This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insight on the News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed this expression from the sentence about Obama's school. As far as I know no one is asserting that the school was different in the past. Redddogg ( talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Bandung said he had heard the rumor that Obama went to a radical Islamic school. He showed a picture of Obama with the Scout group.
"The girls wore miniskirts. There's no way miniskirts would be allowed at a madrassa," he said. Another photo of teachers at the school shows both males and females wearing Western-style clothing. The women are also wearing miniskirts.
Bandung said there was nothing to worry about in any case as Indonesian madrassa had been noted for teaching a moderate form of Islam. [1]
More info:
Submitted by Gandydancer (United States), Feb 7, 2008 at 19:28
...a question: Is the word "madrassa"/"madrasah"/etc. used in the Indonesian language(s)? My understanding is that it just means "school" in Arabic, but Insight magazine seemed to think it was equivalent to "seminary" and the article with the longer ABC news video( http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2823943) actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative Islamic schools, many of which teach a virulent hatred of America." So, as an Indonesian, do you use the word, and what would it mean for you? ... [2]
...Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04
...The word Madrasah is commonly used here in Indonesia to describe a conventional (not modernized) Schools (elementary, middle to high, mostly located at sub-urban areas) whose curriculum weighs more in Islamic teachings. Later, they are more modernized and secularized. I believe all of these schools are private and ussualy associate themself with the Nadhatul Ulama organization (formed by former President Abdulrahman Wahid's father). On the other hand, at rural areas they are usualy called Pesantren. Their tuitions are low so mostly affordable by low income families. I rerely use these words. ... [3]
Andyvphil ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyv, too bad neither Daniel Pipes, nor the anonymous users "Gandydancer" or "Muhammad (Indonesia)", who post reader comments to his discredited stories, are reliable sources. Man, life must suck if one needs to scrape the barrel this far down to support the Insight take on "Madrassa". What a hoot! I'm ROTFLOL at the the way our "Gandydancer" (above) intentiononally and deceptively context-snipped "...actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative...", and then sourced his hack-job to a jan 25 2007 ABC piece!!! Gandydancer pulls an amateur Kuhner!!! Even funnier, check out the story that our funnytroll "Gandydancer" was commenting on.
Good job A, I needed a couple of laughs, and I really do have to thank you for feeding me the material I need for expanding the "echo chamber" and "loaded question" aspects of this article. Pipes' 12/2007 "feeder story" headline is a grade school attempt at asking a loaded question Was Barak Obama a Muslim?, which brings to mind a classic Bugs Bunny phrase "What a maroon" that fits Pipes perfectly here!. Better yet, (I'm 'bout busting a gut here), Pipes the maroon anwers his own question in his very next headline "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam". Thanks again A, and keep it coming, your stuff is classic! WNDL42 ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. ... Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." The question posed to "Muhammad" by "Gandydancer" is perfectly staightforward and exhibits no particular POV that I can detect. Nor does "Muhammad"'s very informative answer. Your cackling derision was so wildly off the mark and inappropriate to itc cause as to indicate an hysterical state of combativeness. And malice. Rather pathetic malice, when expressed so childishly, but useful when so obvious. Andyvphil ( talk) 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04 --
First, I should thank you for straightening up that my intention is only to submit info about situation in Indonesia. And also for the splendid link. Nice work. --
I think the clip we refer to >>was not from middle eastern 'seminary'<< but >>from the sub continent areas (maybe Kurdistan, Afghanistan or Pakistan)<<. Anyways, as shown from your link, in his book Mr. Obama was saying "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies" so clearly he was admitting openly that he did learn (practised if you will) Islam in some point of his life. So even Mr Obama was confusing his public school as a Muslim school. Mustn't have been the highlights of his life. --
>>In my opinion, it is evident that what mr Obama said was that he was never a Muslim in heart and to me, that means that he never was a believer. And it is his right to do so.<< --
Like many people, I was curious to know whether Sen[D] Obama was ever a Muslim or not. That curiosity brought me to Mr. Pipes's articles and I think I've got me the answer. --
>>The reporters and analists must have their own agendas.<< We haven't seen the last of the crossfire specially when the campaign will come to the next level. --
Btw, i think the core of terrorism is 'hatred' and that can only be defeated by 'love'. But that's another issue.
