Talk:Edward S. Herman: Difference between revisions
Smallchief (talk | contribs) |
CraigBurley (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
:::Citing Herman himself in the Marxist ''Monthly Review'' and another 2010 source to "refute" professor Gitlin (as cited by ''The Washington Post'') in 2017 is a straightforward example of [[WP:OR|original research]]; if you don't understand that, then the burden is on you to familiarize yourself with the standards of this encyclopedia (as well as to observe [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:ONUS]] and to stop edit warring). Incidentally, if your own source states that the putative "propaganda model" is {{tq|"generally ignored within academia"}} that should tell you something, because Wikipedia reflects what mainstream [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], both academic and journalistic, have to say about a topic; using [[WP:FRINGE]] sources to advocate for viewpoints not widely supported by mainstream sources is not the purpose of Wikipedia, especially when edit warring, original research, and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] are involved.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 18:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |
:::Citing Herman himself in the Marxist ''Monthly Review'' and another 2010 source to "refute" professor Gitlin (as cited by ''The Washington Post'') in 2017 is a straightforward example of [[WP:OR|original research]]; if you don't understand that, then the burden is on you to familiarize yourself with the standards of this encyclopedia (as well as to observe [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:ONUS]] and to stop edit warring). Incidentally, if your own source states that the putative "propaganda model" is {{tq|"generally ignored within academia"}} that should tell you something, because Wikipedia reflects what mainstream [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], both academic and journalistic, have to say about a topic; using [[WP:FRINGE]] sources to advocate for viewpoints not widely supported by mainstream sources is not the purpose of Wikipedia, especially when edit warring, original research, and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] are involved.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 18:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::I'll agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. We have enough info in the article about the Propaganda Model. We've said what the model was and cited refutations. We don't need refutations of refutations. If the academic community ignores the propaganda model it's because academia doesn't think it's worth the attention, rather than being a conspiracy. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 23:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |
::::I'll agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. We have enough info in the article about the Propaganda Model. We've said what the model was and cited refutations. We don't need refutations of refutations. If the academic community ignores the propaganda model it's because academia doesn't think it's worth the attention, rather than being a conspiracy. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 23:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::No. The PM is a major intellectual achievement, the subject of academic conferences and a great deal of consideration. Gitlin's facile criticism should either be deleted as unworthy of citation or the fact that it was entirely pre-anticipated by Herman himself, as part of the Model, should be discussed. This is an important part of the academic legacy of a major thinker and it can merit a bit of discussion from both sides. The continual battle over this page is indicative of an ideological attempt to make Herman's page be about his critics, not him. Adequately giving consideration to this (only a few lines!) is both proper and proportionate. |
Revision as of 14:12, 14 May 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward S. Herman 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: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2
as Talk:Edward S. Herman/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Philip Cross’s edits
For such a towering scholar whose writings embarrassed and enraged the imperial elite, it was no big surprise to find that the leading editor of Ed’s articles so far has been the “legendary” Philip Cross (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I consider it unlikely that Cross is an individual, as other writers also suspect. We’ll see what the coming lawsuit might unearth. PropOrNot was unmasked, and we’ll see how it goes with Cross. These are grim days, when people can do their Orwellian/McCarthyite work anonymously, and even get it promoted by The Washington Post, as Ed knew well.
Cross is responsible for the disinformation version in Ed’s bio of the censorship of Noam and Ed’s first book. This will be one example of many that I could make about the edits that Cross and others have made relating to Ed at Wikipedia.
The corporate suppression of Ed and Noam’s first collaboration was one of the most outrageous instances of censorship in the late 20th century, and of all of the amazing facts of its censorship, two stand out above all others:
- The Warner Communications conglomerate decided to put one of its own publishing companies out of business rather than let Noam and Ed’s book be sold to the American public;
- Of the 20,000 copies printed by Warner’s subsidiary, 19,500 were destroyed.
Those are the two unassailable facts of that spectacular event. The best public source of the facts regarding the event that I know of comes from Noam and Ed, in their The Washington Connection, as they described what happened to their previous book. The next best existing source is in Ben Bagdikian’s The Media Monopoly.
Noam and Ed devoted four pages to the publishing history of Counter-Revolutionary Violence Counter-Revolutionary Violence (“CRV”). Bagdikian spent a little over two pages on it. Before Michael Moore became a household word, he also had a brief description of the event, and a bio of Noam, Barsky’s Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, has a couple of pages on the event, using Noam and Bagdikian as sources. Barsky wrote:
[…] The parent company actually put the publisher out of business. […] Why did Warner feel that in order to suppress a single book (a book, moreover, by two established intellectuals employed by leading American universities) it was worth it to cripple one of its own subsidiaries?
