing pages or participating in discussions where you are promoting or advancing editorial directions that reflect the vested interests (political or otherwise) of News World Communications. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More on Kuhner's take here: [www.nysun.com/article/67895] (if that link doesn't work -- right now it's timing out -- the text is also at [1]). Andyvphil (talk) 07:27, 9 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:[2]

"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,[2] Donald Rumsfeld,[3] and Colin Powell.[4]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia "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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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, "Wikipedia 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

  • 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)

Madrasah?

The word "madrasah" (or "maddrasa") is now found three times in the Obama/Clinton controversy section. Is there any source that says Insight's use of this word was an important issue? Redddogg (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what you want, here. Lead sentence from the CNN report that had its own header in the article very recently: "Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." It goes on to say "Insight Magazine... reported... that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton... had unearthed information the... likely presidential candidate [had] attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam."[2] So, Insight 's use of the term gets lead-sentence treatment, and Insight 's misunderstanding that the term is a synonym for "seminary" is compounded by CNN's misreporting of what Insight meant by the term. (In fact Insight had explicitly denied that the "madrassa" was "known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam."[3]) I don't agree with ML about much, but he's absolutely right that the misuse of the word by everyone connected with this story is central. Andyvphil (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another couple examples of the "madrassa" in Insight 's report being misrepresented: New York Times first. "...Insight, a magazine owned by The Washington Times, said that as a child in Indonesia, Mr. Obama had attended a madrassa, a school that teaches a radical version of the Muslim faith."[4] There's a "correction" at the bottom of the page, "[The] article... referred imprecisely to madrassas. While some teach a radical version of Islam, most historically have not." No admission that Insight had written "the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism" , however. And CBS: "Insight printed a story claiming that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama was enrolled for 'at least four years' in an Indonesian "madrassa," a school that promotes radical Islam..."[5] Yes, Insight, a shoestring operation struggling for attention ran with a half-baked rumor about a subject it previously knew very little about. Bad journalism to be sure. But what then is one to call the performance of full fledged news operations that can't properly describe the facts of a story that's been running for weeks, that they've sent reporters to Indonesia to report on, and the bulk of which is staring at them from their computer screens? Well, "reliable" isn't the right description. Andyvphil (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I stand corrected. I guess I didn't get how important that issue really was. Redddogg (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
More info on "Is there any source that says Insight's use of this word was an important issue?" Insight's whole construction of the "double splatter smear" rests on people's emotional reaction to the misapplication and deceptive use of the word - see especially the Yale University [Moeller] analysis. This "sliming" via "madrassa" was part of the Bush Administration's communications strategy for building support for the war in Iraq.
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:
See Moeller/Yale

"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."