The following overview was removed, I think it's essential for journalistic context:
"Journalistic analysis of the Insight story began by examining the first sentence of the report, which asked the loaded question of whether the "American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" The second sentence alleged "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama." No basis was found for Insight's question and allegation, and throughout the ensuing controversy Insight steadfastly refused to present evidence or qualify it's sources."
This is an absolutely 100% spot on overview of the "essence" of every journalistic critique. I can see no good reason for taking it out. let's discuss any issues with the presentation here. WNDL42 ( talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Next topic, why was the extremely notable reference to Fox V.P. John Moody removed? First time in history (afaik) that Fox has apologized for picking up garbage and reporting it, so why is his name and title out? WNDL42 ( talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I saw that there was a pending request for a third opinion on this page. 3O is meant for articles that only have two active editors, and since there are more than five users active on here, I've removed the request. If you guys need further help, I'd recommend opening an WP:RFC. If there's anything else I can do to help, please message me. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that this was just changed and then changed back. Did Fox really "pick up" the story, that is repeat it as if it were true? Or did they just "mention" it? I'm not sure myself. Redddogg ( talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok...as it seems clear that it's still unclear (even among us editors) that the "echo chamber" effect was in play big time, I'm putting back a portion of the MediaWeek criticism that was earlier stripped -- specifically the "amplified by Fox, etc..." Hope we can agree now why it was necessary in the first place. I still see no reason to censor Grossberger's use of the word "lies" to characterize the report, but I'm hoping to avoid an overly contentious edit for now. WNDL42 ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a problem but it does seem a little odd that Kuhner's name is just about the first thing stated in the article. I don't think that articles about other publications, or even websites, would have the name of the editor in the first sentence. He is mentioned 4 or 5 times later on in the article, so there is not much chance that the reader would miss his name. Redddogg ( talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the specific case of Insight, and in the context of Insight's history, describing the ownership chain is essential from a journalism standpoint. Unification Church ownership is (as demonstrated elsewhere) indeed the single MOST notable thing about Insight. WNDL42 ( talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Checking out this article again I was amazed to read that Insight's stories about President Clinton had lead directly to his impeachment. When the New York Times tried to do the same thing to Senator McCain they were laughed out of the room. :-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
RE parag: "Insight's report falsely characterized State Elementary School Menteng 01, an Indonesian public school which Obama attended as a child, as an Islamic "madrassa". Although the Arabic word "madrassa" literally means any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it has often been used to refer singularly to Islamic madrassas - especially in the context of anti-Americanism and radical extremism.[18] In the wake of the Insight story, the New York Times has publically apologised for misusing the word "madrassa" in this way.[19]"
I am explaining my changes in the above paragraph. Anti-Americanism and radical extremism are different things, so have used both. The subtle way "madrassa" has been used makes it wrong to simplify the line on it. We must avoid making it look like it is acceptable and in current use! I've included the NYT apology, which was actually in the wake of the story.
Regarding the negative use of madrassa being "primarily" used - the Yale article is not enough to back that word up (it strongly refers to the Obama story and offers too little proof). I've said it "literally means" school, as "refers too" is too weak alongside the other 'meanings' of the word. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad form in my opinion. Can you explain why the link to a "scandals list" is needed? Why put it in place of the Obama 2008 link? I don't understand.
