Talk:Firehose of falsehood

Is this article propaganda in itself?

Noting the main sources for this article, and their targets: Rand Corporation, Atlantic Council, Washington Post, New York Times, and then Trump and Russia. Is Firehose of Falsehood a thing, or is it just made up for the rhetorical purposes of American intelligence agencies? Shtove 08:01, 10 December 2019

No, User:Shtove (and please sign your posts). It definitely is a real phenomenon and propaganda technique, though people may reasonably disagree on alleged instances of it. It's true that the sources are mostly mainstream Western ones, so by all means suggest alternatives; but you wouldn't expect to find much in the way of Russian sources, since Russian media understandably tends not to report on its own propaganda. Robofish (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't find that convincing at all. As for alternative sources, there are none to be found, which suggests that nobody outside the Washington bubble takes this stuff seriously; and even if there were such a source, no doubt the guardians of articles like this would dismiss it as not reliable. Wikipedia is clearly being used by a network funded by the intelligence agencies to cement a widespread system of propaganda. Shtove 01:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. A cursory look through the sources and it is clear that no scholarly rigor undergirds the various commentaries made through popular media outlets, rather they rely simply on citing the (single) original RAND article. The principle at play is clearly already covered in other, better sourced articles, (see Gish gallop) which could be emended to make brief reference to this and any other valid sources. Otherwise, the standards governing articles on this site are surely in breach. 106.68.28.22 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article should include text about how anticommunist sources also use these propaganda technique, otherwise it seems charged towards making it seem like a communist and then a Russian thing, instead of the worldwide phenomenon it is. 177.236.74.185 (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

May I offer a compromise? I think it's close to being a consensus, that the technique exists. Maybe a general description should be used in the main body of the page and the more recent sources should be included in a paragraph about the origin of the term preferably with some other examples provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.140.37 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)