This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As per WP:NOTABILITY. 3.The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. This book has been considered by reliable to sources to have made a significant contribution to a political movement. Consider just some of these reliable sources and how they accentuate on the political meaning, importance and significance of Primetime Propaganda. [1][2][3][4]
This article undoubtedly should have an article. “Vitally important, devastatingly thorough, and shockingly revealing…. After reading Primetime Propaganda, you’ll never watch TV the same way again.” —Mark Levin. Consider also how major news journalists and news stations (i.e. Fox News, MSNBC, Yahoo News, Martin Bashir) [5][6][7] have talked about the book and its political assertations; this no doubt gives credence to the book's notability. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mark levin, the daily caller, and ben shapiro's own personal web site are not "reliable sources". moreover, many of the assertions made by shapiro in this book are quite specious and the quality of his research and his overwhelming bias have received much criticism by truly "reliable sources" in the form of book reviews and essays critically examining the lack of factual basis to the majority of shapiro's claims. oedipus (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have blanked the negative, biographical content in the article per WP:BLP, all potentially controversial content about living people must be rigorously sourced to reliable sources.Quasihuman | Talk 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinserted the sentence about Sesame Street et al, because as the citations show it was one major focus of the attention the book received. To the extent that the book got any notice, the mockery from the left is a part of that that deserves to be in the article
The two articles mention it but do not exactly point out mockery of this claim. Truthsort (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you interpret things like "Video of Michele Obama on Sesame Street is below. Watch if you must, but don't say we didn't warn you." from the Atlantic article? It's not exactly original research to claim that this shows mockery of the claim. Meelar(talk) 21:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is one sentence at the end of an article. This pretty much amounts to undue weight. Truthsort (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