In my opinion the "US journalism scandals" page should have been deleted in the AfD (and surely would have been deleted if anyone knew about it). There is no place for these hotbeds of POV junk on Wikipedia.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the opening of the Obama/Clinton section. I thought it was better to just say what it was about in the opening sentence rather than repeat what Insight said. Sorry that I pushed save before finishing my edit summary comment. Redddogg ( talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The source given for the information about Brock does not mention Insight at all. The article about Hill was published in the American Spectator. Why should he have a section in this article? Redddogg ( talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out:
On February 5, 2004, Insight teamed up with News World's sister company United Press International to publish the first anonymously sourced reports from "Federal Law Enforcement officials" of "hard evidence" against Vice President Dick Cheney's staffers John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the guilty parties in " Plamegate". Hannah subsequently testified, and Libby was convicted. Questions about who the "Federal Law Enforcement officials" were, and what "hard evidence" might have existed at the time of the scoop have fueled wide speculation that Libby was chosen as a "fall guy" [1] to take the rap for higher-ups in the Bush Administration, with speculation focused primarily on Cheney. citation needed Some journalists and bloggers commented that if a media outlet were needed to set up Libby for the fall, Insight would have been a logical first choice. [2] [3]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
The only references were to the story itself and to two Google searches. Borock ( talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with removing all reference to "madrassa" in the perjorative "extremist" sense is that merely saying Obama went to an "Islamic school" can hardly be described as "another attack" by Clinton! I've put in the first line of the article in italics (you can't beat a quote):
On January 17, 2007, Insight published a story that claimed the campaign staff of presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton had leaked a report to Insight falsely claiming that Senator Barack Obama had attended a solely-Islamic school during his childhood in Indonesia. [1] The article began, "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?" In the American political climate of the time, the word " madrassa" (which means only 'school') was often used in a pejoritive sense that suggested Islamic extremism. Soon after Insight's story, CNN reporter John Vause visited State Elementary School Menteng 01, which Obama had attended for one year after attending a Roman Catholic school for three, and found that each student received two hours of religious instruction per week in his or her own faith. [2] He was told, "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion." [3] Interviews by Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press found that students of all faiths have been welcome there since before Obama's attendance. [4] In July 2007, Insight published a column which repeated the allegations and predicted more alleged Clinton attacks on Obama. [5]
As publications such as the NYT since apologised over their negative use of "madrassa" I assume it's fair to place it in the climate at the time. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
References
According to policy it's better if an artice does not have a controversy section. I will go ahead and merge the items there into the body of the article and see how people like that. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insight on the News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insight on the News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insight on the News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed this expression from the sentence about Obama's school. As far as I know no one is asserting that the school was different in the past. Redddogg ( talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Bandung said he had heard the rumor that Obama went to a radical Islamic school. He showed a picture of Obama with the Scout group.
"The girls wore miniskirts. There's no way miniskirts would be allowed at a madrassa," he said. Another photo of teachers at the school shows both males and females wearing Western-style clothing. The women are also wearing miniskirts.
Bandung said there was nothing to worry about in any case as Indonesian madrassa had been noted for teaching a moderate form of Islam. [1]
More info:
Submitted by Gandydancer (United States), Feb 7, 2008 at 19:28
...a question: Is the word "madrassa"/"madrasah"/etc. used in the Indonesian language(s)? My understanding is that it just means "school" in Arabic, but Insight magazine seemed to think it was equivalent to "seminary" and the article with the longer ABC news video( http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2823943) actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative Islamic schools, many of which teach a virulent hatred of America." So, as an Indonesian, do you use the word, and what would it mean for you? ... [2]
...Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04
...The word Madrasah is commonly used here in Indonesia to describe a conventional (not modernized) Schools (elementary, middle to high, mostly located at sub-urban areas) whose curriculum weighs more in Islamic teachings. Later, they are more modernized and secularized. I believe all of these schools are private and ussualy associate themself with the Nadhatul Ulama organization (formed by former President Abdulrahman Wahid's father). On the other hand, at rural areas they are usualy called Pesantren. Their tuitions are low so mostly affordable by low income families. I rerely use these words. ... [3]
Andyvphil ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyv, too bad neither Daniel Pipes, nor the anonymous users "Gandydancer" or "Muhammad (Indonesia)", who post reader comments to his discredited stories, are reliable sources. Man, life must suck if one needs to scrape the barrel this far down to support the Insight take on "Madrassa". What a hoot! I'm ROTFLOL at the the way our "Gandydancer" (above) intentiononally and deceptively context-snipped "...actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative...", and then sourced his hack-job to a jan 25 2007 ABC piece!!! Gandydancer pulls an amateur Kuhner!!! Even funnier, check out the story that our funnytroll "Gandydancer" was commenting on.