The sliming started right after 9/11 when the Bush Administration picked up the tactic, and even two years later, knowing it was a "slime attack" on muslims, Donald Rumsfeld (for one example) countinued it here WNDL42 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So if Insight hadn't used the word there would be no controversy? BTW back in the 1960s I think most Muslims were allied with the US against the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Madrassa" is an Arabic word that translates generically as "school", but as an American English loanword, it takes on a much more specific, pejorative meaning, associating all so-called institutions with the few that encourage violent radicalism. This hyperspecific meaning is "incorrect" as far as it misinterprets the Arabic, but it has become the de facto American English definition ever since the attacks of 9/11. Indonesians tend to speak, well, Indonesian, not Arabic, so by printing the word madrassa in its own voice multiple times, Insight, who prints in American English, obviously meant to invoke this alternate, frightful meaning. Certainly the author(s) intended their hedge about Wahabbism to mitigate criticism, but it's not really fair to criticize as incorrect or unreliable those news outlets that picked up on this not-so-subtle attack. If the public's understanding of the word is confused, that's because it has been confused for them circa 2002 by various news media and the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Newt Gingrich, and Thomas Friedman,[5] [6] whose usage has since gained wide acceptance. Years later in 2007, it's safe to say that Insight, CNN, NYT, and CBS all understood perfectly well what the word means to Americans. - Tobogganoggin talk 10:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's quite clear that Kuhner thought the word was a synonym for seminary ("Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.") that didn't necessarily teach a radical form of Islam ("The sources said... the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim... today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine... the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism.") It is absolutely fair to criticize as "incorrect or unreliable" those news outlets that say he said Obama attended "a school that teaches a radical version of the Muslim faith." For crying out loud, he said exactly the opposite! "Picking up on overtones" doesn't excuse getting wrong what's right in front of you in black and white. In their eagerness to be on the right side of history our ordinarily "reliable sources" got remarkably unreliable when they reported this story. Andyvphil (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You say tobogganoggin's argument is nonsense? Clearly not. Rather, your assertion "It's quite clear that Kuhner thought the word was a synonym for seminary" is a totally unsupported WP:OR interpretation. And I suppose now that Walter Annenberg's smear-campaign use of the term "mental home" was not (a) intentional and (b) identical to the way Kuhner used "madrassa" -- in terms of emotional impact on readers as "part one" of the "double splatter" smear? C'mon...get real. WNDL42 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering adding Insight's disclaimer about not knowing what kind of school it was for the sake of fairness. Redddogg (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, now you are suggesting Wikipedia is going to hang Kuhner's self-serving "explanation" on a WP:Coat Rack here? After the flap, not one reliable source took Kuhner's dissembling seriously -- not a single one (unless you count David Limbaugh, who also writes for Rev. Moon at Insight and the Washington Times). Kuhner's utterly ridiculous "explanation"... "Of course WE are not sure that Obama's school was a training ground for islamofacist youth, but that appears to be the story that is going to be used by the opposition, according to our sources." is so transparently silly as to defy any rational view that it was true...indeed that is the knock on Obama here...his campaign has a "vested interest", in a sadly ironic way, of joining in the game of "keep alive" with respect to the second half of this "double splatter" smear. That is why Columbia Journalism Review's post-mortem on the story concluded with "after all this, why should we take seriously anything that this online rag has to say? Every news organization gets things wrong, but Insight seems to have developed a business model out of concocting fables." If you want this article to "take seriously" (provide a coat rack for) the second half of the smear, you need to present a reliable source that is more credible than the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources that speak in contradiction. I don't care who wants to keep this nonsense alive or for what reason, this is not a place for echo chambering Kuhner's views. WNDL42 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a passage from the Insight article:[7]
"Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community1 has determined that today most2 of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims."
...
"Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism,3 the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it."
  1. Actually the editorial staff of Insight.
  2. Actually only some, but close enough.
  3. But the Saudi financing thing is totally true?
Insight's source doesn't provide any reason at all why "Democratic opponents" believe this school is an intolerant arm of the Saudi government, so the Insight writer fills in the blanks by suggesting that it's a statistical slam dunk, fabricating the results of U.S. intelligence findings to do so. If readers of the article make it this far, at this point it's entirely unreasonable to assume good faith on Insight's part. - Tobogganoggin talk 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, strongly. WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. My suggestion that Kuhner meant what he said is "totally unsupported WP:OR interpretation", but T's "totally unsupported" fantasy that Insight "fabricat[ed] the results of U.S. intelligence findings" is "Agreed, strongly". Ripe for insertion into maintext, apparently. Red, I hope you are by now thoroughly embarassed by the quarters from which the support came for stripping the article of Kuhner's rebuttals, or even a link to the offending article. You ought to be. Andyvphil (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not matter if Kuhner "meant what he said". As (a) Kuhner is the primary source for Insight's unsupported allegations, and (b) those allegations are original research, and (c) there are no reliable secondary sources that support either Insight's story or Kuhner's "explanation", then; any representation of the Kuhner POV (except to the bare minimum extent necessary to establish context) is inappropriate here. Any presentation here that serves to add or reinforce Insight's original research is generally inconsistent with the "five pillars" and specifically inappropriate in the WP:BLP context. WNDL42 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
