Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 8 December 2007

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

sorry for the misunderstanding

I removed this from the article:

In 2007, the New York Times labeled Kuhner purveyor of "the first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race" for publishing a factually-incorrect article about U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, in which an anonymous writer for Insight claimed that Obama had attended a radical Islamic Madrassa school in Indonesia as a youth. The article also cited anonymous sources.

Because the article was quickly picked up and propagated by the United States mass media, Kuhner and Insight became notable not only as publisher and source of the debunked article, but also as an example of journalistic unreliability. Fox News was also brought further into the spotlight for running the web-based story without first verifying its claims.

According to the New York Times article,

To most journalists, the notion of anonymous reporters relying on anonymous sources is a red flag. "If you want to talk about a business model that is designed to manufacture mischief in large volume, that would be it," said Ralph Whitehead Jr., a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts. With so much anonymity, "How do we know that Insight magazine actually exists?” Professor Whitehead added. “It could be performance art."

Even though CNN has proven the Insight article be inaccurate, Kuhner maintains that it is "solid as solid can be".

References

1. ^ "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False", New York Times, 29 January 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Jeffrey_T._Kuhner"

This is a lot of information about one incident and takes up about 90% of the article. I didn't intend to "blank out" the article however. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try a compromise so there is a link to the incident's own article and only 50% of this article will be taken up by it. Please let me know how you think about it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

I've tagged the article as potentially non-notable. It was originally a coatrack for the "Obama-Madrassa" story. Now it just basically mentions that Kuhner is a guy with a job, with a couple of controversies mentioned. There is really no information about him as a person. Steve Dufour 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a stub, but it's not non-notable. First, the article notes that Kuhner is an editor and contributor to numerous publications. Second, it adheres to the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy. Third, Kuhner has been the subject of articles in the NYT. This is a good reason for expansion, not deletion. Your close ties to the organizations behind Insight and Washington Times, as evidenced in your profile page, make your edits to these articles seem dubious. You should be careful as you attempt to water down these pages.Athene cunicularia 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But the articles which mention him only talk about the Obama-Madrassa story, almost nothing is said about Mr. Kuhner himself. BTW I removed a mention of him calling for a war against Iran. If he was truly notable this probably would have attracted some media attention. Steve Dufour 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jkuhner edits

I reverted the edits by Jkuhner. Not only were the edits largely uncited, but they were also self-serving and definitely affected NPOV. If these edits were made by Jeffrey Kuhner, he should know that Misplaced Pages strongly discourages editing your own entry; if you feel like you must do so, be very careful.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A justified step for the reasons given (also see WP:AUTO), but the Jkuhner version can be mined for verifiable material, and should be. Andyvphil (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit, which said

In January 2007, Insight erroneously reported that 2008 American Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama had been educated in a radical anti-American Muslim school while growing up in Indonesia.

This in inaccurate. The article actually reads:

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case.

So the prior wording was correct. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Publishtruth and Jkuhner

At the Jeffrey T. Kuhner article, a user named Jkuhner edited the page. Shortly after this user was notifited about WP:Auto, a new user named User:Publishtruth joined and began to make similar edits. I have asked this editor to stop making edits until we can build a consensus on the articles. The editor is not making an effort to follow Misplaced Pages editing standards, and is merely adding information or making changes without regard to standards. Maybe it's time we should temporarily disable editing on this article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, this is a response written by Publishtruth on the Insight magazine article:

Dear Editors: I wish to apologize for the misunderstanding earlier. Both publishtruth and jkuhner were first-time users and did not know how Misplaced Pages works. We will respect the process and did not mean to disrupt the site; we thought we just had to keep loading the information until it got through. We will provide verifiable links in the next while to a great deal of information your readers need in order to form their own judgements on these vital matters. However, we will be on our guard to prevent the text from giving credence to many of the smears and distortions which have been propagated by both the liberal press and supporters of Hillary due to a blockbuster story which we produced which unveiled her use of investigative reporters in an attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and derail his campaign. We will not tolerate a biased representation of either Mr. Kuhner's name (he has an outstanding reputation) nor of Insight whose reporting has NOT been disproven. In fact, the debate has now reemerged with the piece published in the front page of the Washington Post this week which has caused an uproar among its editors (see Politico.com) because again the reporting on Obama appears to be driven not by facts but by a political agenda. I assure you Insight will be vindicated. And I repeat, we will be respectful of the process but are not going to accept being undermined if you persist in presenting information which attempts to smear us but does not give equal weight to our side of this vital story. What is at stake here are the very standards with which the press does its job and both CNN and The New York Times chose to cover up for Hillary rather than expose the truth. So just give us a fair representation and don't tilt the information in favor of the attacks against us. If you are even-handed, we are confident your readers will get the full story and will realize how right we are. Best wishes, publishtruth Dec. 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my response.

Just be cautious with your editing. It is now not only clear that your organization supports a specific, non-neutral point of view, but also that your organization intends to change the tone of these articles to support your non-neutral point of view. If you wish to make changes, please bear in mind that there are several people who actively monitor these articles, and that the content is judged by consensus, not your definition of "reputation" or "vindication. If you continue to make disruptive edits, your organization could be banned from editing Misplaced Pages.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Response from JKuhner: Thank you for your observations. Now, how do we correct/update the information such as the information under employees? Also, the previous Insight Magazine (print edition) has nothing to do with this online publication.

As far as my bio, this information is correct so how does one get this information published? Thank you for the corrections you have made.

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles