Talk:Propaganda

---

Archives
2004-2005

Photo Caption Correction

The photo containing a U.S. Army PSYOP humvee in Al Kut is incorrect. It is a 312th not the 350th PSYOP Company team (look at the left front of the vehicle for the identifier, the Marine article incorrectly identified the Army PSYOP vehicle). I know that particular vehicle in the photo and what a pain in the rear it was to maintain it.Virgil61 05:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

diversity of images

its pretty good already but id like to see some more non-war propaganda and perhaps reduce the dominance of US, Nazi, and Russian propaganda. There are zero examples from the so-called third world (based on my cursory glance) and no propaganda from not state actors. Savidan 11:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Would there be an interest in a WikiProject Propaganda? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A Great Book on Propaganda

Distinguished social-psychologists Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis has written a very good book on propaganda titled "The Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion" (ISBN: 0805074031) PJ 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

Sorry mates, but I think I speak for a lot of NPOV-enthusiasts when I insist that the main image for this article not be about any current US (or otherwise) conflicts, and uses a historical image instead. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush-era Propaganda

(I've added this new section as I think this differs from the discussion above) I've readded the allegation of Bush-era propaganda but asked for a citation. Unless I missed something, this is a much more specific allegation than the general ones discussed above. I know I've personally seen several television reports on "news" reports which were produced by government officials but not labeled as such - and that's quite a feat for someone without a television. I don't know if this is limited to the current administration or it was only during this administration that the practice was discovered and publicized. It may not even be linked to the admninistration and its political appointees and may simply be "business as usual" for various government departments. It may turn out that the issue needs to remain in this article but the link to the Bush administration removed. I don't know the answers to these questions so that's why I asked for a citation. --ElKevbo 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Laden vs USA

I'd like to remove the newly added Laden vs USA image. It doesn't strike me as propaganda. It appears to be just a cheap toy chasing in on a popular sentiment, not an attempt to influence sentiment. Objections or thoughts? --ElKevbo 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

hum?

U.S.PSYOP leaflet disseminated in Iraq. Text: "This is your future al-Zarqawi" and shows al-Qaeda terrorist al-Zarqawi caught in a rat trap.

so dropping pictures out of an airplane of a vaugely middle eastern man in rat trap with a poorly worded translation to explain who the caricature was supposed to depict, must have really brought out that pro-US sentiment, eh? Join us or we'll put you in a cage and take humiliating pictures of you and post them on the internet, oh, wait--64.12.117.9 01:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda icons

Looking at the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf page I found that it links to several other personalities widely known as propaganda broadcasters/personalities during various wars. Looking at these personalities, most of them have similar links. However I also noticed all of them are personalities not affiliated with the US/UK side. I appreciate that as the US/UK were the victors (well except for in Vietnam, but we all know the US likes to pretend they won there anyway), and as an English wikipedia, we tend to hear more about those on the other side but for balance we need some links (and some articles if they don't exist) on propaganda announcers on the US/UK side! I know very little about this so can't help much but hopefully someone who is more of an expert can help... Nil Einne 13:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Category:Propagandists is also similarly one sided. And Hasbara is still not listed under Category:Propaganda and instead only Hasbara (disputed whether it is propaganda) is listed. At least Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is listed under Category:Propagan Organisations for example. I think someone with an open mind and time on their side needs to make an effort to correct this clear bias whereby propaganda by the Allies (WW2), US and Western Europe (and Israel) is frequently not properly listed whereas propaganda by the Axis (WW2), communists, Arabs etc is listed. From a quick read through, this article seems fairly well written with an adequate coverage and recognising propaganda from both sides so there are clearly some people in wikipedia able and willing to adopt NPOV when it comes to coverage of propaganda. But for whatever reason, this is not reflected in our categorisation and coverage of propanda in other articles on wikipedia. Nil Einne 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Propaganda in the United States

I am proposing merging the POV fork Propaganda in the United States back into this article if it is not deleted. It doesn't have enough unique content for its own article and loses the context and definitions that this article provides. --Ajdz 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propaganda in the United States gives plenty of reasons. `'mikka (t) 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

They say why it should exist, not where. --Ajdz 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I thought it must be clear. Wikipedia's mode of operation is to split big articles into subtopics, not to merge big ones into even bigger. Now, the "P" article is big, the scope of the subtopic cannot be defined better. Q.E.D. `'mikka (t) 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the argument on the AfD page is whether or not the information should exist. I don't think geography works for subtopics in this particular article because the article is largely chronological. If Propaganda in the United States exists, mention of U.S. propaganda should be deleted from Propaganda, which would severely damage important sections like "Cold War propaganda." Major sections like history or techniques would be much more suited to spinoff because they are much much more independent of each other. --Ajdz 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem in turning "Cold War propaganda" into a summary. This is done all over wikipedia all the time. We have separate Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Propaganda in the Republic of China, Category:Nazi propaganda, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. So, why not in the USA? there is a whole Category:United States government propaganda organisations, so I say the current article merely scratches the tip of the iceberg of Ameriprop. `'mikka (t) 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point about those different articles about propaganda in whatever country it is. It did seem a bit awkward to me to have a separate "Propaganda in the US" entry, but if that is the customary Wikipedia practice for propaganda in other countries, then okay. Perhaps the country-specific propaganda articles could be linked to from the main one, for readers who might not find them intuitively. DanielM 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't all the U.S.-specific content be removed from the main article so they aren't redundant? Because the U.S. is so involved in world affairs, most of the examples belong alongside others, like in the Cold War and Iraq sections. I don't believe that China is as active internationally, so their article would be largely domestic. The same can't be said about the U.S. --Ajdz 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, IMO the main article should cover the best examples of and issues relating to propaganda from any country. The country-specific article allows in-depth propaganda examination for that country. DanielM 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the history section should be renamed "best examples" as it would be incomplete by design. --Ajdz 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a complete history of propaganda, which would be many hundreds of pages long or more. So I don't think it's a question of the history section being "incomplete by design." The titles of sections should be determined by editors based on the text therein and the overall organization of the article. I think the redundancy issue is worth considering periodically for editors as they develop both articles. You don't want a lot of redundancy, but a moderate amount of incidental redundancy that occurs naturally as the articles receive independent development is not a problem, IMO. DanielM 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While this article certainly can have a section about this phenomena, all national propagandas are notable and deserve their own articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - this article should be written in summary style with subarticles for specific nationalities. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - If we merge the US article, then by principle we'd have to merge the the Propaganda in the PRC article as well, making this an overly cumbersome article. Joshlmay 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - You mustn't judge from the current content of this article, I have myself read much on american propaganda, and there clearly is a lot of missing information. This article must be kept and expanded. I will try to work on it myself --Ludvig 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The United States and other western market states are very sophisticated users of propaganda. Currently, this article is heavily biased, and can itself be construed as propaganda (though omission), because it makes it appear that propaganda is something that is used by "other" / "less free" forms of government, and not something that happens in market economies. This entire article is in need of a major cleanup and balancing exercise. Either split out propaganda use by individual countries, or make sure all heavy users of propaganda (eg, the US, UK, Australia, etc...) are considered. 203.11.72.4 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