Good job A, I needed a couple of laughs, and I really do have to thank you for feeding me the material I need for expanding the "echo chamber" and "loaded question" aspects of this article. Pipes' 12/2007 "feeder story" headline is a grade school attempt at asking a loaded question Was Barak Obama a Muslim?, which brings to mind a classic Bugs Bunny phrase "What a maroon" that fits Pipes perfectly here!. Better yet, (I'm 'bout busting a gut here), Pipes the maroon anwers his own question in his very next headline "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam". Thanks again A, and keep it coming, your stuff is classic! WNDL42 ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. ... Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." The question posed to "Muhammad" by "Gandydancer" is perfectly staightforward and exhibits no particular POV that I can detect. Nor does "Muhammad"'s very informative answer. Your cackling derision was so wildly off the mark and inappropriate to itc cause as to indicate an hysterical state of combativeness. And malice. Rather pathetic malice, when expressed so childishly, but useful when so obvious. Andyvphil ( talk) 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04 --
First, I should thank you for straightening up that my intention is only to submit info about situation in Indonesia. And also for the splendid link. Nice work. --
I think the clip we refer to >>was not from middle eastern 'seminary'<< but >>from the sub continent areas (maybe Kurdistan, Afghanistan or Pakistan)<<. Anyways, as shown from your link, in his book Mr. Obama was saying "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies" so clearly he was admitting openly that he did learn (practised if you will) Islam in some point of his life. So even Mr Obama was confusing his public school as a Muslim school. Mustn't have been the highlights of his life. --
>>In my opinion, it is evident that what mr Obama said was that he was never a Muslim in heart and to me, that means that he never was a believer. And it is his right to do so.<< --
Like many people, I was curious to know whether Sen[D] Obama was ever a Muslim or not. That curiosity brought me to Mr. Pipes's articles and I think I've got me the answer. --
>>The reporters and analists must have their own agendas.<< We haven't seen the last of the crossfire specially when the campaign will come to the next level. --
Btw, i think the core of terrorism is 'hatred' and that can only be defeated by 'love'. But that's another issue.
The following overview was removed, I think it's essential for journalistic context:
"Journalistic analysis of the Insight story began by examining the first sentence of the report, which asked the loaded question of whether the "American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" The second sentence alleged "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama." No basis was found for Insight's question and allegation, and throughout the ensuing controversy Insight steadfastly refused to present evidence or qualify it's sources."
This is an absolutely 100% spot on overview of the "essence" of every journalistic critique. I can see no good reason for taking it out. let's discuss any issues with the presentation here. WNDL42 ( talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Next topic, why was the extremely notable reference to Fox V.P. John Moody removed? First time in history (afaik) that Fox has apologized for picking up garbage and reporting it, so why is his name and title out? WNDL42 ( talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I saw that there was a pending request for a third opinion on this page. 3O is meant for articles that only have two active editors, and since there are more than five users active on here, I've removed the request. If you guys need further help, I'd recommend opening an WP:RFC. If there's anything else I can do to help, please message me. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that this was just changed and then changed back. Did Fox really "pick up" the story, that is repeat it as if it were true? Or did they just "mention" it? I'm not sure myself. Redddogg ( talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok...as it seems clear that it's still unclear (even among us editors) that the "echo chamber" effect was in play big time, I'm putting back a portion of the MediaWeek criticism that was earlier stripped -- specifically the "amplified by Fox, etc..." Hope we can agree now why it was necessary in the first place. I still see no reason to censor Grossberger's use of the word "lies" to characterize the report, but I'm hoping to avoid an overly contentious edit for now. WNDL42 ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a problem but it does seem a little odd that Kuhner's name is just about the first thing stated in the article. I don't think that articles about other publications, or even websites, would have the name of the editor in the first sentence. He is mentioned 4 or 5 times later on in the article, so there is not much chance that the reader would miss his name. Redddogg ( talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the specific case of Insight, and in the context of Insight's history, describing the ownership chain is essential from a journalism standpoint. Unification Church ownership is (as demonstrated elsewhere) indeed the single MOST notable thing about Insight. WNDL42 ( talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Checking out this article again I was amazed to read that Insight's stories about President Clinton had lead directly to his impeachment. When the New York Times tried to do the same thing to Senator McCain they were laughed out of the room. :-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
RE parag: "Insight's report falsely characterized State Elementary School Menteng 01, an Indonesian public school which Obama attended as a child, as an Islamic "madrassa". Although the Arabic word "madrassa" literally means any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it has often been used to refer singularly to Islamic madrassas - especially in the context of anti-Americanism and radical extremism.[18] In the wake of the Insight story, the New York Times has publically apologised for misusing the word "madrassa" in this way.[19]"
I am explaining my changes in the above paragraph. Anti-Americanism and radical extremism are different things, so have used both. The subtle way "madrassa" has been used makes it wrong to simplify the line on it. We must avoid making it look like it is acceptable and in current use! I've included the NYT apology, which was actually in the wake of the story.