The most complete account on the Internet today might be mine. The source that Cross used, from Jim Neilson’s book, had about a paragraph. You can see it for yourself, here, where it says:
This understanding of the ideological limits of mainstream publishing firms is not far-fetched conspiracy theory. There have been instances in which books were refused publication for strictly ideological reasons. Such was the case with Counter-Revolutionary Violence, a critique of U.S. foreign policy by Herman and Chomsky that was to be published in 1973 by Warner Modular, Inc., a subsidiary of Warner Communications. According to Claude McCaleb, after Warner Publishing president William Sarnoff read an advance copy, he "immediately launched into a violent verbal attack . . . saying, among other things, that [Counter-Revolutionary Violence] was a pack of lies, a scurrilous attack on respected Americans, undocumented, a publication unworthy of a serious publisher. . . . He then announced that he had ordered the printer not to release a single copy . . . and that the . . . [book] would not be published" (qtd. in Bagdikian 33-34). Sarnoff had ads for this book cancelled and the Warner catalog listing the Herman/Chomsky book and the entire 10,000 copy press run destroyed. Christopher Hitchens narrates the fate of Counter-Revolutionary Violence: "The twenty thousand copies might have been pulped if it were not for a legally binding contract. Instead they were sold to an obscure outfit named MSS Information Corporation, whereupon Warner . . . washed its hands of the entire deal and of all responsibility for advertising, promotion, and distribution.
While it is certainly not a hostile account, it is quite skimpy and used Bagdikian as its primary source. Bagdikian would have been a better source. Neilson’s account also failed to deal with the two spectacular facts very well. It was not 10,000 copies that were destroyed out of the 20,000 printed, but 19,500 of them, and Neilson’s account failed to even mention that Warner Modular, the original publishing company, was shut down in an effort to ensure that Noam and Ed’s book never saw the light of day. But, at least, Neilson’s version mentioned that books were destroyed (not burned, Inquisition and Nazi-style, but “pulped”). To be fair to Neilson, he would have certainly been angry with how his paragraph was used in Ed’s bio.
How did part of Neilson’s account get into Ed’s bio? By Cross, here. This is what Cross wrote:
According to Jim Neilson’s book Warring Fictions: Cultural Politics and the Vietnam War Narrative, publication of the first collaboration between Chomsky and Herman Counter-Revolutionary Violence (1973) was stopped by an executive of its intended publisher who thought its discussion of American foreign policy was "a pack of lies, a scurrilous attack on respected Americans".
Cross placed it right after a discussion of Ed and Noam’s work on Vietnam. Reading what Cross wrote about what William Sarnoff said, about it being a “pack of lies,” made it sound like some kind of righteous judgment, not part of a notorious diatribe of the kind that is rarely heard in the halls of corporate America. I have never seen anything like it, and I have been in many boardroom meetings. Noam and Ed’s account of the censorship is pretty muted. They could have really let fly, but didn’t. Instead, the spectacular account is Bagdikian’s, which quotes the affidavit sworn by Claude McCaleb, the head of Warner Modular. Sarnoff ordered the Warner Modular catalog that listed CRV destroyed, and a new one printed that omitted CRV. When the stunned McCaleb replied that such an outrageous move would “shatter the staff and shock the academic world,” Sarnoff replied that:
[…] he didn’t give a damn what I, my staff, the authors, or the academic community thought, and ended by saying that we should destroy the entire inventory of CRV.
Wow. So, what did Cross do? He found a skimpy account (while avoiding the best ones), took an outrageous quote out of context, never mentioned that Warner Communications wiped out one of its own publishing companied to prevent CRV’s distribution, and in a later addition, Cross escalated his deception when he added: “Because of a binding contract, copies were passed to another publisher rather than destroyed.” The whole truth is something different. The company that Warner passed the copies to was MSS Information Corporation, which was not a commercial publisher and had no distribution facilities, it did not even list CRV in its inventory for a long time, and only 500 copies of the 20,000 printed survived that charade, which was partly done to avoid legal action. Cross’s version makes it seem like a responsible, even heroic, executive halted the publication of a libelous work, but was constrained by the contract, so the solution was to pass the “pack of lies” to another company, to satisfy its legal obligation and make the best of its difficult position. That is an impressive example of a spin-doctor at work.
So, with Cross’s help, Noam and Ed’s first collaboration was effectively censored twice: the first time, and the account of the censorship was effectively censored at Ed’s bio at Wikipedia. Even at Noam’s Wikipedia bio, it is pretty checkered. Sophal Ear and Mekong.net are far from credible sources, and both have smeared Noam and Ed.
Cross is artful and lawyerly in “his” edits, quotes of obviously libelous statements and defending their “reputability,” as he did when quoting Sophal Ear’s disinformation, and the like. When somebody removed that highly misleading passage by Cross on CRV’s fate, FreeKnowledge reinstated it!