misquote

"even if only to differentiate ourselves from what Noam Chomsky calls the “bewildered herd.”" Chomsky did not say this, Walter Lippman said this. Chomsky quoted this in one of his works. Here is Lippman's full quote: "live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd." Chomsky used the quote in his book "Hegemony or Survival: America's quest for global dominance" on page 6.

Sources where Chomsky quoted or paraphrased him(instead of Chomsky saying it): http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Quotes_MediaControl.html And of course, the actual book.

I went ahead and changed it.

USSR Photos

I've found an interesting source of many Russian posters dating from 1917 to 1991. If anyone thinks the link should be added to the main article here it is:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bpx/sets/72057594117941491/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintlink (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 May 2006

What is their copyright status? --ElKevbo 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation names

The choice of operation names like "peace for galilee", "just cause", "iraqi freedom", and "enduring freedom" is a use of propaganda not yet described. Añoranza 01:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Haw-Haw

Might a reference to Lord Haw-Haw / William Joyce be relevant in the Nazi section? Joyce's controversial execution as a traitor (to a country he was not a citizen of) is an interesting footnote to WW2 and the role of propaganda therein. Dugo 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Definately Dugo, go for it!Hypnosadist 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article used to be better.

Go back and take a look at [1] from 2005. That's better than what we have now. --John Nagle 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, according to the current definition of propaganda, a simple question could be considered propaganda as it also aims to influence the listeners behaviour. The earlier definition was better, but may still need work on it.

Include propaganda on animal rights

Large stock of propaganda is on Wikipedia, in chapter about animal rights. Classical emotional photos, one-sided arguments... everything. Might be worth including - with bold Wikipedia referring to it's own shortcomings. Indeed, somebody could make a nice sociological study from that chapter alone.

Screenshot of top of Wikipedia article "animal testing" would be worth including. Big photo of sad-looking monkey and below, in a small type, explanation that most of test animals are rodents.

Way to much Israeli Proganda

Israeli reports can not be trusted as has been demonstrated by their claims and high censorship levels.

Do you not know that Israel claims Hezbollah did it and that the UN Secretary-General is racist? By the way the Israeli foreign ministry has asked for volunteers to serf the net and launch a cmpaign to protect Israel. Here is the link.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m25177&hd=0&size=1&l=e

read this on by Wikipedia has an unusually large amount of vandalizing editors deleting facts that are incriminating for Israel...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html

this site is filled with evivence http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Israeli propganda should be mentioned in this article.

69.196.164.190

Hasbara should it be in the see also?

Someone keeps adding Hasbara back as a "see also" link. Now, I agree 100% that Hasbara is an example of propaganda. You may find a few people who disagree and would say it is POV to call Hasbara propaganda, but actually I don't think this is the reason it should not be a link here. I think it should not be a link here precisely because it is an example of propaganda. All the other See Also links are to topics about propaganda, mostly types of propaganda - not to examples of propaganda. The examples of propaganda that exist are too many to list and are not the point of the article. Notice that none of the other See Also's linked relates to a specific political issue. This is by design. The point of the article is not to call any specific thing propaganda, even if it clearly is. The point of the article is to explain the nature of propaganda in the abstract.

I am writing this so that we can establish some consensus about the issue to form the basis for the final state of that link. Rlitwin 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read you answer i see your point, i think Hasbara should be mentioned in the section on the megaphone software. Also i think a notation of Al-Manar's position as an accused propaganda outfit should be added to the section for both completeness and NPOV reasons, what do you think.Hypnosadist 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know. I guess I'd have to see it. Rlitwin 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on 19th-21st centuries?

I'm way too far out of my field to significantly contribute to this article but it does seem to me that there is an over-emphasis on the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. I'm sure that with modern technology propaganda has become much more widespread but it also seems to me that we are lacking discussion and examples of older propaganda. But I could be wrong and I'd welcome anyone who could set me straight if I am wrong. --ElKevbo 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A little out of my field, too, but I agree. I would like to see more examples of historical propaganda if they still exist. 134.129.74.42 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Menk

2004-2005 discussion archived

I archived discussion from 2004 and 2005. Please feel free to bring anything out of the archive if I made a mistake or we need to revisit an old issue. --ElKevbo 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for a New Opening Sentence?

What if the opening sentence was changed to something more grabbing like:

Propaganda is a specially formed message, designed by a propagandist with the sole purpose of soliciting an intended response.