~"It doesn't matter what Kuhner meant."~ Indeed. Sheesh. And, what bizarre blue links. WP:OR is a Wikipedia content policy. Kuhner doesn't write for Wikipedia and his writings for Insight can't be WP:OR, you ninny. Kuhner didn't say Obama went to a radical madrassa, and that's not POV. In the real world, it's fact. Saying otherwise is libel. And if you repeat that libel in disregard of the fact that you should know it's not true (and now that I've pointed out to you how and why it's not true you are entering the area of "reckless disregard for the truth" even if you are unable to grasp the obvious) you are exposing Wikipedia to legal liability for damages. And preventing that is the core of what BLP is really about. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Andyvphil. We have to be careful that WP itself does not say the Kuhner is a liar. Redddogg (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Then we are all in agreement, but the entire "discussion" about some ficticious editors wishing to use the article to "say Kuhner is a liar" is hogwash...merely a Straw Man that is now being used as a smoke screen. We are here to, in an accurate and encyclopedic way, characterize the event as the world of reliable sources sees the event, and to do so from the POV of the categories to which this article belonge, namely Journalism and Media, not politics. The issue is how to characterize the media event. "Kuhner is a liar" is not suggested...and is very different from the consensus viewpoints of reliable sources that say "the Insight story was a fabrication" and "Kuhner's defence of the story was not given creedence by journalists or media experts". Please, further Straw Man mischaracterizations of the opinions of editors in this discussion are not helpful. WNDL42 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between ~"Kuhner lied about having sources in the Clinton campaign and he lied again when he said that Obama attended a radical Islamist madrassa, everyone says so"~ and "Kuhner lied" is lost on me, and would be lost on the judge in a libel suit should it get that far. Especially since you've deleted Kuhner's rebuttals, wilfully deleted mention of the fact that the latter is untrue (the former is indeterminable) and removed the link to the article whose perusal would show that the libel is untrue. But, just go ahead being obtuse. The must be some level at which your violation of NPOV will spark attention from someone other than I, and I think your latest deposit of POV on the page may be it. Andyvphil (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Andy, the burden of proof lies on Insight for its statement that "the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools [madrassas] are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims." Not taking this publication at its word does not constitute a "fantasy" on my part. Also, WNDL42 never said my argument was "ripe for insertion into the main text." I sincerely hope that someday you will begin to debate fairly and respectfully, without ridiculing or misrepresenting the positions of others. - Tobogganoggin talk 07:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI and please be advised...arguments have now repeatedly been made against my comments here and at the BLP noticeboard that are based on intentionally snipped and edited versions of my comments, presented deceptively as if they were my words. This is harmful to me and if there is any more of this I will consider such distortions to be personal attacks. For the record, I am (saying again) that no part of this article should characterize Kuhner as a liar. Nor have I heard any other editor say any similar thing. WNDL42 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't snipped anything out of your comments without indicating I've done so with square brackets and ellipses. Mostly (always?) on the same page where the original appears in all its soggy and incoherent glory. And tildas are well understood to mean approximation, and on the one previous occasion I used it I was clearly characterizing the first sentence of the paragraph immediately above. So any assertion that I have violated NPA is bogus. But I encourage you to file such a complaint. I welcome as much attention as possible to what you are doing to the article. Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I made a point above not to mention names...but since you decide to speak up (and further distort the events), I would say that your snipping the very important word "if" from the front end of a statement that is in the form of an if-then, and then using your (even further snipped) quote to mis-characterize my editorial intent is pretty blatant, and no, you did mot make any indication whatsoever that you dropped the "if", so please...don't dissemble. The edit is clearly on the record and you chopped my words exactly as I indicated. If your memory needs refreshing, I'm happy to post the diffs. WNDL42 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do. And Please, please file a complaint. Andyvphil (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You hadn't previously complained about a missing "if", so I looked. Your complaint is as bogus as your arguments. When you wrote "...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, our job is not to 'mitigate' what reliable sources say" no reasonable person would think you were offering a hypothesis about the common view of this article. Your "editorial intent" was clearly to make an assertion about that, and I accurately quoted you that way: "You made the argument that 'the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming [that the article should] reflect [the] common view that the entire smear was a fabrication". Do you even know when you're lying? Andyvphil (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: "...no reasonable person would think...", well...here's my post including the context so deftly removed, even (and again) as above. I 100% stand by 100% of what I said, and will repeat it here because it's still 100% relevant. WNDL42 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Andy, I'm not sure there is any argument here anymore. You are 100% correct in that Wikipedia should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner "lied", and I am not advocating that we do. However, 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, our job is not to "mitigate" what reliable sources say. If it's true that Kuhner's behavior has landed him in the "hot seat", then that is a fact of life for Kuhner and Insight and we "do no harm" to anyone. Wikipedia represents the 'facts of life', in terms of what reliable sources say, and our job is to let the facts speak in a clear, encyclopedic and unmitigated tone, and let the reader decide. Anyway, at this moment it looks like all the conflicts are now "up front and on the table", so thanks to redddogg for having the presence of mind to put the issue here where it belongs, and to everyone who has spoken up. 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, can someone explain how this translates into a BLP violation against Kuhner, or supports the continuing assertion that any editor here wants to synthesize a statement that says "Kuhner lied"? WNDL42 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Diff of response to my BLP noticeboard post above is here, fyi. WNDL42 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my question. If you can actually reprint the demonstration that my "You made the argument that 'the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming [that the article should] reflect [the] common view that the entire smear was a fabrication" was an accurate representation of your argument, and not realize you've done so... Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Or, it's not lying if you can't tell truth from falsehood.