People who had only read Cross’s highly slanted version of Neilson’s skimpy account on Ed’s bio until now would have had no inkling that not only were 97.5% of the books destroyed, but Warner shut down its own company to prevent Noam and Ed’s book from being read, in one of the most amazing cases of censorship in the late 20th century. Cross has proven “himself” shameless over the years, so I don’t expect “him” to begin behaving “himself.” What Cross did to Ed’s Wikipedia bio is arguably libelous. What does it take to get “him” banned from editing anything related to Ed? How great do Cross’s editorial crimes need to get?
Best,
Wade
- @Wadefrazier: One of my particular problems with the article is that the Neilson quote is actually a direct lift from [1] and ignores the point about censorship that McCaleb was trying to make in his affidavit. Prop9 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violations removed
I've just WP:REVDELed a series of edits under WP:COPYVIO. They included:
- 9 strings where at least 10 words from this (longest string being 134 words)
- 12 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string being 43 words)
- 7 strings of at least 10 words from this (one string being 100 words long)
- 5 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string being 69 words)
- 10 strings of at least 10 words from this (the longest string being 35 words)
- 7 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string being 52 words)
@Wadefrazier: This was absolutely unacceptable. Between editing this with an admitted conflict of interest and engaging in blatant plagiarism, you've demonstrated that you are not qualified to edit this article (regardless of whatever content you were trying to add). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The erasure of my work
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTHERE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that this will be my last post at Wikipedia. What I wrote was not just reverted back, but erased completely, and I just saw that the erasure was justified because it contained copyrighted material, but the copyrighted material was nearly all Ed’s, and the erasing admin literally stated that Ed would have to donate it to Wikipedia (I guess that any blockquote at Wikipedia has been through a copyright-release process, and I confess that that is new to me), but Ed is not exactly in position to do that. Also, I seem to have also been accused of plagiarizing myself. However, the writings on my site are not copyrighted, as you can see my giving my rights away on my home page, so I don’t seem to be plagiarizing myself, but I am no attorney. I have asked that the admin restore what was removed from Brian O’Leary’s bio, as it is now back to a stub state because I seem to have plagiarized my public-domain myself (and the examples that the admin produced of my other “plagiarisms” had “including the” and “department of” as plagiarisms, even when the source and “plagiarism” are from entirely different sentences – I think I know when I have been had). But that request has also been rejected, primarily because I knew Brian. Sigh. Well, at least I was able to run the gauntlet at NASA and get his astronaut bio published, and at least his Martian credentials, which is his unique distinction, have survived at Wikipedia. I can live with that. I’ll have to. I’ll finish my tenure at Wikipedia with these observations… Apparently, being a fan of Ed’s, who corresponded with him, is a conflict of interest, but being a team of disinformation specialists posting libelous material, but doing it anonymously, is not. Making a Wikiquote page was fine, but having those same quotes in the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation and even “plagiarism.” I don’t think that I am smart enough to play the game being played here, so I’ll withdraw.
Good bye, Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Prop 9 - see your user talk page - Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Proposed changes to the article structure
Currently the article does not follow the traditional structure for contextualizing a scholar, their work and the impact and controversies surrounding that work. Instead, I propose breaking the article into 3 sections following the traditional Wikipedia structure of Biography, Thought and then Impact (including controversies). For examples of this structure see Noam Chomsky or Slavoj Žižek, who are similar left-wing scholars with pages following this format.
This would fix many of the structural problems of this article, which is currently laid out in a way that includes the controversies as major subjects while ignoring Herman's thought. In particular, the article has a citation of a citation [5] which is actually a direct quote of an affidavit given to Bagdikian in [6].
Likewise, the article includes citations to opinion articles in Herman's body of work, which should be in the impact/controversy section. For example [7] and [8], give unsupported assertions about Herman's work rather than interpretation or synthesis. In addition, there is blog content [9] which does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It should be deleted entirely.