Propaganda is meant to present a blunt point in few words and the opening sentence is too weak. Also, if you need to provide some contrast with regular, honest communications, use a second sentence like "Unlike more honest forms of communication, propaganda is written to be palatable to the common man and presents events and information in a meticulously designed depiction of a chosen subset of facts available." Further, a third sentence might be "The combination of a believable arrangement of a specific group of facts and making the propaganda easily accessible and understandable by the intended audience yields the most effective use of Propaganda." LighthouseJ 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda is more than a message, it is at the least a complex of messages to a single endArodb 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda in song

I'd like to see a section on propaganda in song. Some songs are about propaganda. Some songs ARE propaganda. Let me find a few examples. Then maybe someone can work them into the article. --SafeLibraries 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

HAVE YOU GOT PROBLEMS?

written by Paul McCartney / Michael McGear

Album title: McGear

YOU WAKE UP, YOU SIP HOT TEA,

MINDLESS MUSIC, RADIO FREE.

YOU SEE BLUE SKIES AND THINK OF SEA,

HOW ARE YOU DOING?

THEN LATER ON, SWITCH ON TV,

THEY GIVE ME THE NEWS,

THEY GIVE HALF TRUTHS TO ME.

THEY GIVE US WHYS, THEY FEED US LIES,

HOW ARE WE DOING? (yeah, yeah, yeah)

TO EDUCATE, THEY FABRICATE,

AND WE SIT BACK TILL IT'S TOO LATE.

HAVE YOU GOT PROBLEMS?

WHAT ARE YOUR PROBLEMS?

BRING ALL YOUR PROBLEMS STRAIGHT TO ME.

TRUST IN ME NOW,

'CAUSE I'M YOUR LEADER,

DON'T HESITATE NOW, I'LL PUT YOU STRAIGHT.

THINK OF ALL THE PROMISES MADE TO YOU,

THINK OF THE LIES THAT WE'RE GOING THRU'.

I AM THE LIGHT IN YOUR DARKEST HOUR,

THRU' ANY CRISIS, I WILL BE YOUR POWER.

DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE

ALL YOU'RE TOLD, ALL YOU READ, ALL YOU'RE TAUGHT,

ALL YOU SEE, DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE,

ALL YOU'RE TOLD, ALL YOU READ, ALL YOU'RE TAUGHT,

ALL YOU SEE, DON'T BELIEVE.

DO WHAT YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU DO,

WHAT DO YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

DO WHAT YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU DO,

WHAT DO YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

That song is ABOUT propaganda. --SafeLibraries 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one ABOUT propaganda:

ONE OF THE FEW

Written by Pink Floyd

Album title: The Final Cut

When you're one of the few to land on your feet

What do you do to make ends meet?

Teach

Make them mad, make them sad, make them add two and two

Make them me, make them you, make them do what you want them to

Make them laugh, make them cry, make them lie down and die

--SafeLibraries 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another:

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL, PART II

Written by Pink Floyd

Album title: The Wall

We don't need no education.

We don't need no thought control.

No dark sarcasm in the classroom.

Teacher, leave those kids alone.

Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!

All in all its just another brick in the wall.

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no education.

We don't need no thought control.

No dark sarcasm in the classroom.

Teachers, leave those kids alone.

Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

--SafeLibraries 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite some quality sources and you've got the makings for a good addition to the article. You might also want to look at some of the more overt forms of music propaganda such as (a) that used by various countries in wartime broadcast in their opponents' language (some of whom earned some very colorful nicknames from combatants) (b) commercial radio jingles and (c) political jingles (not very popular in the US anymore but apparently popular many decades ago in the US - I do remember a relatively recent radio news spot (NPR?) about some songs used in current non-US elections). --ElKevbo 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. A perfect answer - providing more information. Now I'm not the genius in this area. That's why I'm here and I'm suggesting others throw in their ideas as well. Yours are excellent. --SafeLibraries 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the McCartney song "Give Ireland back to the Irish" cirac 1970s during Ireland conflict has some strange statements in there including the title (majority of Irish Republicans consider the part of Ireland occupied as property of the Irish and not the property of Britiain to give back);

Tell Me How Would You Like It

If On Your Way To Work

You Were Stopped By Irish Soliders

Would You Lie Down Do Nothing

Would you give in or go berserk

Give Ireland Back To The Irish

Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away

Give Ireland Back To The Irish

Make Ireland Irish Today

There are also a lot of Republican/Fenian and Loyalist songs containing propaganda. See Irish rebel music & Billy Boys RandomGalen 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to butt in here too much, because I think the root of this idea is certainly positive and worth exploring, but this seems like the wrong tac. Introducing musical propaganda might be okay, as a sub-heading, but I'm not sure it is truly germaine. Lyrics like those you've cited mainly seem distracting to the content of this entry. I'm not suggesting more WWII posters/images, or quotes from Lord Hee Haw, or anything, but coming to this page I'm not sure a reader is looking for McCartney lyrics. I mean, what would you include? Who's to say that anyone with a political agenda isn't dispensing propaganda. Forgive me for quoting Cypress Hill among all you intellectuals, but on their Black Sunday album a song states: "I got ta get my props/ Cops/ come and try to snatch my crops/ These pigs wanna blow my house down/ Head underground, to the next town/ They get mad when they come to raid my pad/ and I'm out in the nine-deuce Cad...."

I mention this because not only does it portray law enforcement in a particluar way, but it is (I assume generally) and unpopular view of the police. Couldn't this rightly fall into the definition of propaganda? And further, what constitutes a 'salient' example of propaganda in song? Tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree? 134.129.74.42 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Menk

Lebanon Conflict section

Seems like a good idea, very topical. The P2P app thing is very interesting. However, the second paragraph seems out of place... not only is no evidence presented that the station engages in propaganda, but no specific allegation are made in the paragraph. If it is an attempt to make such a claim, as worded it is engaging in a classic unstated assumption. If it is not, then it's just plain off-topic. Either way, it needs to be reworked or removed.

Ok i added both sections and yes they need more sourcing, Al-Manar is Hezbollah's in house TV station and has been banned for the anti-semitic nature of its broadcasts in many countries. I'm sure i can find some thing that says its propaganda, they say there job is to put hezbollahs point of view onto the airwaves.Hypnosadist 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this an example of propaganda?:

In July of 2006 in responce to the outcry in much of the US and EU media of event in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict the World Union of Jewish Students started giving out a piece of freeware called the Megaphone desktop tool. This was a P2P software program that is designed to notify the user of internet polls and chats on the issue on notable news and opinion websites. This is an example of an opinion leader technique and is unusual in the fact that this is a NGO not a government and a unique implimentation of P2P[2].

