This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Propaganda model 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Propaganda model was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Thelightwillshine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is way to long. Besides, criticism of the book is always followed by author's response which is not wikipedia standard. He has to have a final word. So article about propaganda model is actually a propaganda itself. What a lovely irony.
I have to agree that the Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little to do with the Propaganda Model. The argument by Chomsky relies on is based on a study of collumn inches. They argue there was very little noise being made about it at the time, in the popular media Zeitgeist. Books after the fact are hardly relevent. This hasn't been addressed for a year, though these problems with the criticism are known. I'm going to delete the Metzl "criticisms". -- 88.104.110.160 ( talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little, if anything, to do with the Propaganda Model per se; they are only general criticisms and do not appear to address the theory in any particulars. Unless a specific quotation mentioning the Propaganda Model can be provided, i will remove the material as off-topic.
Stone put to sky
06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is up to the contributor to provide sources, page numbers, and quotations. Unless you can provide a clear quotation from the document -- one that specifically mentions the Propaganda Model and the author's criticism of it -- then it will be removed. Stone put to sky 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the page back to what is clearly POV language. Also, please stop reverting the "criticisms" section; the material you are adding (Ear, Sharp, etc) is clearly off-topic. The Ear article does not mention the Propaganda Model once, and Sharp's article deals with it only tangentially and makes no categorical statements regarding the model, instead using it only as a rhetorical tool to re-examine Chomsky's statements about Cambodia and the coverage of the Khmer Rouge. These papers are clearly not intended as a criticism of that theory but rather of Chomsky's concepts and statements about media coverage of 1970's era Cambodia and the media coverage surrounding it.
Also, i have removed the incorrect "fact" flags on the sources i have provided; if citation of the theory itself is not enough to prove that it does not touch Marxist theories or preconceptions about social order and human intellect, then i do not know what else possibly could. As the appendices and papers show, the model itself says nothing whatsoever about the intellect of the general public and makes no mention regarding specific economic, social, or political dogma.
Final/propagandaly, the appendix and papers cited as showing that the model does predict the five criticisms listed is quite transparent. I can only presume that you have not read the sources, because unambiguous mention is made of each of the points provided by your critic. Stone put to sky 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Far left views Chomsky advocates" is clearly POV language. For my part, i do not consider Chomsky's views to be "far left", but mere common sense.
Second, i have not removed the studies because i don't like them; i have already given clear explanations above: one of the studies doesn't even mention the propaganda model at all, and the other makes no direct criticisms of the model itself but only mentions it in the context of an entirely different critique.
So besides neither being on-topic, the statements you assert they make don't even appear in the text. I am deleting them again, and reminding you of the 3RR. Stone put to sky 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
How about NPOV language? The theory doesn't suggest that people should be reading Anarchist theory or left-wing publications; the theory is talking about news, and suggests that people aren't getting the whole story. So if you want to put this criticism into the article, that's what you must say: people getting more complete news coverage, or something to that effect.
Otherwise, the statement is POV-pushing, not to mention off-topic.
The theory answers these objections as explained in the Appendix; see the section about "first", "second" and "third order predictions".
The propaganda model clearly predicts that criticisms of the sort Lehrer is making will be made, and specifically addresses all five in some form or another. It predicts this will happen not only against the propaganda model itself, but against various types of media content that happen to challenge the established power structure. Stone put to sky 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple: because they're not necessary. What is important in the criticism section is the substance of the criticism, not the stuff used to support it. First, you don't have any citations or evidence to back up those statements. Second, even if you did they'd be superfluous, because what we're interested in here is not the secondary data that some guy brings in to bolster his argument, but rather the argument itself.
I have made good-faith edits on all of your "criticisms" material, making it concise and sacrificing none of its meaningful content. The section you are speaking of at this moment is very poorly written, to the point of approaching nonsense. If it is to be kept it must be re-worked. Stone put to sky 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not necessary because they are beside the point; the only relevant thing is Lehrer's criticisms. Those are studies which Lehrer uses to strengthen his argument -- they are not the argument itself. Thus, unnecessary. Stone put to sky 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that we're not making an argument here, we're simply reporting what Lehrer has said; likewise, empirical studies are only better than opinions when you are doing some sort of research. When you are trying to explain to people what somebody believes you don't start off with telling them the empirical studies they used to back up their ideas. You start off by telling them what the person thinks.