These changes, as well as expanding the sections on Herman's thought and academic impact would improve the POV problems of this article considerably. Prop9 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with the structure of the article as now written. If anything it is too soft on Herman. I doubt that Herman would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article were it not for his long association with Chomsky and his or their controversial, and often mistaken, opinions on subjects such as genocide in Cambodia and the massacre in Srebrenica. He may, as some editor said, have been distressed that he's known more for his mistaken opinions than whatever positive he may have accomplished -- but that's the way history works. A wikipedia article about Lance Armstrong would hardly be neutral if his punishment for drugging were ignored or hidden away in the last paragraph of the article. The same standard should be used for Herman.Smallchief (talk)
- @Smallchief: What you're talking about is an important part of contextualizing a scholar, but right now the controversy section is interspersed with the discussion of his work (which itself is only structured around the most controversial aspects, the vast majority of his work is ignored). A good faith article of an academic presents that academic's work as summarized by secondary sources and then describes the controversies at the end. Lance Armstrong's doping is different because it's uncontroversial. Prop9 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with the structure of the article as now written. If anything it is too soft on Herman. I doubt that Herman would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article were it not for his long association with Chomsky and his or their controversial, and often mistaken, opinions on subjects such as genocide in Cambodia and the massacre in Srebrenica. He may, as some editor said, have been distressed that he's known more for his mistaken opinions than whatever positive he may have accomplished -- but that's the way history works. A wikipedia article about Lance Armstrong would hardly be neutral if his punishment for drugging were ignored or hidden away in the last paragraph of the article. The same standard should be used for Herman.Smallchief (talk)
- It would be useful to see the major rewrite by Wade that was recently deleted as I agree there are some problems with the article as it stands. For example,
1. The section “According to Jim Neilson’s book Warring Fictions ... Because of a binding contract, copies were passed to another publisher rather than destroyed” provides a highly critical statement from an editor without including any responses from either Herman or Chomsky. There is more to this story than is written in the article but for some reason the story is truncated.
- @Burrobert: The warring factions quote is actually wrong. It's a quote from [10] that Neilson was citing. The quote should be reattributed and also contextualized (it's talking about media censorship, not that Chomsky and Herman were lying). Prop9 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: I don't understand how something like that can get into the article and then be left uncorrected. What is the obstacle to making the necessary changes?Burrobert 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Feel free to make the change and we can discuss it further on the talk page. If the fix is reverted in bad faith we can escalate using dispute resolution mechanisms. Prop9 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: I was reading the Wikipedia article on Chomsky today. The section in the Chomsky article dealing with the "Counter Revolutionary Violence" episode seems quite good. Is it within the rules to copy and paste it over to Herman's page? Burrobert 07:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: I don't understand how something like that can get into the article and then be left uncorrected. What is the obstacle to making the necessary changes?Burrobert 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
2. The Srebrenica, Cambodia and manufacturing consent sections quote mainly critical reviews not balanced by alternative viewpoints or Herman’s and co-authors responses to the criticism.
- @Burrobert: The criticism, especially the editorial criticism, should be in the controversy section. Prop9 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: That sounds like a reasonable approach.Burrobert 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
3. An editor has included some selective quotes from the book “After the Cataclysm” immediately after a statement from a critic. There is no indication that the critic was referring to those quotes but the placement leads the reader to an inference about the statements which seems unfair.
- @Burrobert: I'd really like to see a good faith explication of the body and thrust of Herman's work. Wade's contributions had issues which prevent them from being used, but it was the first attempt to synthesize Herman's work. Prop9 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: There does seem to be a lack of good faith editing on the page. Again it would be nice to be able to see Wade's work (was deletion, as opposed to removal, necessary?) as he seems to know the subject well and has spent a lot of time preparing his edits. I can understand his frustration at the process he has been through and from what he has said don't expect him to participate further. Are you able to use his edits somehow?Burrobert 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Wades work did violate Wikipedia's policies so the deletion was justified. That said, it was the first attempt I've seen to provide an article in the proper structure, even if it did have glaring POV issues. Prop9 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: There does seem to be a lack of good faith editing on the page. Again it would be nice to be able to see Wade's work (was deletion, as opposed to removal, necessary?) as he seems to know the subject well and has spent a lot of time preparing his edits. I can understand his frustration at the process he has been through and from what he has said don't expect him to participate further. Are you able to use his edits somehow?Burrobert 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Restructuring the article may help. Addressing the content and balance is also important.Burrobert 14:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
No the deletion was an abuse of power. I have written below on why I think so. Other edits by Wade Frazier have also been sent down memory hole, which is also a violation of its policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wadefrazier&offset=&limit=500&target=Wadefrazier Deletion is an extraordinary measure that must be taking only in extraordinary situations, not for abusive purposes, and definitely not for good faith efforts. As I noted in this talk page, no proof of "blatant plagiarism" was presented. Wade is careful in citation, so there were no copyright violations either. There was no need to delete, it was an abuse of power. As I have said multiple times the content needs to be restored into edit history. Removal is fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs)
- @Burrobert: See Talk:Edward_S._Herman#Copyright_violations_removed. If you want the revdel reviewed, you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
- @Krishna Pagadala: Sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Given that there are no objections so far, I'm going to begin reorganizing the page according to this proposal starting Wednesday. In particular, I'm going to add a section on the propaganda model and various types of genocide as well as moving the editorial content to a criticism section. Prop9 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: Excellent. I'll keep an eye out for the changes and make comments if I have any suggestions. I have only read two of Herman's books so am far from being an expert on his work but it is clear that the current page needs improving. Readers need to be given a fairer summary of his writings. Let me know if you need any help.Burrobert 06:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly object both to Prop9's proposed changes and the apparent on– and off–Wiki CAVASSING that he has resorted to in an effort to force them through. In particular, it is inappropriate and contrary to the norms of Wikipedia's biographical articles to segregate all controversies involving a subject into a standalone "Criticism" section—whether the goal is to attack the subject or to bury the criticism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: Excellent. I'll keep an eye out for the changes and make comments if I have any suggestions. I have only read two of Herman's books so am far from being an expert on his work but it is clear that the current page needs improving. Readers need to be given a fairer summary of his writings. Let me know if you need any help.Burrobert 06:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: @TheTimesAreAChanging: I am sorry I don't know how to respond to the canvassing that you mention and am happy to take @Prop9:'s proposal at face value as an attempt to improve the article. The reason for the changes as stated by @Prop9: was neither "to attack the subject" nor "to bury the criticism" and I am happy to accept his stated reason. How does one decide whether the proposed changes are appropriate or inappropriate? Is there a policy document on this? Not being an experienced editor I decided to look at a few biographical articles to see how they are structured. It is a small sample size so from a statistical point of view no significant conclusions can be drawn. However, at the least, one can say that it is not unheard of to have criticism contained within its own section. The articles on Chomsky and the BBC would possibly be considered major by Wikipedia's standards so presumably they are structured correctly. Here is what I found:
Noam Chomsky: Chomsky’s views are outlined in chronological and subject sections. These sections contain some criticism but most criticism is in the section “Reception and influence” which also contains his and others responses to criticism.