Which reliable, expert sources have described this as "propaganda"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Times of London refers to this as a campain to counter a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. Thats how its notable, it is not claimed this IS propaganda.Hypnosadist 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about propaganda, not counter-propaganda. The insertion doesn't actually discuss the Arab propaganda, merely the counter-propaganda efforts. As such, it's giving an erroneous POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've retained the relevant information, removed the stuff that has nothing to do with propaganda, and made explicit your reasoning for including it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is cool with me.Hypnosadist 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well

Is anyone working on writing an article to contain some examples from the Lebanon conflict? There appears to be so much of it. RandomGalen 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to, but Deuterium just reverted me, no doubt in error. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the photo incident was "propaganda", and you are trying to make POV statements regarding a supposed "tide of Arab propaganda", for which there is no evidence either. It's obvious and disgusting POV. Deuterium 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The linked article itself refers to a "tide of Arab propaganda". That's the only reason it was there in the first place. If there's no evidence for it, then this whole section doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Did you read the article? What it says is this:

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda.

So the "tide of pro-Arab propaganda" is not what The Times believes but what the Israeli Government believes, a fact which I have tried to make clear in the article but which you continually revert.

The fact that you made bad faith edits to a section that you apparently want to delete is a violation of WP:POINT. Deuterium

The section was included on the basis that it was an example of a response to Arab propaganda; see the comments above. If one cannot even claim state unequivocally that there was indeed such Arab propaganda, then it certainly has no place in this article at all. While I was trying to work with other editors in improving this article, and had indeed worked out an accomodation with them, your edits here seem to consist solely of edit-warring violations of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, your claim that my edits were in "bad faith" is itself a violation of the good faith policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way The Washington Times points out that "The important point here is that Mr. Hajj was doctoring his work for propaganda purposes." LA Weekly describes the photos as "one more victory in Hezbollah’s propaganda war against Israel and the U.S.". According to The Boston Herald, "it would appear that Hezbollah, or worse, Lebanese rescue workers, decided the best use of a dead child was to be dragged around for propaganda purposes." As has been pointed out by the Jewish Virtual Library in regards to this, "This incident should make editors and viewers alike suspicious of images being disseminated by freelance Arab photographers and videographers who are engaging in propaganda rather than photo-journalism." Now, what were you saying about there being "no evidence that the photo incident was "propaganda"? Oh, and there were quite a few "photo incidents". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i think the photo incidents and the Al-Manar section i wrote should be put in the article.Hypnosadist 09:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS i added a line to say who was talking about "tide of pro-Arab propaganda".Hypnosadist 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PPS Jayjg go to the CAIR talk page and have a look at the photos they have faked for propaganda reasons.Hypnosadist 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand the concept, but I don't see how that Megaphone software is relevant in this article. Perhaps it belongs to Activism, together with myriad of other activism efforts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept is quite simple, poeple with Megaphone change the outcome of Votes (in favour of Isreal) on Popular TV/Media outlets. This is an opinion leader technique, where undecided people will most often go for the side that is most popular (ie winning the TV votes). Thus the idea is to nudge public opinion in favour of Isreal through this software. Also given that a notable computer programmer(check out talk on megaphone software) could not find where they are hosted in the world puts them out of the activist league.Hypnosadist 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see; so in fact, you included the Megaphone material not (as you claimed) because it was a response to propaganda, but rather because you have used original research to decide that it is a significant example of propaganda - so significant that it needs to be mentioned in this brief overview of historical propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was a response to propaganda, thats what the Authors of the program say, and you believed them! And i used that belief to my advantage. And it really is a responce to a long term propaganda campain by NGO's and things like Al-Manar, but the section on Al-manar that i deliberately paired with it (for pov and completeness reasons) got taken out. But it still is propaganda and notable, you where more than happy before, not one word has and now you are angry because you find that you have been manipulated, thats propaganda! You bought the propaganda used to manipulate loyal jews to help their people by using this program, as oposed to the opinion leader technique used to manipulate the people reading the votes. I am a bit sorry about leading you up the garden path.Hypnosadist 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok; in any event, your novel narrative that this is a significant example of propaganda will have to be sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to hyperlinks of wikipedia policies LOL, you supported the exact wording before, its just as notable now.Hypnosadist 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was never notable; I tried to work out an accomodation with you, since you were aggressively reverting, and since you based your claim on deliberately false premises, which you've now admitted. Please provide proper sourcing for your novel narrative that this is a significant example of propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope you just bought their lines and i let you because i could not be bothered to argue. The Times link is still valid for notability and relivence.It is still both a responce to propaganda and propaganda itself. If we use this info and add the fake photo info and a reference to Al-Manar, it being a self admitted propaganda TV station we could have a nice NPOV section on propaganda in this war.PS What are your qualifications in the area of propaganda?PPS Unsuprisingly a computer program created in July 2006 is not in any academic text book in August 2006 so the Times (and the links you provided) is the best quality available for the topic and more than meets the level required by WP:V.Hypnosadist 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Times article is a single source, and it only talks about Arab propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important quote is "Amir Gissin, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director, said: The internet’s become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions.". This is still just as notable as before and youve just changed your mind on POV grounds. With the addition of the photo stuff as evidence of the "tide of pro-Arab propaganda" this will look much more balanced.Hypnosadist 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, a public relations director for an Israeli ministry said that? So what? Where is the source that says this is "propaganda", or notable? As for me, I haven't changed my mind about its notability - it was always non-notable, and including it here was, in fact, part of a propaganda effort. You, however, have changed your story; before you said "it is not claimed this IS propaganda", now you're insisting it is propaganda after all. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

TOC too far down?