FYI, BLP, reads in part, "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics,..." The article you've produced violates this policy. It gives no visibility to Kuhner's claims that he or his source was actually told by someone close to the Clinton camp that they knew Obama had attended a madrassa for at least four years, that Obama had misrepresented that fact, and that the Clinton campaign intended to use that against Obama. There are RS contradicting the truth of what Kuhner says he was told about Obama but, as I've pointed out, there are no facts and therefor no RS contradicting his assertion that he was told those things. The article as currently written is a BLP violation. Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Andy, no one editor "produced" this "article". I have (a) undone and repaired long standing and well known Unification Church "efforts" to "water down" Rev. Moon's involvement with his media holdings, and (b) extensively advocated for and been a major contributor to a re-write of the "madrassa" smear section from the WP:COAT version we had before. The reason Insight's allegations against the "camp" of smear victim #2 are not given more weight than what is there (and it is there) is because we don't represent Primary Sources viewpoints when they are (a) original research and (b) unsupported by secondary sources, and (c) potentially harmful to anyone, and (d) are meant to use the article as a coatrack. The reason this page is up on the BLP noticeboard is because another editor here saw that the article was being used as a coatrack for echoing Insight's smears!. There does not appear to be any BLP administrator concern about "damage" to Kuhner at the BLP noticeboard, so I'm not sure you're getting traction by mere repitition of that claim. If you think that the article is now violating BLP with respect to Kuhner, allow me to point out that Kuhner is mentioned in only one of the seven paragraphs. The article's presentation of Kuhner is extraordinarily fair and neutral and 100% accurate and in no way pejorative. So, with so little on Kuhner and no "harm" done, what (specifically) do you think needs to be added about Kuhner? Remember that it needs to come from a secondary source other Insight and other than David Limbaugh, due to Limbaugh's WP:COI as a writer for at least two News World Communications publications, including Insight.
Finally, (repeating for the umpteenth time) you need to present a reliable secondary source to validate Kuhner's WP:OR claim that the "camp" was "planning to attack" in January of 2007, and it's been long established by reliable sources that there simply are none. Remember, the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". WNDL42 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no meaningful distinction between "Insight lied" and "Kuhner lied". I've already pointed out the idiocy of referring to Kuhner's writing for Insight as WP:OR. Insight 's writings and Kuhner's statements are widely reported in reliable and secondary sources, and Insight 's website is indeed reliable for its actual content.