Regarding the negative use of madrassa being "primarily" used - the Yale article is not enough to back that word up (it strongly refers to the Obama story and offers too little proof). I've said it "literally means" school, as "refers too" is too weak alongside the other 'meanings' of the word. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad form in my opinion. Can you explain why the link to a "scandals list" is needed? Why put it in place of the Obama 2008 link? I don't understand.
In my opinion the "US journalism scandals" page should have been deleted in the AfD (and surely would have been deleted if anyone knew about it). There is no place for these hotbeds of POV junk on Wikipedia.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the opening of the Obama/Clinton section. I thought it was better to just say what it was about in the opening sentence rather than repeat what Insight said. Sorry that I pushed save before finishing my edit summary comment. Redddogg ( talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The source given for the information about Brock does not mention Insight at all. The article about Hill was published in the American Spectator. Why should he have a section in this article? Redddogg ( talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out:
On February 5, 2004, Insight teamed up with News World's sister company United Press International to publish the first anonymously sourced reports from "Federal Law Enforcement officials" of "hard evidence" against Vice President Dick Cheney's staffers John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the guilty parties in " Plamegate". Hannah subsequently testified, and Libby was convicted. Questions about who the "Federal Law Enforcement officials" were, and what "hard evidence" might have existed at the time of the scoop have fueled wide speculation that Libby was chosen as a "fall guy" [1] to take the rap for higher-ups in the Bush Administration, with speculation focused primarily on Cheney. citation needed Some journalists and bloggers commented that if a media outlet were needed to set up Libby for the fall, Insight would have been a logical first choice. [2] [3]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
The only references were to the story itself and to two Google searches. Borock ( talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with removing all reference to "madrassa" in the perjorative "extremist" sense is that merely saying Obama went to an "Islamic school" can hardly be described as "another attack" by Clinton! I've put in the first line of the article in italics (you can't beat a quote):
On January 17, 2007, Insight published a story that claimed the campaign staff of presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton had leaked a report to Insight falsely claiming that Senator Barack Obama had attended a solely-Islamic school during his childhood in Indonesia. [1] The article began, "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?" In the American political climate of the time, the word " madrassa" (which means only 'school') was often used in a pejoritive sense that suggested Islamic extremism. Soon after Insight's story, CNN reporter John Vause visited State Elementary School Menteng 01, which Obama had attended for one year after attending a Roman Catholic school for three, and found that each student received two hours of religious instruction per week in his or her own faith. [2] He was told, "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion." [3] Interviews by Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press found that students of all faiths have been welcome there since before Obama's attendance. [4] In July 2007, Insight published a column which repeated the allegations and predicted more alleged Clinton attacks on Obama. [5]
As publications such as the NYT since apologised over their negative use of "madrassa" I assume it's fair to place it in the climate at the time. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
References
According to policy it's better if an artice does not have a controversy section. I will go ahead and merge the items there into the body of the article and see how people like that. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insight on the News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insight on the News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)