Talk:Edward S. Herman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.
@Ian.thomson: As a member of the public, I would like to see the edit in the history. Except for nytimes obit all of the other articles you cited for copyvio are authored by Edward Herman. I doubt that he would have considered it copyvio. Regarding the nytimes article why is it not fair use? Lastly can you please explain your charges of plagiarism. That is a strong charge and I would like to see your evidence of it. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: It would violate site policy for me to restore show edits that violate copyright. Any other admin can review the material I deleted. You can request Wikipedia:Deletion review to ask other admins to review it. Neither Herman nor Monthly Review have not given us permission to host material he wrote on this site, and it was not added by him at any rate. Even if Herman himself tried to add the material, even if that did not violate our conflict of interest policy, there is still the problem that he published it elsewhere first. He would have to formally donate the material to us before we could use it. Finally, your question Regarding the nytimes article why is it not fair use? is frankly ridiculous. The New York Times is an obviously copyrighted publication. We cite and summarize sources, we do not copy from them. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: You have not shown copyright violation only asserted it, and you have not given a good explanation for why quoting is not fair use. I have a life to live, I have no interest in wikipedia's bureaucracy. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Plagiarism definition is "Copying of another person's ideas, text or other creative work, and presenting it as one's own, especially without permission; plagiarizing." Did Wade Frazier "blatantly" copy text and present it as his own? Why did you bring up the question of hosting material on this site? Were the entire articles copied? Why is it not Fair Use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations On what basis are you asserting a copyright violation Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Why is my question "deserving or inviting derision or mockery"? 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— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs) @Krishna Pagadala: Do not thread posts in the middle of other user's posts. The material was copied verbatim from copyrighted sources. If you doubt it, then request deletion review as I've already explained and another admin can confirm it. We cannot restore copyright violating material. Otherwise, quit arguing that copying material verbatim from copyrighted sources is somehow not a copyright violation. You are in the wrong here, back off. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: Also, I strongly recommend that you let your friends on the forum know that off-site recruitment is not going to help at all, especially if y'all are going to make demands that demonstrate ignorance of basic policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)\ @Ian.thomson: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Krishna_Pagadala&offset=&limit=500&target=Krishna+Pagadala as you can see from my contributions I have been on the site for some time and stay out of contentious topics, because I have no interest in fighting wikipedia's biases. I only came into this because you were rude to Wade Frazier and now to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility is in the code of conduct of wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" also "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and finally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Assume good faith does not mean that I have to pretend that you and Wade are not members of the same forum where y'all are discussing this article. WP:OUTING prevents me from actually linking here, but if any of my fellow administrators wants the info I'm free to email them the links. You are clearly here because of off-site canvassing, there's no point in lying about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Here is what I wrote as disclosure at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wadefrazier#Regarding_off-site_recruitment_of_your_friends "Disclosure: Wade and I happen to know each other, I consider him a friend. I have known that he was going to edit Herman's biography for months now and waited with interest as to what it would say and how wikipedia would react. Wikipedia reacted exactly as I assumed it would. There was no canvassing going on. Rest of what I want to say on Ed Herman's talk page." You have assumed bad faith on my part which is untrue, uncivil and rude. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Wade is careful to attribute in his essay on Edward Herman http://ahealedplanet.net/herman.htm, I have always seen him being careful with sourcing, maybe he made a mistake, maybe it is not upto wikipedia standards. I can't judge for myself without seeing the source, and you have removed the source. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) As far as asking for review I already wrote, I have no interest in wikipedia's bureaucracy. I expect wikipedia to be biased and I don't want to waste my time. As a member of the public I will say this: Wikipedia has not been a neutral source for me on any topic that is "controversial" in the West. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: You have already wasted your time, then. We are not a forum for you to give your opinion on any topic (whatever it is). If you are not here to work on the encyclopedia within its policies, then you need to leave. Either request deletion review or back off. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Yes. I have wasted my time. You still have not explained why Wade's contribution was "blatant plagiarism". You understand the rules and have admin power to erase things. So be it. As a member of the public. I repeat this, it is a disservice by wikipedia to erase contributions from history without a strong reason. I repeat "Wikipedia has no firm rules" is one of the pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. If I were in your place I would not have erased the contributions, I would have reverted them and asked a third party to check and see if there was an actual violation and if the edits needed to be erased after due consideration and deliberation. The big hammer of erasure is for something obvious, uncontroversial and causes harm to other third parties. Actually wikipedia 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." But see you have erased everything in violation of wikipedia's policies both here and on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_O%27Leary&action=history. I hope that Wade or somebody else takes this up. Stop being abusive. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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. In his Necessary Illusions, Noam published three predictions of the propaganda model, and the third was about how work that exposed the media’s double standards of reporting on “nefarious bloodbaths” would be received. It explains Ed’s bio as it stands today, as it is virtually all about his exposure of the selectivity of the media’s reporting on three “nefarious bloodbaths,” in Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. At least Wikipedia has not yet erased where, for the first time, that framework was even mentioned at Wikipedia, here, which, if it survives, will be the only part of my effort on Ed to survive at Wikipedia (along with making the story of CRV’s suppression fairer). To assail Ed on the exact issues that his and Noam’s propaganda model predicted, without even mentioning anywhere at Wikipedia what the predictions were or that any predictions were even made, would be like assailing Einstein as a crank and failing to mention relativity. Noam has been compared to Einstein for good reason, so this analogy is not a wild one. Maybe because I summarized the examples that Noam and Ed wrote about, that contribution will survive. Somebody might want to at least put the propaganda model’s predictions in the propaganda model article one day. I do not need to belabor it, if my previous talk posts are not erased, but Philip Cross published a highly slanted version of the censorship of Noam and Ed’s first book in Ed’s bio, so much so that it borders on libel, and I keep seeing it restored after people try to delete it. That is really something to witness and shows the level of integrity that prevails here. Plagiarizing my public-domain self is beyond the pale, but defaming a dead man seems to be OK. In a way, this is fitting, as it illustrates the subject matter that Ed wrote about for nearly the entirety of his writing career. Hoare’s claim that the Srebrenica Research Group was formed to deny that the Srebrenica Massacre even happened is outright libel, and has incredibly been on Ed’s bio for several years as responsible criticism. Since any more links to my work are grounds for being blocked, I’ll just say that the bio I wrote for Ed provided a fuller picture of his writing career, not the caricature that parades as Ed’s bio at Wikipedia today. If somebody ever wants to do Ed’s life more justice at Wikipedia, his university career is worth writing about, his writings with Noam, obviously, deserve to be expanded on, but Ed had a vast writing career outside of his work with Noam, which is one of the greatest failings of the Wikipedia bio today, outside of the attacks that completely misrepresent Ed and Noam’s work, such as from Ear, Caplan, Lukes, Hoare, Sharp, etc., etc. A lot of it is libelous, but since those authors are supportive of the imperial party line, their work has a proud place of prominence, and their work is liberally cited in articles on Ed and Noam. Good bye, Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @Wadefrazier: did you save the structure of your changes anywhere? Regardless of the copyright/WP:COI issues, your version was much closer to what a typical Wikipedia article looks like. Prop9 (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Also please see [1] for a way to get your proposed changes through despite the WP:COI guidelines. Prop9 (talk) 23:56, 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) Wade, I would not worry about copyright violations, I understand copyright law well, you have no violated any copyright. Wikipedia is wikipedia as you know well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: Wikipedia may be wikipedia, but in this case the rules are just little more work (paraphrase and cite secondary sources, make edit requests to avoid conflict of interest disputes). The rules aren't that onerous, why not follow them? Prop9 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Hey Prop9 I gave my answer above on why quoting is ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation I have done edits on One Child Policy and don't quote at all. However in a biographical article one has to quote. Same with NYT obit too again see above for why it is fair use. Deleting for "COPYVIO" is overboard and worthy of 1984. For all wikipedia articles that are controversial I actually read the edit history because I know the article will be biased. Deleting from the edit history is genius, I can't even learn from the history of the article, it is an abuse of power. The reason Ed's bio is so bad is because of biases of editors of wikipedia, somehow they don't have any conflicts of interest. I don't know what Wade will do, and I have no advice for him. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: It wasn't merely quoting, it was copied verbatim, without nothing to indicate that it was intended as a quotation. The comparison to 1984 is a rather hypocritical violation of our site's policies on civility. If you want to improve the article, cite, summarize, and paraphrase some professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. I don't care what the article says, I just removed copyright violations. Just because you don't want to believe that doesn't make it true. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC) The comparison to Wikiquote doesn't work because it wasn't simply quotes, it was large amounts of material copied verbatim from multiple sources. Material was lifted from a variety of sources. Frankly, given how the largest contributions Wade has brought have shown total disregard for WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:COI, the site will probably lose nothing from him leaving. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: It might be more productive (and in civil good faith) to actually explain the process of how to do good faith edits WRT conflicts of interest (e.g. explaining [2]) and potential plagarism (e.g. explaining [3]) rather just telling people they don't belong on the site. Prop9 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Prop9: If you take a look at User_talk:Wadefrazier#Conflict_of_interest, you'll see that I did. Then Wadefraizer responded by accusing another editor with being a "disinformation specialist." Then we get to this page, where he and Krishna Pagadala have decided to argue that one's off-site recruitment of the other isn't off-site canvassing and that copying verbatim copyrighted material onto the site isn't a copyright violation, and then they want to say that all this is because I'm biased and not at all because of their violation of site policies -- frankly they're both very close to a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: I owe you an apology then. That said, how about toning it down? Your responses are only inflaming the situation. "This is the problem, this is what you need to do to fix it" is all you need to say. Prop9 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) As you can see in the section above, I've told Krishna Pagadala how to request review of the deletion, but he refuses to because he admits that he's not interested in working on the encyclopedia, within its processes, with the assumption of good faith. If you want a "this is the problem, this is what you need to do to fix it" approach from me, here it is: focus on gathering sources that critique or balance off the material you want removed. Having those other two users on your "side" will not help you, because neither is particularly interested in following site process. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Repeating my earlier disclosure "Disclosure: Wade and I happen to know each other, I consider him a friend. I have known that he was going to edit Herman's biography for months now and waited with interest as to what it would say and how wikipedia would react. Wikipedia reacted exactly as I assumed it would. There was no canvassing going on. Rest of what I want to say on Ed Herman's talk page." Why did I even get into this morass given that I have no faith in wikipedia on controversial topics? The assertion of "blatant plagiarism" by Ian.thomson, as can be seen from http://ahealedplanet.net/herman.htm Wade is careful with his sourcing and attribution, so I doubt that he plagiarized anything. Also he carefully explained in the talk page what he was doing, is this blatant plagiarism? Which wikipedia says is "Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism. How should I assume good faith when Ian.thomson says "You are clearly here because of off-site canvassing, there's no point in lying about it"at timestamp "00:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)" My disclosure timestamp was earlier at "23:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)" Krishna Pagadala (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Finally the reference to 1984 is not a commentary on this particular episode. I fully expected Wade's contribution to be reverted, but erased came as a shock to me. I tried very hard to be civil, despite being called a liar and wade's contributions called "blatant plagiarism". I expect wikipedia to be biased towards the West and that is exactly what unfolded here. I understand copyright law enough to know that erasing Wade's contributions was overboard and uncalled for, not just on this article but elsewhere too. I have a life to live and have no interest in fighting wikipedia's biases. Which is why I only contribute to articles that are not controversial. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Krishna Pagadala: The fact that you're posting at all removes all credibility from your claim that you have no interest in the matter at hand -- unless WP:NOTHERE applies, in which case a block would be in order. Either comment constructively, citing WP:RSs to support changes to the article, or stop posting. This is not a forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) You have powers and are ready to abuse them. Go for it. I already disclosed my interest. I would atleast like to see Wade's edit in the history, so that people who don't trust wikipedia and know that they have to go through the edit history to form an informed opinion can do so. I am just saddened that wikipedia has gone beyond reverts to erasure, I now know about erasures and will watch out for them when I want to inform myself. I had constructive question How is Wade's contribution "blatant plagiarism"? Why are you violating wikipedia policy on copyvio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations which 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." WP:RS does not apply here, because I have not suggested any changes to the article at all. I only asked questions about your abuse of power Krishna Pagadala (talk) 02:40, 15 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. @Krishna Pagadala: Wikipedia actually has mechanisms to deal with its specific definition of COI. Wade's contributions didn't do that (e.g. use the talk page for an edit request). Likewise, his edits also had copyrighted material with no specific assignment to Wikipedia's license. Bureaucracies can be annoying, but I understand what Wikipedia is trying to achieve in both cases even if it feels unfair. Prop9 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 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. @Krishna Pagadala: Keeping copyrighted material in the diff history makes Wikipedia liable for the violations. I'm thankful that Wade kept his edits offsite but I don't really have any problems with the deletion because it limits Wikipedia's liability. Prop9 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Prop9: First there has to be proof of copyright violation. I have already linked to Wade essay on his site http://ahealedplanet.net/herman.htm Do you see any copyright violations there? As u can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons expects "quotations" from "reliable, published source using an inline citation" so quotations are OK. I am repeating myself "Except for nytimes obit all of the other articles you cited for copyvio are authored by Edward Herman. I doubt that he would have considered it copyvio. Regarding the nytimes article why is it not fair use?" and also I asked "Why is it not Fair Use?" with respect to Ed Herman's own work. 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. @Prop9: You Write "Likewise, his edits also had copyrighted material with no specific assignment to Wikipedia's license." 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. @Prop9: As far as COI goes that is no reason to erase contributions. Maybe it is a reason to revert. I will repeat myself again. Deletion of Wade's contributions in this and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O%27Leary is abuse of power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs) @Krishna Pagadala: As I have explained repeatedly, the material was WP:REVDELed because of copyright violations, which is within policy. If you refuse to understand that, that is your problem. You have been given the means to confirm that my revdel was appropriate, and you refuse to do so -- a sign you are not here in good faith and or interested in any sort of collaboration. This is your last chance: either request deletion review or shut up and leave it alone -- if you continue arguing and whining about imagined "abuse of power" then I'm going to block you under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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. " Burrobert 11:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

