Talk:Propaganda

Possible anti-Bin Laden propaganda and the 'faked pornography'

It could have been put there by the special opp’s team to damage Ossie’s reputation in the Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be part of a VERY ESTUTE covert smear campaign by portraying Ossie as a supposed pervert to undermine his credibility in Pakistan, if not the entire Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this porn stash[[1]]? By any account it was real, but yes it could have been planted by the team.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heyhoe, more tactics?....213.81.118.99 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Porn would run counter to Sharia law.82.18.207.217 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

21st Century?

I can see that the 19th and 20th century sections are welly organised and written but what about the 21st century. We are 1/10 way through and the way propaganda messages are spread have completely revolutionised with the creation of Youtube and social media like Twitter and Facebook. YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is woefully barren. It conveys the common attitude that propaganda is something that is used intermittently before and during large scale military conflicts, and then is shelved for later use by the propagandist. The idea that propaganda is not being utilized in some fashion in all forms of mass media, at all times, is pretty naive to say the least. There seems to be a general void of 21st century propaganda in any academic or mainstream discussions, for that matter. Look at books written decades ago like "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul. Here is this whole body of literature on the subject going into great detail of specific techniques and processes and this was a time when only television was starting to get popular. Where are these researchers today? Where is the discussion? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the pitfalls in any analysis of propaganda is distinguishing the ordinary efforts to persuade others that humans have engaged in since time immemorial from what we choose to call "propaganda." Too often the definition boils down to "efforts to persuade in directions I disapprove of." Have you a better, tighter definition that will allow us to improve this article by giving it the proper focus? This will be particularly important if there is a section on 21st century propaganda, with the enormous potential for POV-pushing it will introduce. --Yaush (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate to leave the section blank because of a potential for POV issues. This is kind of an elephant in the room, when you look at how few of hands are in control of such a massive amount of world media today. Undoubtedly a singular point of view is being disseminated over the airwaves with little to no potential for alternative commentary. It seems silly to adopt the stance of "well everyone has opinions", when referring to News Media in general. As it stands, someone curious of this subject and looking this up is going to leave with the impression that propaganda is little more than leaflet bombs dropped during wartime, which is like saying Advertising only exists where the viewer is overtly told a product is for sale. I think Wikipedia can do better than that.72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a singular point of view is being disseminated over the airwaves with little to no potential for alternative commentary. Undoubted by whom? You've nicely illustrated my concern -- that without a great deal of care, a section on 21st-century propaganda will turn into an exposition of various conspiracy theories. --Yaush (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, would you call it a particularly diverse amount of viewpoints being broadcast over mass media, considering the small handful of network ownerships? Is it not a bit of a POV issue to assume that media is neutral and that there are no specific agendas making it through these media programs? That seems like a very non-objective POV stance to take. Yes, it seems logical and leaves little room for doubt, that a small group of interests' viewpoints are being deliberately propagated through mass media, for better or for worse, and whether by malicious intention or not. Not sure what's complicated about this. I understand it invites a lot of "conspiracy theory".. So, you're saying Wikipedia's not up to the challenge of forming a rational and up to date body of knowledge around this subject? Like the above commenter stated, we're already 1/10th of the way through the 21st century. So where's the discussion?72.224.189.211 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying Wikipedia's not up to the challenge of forming a rational and up to date body of knowledge around this subject? I have my doubts. And, frankly, you're not helping. The truth is that it has never been easier to broadcast your views to as large an audience as they can bear, via the Internet. A section on 21st-century propaganda must acknowledge that fact. --Yaush (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that it has never been easier to broadcast your views to as large an audience as they can bear, via the Internet. If the potential viewership for the average person has risen significantly in the age of Internet, what does that mean for potential of the organized propagandist? I find this article severely lacking in that it makes no mention of such considerations. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Propaganda.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Propaganda.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-palestinian propaganda in jewish schoolbooks

In jewish schoolbooks, for example, palestinian people are always depicted as non-educated farmers or wearing a veil (for women).They are never reffered to as Palestinians unless described as terrorists. This is the image that all israeli youth have in mind when entering compulsory military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge2011 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation, please? --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Math Problem

This doesn't look like a math problem to me. It's not a question, just a statement. Did someone vandalize it? 174.118.22.93 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)