BLP is quite clear: "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics,..." There is no exemption for if the "consensus viewpoints of reliable sources"(sic - I've already pointed out repeatedly that the truch of viewpoints cannot be "reliably sourced"; only the attribution of viewpoints can be reliably sourced) "that say 'the Insight story was a fabrication'".

The section, as I've let you write it without interference precisely because I was confident you would go far over the line begins: "On January 17, 2007, Insight published what would quickly come to be known among journalists and media experts as 'the first anonymous smear' of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign, and as a 'double smear' on two of its candidates." The attribution of belief in the Clinton response ("double smear") to a consensus (the implication is clear) of "journalists and media experts" is a violation of WP:RS, which reads, in relevant part: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Yopu then proceed to make a false statement, which also fails WP:V. "The first sentence of the report asked the loaded question of whether the 'American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa...'" It is first of all not a "loaded question". "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is itself not a loaded question if proceeded by the statement: "I have come into possession of video of you beating your wife." In the latter case it is just a question. Never mind. You've convinced me that such distinctions are lost on you. The important point is that you have no RS asserting that it was a loaded question, and it would fail WP:V even if true. You go on for several paragraphs like this, and I don't have time or inclination to demonstrate the obvious: the section as written is a brief for the critics. Which is a BLP violation. Andyvphil (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made these cases endlessly here and on the BLP notice board, where there is (as yet) no support. If you feel strongly on the BLP issue, take it back there. I am not sure, but as BLP is stated to be one of Wikipedia's most critical policies, I suspect that the noticeboard is reviewed by the WP:OFFICE daily. As for here, Proof by assertion and Argumentum ad infinitum aren't working, and are becoming increasingly difficult. Please discuss further BLP issues on the already established, still open case at the BLP noticeboard.
Now, as for your repeated accusations that I "make a false statement", please review. The whole incident began when Insight's first sentence was:
"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?"
There you have it. The twenty-eight words of sentence one formed a loaded question, that single FIRST SENTENCE (which was also presented as the first paragraph, for emphasis) was loaded with (1) "Madrassa" (negative connotations), (2) "not forthcoming" (O is dishonest) and (3) "Muslim heritage" (deceptive - O is/was a Christian). A triple loaded question.
Now for sentence two (also paragraph two, again for emphasis);
"This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama."
Sentence/paragraph two is unsourced and anonymous WP:OR that cannot be sourced to anyone but Insight, as about a dozen reliable sources point out. Also, please get the point that Kuhner is a highly biased Primary Source with a conflict-of-interest and can only (in the context of BLP) be included here if a reliable second source, free of conflict-of-interest, can be found to support (agree with) his further accusatory statements.
Any more questions?

The section now represents the incident as it is seen by reliable, non-partisan journalistic and media sources, as far as I can tell. WNDL42 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your insistance that Kuhner's question is a loaded question is not quite as idiotic as you continued insistance that Kuhner is engaged in WP:OR when he's writing for Insight, not Wikipedia... but it's close. The error in your argument is similar to the error in your assertion that I had misquoted you because I had left out the "if" -- you are conflating form with reality. Your "if" was not a real "if", but a rhetorical device, a feeble attempt at archness, which could be replaced by "since" with no change in your actual meaning. Similarly, the first sentence in the Insight article cannot be a "loaded question" because it is a framing device, not a real query -- no one is actually being asked for a reply.
As I've already said, "Never mind. You've convinced me that such distinctions are lost on you. The important point is that you have no RS asserting that it was a loaded question, and it would fail WP:V even if true." Which it is not. Andyvphil (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. Two extra-fallacious Straw men, even when propped up with the Ad hominem brigade do not constitute an excuse to avoid discussion via this tactic. WNDL42 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, back to the real discussions.

(1) Apparently my use of the shortcut WP:OR in the context of a primary source bias issue was not clear enough. I use it in the journalistic and historian's context. Sorry, I thought the connection was clear. "...There can be bias and simplification of events."; "Original research may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." and see also here for more.

(2) Kuhner's question is a Loaded Question by definition, and I added an academic cite to the article to boot, for proof.