David Horowitz: There is a “Controversy and criticism” section.
John Pilger: In the Cambodia section there is a ‘Responses by William Shawcross and others’ subsection. The view of others on his work are in the ’Reception’ section.
Julian Assange There is no Criticism or Reception section. The views of critics are included throughout the article except there is a ‘Allegations of anti-Semitism’ section.
BBC There is a ‘Controversy and criticism’ section.
Seymour Hersh There is a ‘Criticism’ section.
George Monbiot The article contains no criticism for some reason!? Burrobert 07:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Prop9's statement that this article as now written violates some form of "traditional structure" doesn't hold up in looking at other articles. I would argue that this article is more than fair to Herman and his ideas. I believe that one necessary revision is a mention of Herman's opinions about the Khmer Rouge and Srebrenica should be included in the summary paragraphs. Surely, those opinions are more important than the sentence saying he was one of 500 who signed a pledge not to pay taxes because of the Vietnam War.Smallchief (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Smallchief: If you can point me at any articles that have a structure that you'd prefer I'd be happy to look at them. However, without references like @Burrobert:'s there's not much for me to work with. Prop9 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Prop9's statement that this article as now written violates some form of "traditional structure" doesn't hold up in looking at other articles. I would argue that this article is more than fair to Herman and his ideas. I believe that one necessary revision is a mention of Herman's opinions about the Khmer Rouge and Srebrenica should be included in the summary paragraphs. Surely, those opinions are more important than the sentence saying he was one of 500 who signed a pledge not to pay taxes because of the Vietnam War.Smallchief (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TheTimesAreAChanging: The only canvassing I engaged in was pinging people that had already contributed to the talk page. Again you're violating WP:AGF. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion by A. Offering other examples of page structures you'd like to see and B. actually contributing to the content that you'd like to see in the article and how to fix its POV instead of casting aspersions in every comment you make that would be much more productive. Prop9 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Krishna Pagadala was definitely recruited by Wadefrazier. I'm capable of believing that Frazier's appearance was only coincidental (not connected) with your activity on this article -- for the same reason I know that Pagadala was recruited off-site by Frazier. Frazier's recruitment of Pagadala does raise questions about Burrobert's sudden appearance, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: Given that @Burrobert: hasn't done anything but contribute productively is it appropriate to cast aspersions on his/her character? Prop9 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry (i.e. off-site canvassing) are means of gaming the system in an attempt to create the artificial appearance of support for a position, out of the mistaken notion that sheer numbers determine consensus. It causes huge messes (as can be seen all over this talk page) because it draws in users who deal more with uninformed feelings about the subject than on reasonable and knowledgeable reflection on sources and policy.
- You really need to quit looking for allies in such users just because their opinions vaguely resemble your goal for the article and focus instead on developing the strength of your own arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: If you have any problems with the current discussions I'd be happy to listen to them. So far @Burrobert: is the only one that's actually provided any sort of support for his arguments on this page. Given your position as an administrator, you seem very invested in questioning people's good faith here without any evidence on your part. Perhaps we should bring in other administrators to calm things down? Prop9 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Only the people who agree with you are productive, and anyone who disagrees with you over article content are useless and anyone who disagrees with you on behavior is secretly acting in bad faith -- is that it? You really are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in your posts, aren't you? Why does WP:AGF extend to Burrobert to the point of pretending that there's no undeniable canvassing going on, but it's fine to ignore or decry any user who doesn't hand you what you want when you decide who is or isn't productive?
