Talk:Hegemony or Survival

spoiler warning

ive just added the spoiler warning thing (template) --WalterHumala 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's only a synopsis (which in and of itself does not give any imperitive information about the book away), and the book has no "plot" to be spoiled; it does not detail a story of any kind. - Ecksem Diem 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hegemony or survival.jpg

Image:Hegemony or survival.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hegemony or Survival/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very elegant prose! Good job with this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Only issues are that this link doesn't work and references 34 and 35 are bare URLs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage of the main ideas of the book without getting bogged down with excessive detail. In the Background section, consider removing the sentence "They agreed to publish with Metropolitan because it was co-run by Engelhardt and Sara Bershtel," it doesn't add much and makes it sound like Engelhardt is agreeing with himself.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I like how you attribute controversial ideas to Chomsky instead of putting them in Wikipedia's voice. In the caption for the picture of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in the Synopsis section, consider saying just, "Chomsky considers the 2003 U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq as an attempt to secure lucrative natural resources and global hegemony" or phrasing it differently, since the bit inside the dashes is controversial and it sounds like you are asserting it as fact.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good work, I'm happy to pass this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between lead and Reviews section

In the lead of this article, it says that "Mainstream press reviews in the US and UK were largely negative" but in the "Reviews" section under "Press Reviews" it says "Views in the U.S. press were mixed." Since the latter statement seems more accurate given the contents of the "Press Reviews" subsection, I have changed the sentence in the lead to be consistent with this. Sourcewatcher (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemony or Survival. 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/20070929095612/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200107--.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200107--.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hegemony or Survival. 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/20080514001931/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11294 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11294
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811014250/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/123752.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/123752.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)