Maybe it is just me, but 3 long paragraphs seems like too large of an intro before the TOC. Was thinking moving it after the 1st one, as #2 and #3 could go together under a section of "definition" or something. Comments welcome. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky

Considering that Chomsky is a Marxist, his criticisms of anti-Communist propaganda are hardly non-biased. I vote for deleting the anti-Communist propaganda section. 100 million dead from the practice of a certain ideology, that's propaganda and lies.

Chomsky is not even close to being a Marxist! He has been an ardent and public critic of Marx, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and Communism in general since the 1950s. Even putting aside that huge mistake, the point of this comment is difficult to understand. What is your point?

Why not add a section regarding Communist propaganda against the West for the sake of fairness and balance. (sarcasm)--Pravknight 05:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the 70 million dead from Chairman Mao, 26 million dead from Stalin, 3 million from Pol Pot and hundreds of thousands from Castro, 3 thousand from Pinochet and others deaths that should be counted. That is over 100 million dead from the practice of a certain ideology. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts.

Practitioners. Anarchangel (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about propaganda in the advertisement and related industry, along with politics and religion?

An analysis of the advertising industry and activity comparing it with the characteristics of propaganda shows that, almost all advertising has some of the characteristics of propaganda. Even though, the advertising theorists deny that what they do is basically propaganda, commercial propaganda, bringing up a more and more extensive set of designations and definitions in order to make their point (as propagandists they know their job, of course).

This quite complete article doesn’t directly support the advertising theorists, on the contrary (“advertising and public relations can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person or brand”), but given the totally different stress it puts onto commercial propaganda to one side and political and religious propaganda to the other, I think it reflects all the weight and power commercial propaganda has in western societies, not forgetting that this is very likely the form of propaganda which directly acts upon more people during more time. By the very nature of propaganda, by its very concept, it could only use all its power to deny itself (even political propaganda has started to deny itself and managed to turn into “political marketing” and other designations).

Being very long, the article has the main ideas scattered along the text, making it difficult for the reader to make a quick broad picture of the issue and immediately get the best possible balance of the areas concerned by propaganda. Particularly the introduction is very poor at this regard, in my opinion.

What I’d like to do would be primarily to copy some of the ideas from the text (sentences, paragraphs), the ones which would better give a frame of what propaganda is, and put them at the top for that purpose. I’d also like to delete the examples of propaganda posters because there isn’t any to exemplify commercial propaganda and I don’t have any to add it myself. Moreover, the first one to be seen is the one representing a Nazi stabbing a Bible. The very use of anything related to Nazism or any other generally criticized ideology or idea as the first image to be presented doesn’t account much for the NPOV. If a picture is worth a thousand words, as the dictum goes, this part of using the posters is totally unbalanced and shapes clearly the idea that propaganda as nothing to do with the advertising industry (and others related), which the article itself denies, but only by some short lines somewhere in the middle of the text.

I’d also like to stress (by rephrasing or putting in bold) what I’ve found in the text related to commercial propaganda and to add some details in order to get a more balanced article concerning the areas it touches.

Finally, I’d like to introduce minor changes like removing or balancing qualifiers for the sake of NPOV. For instance, I’d like to added “/counter-terrorism” to make “terrorism/counter-terrorism” and I’d like to remove “democratic” from “democratic countries of the West”. These are typical western terminology and omitting the qualifier “democratic” is not stating western countries aren’t democratic as it is not stating they are. Being the western countries democratic or not is absolutely irrelevant for un article on propaganda. Propaganda doesn't depend on the countries being or not being democratic. DavidMarciano 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will support this. Rlitwin 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That was long. I'm am not sure I understood it. So take what I say here with a grain of salt. Commercials are pure propaganda, everyone knows this, so I think a short sentence or link is all that is needed. Besides, when you see a commercial for anything, say, Hair Club for Men, you know immediately the ad was created with Hair Club for Men approval so naturally they will say this or that.

Non-commercial propaganda is quite different. And I think this propaganda page is about non-commercial propaganda. Non-commercial propaganda is effective precisely because, unlike commercial propaganda, a person does not automatically take what he hears with a grain of salt and because non-commercial propaganda comes from multiple sometomes major sources, unlike commercial which is often from a single source. Remember, everyone, I am not a genius in this area. I'm just trying to be a part of the Wiki community here.

You also said you would take down a lot of the photos. True, they are largely from the Western world, but your saying the Nazi one is POV is POV in and of itself. Whose to say what should be the first, most representative graphic? Should it be from the Nazis who convinced entire nations of people to kill millions of others instead of from those opposing the Nazis? Perhaps. Should it be the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because that lives on to this very day, even being made into television mini series? Who knows? Oh I could go on and on here with examples.

I find it odd that one person could say the whole thing stinks, throw it out, and rewrite it his way. What about this talk page to work on the proposed changes here -- I'll bet that'll short circuit edit wars. In my opinion, the propaganda photos used are as good as any. There are likely millions to choose from. I surprised anyone could look at this small subset of millions that made it into this article so far and call that a POV. Any of the other millions could be selected. So to that extent, I agree with you. But your saying commercial propaganda is not emphasized enough worries me. How about just an ad for Joe Camel cigarettes or John Wayne smoking ads. Remember, I'm just blabbing here from no specific knowledge in this area so feel free to ignore me and definitely take no offense at what I am writing.

So, like Rlitwin, I will support it too, only I would want you to go out of your way to avoid POV, to include a whole world view, to consider what I have said, and to expect input from others.

Thanks to both for having replied and for the support.

I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia and I am not a genius in this area, either. I'm also just trying to be part of the Wiki community. And, just like most wikis, I‘d like to help making Wikipedia as accurate and impartial as possible. I think propaganda is exactly what is more against impartiality, that’s why I’ve started here.

I agree with some points, but there are others with which I don’t agree.

