Talk:Robert W. McChesney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

Robert McChesney → Robert W. McChesney – There is another Robert McChesney, Robert D. McChesney. I propose that the page Robert McChesney be made into a disambiguation page. Robert Waterman McChesney typically publishes under Robert W. McChesney so the move would make sense anyways.--David Straub 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) David Straub 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Criticism of this inidividual is valid if the individual himself has made verifiable, controversial statements. It is neutral is the source lists a direct quotation. Please do not edit this criticism just because you do not like it. Adkinsjm 00:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, accusations like that need much stronger sources than lipmagazine.com. --DanielCD 03:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Without more context, that quote adds very little to the article anyway. If you feel there needs to be criticism added, let's discuss it and try to find an appropriate way, as well as appropriate sources. Feel free to message me for help in this regard. --DanielCD 03:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is valid, it quotes him directly and does not have a bias against him, the criticism should be included if there is a reputable quote. Adkinsjm 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that site is not a reputable source. Read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --DanielCD 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not a reputable source? Explain yourself. Do you think the interview is false? What if I get confirmation about the interview from Dr. McChesney himself? Do you even know who he is? Adkinsjm 04:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeap. --DanielCD 04:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So is it yes to everything, you think the interview is false? The magazine is a real publication. I have decided to seek an advocate to discuss your blatant disregard for the truth. Adkinsjm 06:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you remove valid criticism from a valid source, than removal of such is vandalism. Past posts do not have relation to current revisions that are based in fact. Adkinsjm 06:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're presenting McChesney's comment regarding Iraqi infant mortality after the Gulf War as criticism. Did you first fact check Dr. McChesney's statement?

If you had, you would learn that he was quoting a widely published and statistically valid study conducted by UNICEF entitled "Results of the 1999 Iraq Child and Infant Mortality Surveys."

Feel free to read the study for yourself online at the following URL: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990812-unicef.htm.

If you don't trust UNICEF, then check out Richard Garfield's study “Morbidity and Mortality among Iraqi Children from 1990 to 1998, Assessing the Impact of Economic Sanctions.” Occasional Paper of the Joan B. Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame (1999).

In any case, the statistics Dr. McChesney quotes, and that you offer up as criticism, have been published in multiple and reputable sources.Mikewelch7 07:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that people died as a result of sanctions, but saying that they were murdered as a result of policy is an inflammatory statement and should be criticized. Also equating economic sanction with terrorism and the 9-11 attacks. Saddam Hussein built elaborate palaces, while his people starvec and we are the murderers. Does this mean that anyone who died in Rhodesia or South Africa as a result of sanctions were murdered as well? How about Iran? Adkinsjm 14:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The only real advice I have is to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is a lot of trash on the Internet (an understatement!) and not everything that looks nice is reliable. You can cite it, but do it right. Don't just slap a bunch of nasty comments in in a sloppy manner. You also have to be ready to defend your source if it's questioned.

I'm no "article policeman" though; feel free to get other opinions. I'm just saying that lipservice.com is a poor source and will be highly suspect, especially if you are accusing someone of something. Lots of these "gossip" sites publish "gossip" and rumors, and such things can be libelous when published in this forum, as it's backed by a formal organization that has pockets (though not very deep ones). I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'd just say consider your motives and possible alternative sources of criticism. If the criticism deserves attention in an encyclopedia article, it needs to have recognition in a formal, reputable, published source. Websites are poor sources as anyone can publish a website without any review. I really don't care if the man eats babies for supper at midnight; if it's not verifiable, it's going to be challenged. --DanielCD 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other things that might be of interest. I'm trying to be helpful here, and this is a good chance to learn and improve more than an article, but personal ability to evaluate sources (to smell bullshit) and to write formal defense and criticism that will be taken seriously. It's really an opportunity to be embraced, as these skills are lacking in most people nowdays.

Try these: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I hope this is of assistance. --DanielCD 14:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"I don't doubt that people died as a result of sanctions, but saying that they were murdered as a result of policy is an inflammatory statement and should be criticized." First of all, Dr. McChesney is referencing a published United Nations report, which states that the policy of sanctions post-Gulf War led to the death of many Iraqis. There is nothing controversial, provocative or inflammatory in a statement that is quoting a leading international source, the United Nations.