That's what this section should be doing: telling people what Lehrer thinks. This other material is not necessary to convey his ideas and distracts from the main point, making it harder to understand. Since this is an article that is only mentioning Lehrer's ideas -- and not examining them -- it's best if they're not included.
In other words: this is an article about the Propaganda Model. Lehrer's ideas about the Propaganda Model are what is important. The evidence he uses to back those ideas up, however, is not.
Go ahead and include them if you want. It's not important to me. But the other stuff -- Ear, Sharp, etc -- that must go, along with the POV language. Stone put to sky 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, i am not arguing that at all.
This is an article about the Propaganda Model. If we use your analogy of Relativity, then what i am protesting is the inclusion of evidence that supports criticisms of the theory. Criticism sections should not include the evidence used to support them; they should only have the criticisms themselves, nothing else. Stone put to sky 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please address the objections to the content, or it will continue to be deleted per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You have addressed none of the concerns that have already been repeated for you some three or four times. You have continually reverted good-faith edits which attempted to preserve the material, and you have refused to meet even basic wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of content. Please attempt to revise the material in a way that meets WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Mediation? No; i think we should take this directly to an RfC (RfD? whatever). Stone put to sky 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then; we should proceed with it. I'll let you do the honors. Stone put to sky 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no mediation necessary here; the dispute is clear cut and beyond question:
This is clearly a violation of WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Again:
Again: clear violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Nowhere is Shawcross quoted on anything regarding the Propaganda Model; Instead, regarding the Propaganda Model we have only your own personal opinions about what the implications are. And, once again:
Once again, this is followed by a quotation which nowhere mentions the Propaganda Model, nor is quoted from a context that does. That is WP:OR and WP:SYN, and clearly undertaken as an exercise to see how far you can push WP:NPOV. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Either you correct these problems or we will continue to remove the material. If you would like to take this to a higher authority then please -- start the RfC. It would be my great pleasure to plead my case there. Stone put to sky 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, do start the RfC. The objections to the material -- listed above, in detail, several times, repeatedly -- have nothing to do with whether or not i "disagree" with some points; although i disagree with virtually all of them, i have attempted to preserve those which are relevant to the article and to re-work them so that they are consistent with WP:NPOV. I have pointed this out many times. If you capitulate under mediation there will be no formal record beyond this single page; with an RfC, there will be.
I would prefer that there be a record of our disagreement here, and so i am requesting an RfC in this matter. Stone put to sky 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The record above and the history of the page plainly belie that assertion; i made good-faith edits and suggestions only to see them unceremoniously reverted. This current edit war began there. So, now that we are clearly at an impasse: are you going to start that RfC, or not? Stone put to sky 10:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The criticism section is awful. I've seen nonsense, spelling, and punctuation errors. The line about the propaganda model being a rehashing of "false consciousness" is absurd. Anyone who has read Chomsky knows he doesn't use any marxist methods of analysis, and Herman is an economist, of all things.
Id like to see a criticism section that deals with the propaganda model in a more scientific fashion. The American Enterprise Institute is not a center of scientific analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 ( talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* Jeffery Klaehn, "A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’", European Journal of Communication, 17, pp.147–182, 2002. * John Corner, "Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 367-375, 2003 * Jeffery Klaehn, "Debate: Model Construction: Various Other Epistemological Concerns – A Reply to John Corner’s Commentary on the Propaganda Model", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 377-383, 2003. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Noam Chomsky and the Manufacture of Consent for American Foreign Policy." Political Communication, 21, pp.93-101, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Reply to Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang", Political Communication, 21, pp.103-107, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Response to Herman and Chomsky", Political Communication, 21, pp.109-111, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Further Reply to the Langs", Political Communication, 21, pp.113-116, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Afterword", Political Communication, Volume 21, Issue 1 January 2004, 21, p.117, 2004. * Edward S. Herman, "The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective", Against All Reason, Decenber 9, 2003. (first published in Journalism Studies, 1:1 (2000), pp. 101–12.) * Jeffery Klaehn, "Behind the Invisible Curtain of Scholarly Criticism: revisiting the propaganda model", Journalism Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 359-369, 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everything Changes ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Gareth Morley argues in an article in Inroads: A Journal of Opinion that widespread coverage of Israeli mistreatment of protesters as compared with little coverage of similar (or much worse) events in sub-Saharan Africa is poorly explained. - apples and oranges? LamontCranston ( talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Times writer points out the failure of the Reagan Administration to provide unconditional support for the Contras, citing this as a failure of the model, but surely the Iran-Contra affair discounts this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.168.130 ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Under Conflicting studies, the following line (attributed to Jamie Frederic Metzl, but unquoted) appears...