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. 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.″ Burrobert 12:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

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 [4] which is actually a direct quote of an affidavit given to Bagdikian in [5].

Likewise, the article includes citations to opinion articles in Herman's body of work, which should be in the impact/controversy section. For example [6] and [7], give unsupported assertions about Herman's work rather than interpretation or synthesis. In addition, there is blog content [8] 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)

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 [9] 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)

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)

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)

@Prop9: @Burrobert: "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?)"

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: @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)

@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)

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)

@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 [10] 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)

Anticipation of criticisms of the propaganda 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 New York Times) 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. As for the point being made about Gitlin raising his criticism of the PM as facile in 2010, it dates in fact to the 1980s. Would an additional cite help strengthen that sentence on Gitlin's criticism? I can review my copy of Gitlin's _The Whole World Is Watching_ for that discussion if it will help. CraigBurley (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As Smallchief himself said above, "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."" CraigBurley (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see my statement as supportive -- or even relevant -- to your opinion.Smallchief (talk)

"Gitlin's facile criticism should either be deleted as unworthy of citation ... " That's your personal opinion, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content polices and sourcing guidelines. Your continued edit warring without consensus is a conduct issue that will be taken to an administrative forum soon if you do not self-revert or if your edit is reverted and you restore it again absent affirmative consensus on this talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see now that you’ve reported me for making three reverts, which is SOMETHING YOU DID. I responded where you reported me. Happy to copy that over here if you would like or if it would clarify things. CraigBurley (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit is not framed neutrally. Maybe a response can be placed, but need to be clear it is response.--Hippeus (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit is framed neutrally. Describe for me please how the "framing" should change and I will modify. The continual reversions to this edit are making this look like an attempt to brigade this. Please be specific when you address an ongoing discussion. I have once again reverted the edit, but will change further to improve if people can tell me what they want changed about it.

You say that "need to be clear it is response." The article is about Herman, not his critics, and it is clearly noted that Herman *anticipated* the critique. I have made further edits now to provide the clarification you asked for, and brought the edit back CraigBurley (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What is important about emphasizing the anticipation by Herman of the criticisms offered of the propaganda model and of Manufacturing Consent is that, as many including Mullen (cited in the article and above) have shown, its anticipation of the critiques and responses is powerful confirmation of the model itself, because they are predicted by the operation of the model. It is central to the confirmation (and intellectual power) of the work, and is a noteworthy aspect of Herman's work in the book. I am happy to seek consensus here if people would like to offer some substantive criticism of what is written, rather than calling me a Marxist and saying I was describing Gitlin as a "cog" which isn't true (Gitlin may be personally rude about Herman, but is a notable and worthy historian and media critic and his critique is well worth preserving). Please work with me to improve the discussion of how Manufacturing Consent anticipated the critiques that were offered. CraigBurley (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I think would be a reasonable addition to the article based on your previous edits. I have removed what would be considered editorial comments.