First, “everyone knows Commercials are pure propaganda”… except for the people in the business, it seems. The industry came up with knew designations and definitions, always refusing the word propaganda. That’s in itself a technique of propaganda. If there are different aspects (commercial and non-commercial) of the same thing, I think one should start from what is common to all of them and afterwards specify the differences.

I don’t think this page should be about any particular type of propaganda. On the contrary, I think it should be comprehensive, since the fenomenon, the concept, is the same.

I don’t think the source or the “grain of salt” one may or may not have are relevant for defining propaganda. If commercial propaganda wasn’t as effective as any other type of propaganda companies wouldn’t spend huge amounts of money on it, that’s for sure. Think that everybody as also a grain of salt when it comes to politics. So they've substituted “political marketing” for “political propaganda”. By the way, “marketing” is commercial, right? They're getting closer...

All propaganda carries Tendencious POV, so the Nazi poster could only be POV. But that’s not the point. The point is, with that poster (and subsequently with all the others) people are led to the opinion that the article is about non commercial propaganda. Thus, if commercial propaganda is not subject of the article, it’s not propaganda… as the industry claims, despite “everybody knowing it is”. The POV is here. For the article to achieve NPOV a poster of commercial propaganda would have to fulfill the same requirements of the other posters – to be completely outdated. An advertisement for a car of the same 40’s, for instance, would be adequate. An as good alternative would be simply not to use posters at all, since in the article there aren’t examples of any of the other vehicles propaganda uses either.

I share the views on editing, that’s why I haven’t done any editing so far. And, my point is primarily to try to bring to the discussion some views that I feel are missing and not to try to make a point for the sake of making my point. In Wikipedia it would be nonsense. DavidMarciano 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, DavidMarciano. I feel better about your suggestions now. Since you seem to be interested in presented the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, consider looking at a particular propaganda and it effects nationwide from a book written by the self-acknowledged propagandists themselves on how to do the propagandization, "After the Ball - How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) and here's a head start for you that includes key sections of the book. I am not taking a position on the underlying theme that is the subject of this particular propaganda -- I am only interested in how the propaganda is done and how effective it can be (because I want to see if the ALA's propaganda techniques work in a similar fashion with similar effect -- indeed if any of the ALA types come here to attack me, well that could be the "jamming" technique discussed in the book I am recommending for your review (right, you-know-who?) -- who knows, you yourself may find you are being "jammed" so be sure to dot your i's and cross your t's and trust yourself). Therefore I look forward to your work here if you stay with this. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hints SafeLibrarians.

In fact, I think that a work like Wikipedia makes all sense if the truth is among its main values and if it manages to get as close to the truth as it may be humanly possible in the information it shares. Otherwise it’ll make sense for lots of people (the ones who manage to get to their own set of objectives through the project), but it won’t make all sense in a society that wants to be free and democratic. The founders, or whoever wrote the introductory pages of Wikipedia, seem to believe that impartiality and NPOV will prevail at the end. Not everybody is so fast at believing it, but the idea that if a lot of people get interested and involved in the project the combination of opinions will eventually result in impartiality and NPOV makes sense and is appealing. So, when I recently surfed a bit on Wikipedia and discovered how it works, I’ve decided to try to contribute and see what’d happen. Thus, my rising of a suggestion. I’ve chosen an area I’m interested in for no special reason except for the sake of the truth.

We’ll see what happens if there will be any jamming and, in case it does, the way how Wikipedia will deal with it, I’m aware that it isn’t something easy to deal with. Whichever the case will be, there will be fighting, that’s for sure.

I don’t know if you have or can find some outdated advertisement and religious posters. If not but if you could give me a hint on where to find some I’d appreciate. My idea now is to make a group of three posters, one religious, one political and one commercial (by order to attend to chronology), and shrink and locate them in a way that the reader would find them simultaneously. This, in order to change as little as possible other people’s contributions.DavidMarciano 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not aware of such right now. But consider http://www.dangerousprofessors.net/ generally for propaganda in American Universities. --SafeLibraries 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Also for the other one on the propaganda methods, which shows perfectly the way things are done. I haven’t found the posters I was looking for I guess because neither religious nor commercial propaganda use much the poster as a means of spreading. And I don’t have much time either. So in a few days I’ll do my text editing has I’ve suggested. Let’s see if mean while anyone else steps forward supporting or disagreeing. About the posters I haven’t decided yet what to do. Maybe I’ll still find something. Let’s see.DavidMarciano 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article, mainly the lead section, according to my initial suggestion. The image, I have moved it to the Nazi Germany section where I think it belongs (see also next discussion point, please). I think I have missed the link on it... sorry, still a beginer. Of course, I'm ready to discuss every edit. DavidMarciano 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I think we have too many links at the moment, definetly the Spam template is accurate. I would suggest deleting the tehcnical definition from SourceWatch - we should have a maxmium of 1 per site + references (the user can always surf the SourceWatch site if they want - simply say something like

"

1. SourcesWatch - contains definitions of propoganda and information the techniques used.

"

Instead of

In External Links

1. Propaganda techniques list from SourceWatch
2. SourceWatch article on propaganda techniques

Also I think we should aim to cut down generally. Say have a few good links to sites with examples of propoganda (the ones we collectively feel are the best resources) and a few to sites like SpinWatch and SourceWatch which monitor propoganda.

Perhaps leave one Video? I haven't viewed them so I can't really comment mutch (if their both worth it, it might be good to keep them as examples of 21st century propoganda.

Philipwhiuk 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m also of the opinion that there are too many links and I don’t think the movies were a good addition. My grounds are the same of the previous discussion point (commercial propaganda) – unbalance.

I haven’t seen the movies either but, basically, they must present, directly or indirectly, a “bad guy” of the western common social conscience, like many of the posters along the article do. A lot of them refer, either directly or indirectly, to Nazism, to communism and to recent wars or alike, all things which are still very much in the western common social conscience (and should be for a long time, of course, since we talking about the way the human kind is looked at). But from the images in the article what we globally get, what gets into our brains by the powerful process of the image, is mainly a picture of the “bad guys” of recent history, not a picture of propaganda (for instance, there is just one image representing religion and it is absolutely innocuous in the context of the global picture the reader faces).