...for example, a search for articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973
However, this text has been lifted almost entirely from the work of Bruce Sharp, who writes identically...
for 1977, for example, articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973
It appears that the majority of these edits were were made by User:Ultramarine in the month of June and July 2007. ~ smb 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Examples:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more the principle, as Arthur was originally destroying a lot more links. But isn't it more relevant (given the context) to direct a user to
United States media than either
United States or
media?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
'Eli Lehrer, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and former editor of The American Enterprise magazine, contributed a critique of the Propaganda Model to The Anti-Chomsky Reader.'
This section either needs to be fleshed out to at least describe the criticism or it needs to be removed. 68.154.234.72 ( talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is cited that it is in fact a specific criticism of this model, I don't see why this should be removed just for not describing the criticism in detail.-- Gloriamarie ( talk) 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice the five points have a British slant, refering to British examples more often that not. Also when I added the reaction to news of the El Mozote Massacre to the Flak as an example, it was removed - why? LamontCranston ( talk) 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -- Cirt ( talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 21, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt ( talk) 20:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have looked through the history of this article. An enormous amount of sourced criticisms have been removed without due reason. See for example the long and sourced (although this is occasionally shown poorly) "Criticism" sections here: [5]. The current version is clearly a sanitized version that is not neutral. I propose restoring the sourced criticisms. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This was your idea of reasonable length and a proper criticism? Using POV language like "force-feed right-wing views" and devoting significantly more length than the other criticisms?
Also on a side note, I know Herman and Chomsky never directly addressed Eli Lehrer but most of the criticisms are straw men they have addressed elsewhere. For instance,
I honestly don't know what to do with it at this point. My proposal is to strip it down to its main parts, remove the POV language and have some kind of indirect response. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The Eli Lehrer section is lengthy for one individual. And what is with the bulletin points? If you can't summarise the main criticisms in one or two paragraphs then it shouldn't be here. — ThePowerofX 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo has removed the disputed template despite there being an ongoing dispute. As such it should be restored. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is every instance of me answering why I removed the points:
If you ask the same question again it will result in a probe into your behavior and possible sanctions. The fact is you have asked the same exact question four/five times a row, sometimes mixed with other questions. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's not the same question then what would be the problem with me answering differently (which I didn't do)? The fact is, for reasons of WP:Weight we only use the main points, not every single one used by the authors. This is, again, another bit of evidence, if not an admission, that you are only asking the same question as a form of disruption. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright this has gone long enough, we are putting this into dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems in the article is the lack of citation from a lot of the sections. I think it's best to use this section for codes on citing the book.
Here is the template with everything filled out except page numbers:
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose we mention the criticisms in more detail in the The Anti-Chomsky Reader article while only linking to it in this article and stating that the criticisms are presented in more detail there. Thoughts? Academica Orientalis ( talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Propaganda model". Thank you. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I quote from the article: "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal,[14][15] but this was never mentioned in the US media."
This is incorrect, Kofi Annan's stance on the Iraq War was mentioned on US television as seen in the following youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitbzTAJWws
Could someone please edit the article accordingly?
Thanks, anon
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.39.4 ( talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Some parts can be supported with more references, particularly 'The filters' heading. There are no citations for 'Ownership' and 'Advertising'. 'Sourcing' and 'flak' only have one citation each and could use more references considering the length of the paragraphs and the breadth of examples used.
The article can be improved with more recent sources. Although the original theory by Herman & Chomsky is old, contemporary examples can be used to strengthen the explanations. For instance, it is mentioned that anti-communism is being replaced by other ideas. This part could use more elaboration and discussion.
Rgabriel21 ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Rgabriel21
I've removed the Annan picture due to the false caption that went along with it. The caption stated that "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal," which was correctly supported with two citations, but then it added "[but this was never mentioned in the US media," which was not supported with citations. That's probably because it's not true.-- 137.54.5.203 ( talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Propaganda model. 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) 04:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Propaganda model 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Propaganda model was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Thelightwillshine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is way to long. Besides, criticism of the book is always followed by author's response which is not wikipedia standard. He has to have a final word. So article about propaganda model is actually a propaganda itself. What a lovely irony.