Andrew Mullen said in his 2010 analysis, "Herman and Chomsky’s second-order prediction, that the PM would be generally ignored within academia, is borne out by the evidence... [t]hat this is so is fully in accord with Herman and Chomsky’s expectations and, together with the realization of their first-order prediction, concerning media performance, gives added weight to the efficacy and legitimacy of the PM."

References

That's fine with me, as long as it is not presented as a "response" to or "refutation" of Gitlin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

perhaps keep to chronological order and place it in the paragraph prior to Gitlin’s comment. Burrobert (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

so as to make it flow better? I can see that. If we're not going to place it after Gitlin's discussion then I'd like to consider a rewrite. Let me take a crack at it today or tomorrow (By the way, why is Gitlin's critique here? The tone is neither academic nor journalistic. It's framed as Gitlin's opinion in the source and there is no discussion. Keeping in mind WP:RS I am sure we can do much better by readers to understand serious critique?) CraigBurley (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to question whether Todd Gitlin is a reliable source, I would note that he is a lot more prominent in the profession of journalism and scholarship than the "reliable source" you are citing. (Andrew Mullen).Smallchief (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read what I said about Gitlin above ("a notable and worthy historian and media critic and his critique is well worth preserving") and stop being ridiculous. I suggested no such thing; what I am in fact suggesting (as I did above here on the Talk page) is that Gitlin's criticism of MC and the PM is made much better and more coherently elsewhere by Gitlin himself, and that the reader should be pointed to a better source of it, likely Gitlin 1980 (_The Whole World Is Watching_). Sending the reader to a reasoned critique is much better than sending them to an unsourced opinion in an obituary. Again: WP:RS. Source quality matters. Gitlin himself is not the source remember: the source _material_ is the source and here the source is neither academic nor journalistic (it's journalistic only in the sense that it's a piece on Herman relaying Gitlin's personal opinion). Let's give a better source for Gitlin's critique of the PM, which I'm sure as people interested in this topic you're more than capable of doing? Like I said, I'm happy to take a shot (I should have TWIW somewhere around my house or office) if no one else does. Thanks. CraigBurley (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is another issue with the Gitlin criticism as well: the first part is incorrect. The PM, and MC, and Herman, does NOT hold that the NYT is like Pravda (a reference that itself has grown very old, and which most readers are likely not to understand, but no matter). The biggest problem with the critical quotation offered is that it misrepresents the work; the model quiet clearly posits a very different filtering mechanism under the propaganda model of the Western (especially American) press than exists in a dictatorship that controls its media directly. (This is clear from the text of MC but also, for example, Robinson 2008 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctv7h0ts6.7.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A2fbdb655999a92792cc7a625cc9d6508)) CraigBurley (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Specific libelous statements in Herman’s biography

I am not going to be allowed to edit Herman’s biography again, due to my being his biographer. However, I am going to present specific libelous statements in Herman’s Wikipedia biography, which have been there since 2012, and all attempts to remove them have been reverted or deleted. The libelous statements are also not from reliable sources, to compound the crimes. The libelous statements I am about to mention were all inserted by the Philip Cross account, which is not surprising, given Cross's gross misrepresentations of the fate of Counter-Revolutionary Violence.

For starters, Sophal Ear’s Master’s thesis does not remotely qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia, and Cross inserted libelous statements from it.

Ear wrote that After the Cataclysm was “one of the most supportive books of the Khmer Revolution,” That statement is directly contradicted by the text in After the Cataclysm, which literally began and ended with the book’s purpose, which was primarily about analyzing the American ideological and propaganda system. In After the Cataclysm’s final comments, one can read:

“Our primary concern has been U.S. global policy and propaganda, and the filtering and distorting effect of Western ideology, not the problems of reconstruction and modernization in societies that have been victimized by Western imperialism. Correspondingly, we have not developed or expressed our views here on the nature of the Indochinese regimes. To assess the contemporary situation in Indochina and the programs of the current ruling groups is a worthwhile endeavor, but it has not been our current objective.”