This article is not about the “bad guys”, but about propaganda. Each “bad guy” has its own article on Wikipedia, so I think what relates to them shouldn’t be too emphasized here. Moreover, it’s not only the “bad guys” of our common social conscience who use propaganda. The emphasis here should go to propaganda itself, its different areas, techniques and so on.

So, I think the best would be to remove both movies. I could accept them, nevertheless, if there were also other movies really counterbalancing these.

DavidMarciano 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure improvement

I think it’d make the article a bit more coherent if the techniques were next to the types of propaganda. My suggestion is to move the history section to the end. Some aggregation of the images by side of origin would also add some more coherence, I guess. DavidMarciano 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

unreferenced FA

The article has sections tagged as unreferenced and yet this is supposed to be a featured article. Can someone explain what's going on and should the FA status be scrapped for this article? If not the tags ought to go if it's properly referenced i.e. Idleguy 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its status as an FA needs to be examined or revoked by the appropriate person(s), IMHO. Inline citations are now the norm and this article is severely lacking in them. --ElKevbo 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the tags the article bears says “Propaganda appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2004.” Has any policy changed since then? 212.151.233.222 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Given enough time, should this be listed for delisting from FA status soon if no inline citations are added? Idleguy 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --ElKevbo 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Propaganda. Tag added to the top of this talk page too. Idleguy 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Election surprise

Greetings all. I just wrote the page Election surprise, and was wondering if some of you could pop in, and tweak the page up some. It seems like it works symbiotically with propoganda. I'm looking for maybe:

• a bit more clarification,
• more incidents worldwide which would qualify as election surprises
• categories

Thanks! samwaltz 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Half-truths: Manipuation of Truth.

One important tool of propaganda is the utilization of deceptive half-truths. The reader is encouraged to review the concept of half-truths as there several types that have not yet been documented nor explained in reference books, except wikepedia.

An example of half-truths incorporate some form of truth, some black and white logic and or generalized logic to polarize an issue furthur and are used to corrupt many ideologies or programs.

Example:

The manipulation by cult-humanists or cult-feminists to polarize the issue of abuse in the family setting is paramount.

Stop violence against women, contains two half-truths. One is that the greater concept of 'abuse', financial, etc. is ignored, as well as the abuse of men and children is ignored.

The false half-truth logic often encountered that is used to formulate a corrupt half-truth is, since most violence is against women than all violence is against women. The inference that all abuse is by men, is a silent one, and we should appreciate the reality that in some settings the abuse is female upon female, mother verses child, child verses mother or otherwise.

I believe it is critical that some reference to half-truths, and or half-truth logic be used to expose this potential dangerous element to Truth.

I might further suggest using a reference to the physicist who stated, "all Truth are half-truths, treating them as the Truth plays the devil..." We attempt to record history but we should reference the problem in that we may never know The Truth...merely parts of it, so we should be careful in 'judging history' by 'judging truths'.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

minor prob: HTML glitch

The word "Portugese" right before the main article is supposed to link somewhere, but shows a LOT of code gibberish smack-dab in the middle of the word. I'm not sure how to fix it without making it worse, but it would help if someone could. Kennard2 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda in the Soviet Union

People, where did you get this? "When one learned history, one would never learn any history except for Russia's, but even that was not at all valid. There were often lies spread about how life in America and other Western countries was, and how rich the U.S.S.R. was compared to them. Also, the Soviets used classic novels, such as the American favorite Uncle Tom's Cabin to spread communist propaganda. The overall motif and message was twisted to an anti-American message and was fed to the schools.". This should be fixed. I've to redone this a bit.

"When describing life in capitalistic countries, or in USA particulary, propaganda tend to show it worther than it was, for example it was explained that most of the rich people in the West earns their big money through "robbing" simple workers, by paying them as smallest sallarys as possible, reducing their social payments (such as ill-time payments, right for free medicine and many other) & causing troubles to professional unions in their work of protection workers rights (Soviet critics of actions taken against prof unions or workers in USA or other countries was based on that fact, that working class (workers & peasants were threated as "ideologicaly close" and so sympatyzed, alltogether with blackskinned people and womans, fighting for their rights). Sometime accent was put on difference between richiest and poorest people, while as it was stated in Soviet Union everyone is equal and free. Another claimed major way of income of rich people was producing & selling of weapon, which (as it was sad) made owners of weapon-production plants to be interested in starting or supporting another war, as it was sad about war in Vietnam. For its criticizm of USA Soviet propaganda was using different facts of racism or neofaschizm, that sometime where happening there." There also should be added information about Soviet anti NATO propaganda and so on, hope someone will help to expand this part. Sure, this should be reviewed by native English speaker, but please, if you are going to change content, please do this carefully, phrases like "When one learned history, one would never learn any history except for Russia's" is a result of USA anti-comunist propaganda and should be placed in another part of the article as example, not as a statment. Lets not turn Wikipedias article about propaganda into propaganda itself! Oleg Str--217.112.210.246 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cold War propaganda

The "Cold War propaganda" section contains many spelling/punctuation mistakes etc. Not really encyclopaedia quality.
138.243.228.52 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... Before there was many mistakes about facts, but anyway thank you (or anybody else) for editing it. I've edit back the last phrase about neofacism. If anybody ever saw facists/neofacists in USSR (except Germanys forces 1941-1945, to be precise)? And if it is so hard to see swasticas painted on the buildings in Europe or in USA? This is why saying that there was neofacism in USSR is just wrong.

---

Oleg Str

"Propaganda ins"

I suggest that additional countries of "Propaganda in" should be made, for example, similar to Propaganda in the United States and Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. For example, Propaganda in Canada or something... (Perhaps a new template could be created to suit this) 207.81.184.128 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

At least the paragraph about Spanish and Portuguses meanings of "propaganda" is repeated.