- A productive user, operating in good-faith, with the goal of a neutral article that fits sources and policy, would focus on gathering sources that demonstrate the direction the article should go in and reviewing how current sources and phrasing fit within policy. Such a user would not need to comment on other user's behavior when there's an admin who is watching the talk page just because of behavioral issues (with no regard for article content). Are you going to be such a user or not? You wanted a "here's the problem, here's how to fix it" approach but so far whenever anyone does that for you, you either argue, accuse, or insinuate. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: We've done just that. We've pointed out that no other Wikipedia article is structured like Herman's and pointed to articles supporting that assertion. The only attempted rebuttals have amounted to "nuh-uh" and "Herman is a bad guy", with zero citations. I've also provided evidence that quotes in the article are misattributed (and no rebuttals to that all).
- I'd be happy to hear how that isn't being "A productive user, operating in good-faith, with the goal of a neutral article that fits sources and policy". I also deeply resent and deny your claims that all I do is "argue, accuse, or insinuate". As far as I can see the primary person doing that is you. Off the top of my head you've made unfounded claims of sockpuppetry (and refused to apologise) and now you're making unverifiable claims of canvassing directed at an editor, @Burrobert:. Is that appropriate behaviour for a Wikipedia administrator? Prop9 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- As was pointed out to you before, @EdJohnston: (another administrator) said
The blocks of the three alleged socks look to be justified on behavioral grounds. Though Prop9 was given only a short block they are probably on course to get indefinitely blocked for disruption after their current block expires.
You're really gonna pretend that you're not the one viewing me with a grudge when you're expecting an apology for a block that was justified and a sockpuppet investigation that everyone but you found quite plausible? You continue to fail to see the hypocrisy in your posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)- @Ian.thomson: I'm fully aware of that. It's perfectly fine to have suspicions. What I take issue with is that is that, once the accusations were proven wrong, you doubled down and refused to apologize. I've apologized to you when I made a mistaken accusation. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Prop9 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't need to apologize. You asked me to do something that, if you had bothered to look at public information, you could have known I had already done. That's not exactly comparable to requesting a check user to confirm your (non-public) IP address on grounds that everyone agreed was reasonable. And again, that you are getting into this tit-for-tat is only further proving that your interactions with me are tainted by a grudge on your part and not rooted in the assumption of good faith. I've already previously given you a final warning to drop the matter or you'll get a WP:NOTHERE block, and you've only contributed further reasons for me to go forward with one since then (WP:SPA, WP:RGW, WP:BATTLEGROUND). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: I'm fully aware of that. It's perfectly fine to have suspicions. What I take issue with is that is that, once the accusations were proven wrong, you doubled down and refused to apologize. I've apologized to you when I made a mistaken accusation. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Prop9 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- As was pointed out to you before, @EdJohnston: (another administrator) said
- Machiavelli and two of the articles mentioned by Burrobert, Chomsky and Pilger, include criticism of the subjects interspaced with the description of their opinions. Likewise, I'm not aware that any guidance by Wikipedia would lead one to believe that this article needs "restructured." To the contrary, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says "try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Clearly, you, contrary to Wikipedia's advice, would like to isolate the criticisms of Herman into a subsection, minimizing them. I have previously opined that the principal reason Herman has a wikipedia article is his controversial opinions. Minimize those and you have nothing left.Smallchief (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Smallchief: One of my principle issues with the current structure of the article is that it includes editorial criticism in a way that gives it the same credence as a secondary source with citations. You're right that Chomsky's page contains criticism but it's criticism from a reliable secondary sources with citations (e.g. : Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02418-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)) not editorial opinions. In addition, if you look at Chomsky's page the POV is arguably much more neutral (the discussion of Warner Modular in particular). If you agree that Chomsky's page is a good starting point for the structure of the Herman article, I would be happy to agree with you. Prop9 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Smallchief: One of my principle issues with the current structure of the article is that it includes editorial criticism in a way that gives it the same credence as a secondary source with citations. You're right that Chomsky's page contains criticism but it's criticism from a reliable secondary sources with citations (e.g. : Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02418-1.
