Talk:Critical discourse analysis

message: An anonymous editor recently added a citation that appears either to have copied a portion of this article, or to have been the original source of the Wikipedia text.
Benham and Mahmoudy (2013) reads in relevant part:
Fairclough (1989) developed a three-dimensional guideline for studying discourse. His aim was to map three distinct forms  of  analysis  onto  one  another:  analysis  of  (spoken  or  written)  language  texts,  analysis  of  discourse  practice (processes  of  text  production,  distribution  and  consumption)  and  analysis  of  discursive  events  as examples of sociocultural practice. Specifically,  he  combined  micro,  meso  and  macro-level  interpretations.  At  the  micro-level,  the analyst is  concerned  with  the  text's  syntax,  metaphoric  structure  and  certain  rhetorical  devices.  The  meso-level comprised studying  the  text's production  and  consumption, concentrating on  how  power  relations  are  enacted.  At  the macro-level,  the  analyst considers intertextual  relationships,  trying  to  understand  the  broad,  societal  currents  that  are influencing  the  text  being  studied.
[]
Compare this version of the Wikipedia article, from 6 January 2012:
Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. Particularly, he combines micro, meso and macro-level interpretation. At the micro-level, the analyst considers the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain metorical devises. The meso-level involved studying the text's production and consumption, focusing on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst is concerned with inter-textual understanding, trying to understand the broad, societal currents that are affecting the text being studied.
I think it is inappropriate to use the former as a source for the latter. It seems likely either that one was copied from the other, or that both were (co)written by the same person. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-dimensional framework 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Critical discourse analysis. 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/20061231054624/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp
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) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I presume that the listed academics with Wikipedia pages (in English or other languages) are WP:Notable. For other scholars listed, maybe there could be some external standard. I've checked Web of Science for h-index and number of publications for the following scholars.
* Michał Krzyżanowski h-index 23, total publications 58
* John E. Richardson h-index 13, total 126 (also an editor of Critical Discourse Studies, I think)
* Phil Graham h-index 17, total 89
* Hilary Janks h-index 10, total 39
* Christopher Hart h-index 12, total 43
* William Feighery h-index 5, total 9
Web of Science has somewhat spotty coverage of social sciences, though (for comparison, Norman Fairclough has an h-index of 13 and 29 publications in WoS; Ruth Wodak has 23 and 88), so there may be a better standard. Google Scholar? Something else?
Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable academics