Talk:Propaganda model

message: 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)
thread_title: New York Times Critic

message: 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)
replies: text: Not the only article where User:Ultramarine lifts text verbatim without proper attribution.  Several places in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've left a few notes about this at his Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More plagiarism 

message: Examples:
#United States media to United States media
#George W. Bush administration to George W. Bush administration is OK, but the later
#:"Bush administration" to Bush administration is bad.
— Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really worth edit-warring over? --Elonka 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In principle, it would be, but United States media then redirects to Media of the United States, which primarily descripes the different types of media used in the United States, rather than the different media outlets.  It would be more accurate to unlink media entirely, as it was before the set of mysterious Wikilinks was added.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious wikilinking 

message: '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)
thread_title:  The Anti-Chomsky Reader 

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Slant 

message: 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)
replies: text: No because the dispute is over Wikipedia standards of NPOV that don't exist and alternatively, if you wish to implement such standards it would require consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV states that all significant views should be included. As I am arguing that such are excluded, there is a NPOV dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOV doesn't say anything about non-criticism sections as being NPOV "support" for the article which was your original point and by this standard all significant views are included. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that important criticisms are excluded which violates NPOV. Sections titles has nothing to do with this. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing of NPOV dispute template 

message: Here is every instance of me answering why I removed the points: 
* diff - "as I've said over and over"
* diff - "I hope it's clear the material was deleted based on only using the main points"
* diff - "that's why we use general bullets."
* diff - "The underling points are used, not every single point of criticism made."
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)
replies: text: I have not asked the same question and you have answered differently in different replies but still not satisfactorily. You have refused to give any complete explanations for why the criticisms should be removed. The NPOV dispute is ongoing so you should not remove the disputed template.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:Weight says nothing about excluding important arguments. Furthermore, you are not presenting the main arguments but excluding them completely.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lehrer criticism exclusion  

message: 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)
replies: text: It is those wanting to insert or keep something that should be provide the sources. If that is you, then you should provide the source. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done for whoever wanted to provide a source, myself included. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified way to cite the book  

message: 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)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution  

message: 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
:One mention doesn't change anything. You'd need hundreds just to make a blip. Even if the coverage was 50/50 it would still be biased because it's creating a false equivalency - it is illegal, and there's no debate.
-G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.39.4 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kofi Annan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Annan Picture 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603191844/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219145112/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----02.pdf to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425061059/http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/?p=140 to http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/?p=140
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *34 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string) (longest string being 55 words)
*3 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string being 19 words)
Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations removed