- @Ian.thomson: If you have any problems with the current discussions I'd be happy to listen to them. So far @Burrobert: is the only one that's actually provided any sort of support for his arguments on this page. Given your position as an administrator, you seem very invested in questioning people's good faith here without any evidence on your part. Perhaps we should bring in other administrators to calm things down? Prop9 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TheTimesAreAChanging: The only canvassing I engaged in was pinging people that had already contributed to the talk page. Again you're violating WP:AGF. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion by A. Offering other examples of page structures you'd like to see and B. actually contributing to the content that you'd like to see in the article and how to fix its POV instead of casting aspersions in every comment you make that would be much more productive. Prop9 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: I mentioned this above but you may have missed it. I was reading the Wikipedia article on Chomsky yesterday. The section in the Chomsky article dealing with the "Counter Revolutionary Violence" episode seems quite good. Is it within the rules to copy and paste it over to Herman's page? The Chomsky article in general seems to provide a more complete overview of the various issues. Would it be within the rules to copy and paste the text from the Chomsky article to the Herman article when it deals with joint work? Burrobert 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Aaaaah... sorry. It's within the rules [11] so long as you attribute the text to the original author. There are some examples in the reference. Once you find the author go for it. Prop9 (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: Thanks. I might give it a try. Burrobert 05:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm starting the countdown to consensus again. Does anyone disagree with changing the tone and format of the article to match the Chomsky's? Prop9 (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to start making the changes on Wednesday. Prop9 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll be watching with interest. Smallchief (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Smallchief: @Burrobert: First changes are in. Prop9 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Prop9: I have looked at the changes and they look fine. Here are some comments.
- Chomsky’s page contains a chronological structure followed by a section for each area of thought/work. The propaganda model does not have its own section on Chomsky's page but is mentioned in the chronological section "Reaganite era and work on the media: 1980–89". I am happy for there to be a separate section for the propaganda model on Herman's page given its importance but think it will eventually need to be placed elsewhere. Chronologically it comes after Vietnam and Cambodia which currently are after its section. Of course it is hard to put everything in its correct order until more pieces of the jigsaw are in place.
- I have updated the Vietnam and Cambodia sections by copying across some text from Chomsky's page. The Chomsky page had a more complete summary of the two books discussed. I have not deleted any of the existing text on Herman's page as it seems relevant but have merged the Chomsky text with the existing text. You mentioned that there was a problem with the quote from Jim Neilson’s book. I don't have the book so can't verify the context. I hope my changes do not get in the way of your intended changes. If they do, then move, delete or change the text as appropriate.
- Burrobert 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Looks good from a brief scan. I noticed you notified the Chomsky talk page too. Good job. Prop9 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Summary of the abuse and violations of wikipedia policies seen on Ed Herman's page
WP:NOTFORUM. Krishna Pagadala has been repeatedly been told to seek deletion review if they think that my actions were inappropriate. Either seek it or back off -- continuing to argue about it, calling it an "abuse of power," or comparing it with 1984 will result in a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Prop9: Appreciate your thoughts about COI. No matter how COI is defined in wikipedia we all have a COI. I dont approach wikipedia from its rules. I approach it from the spirit. Which is an encyclopedia for the world. It is a disservice when wikpedia sends important and careful contributions down memory hole. I fully expected the contributions to be reverted but being erased is straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. One of the wikipedia five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules" it says further "Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected" I have said as much, there was an abuse of power and Wade's contribution needs to be reinstated and visible for people like me who know they have to go through the edits. I expect that it will be reverted and new content will come in its place, removing it from the edits though is amazing. I did not think that wikipedia stooped that low. The genius of deletion is that the mistakes cannot even be corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;" the implication being that quotations will be used, and that they must be properly cited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations Copyright violations policy says "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed with the source url in the edit summary if possible." In other words dont send it down the memory hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Deletion Policy says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." In short the sending Wade's contribution down memory hole was a violation of wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. It was a clear abuse of power.
I also gave my reasons for why use of NYT material was FAIR USE, quoting myself "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation Says it has to meet 6.1 Meeting the no free equivalent criterion --- CHECK NYT is one of the most important papers, there is no free equivalent 6.2 Meeting the previous publication criterion --- CHECK 6.3 Meeting the contextual significance criterion --- CHECK This is from NYT obituary of Ed Herman" Liability is not a concern with respect to Ed Herman's own work, he explicitly gave permission to Wade to fix up his wikipedia biography. So that leaves NYT obit as the sole remaining concern for COPYVIO, if you assume that NYT obit was copyvio (which IMO it is not). Why was that not removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations says "some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed" There was no reason to delete everything from history. Sending Wade's contribution down memory hole was an abuse of power.
Do you have proof of that assertion? Can you explain yourself more, sorry I don't understand what exactly there is a problem with. Wade explicitly said "I gave away all rights to my writings" and as I have mentioned before there was no COPYVIO in the first place.
|
Copied text from Noam Chomsky re Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda
I have copied the following text from the Noam Chomsky page to supplement the section discussing their book Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda. I have also placed a note on the talk page for Chomsky advising of the copying.
"Chomsky and Herman authored Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda, a book which criticised U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia and highlighted how mainstream media neglected to cover stories about these activities; the publisher Warner Modular initially accepted it, and it was published in 1973. However, Warner Modular's parent company, Warner Communications, disapproved of the book's contents and ordered all copies to be destroyed. [1] [2]" Burrobert 11:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. pp. 160-162. ISBN 978-0-262-02418-1.