Ear also wrote that Chomsky’s “favorable position towards the Khmer revolution would be hidden by the cloak of criticizing the print media's biases.” That is a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, and is libelous, particularly in light of the repeated and clear statements by the authors on their purpose for writing After the Cataclysm, which all subsequent work by them, such as Manufacturing Consent, also makes very clear.

Cross added those two libelous quotes from Ear’s Master’s thesis.

Also, on the Cambodia issue, Herman’s and Chomsky’s biographies both have references that point to Mekong.net. Mekong.net is a one-man show, and its author is a former janitor with no scholarly pretentions, which shows in his unprofessional and irrational writings. Mekong.net, like Ear’s Master’s thesis, does not come remotely close to meeting Wikipedia’s reliable source standards. The Cross account added those libelous statements and unreliable source references in 2012.

The final libelous statement to present is Marko Attila Hoare’s statement that the purpose of the Srebrenica Research Group was to “propagate the view that the Srebrenica massacre never happened.” That quote is libelous, as any reader of the Srebrenica Research Group’s report knows well. That report summarized the forensic evidence, which adduced perhaps 800 execution deaths in the Srebrenica massacre, not the 8,000 “genocide” deaths that live on in myth. So, the statement is libelous, and the quote comes from the pages of David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source, for good reason, as FrontPage Magazine is on the lunatic right.

It is scandalous, at minimum, that such libelous statements, and from dubious and unreliable sources, have been in Herman’s bio since 2012. Wade Frazier —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wade Frazier: See WP:No legal threats for why you shouldn't be saying "libelous." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going through the material now. I agree that FrontPage Magazine is absolutely unreliable and their general opinion is not worth including for "balance." However, Marko Attila Hoare is notable and not noted for crankery -- which is generally an exception to including pieces from otherwise unreliable platforms. That said, things need to be explicitly attributed. I'm rephrasing it now to make it clearer that that's just his opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Both accused of denialism of a number of mass murders.

An editor recently added an accusation that Herman and Chomsky are "both accused of denialism of a number of mass murders" in the lead under the hyperbolic edit summary that "almost every single (sic) of his publications was criticised as denialist". A discussion is required. Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• These are already linked in the article Cloud200 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• :"The politics of denialism: The strange case of Rwanda: The 1994 genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi never happened. This is this unfounded and disturbing allegation at the heart of a new book by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson"[11]
• :"Genocide denial is just as embarrassing to the left as it is to the libertarian right. Last week Edward Herman, an American professor of finance best known for co-authoring Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky, published a new book called The Srebrenica Massacre. It claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are "an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800.""[12]
• :"The denial of slaughter and terror, and the suffering they caused, in Bosnia and Croatia is thus the shaky basis from which the authors of this book turn to Kosovo. Their general problem in explaining away Serbian misdeeds is particularly acute here, since we have very recent memories of the exodus and suffering of the Albanian population."[13]

Srebrenica: Interview with Conspiracy Website

In 2013, Edward Herman interviewed with the Center for Research on Globalization, a conspiracy theory organization. In the interview, Herman claimed that the Srebrenica massacre (around 8000 murders) was likely in the order of 500-1000 deaths and that many of the bodies in the mass graves were likely combat deaths. I'm not too familiar with the evidence, but my guess is that someone more familiar would say that this is false and just denialism.

I can't post the link due to the website being blacklisted, but if one searches "Srebrenica was a giant political fraud edward herman" they should be able to find the interview.

I think this article should maybe include a reference to the interview, even though the website is a conspiracy theory source (I don't know if authentic interviews would be an exception to Wikipedia's source policy). McSly kindly told me that I can just add for minor edits, but I'm going to wait for a second opinion due to the sensitivity of the matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Togekiss157 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts. The edit you propose violates the three major content policies: you do not have a reliable source, inclusion would be undue weight and it would require synthesis in that we would have to determine whether his comments differed from acceptable scholarship. Essentially articles summarize what is written about subjects in reliable sources, including any analysis. TFD (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)