I have to agree that the Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little to do with the Propaganda Model. The argument by Chomsky relies on is based on a study of collumn inches. They argue there was very little noise being made about it at the time, in the popular media Zeitgeist. Books after the fact are hardly relevent. This hasn't been addressed for a year, though these problems with the criticism are known. I'm going to delete the Metzl "criticisms". -- 88.104.110.160 ( talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little, if anything, to do with the Propaganda Model per se; they are only general criticisms and do not appear to address the theory in any particulars. Unless a specific quotation mentioning the Propaganda Model can be provided, i will remove the material as off-topic.
Stone put to sky
06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is up to the contributor to provide sources, page numbers, and quotations. Unless you can provide a clear quotation from the document -- one that specifically mentions the Propaganda Model and the author's criticism of it -- then it will be removed. Stone put to sky 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the page back to what is clearly POV language. Also, please stop reverting the "criticisms" section; the material you are adding (Ear, Sharp, etc) is clearly off-topic. The Ear article does not mention the Propaganda Model once, and Sharp's article deals with it only tangentially and makes no categorical statements regarding the model, instead using it only as a rhetorical tool to re-examine Chomsky's statements about Cambodia and the coverage of the Khmer Rouge. These papers are clearly not intended as a criticism of that theory but rather of Chomsky's concepts and statements about media coverage of 1970's era Cambodia and the media coverage surrounding it.
Also, i have removed the incorrect "fact" flags on the sources i have provided; if citation of the theory itself is not enough to prove that it does not touch Marxist theories or preconceptions about social order and human intellect, then i do not know what else possibly could. As the appendices and papers show, the model itself says nothing whatsoever about the intellect of the general public and makes no mention regarding specific economic, social, or political dogma.
Final/propagandaly, the appendix and papers cited as showing that the model does predict the five criticisms listed is quite transparent. I can only presume that you have not read the sources, because unambiguous mention is made of each of the points provided by your critic. Stone put to sky 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Far left views Chomsky advocates" is clearly POV language. For my part, i do not consider Chomsky's views to be "far left", but mere common sense.
Second, i have not removed the studies because i don't like them; i have already given clear explanations above: one of the studies doesn't even mention the propaganda model at all, and the other makes no direct criticisms of the model itself but only mentions it in the context of an entirely different critique.
So besides neither being on-topic, the statements you assert they make don't even appear in the text. I am deleting them again, and reminding you of the 3RR. Stone put to sky 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
How about NPOV language? The theory doesn't suggest that people should be reading Anarchist theory or left-wing publications; the theory is talking about news, and suggests that people aren't getting the whole story. So if you want to put this criticism into the article, that's what you must say: people getting more complete news coverage, or something to that effect.
Otherwise, the statement is POV-pushing, not to mention off-topic.
The theory answers these objections as explained in the Appendix; see the section about "first", "second" and "third order predictions".
The propaganda model clearly predicts that criticisms of the sort Lehrer is making will be made, and specifically addresses all five in some form or another. It predicts this will happen not only against the propaganda model itself, but against various types of media content that happen to challenge the established power structure. Stone put to sky 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple: because they're not necessary. What is important in the criticism section is the substance of the criticism, not the stuff used to support it. First, you don't have any citations or evidence to back up those statements. Second, even if you did they'd be superfluous, because what we're interested in here is not the secondary data that some guy brings in to bolster his argument, but rather the argument itself.
I have made good-faith edits on all of your "criticisms" material, making it concise and sacrificing none of its meaningful content. The section you are speaking of at this moment is very poorly written, to the point of approaching nonsense. If it is to be kept it must be re-worked. Stone put to sky 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not necessary because they are beside the point; the only relevant thing is Lehrer's criticisms. Those are studies which Lehrer uses to strengthen his argument -- they are not the argument itself. Thus, unnecessary. Stone put to sky 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that we're not making an argument here, we're simply reporting what Lehrer has said; likewise, empirical studies are only better than opinions when you are doing some sort of research. When you are trying to explain to people what somebody believes you don't start off with telling them the empirical studies they used to back up their ideas. You start off by telling them what the person thinks.