In any case, what is the source of your criticism? I'm sure valid criticism could be located that criticizes Dr. McChesney's work, but you'll need to locate and reference this. As it stands, I have to remove the comment.Mikewelch7 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My source is his interview. If this is to be an honest account of people, then controversial statments made by a subject need to be included.Adkinsjm 16:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about his statement, which was drawn from published reports that I provided to you earlier as sources. Even in the Wikipedia article for Iraq, you will find the following statement: "...United Nations economic sanctions imposed at the urging of the U.S. Inasmuch as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure. Between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions"

If you wish to characterize Dr. McChesney's statement as inflammatory, you really should look to edit it out of the official history of Iraq and the United Nations as well. However, as it stands, nothing in Dr. McChesney's statement is inflammatory. Mikewelch7 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys aren't indenting, so I have no clue as to whether you are talking to me, or who you are talking to, or even which comment for that matter. Please indent when you answer someone, otherwise they will think you are replying to the comment above theirs. At this point I'm assuming you are discussing something among yourselves. --DanielCD 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on indenting content. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and wasn't aware of this convention.Mikewelch7 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely saves a lot of headache, as well as a lot of space taken up with "Who are you talking to?"-type questions. --DanielCD 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I don't see any real reason why the source (Lip magazne) should be disregarded unless there is some reason to think it's an untrue statement or the source is bogus. That being said the quote should not be listed under "criticism" because that's POV (some may think that the quote is commendable) How about just having the quote in the main artcile space and let the reader determine whether it's a good or bad statement? I don't see a problem with that and it's certainly a ntoable thing to include. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The cite should be quoted though as, that he stated that the Iraq sanctions have "led up to the death of up to a million civilians, including perhaps as many as 500,000 children." 9or something like that) Notable statement, but needs to be quoted to allay fears that the source is dubious.Gator (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The criticism being leveled is as follows: "Dr. McChesney, in an interview in LiP Magazine, has accused the United States of murdering 500,000 Iraqi children due to the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War."

The individual offering the criticism and the update to Dr. McChensey's page is making the assertion that this statement is "inflammatory."

However, the statistic of approximately 500,000 Iraqi deaths during the period of United Nations sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War is a well researched and documented fact, published in numerous sources (see the UNICEF study which is the original source at: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990812-unicef.htm or reference Richard Garfield's study: Morbidity and Mortality among Iraqi Children from 1990 to 1998, Assessing the Impact of Economic Sanctions" (excerpts available at: http://www.meaus.com/94-epidemology-iraq-2004.htm). Occasional Paper of the Joan B. Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame (1999)."

For an additional source, check Wikipedia's own page on Iraq, which states: "...United Nations economic sanctions imposed at the urging of the U.S. Inasmuch as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure. Between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions"

Based on many sources, it is clear that the statement Dr. McChensney made in his interview in Lip Magazine (btw, I'm not disputing the validity of the interview, or the source, although it is not a scholarly journal) is one that was drawn from multiple published reports. Therefore, the statement is neither false, nor provocative, nor inflammatory.

If the individual wishes to publish criticism of Dr. McChesney, this should be done in a manner that is appropriate, and consistent with Wikipedia's rules on POV.

Additionally, Dr. McChesney is well noted as the pre-eminent U.S. scholar in the area of media reform. The media theory that he has published over the past ten years is indispensable to a student of media in the United States. His political views, clearly tilted more towards a socialistic as opposed to capitalistic interpretation of the Constitution, are far less relevant than his media theory. Reading the quote in context in the article, one sees that he was commenting on what dialogue is permissible in the U.S. media with relation to international affairs. Therefore, this comment, although entirely verifiable, does little to define Dr. McChensey's body of work on media theory, and adds little to the article.

As I continue my research, I'll look to update this article to better explain Dr. McChesney's views on media in the United States.Mikewelch7 18:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out some things here, but the revert I made was actually more because the comment didn't seem to fit/blend into the article well; it was somewhat sloppy. I just wanted to have a second glace taken at the source. Other than that, my input here has just aimed at trying to avert any edit wars from breaking out and urging caution, underscoring the fact that even my input can be questioned. --DanielCD 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright, so there shouldn;t be a problem with this edit should there:

He is also the founder and president of Free Press and host of the radio show Media Matters, broadcast on WILL-AM at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where he is a research professor in the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Information and Library Science.

He was a former editor of the Monthly Review and now a director of the foundation that operates the magazine.

He is married to Inger Stole and has two daughters.

In an September 24, 2001 interview in LiP Magazine, Dr. stated that the the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War "led up to the death of up to a million civilians, including perhaps as many as 500,000 children." [1]

Any problem with this wording and placement? I think this is a good compromise.Gator (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you truly believe that this statement is relevant and important to understand Dr. McChesney's work, then go ahead and put it in. I'll leave it for a future editor to remove.Mikewelch7 19:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope we can all move on to greener pastures now.Gator (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Adkinsjm 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article, and also changed media matters to a disambig page. I removed the 500k iriaqi children claim, since it is neither particularly relevant nor interesting, and inserted some other intersting views from the same interview instead. Enjoy! Wachholder0 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph reads like an advertisement. The intro should give a concise declaration of the views he advances in his work and focus less on the number of times he's been published in journals, &c. I can't rewrite it because I am not familiar enough with the subject, but I think the second paragraph should be considered for a rewrite. 97.73.64.143 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Free Press net neutrality coup

"The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)