(3) There is a clear difference between a "rhetorical device" and an Alternative hypothesis set up for comparison to the null hypothesis. The two hypotheses are used to set up and be tested by experiment, such experiment designed to cause one or the other hypotheses to fail. An alternative hypothesis can only be turned into a "rhetorical device" (the classic dissembler's Straw Man attack) if the hypothesis is stripped of the leading IF, and the intent to perform an experiment is removed from the context. So when I said "However, if the weight of evidence...", my statement was an alternative hypothesis, not "rhetorical device". Of course the alternative hypothesis, if shown to be true, may be uncomfortable from the POV of someone pushing for (or arguing for) the null hypothesis. Oh well, that's life. WNDL42 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. The only thing clear is that it's nonsense to refer to anything written outside of Wikipedia as WP:OR. It was silly the first time you did it. Repeating it two or three time after this was pointed out to you borders on being a sign of brain damage.
  2. You missed the point, again. As your cite shows, a loaded question is correctly identified as such only in the context of "argumentation", where its purpose is, as the Wikipedia article states, to "limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda". "Direct replies"? Not relevant here. (Again, no one other than you has asserted that Kuhner "asked a loaded question". For the third time, your sentence is unquestionably a WP:V vio.)
  3. As I pointed out in my comparison the actual meaning of the sentence you accused me of misquoting would be unchanged by the substitution of "Since" for "If". Similarly the actual meaning of Kuhner's sentence would be unchanged by the substitution of "issue" for "question". You continue to conflate form with meaning. (nb: There's an article on AGF entitled "Assume Stupidity". I'm trying to keep it in mind.) Andyvphil (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1.1 (a) The term "original research" predates Wikipedia by several hundred years, maybe thousands. Kuhner's piece was 100% original research, and Kuhner is the only known source, that makes him the primary source of original research. (b) who on earth is trying to "refer to anything written outside of Wikipedia as WP:OR.". The Straw Man of Hyperbole has a tendency to trip up it's maker...
2.1 pick a source, there's only a couple hundred.
2.1.1 Now, as for "a loaded question is correctly identified as such only in the context of "argumentation", I'd say I think your statement is also wrong because of information found at Loaded language. WNDL42 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3.1 Ad nauseum + Ad hominem = shrill. You took my statement, changed it, presented it out of context. I called you on it. Get over it. WNDL42 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


1.1 "(b) who on earth is trying to "refer to anything written outside of Wikipedia as WP:OR?" -- Wndl42 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"It does not matter if Kuhner 'meant what he said'. As (a) Kuhner is the primary source for Insight's unsupported allegations, and (b) those allegations are WP:OR|original research,..." -- Wndl42 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
2.1 Did. In the first a "loaded question"(by Wolf Blitzer) has nothing to do with "madrassa" in an entirely separate post. The excerpts for the next four on the search page also don't seem to connect the former to the latter. Your link fails miserably to establish WP:V.
2.1.1 As when you throw around policy names, you show no sign of having read the things you link to. Loaded language: "Loaded questions need not contain any loaded words; they are usually said to be loaded if they make a false PREsupposition... loaded questions arise in INTERVIEWS... For example, assume a television reporter were to ASK an actress... In the field of law... loaded questions are... ones that assume facts not yet in evidence... For example, a politician on trial might be ASKED..." As I wrote above ASKING is a request for a "direct reply" without first PREestablishing the grounds. But the entire content of Kuhner's article, including placing "in evidence" the assertions of the Clinton campaign, is PREvious to any reply. It is proper for someone to say to Kuhner, "No, that's not the issue. Go back. We disagree about the validity of the evidence for the grounds for the question." But that is a disgreement abot the truth of an explicit premise, not a logical fallacy. loaded question, another link you provide without seeming to have read, starts right off saying "loaded question,... is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy." Which Kuhner did not commit.
3.1 I represented your meaning accurately, and absolutely in context (same page, following paragraph -- what do you think "context" means???) The exposure of the bogus nature of your complaint ought to embarass you, but you are obviously shameless. Andyvphil (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)