{{cite book}}
:|pages=
has extra text (help) - ^ Sperlich, Wolfgang B. (2006). Noam Chomsky. London: Reaktion Books. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-86189-269-0.
Copied text from Noam Chomsky page re The Political Economy of Human Rights
I have copied the following text from the Noam Chomsky page to supplement the section discussing their book The Political Economy of Human Rights. I have also placed a note on the talk page for Chomsky advising of the copying.
″In 1979, Chomsky and Herman revised Counter-Revolutionary Violence and published it with South End Press as the two-volume The Political Economy of Human Rights. [1] In this work they compared U.S. media reactions to the Cambodian genocide and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. They argued that because Indonesia was a U.S. ally, U.S. media ignored the East Timorese situation while focusing on that in Cambodia, a U.S. enemy.[2][3]″ Burrobert 12:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Barsky 1997, p. 187 sfnm error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBarsky1997 (help); Sperlich 2006, p. 86.
- ^ Barsky 1997, p. 187. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBarsky1997 (help)
- ^ This Chomsky-Herman thesis has been challenged by Sophal Ear, who "argues that concurrent [media] coverage of human rights violations in right-wing regimes in Chile and South Korea exceeded the coverage given to Cambodia" during the genocide: See Sharp, Bruce. "Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy". Mekong.net. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
Anticipation of criticisms of the propganda model
My edit was not "nonsense", they are important context to the simplistic criticisms by Gitlin that were being described in the previous paragraph (it is important that because Herman himself and Chomsky anticipated them in full in their own text, the criticisms are NOT original to Gitlin and should probably not be ascribed to him as original work). At any rate, it is certainly worthy of comment, it is important context to the criticism, and it is not "nonsense" as the piqued previous editor said in deleting my edit.
I have re-included the discussion. CraigBurley (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with your edit is that you are stating in wikivoice that Herman is entirely correct and above criticism based on your own analysis of Herman's writings. That is original research and is forbidden on Wikipedia, as the goal of Wikipedia is merely to summarize what reliable secondary sources have to say about a topic. Attributing Gitlin's criticism to Gitlin is in keeping with standard Wikipedia guidelines such as neutral point of view, notwithstanding your objection that Gitlin is merely a cog in the corporate "propaganda model"—by the way, as many sources have noted, the Chomsky-Herman "propaganda model" is merely a fancy name for common Marxist media criticism, so perhaps by your logic it need not be credited to those authors?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by “common Marxist media criticism”. It isn’t mentioned on the Propaganda model page. Burrobert (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is not original research. It is fully cited to an article in Monthly Review but has also been discussed by others. I have reverted the edit. I am adding a citation to Andrew Mullen's piece in Media Culture & Society. CraigBurley (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Citing Herman himself in the Marxist Monthly Review and another 2010 source to "refute" professor Gitlin (as cited by The Washington Post) in 2017 is a straightforward example of original research; if you don't understand that, then the burden is on you to familiarize yourself with the standards of this encyclopedia (as well as to observe WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and to stop edit warring). Incidentally, if your own source states that the putative "propaganda model" is
"generally ignored within academia"
that should tell you something, because Wikipedia reflects what mainstream reliable sources, both academic and journalistic, have to say about a topic; using WP:FRINGE sources to advocate for viewpoints not widely supported by mainstream sources is not the purpose of Wikipedia, especially when edit warring, original research, and synthesis are involved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)- I'll agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. We have enough info in the article about the Propaganda Model. We've said what the model was and cited refutations. We don't need refutations of refutations. If the academic community ignores the propaganda model it's because academia doesn't think it's worth the attention, rather than being a conspiracy. Smallchief (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No. The PM is a major intellectual achievement, the subject of academic conferences and a great deal of consideration. Gitlin's facile criticism should either be deleted as unworthy of citation or the fact that it was entirely pre-anticipated by Herman himself, as part of the Model, should be discussed. This is an important part of the academic legacy of a major thinker and it can merit a bit of discussion from both sides. The continual battle over this page is indicative of an ideological attempt to make Herman's page be about his critics, not him. Adequately giving consideration to this (only a few lines!) is both proper and proportionate.
- Citing Herman himself in the Marxist Monthly Review and another 2010 source to "refute" professor Gitlin (as cited by The Washington Post) in 2017 is a straightforward example of original research; if you don't understand that, then the burden is on you to familiarize yourself with the standards of this encyclopedia (as well as to observe WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and to stop edit warring). Incidentally, if your own source states that the putative "propaganda model" is
- Stub-Class University of California articles
- Unknown-importance University of California articles
- WikiProject University of California articles
- Stub-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Stub-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed University of Pennsylvania articles
- Unknown-importance University of Pennsylvania articles