That's what this section should be doing: telling people what Lehrer thinks. This other material is not necessary to convey his ideas and distracts from the main point, making it harder to understand. Since this is an article that is only mentioning Lehrer's ideas -- and not examining them -- it's best if they're not included.
In other words: this is an article about the Propaganda Model. Lehrer's ideas about the Propaganda Model are what is important. The evidence he uses to back those ideas up, however, is not.
Go ahead and include them if you want. It's not important to me. But the other stuff -- Ear, Sharp, etc -- that must go, along with the POV language. Stone put to sky 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, i am not arguing that at all.
This is an article about the Propaganda Model. If we use your analogy of Relativity, then what i am protesting is the inclusion of evidence that supports criticisms of the theory. Criticism sections should not include the evidence used to support them; they should only have the criticisms themselves, nothing else. Stone put to sky 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please address the objections to the content, or it will continue to be deleted per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You have addressed none of the concerns that have already been repeated for you some three or four times. You have continually reverted good-faith edits which attempted to preserve the material, and you have refused to meet even basic wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of content. Please attempt to revise the material in a way that meets WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Mediation? No; i think we should take this directly to an RfC (RfD? whatever). Stone put to sky 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then; we should proceed with it. I'll let you do the honors. Stone put to sky 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no mediation necessary here; the dispute is clear cut and beyond question:
This is clearly a violation of WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Again:
Again: clear violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Nowhere is Shawcross quoted on anything regarding the Propaganda Model; Instead, regarding the Propaganda Model we have only your own personal opinions about what the implications are. And, once again:
Once again, this is followed by a quotation which nowhere mentions the Propaganda Model, nor is quoted from a context that does. That is WP:OR and WP:SYN, and clearly undertaken as an exercise to see how far you can push WP:NPOV. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Either you correct these problems or we will continue to remove the material. If you would like to take this to a higher authority then please -- start the RfC. It would be my great pleasure to plead my case there. Stone put to sky 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, do start the RfC. The objections to the material -- listed above, in detail, several times, repeatedly -- have nothing to do with whether or not i "disagree" with some points; although i disagree with virtually all of them, i have attempted to preserve those which are relevant to the article and to re-work them so that they are consistent with WP:NPOV. I have pointed this out many times. If you capitulate under mediation there will be no formal record beyond this single page; with an RfC, there will be.
I would prefer that there be a record of our disagreement here, and so i am requesting an RfC in this matter. Stone put to sky 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The record above and the history of the page plainly belie that assertion; i made good-faith edits and suggestions only to see them unceremoniously reverted. This current edit war began there. So, now that we are clearly at an impasse: are you going to start that RfC, or not? Stone put to sky 10:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The criticism section is awful. I've seen nonsense, spelling, and punctuation errors. The line about the propaganda model being a rehashing of "false consciousness" is absurd. Anyone who has read Chomsky knows he doesn't use any marxist methods of analysis, and Herman is an economist, of all things.
Id like to see a criticism section that deals with the propaganda model in a more scientific fashion. The American Enterprise Institute is not a center of scientific analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 ( talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* Jeffery Klaehn, "A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’", European Journal of Communication, 17, pp.147–182, 2002. * John Corner, "Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 367-375, 2003 * Jeffery Klaehn, "Debate: Model Construction: Various Other Epistemological Concerns – A Reply to John Corner’s Commentary on the Propaganda Model", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 377-383, 2003. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Noam Chomsky and the Manufacture of Consent for American Foreign Policy." Political Communication, 21, pp.93-101, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Reply to Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang", Political Communication, 21, pp.103-107, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Response to Herman and Chomsky", Political Communication, 21, pp.109-111, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Further Reply to the Langs", Political Communication, 21, pp.113-116, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Afterword", Political Communication, Volume 21, Issue 1 January 2004, 21, p.117, 2004. * Edward S. Herman, "The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective", Against All Reason, Decenber 9, 2003. (first published in Journalism Studies, 1:1 (2000), pp. 101–12.) * Jeffery Klaehn, "Behind the Invisible Curtain of Scholarly Criticism: revisiting the propaganda model", Journalism Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 359-369, 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everything Changes ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Gareth Morley argues in an article in Inroads: A Journal of Opinion that widespread coverage of Israeli mistreatment of protesters as compared with little coverage of similar (or much worse) events in sub-Saharan Africa is poorly explained. - apples and oranges? LamontCranston ( talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Times writer points out the failure of the Reagan Administration to provide unconditional support for the Contras, citing this as a failure of the model, but surely the Iran-Contra affair discounts this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.168.130 ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Under Conflicting studies, the following line (attributed to Jamie Frederic Metzl, but unquoted) appears...
...for example, a search for articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973
However, this text has been lifted almost entirely from the work of Bruce Sharp, who writes identically...
for 1977, for example, articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973
It appears that the majority of these edits were were made by User:Ultramarine in the month of June and July 2007. ~ smb 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Examples:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more the principle, as Arthur was originally destroying a lot more links. But isn't it more relevant (given the context) to direct a user to
United States media than either
United States or
media?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
'Eli Lehrer, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and former editor of The American Enterprise magazine, contributed a critique of the Propaganda Model to The Anti-Chomsky Reader.'
This section either needs to be fleshed out to at least describe the criticism or it needs to be removed. 68.154.234.72 ( talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is cited that it is in fact a specific criticism of this model, I don't see why this should be removed just for not describing the criticism in detail.-- Gloriamarie ( talk) 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice the five points have a British slant, refering to British examples more often that not. Also when I added the reaction to news of the El Mozote Massacre to the Flak as an example, it was removed - why? LamontCranston ( talk) 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -- Cirt ( talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 21, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt ( talk) 20:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have looked through the history of this article. An enormous amount of sourced criticisms have been removed without due reason. See for example the long and sourced (although this is occasionally shown poorly) "Criticism" sections here: [5]. The current version is clearly a sanitized version that is not neutral. I propose restoring the sourced criticisms. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This was your idea of reasonable length and a proper criticism? Using POV language like "force-feed right-wing views" and devoting significantly more length than the other criticisms?
Also on a side note, I know Herman and Chomsky never directly addressed Eli Lehrer but most of the criticisms are straw men they have addressed elsewhere. For instance,
I honestly don't know what to do with it at this point. My proposal is to strip it down to its main parts, remove the POV language and have some kind of indirect response. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The Eli Lehrer section is lengthy for one individual. And what is with the bulletin points? If you can't summarise the main criticisms in one or two paragraphs then it shouldn't be here. — ThePowerofX 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo has removed the disputed template despite there being an ongoing dispute. As such it should be restored. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is every instance of me answering why I removed the points:
If you ask the same question again it will result in a probe into your behavior and possible sanctions. The fact is you have asked the same exact question four/five times a row, sometimes mixed with other questions. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's not the same question then what would be the problem with me answering differently (which I didn't do)? The fact is, for reasons of WP:Weight we only use the main points, not every single one used by the authors. This is, again, another bit of evidence, if not an admission, that you are only asking the same question as a form of disruption. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright this has gone long enough, we are putting this into dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems in the article is the lack of citation from a lot of the sections. I think it's best to use this section for codes on citing the book.
Here is the template with everything filled out except page numbers:
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose we mention the criticisms in more detail in the The Anti-Chomsky Reader article while only linking to it in this article and stating that the criticisms are presented in more detail there. Thoughts? Academica Orientalis ( talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Propaganda model". Thank you. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I quote from the article: "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal,[14][15] but this was never mentioned in the US media."
This is incorrect, Kofi Annan's stance on the Iraq War was mentioned on US television as seen in the following youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitbzTAJWws
Could someone please edit the article accordingly?
Thanks, anon
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.39.4 ( talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Some parts can be supported with more references, particularly 'The filters' heading. There are no citations for 'Ownership' and 'Advertising'. 'Sourcing' and 'flak' only have one citation each and could use more references considering the length of the paragraphs and the breadth of examples used.
The article can be improved with more recent sources. Although the original theory by Herman & Chomsky is old, contemporary examples can be used to strengthen the explanations. For instance, it is mentioned that anti-communism is being replaced by other ideas. This part could use more elaboration and discussion.
Rgabriel21 ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Rgabriel21
I've removed the Annan picture due to the false caption that went along with it. The caption stated that "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal," which was correctly supported with two citations, but then it added "[but this was never mentioned in the US media," which was not supported with citations. That's probably because it's not true.-- 137.54.5.203 ( talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Propaganda model. 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) 04:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)