Link Sprawl

The number of links had gotten out of hand. I've gone through them, removing duplicates, links of spamish nature, newspaper articles of no permanent interest, those added by their owner, and a site or two of dubious merit. An improvement? Bytwerk 16:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Two suggested additions

I'd like to suggest the addition of two more forms of propaganda:

Owning an Issue. This is when the proponents of a certain point of view argue accumulate "experts" on "both" sides of an issue. They argue both sides, then concede to the side they wish to carry the day.

This tactic can serve to reinforce the credibility of both "experts", because the system of arguing both sides has a net credibility loss of zero. To those listeners who believe in the winner, the winner gains credibility, and perhaps the loser loses credibility. To those listeners who believe in the loser, the loser gains credibility, while the winner loses credibility.

Churn. This is where the proponents of a certain point of view fight, argue, and generally create such an unpleasant atmosphere, or narrow set of views, that most listeners choose to avoid the issue entirely, rather than take a side, or even consider the merits of the issue. Charlie mc us 22:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tagged this article for cleanup for several reasons. Most aparently, the entry is simply far too long. It needs to be split up or have large portions of it removed altogether. Secondly, much of the article appears to have been written by someone who writes at a 7th grade level (e.g. "Nowadays nobody admits doing propaganda but, on the other side, everybody accuses the opponent of using propaganda, whenever there is an opponent in question."). Lastly, I agree with the sentiments expressed above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propaganda#This_article_used_to_be_better) that the scope of the topic has exceeded its true defintion. I'd like to work on improving this article, but I'd also like to get feedback from other major editors to this article. Vagr4nt 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the following paragraph in the article to be really hard to understand? Can somebody explain this please? "In scale, these different types of propaganda can also be defined by the potential of true and correct information to compete with the propaganda. For example, opposition to white propaganda is often readily found and may slightly discredit the propaganda source. Opposition to grey propaganda, when revealed (often by an inside source), may create some level of public outcry. Opposition to black propaganda is often unavailable and may be dangerous to reveal, because public cognizance of black propaganda tactics and sources would undermine or backfire the very campaign the black propagandist supported." (What is revealed - the opposition or the propaganda? Why would opposition to black propaganda be dangerous? What's going on?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.135.195 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda inside Wikipedia (?)

I have read the following signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-12/More government editing and also Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia and I am wondering if we could include these informations as a form of propaganda. Perhaps other countries or political interests are using the wikipedia as a propaganda tool, these attempts could have been documented and presented in this article.--Francisco Valverde 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• See also [3] --Francisco Valverde 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• ...and Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits --Francisco Valverde 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Size forcing

I know its a disputed area, but this article would be a good canidate for image size forcing - to one similar style. As it is, there is NO common style, the image sizes are all over the place, giving the whole article (which is already quite long too) a thrown-together look. Seeing that this one is surely watchlisted by many people, I for once didn't want to be too bold and do it right away... MadMaxDog 07:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Small typo/discrete vandalism

In 2022, shortly after the start of the Thirty Years' War, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for Spreading the Faith"), a committee of Cardinals with the duty of overseeing the propagation of Christianity by missionaries sent to Catholic countries. Under Etymology

Fixed to 1622, source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=propaganda TehNomad 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What it means to be epistemically defective

This section should be referenced.

"It is misleading to say, as some do, that propaganda is simply false, or that it is conditional to a lie, since often the propagandist believes in what he/she is propagandizing."

This is not an encyclopedic voice... who is "some" in "as some do"?

Former featured article

That's what they want you to think. This has been a message from your local friendly butcher shop. BEEEEEEEEEP

Citation 6 - Chomsky on Filters

The statement: "After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chomsky stated that the new filter replacing communism would be terrorism and Islam." is cited to http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomforumacrh.htm – but text searches for "Muslim", "Filter", "Islam", "Terrorist", and "Terrorism" on that page show nothing that seems relevant. What precisely did Chomsky say, and when did he say it? - RedWordSmith 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maoist China

Maoist China definitely deserves a section here, a lot of the posters show Mao as larger than life, helping to encourage the "cult of personality around him.

do it then. Ecth (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining Propaganda

This is actually very tricky to do! Are we going for a broad or narrow definition on this one? I personally believe that Propaganda is: a message or suggestion communicated through a medium, by an individual or organisation, designed to have an impact upon the beliefs or mood of the observer. A very broad definition I admit, but the only one I've personally been able to fit to the concept. Propaganda is a pejorative term in the English language (something that I believe should be strongly emphasised in the opening para on an English language article on it!) but we are, in my view subjected to it all the time, election campaigns anyone? Opinion, rather than reportage, in the press? I think any decent historian on the matter would agree with me that it is not only produced by the state or incumbent government, which is what the article and this talk page seems to focus upon. Either way, I'm actually going to narrow the article in the meantime by getting rid of much of the 'buzz-wordy' opening paragraph, hope everyone else finds that OK. Jezze 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Still not entirely happy but I think the definition is better than the previous one. Will try to do other alterations as soon as possible, eg. the term 'propaganda' and its connotations become negative in English speaking countries after the First World War not the Second Jezze 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One Final Note

This article really is a mess....

'An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, a more obvious, and more common propagandism method than those utilized by some other more subtle and insidious forms. For instance, propagandism [sic.] may be transmitted indirectly or implicitly, through an ostensibly fair and balanced debate or argument. This can be done to great effect in conjunction with a broadly targeted, broadcast news format. In such a setting, techniques like, "red herring", and other ploys (such as Ignoratio elenchi), are often used to divert the audience from a critical issue, while the intended message is suggested through indirect means.

This sophisticated type of diversion utilizes the appearance of lively debate within what is actually a carefully focused spectrum, to generate and justify deliberately conceived assumptions. This technique avoids the distinctively biased appearance of one sided rhetoric, and works by presenting a contrived premise for an argument as if it were a universally accepted and obvious truth, so that the audience naturally assumes it to be correct.

By maintaining the range of debate in such a way that it appears inclusive of differing points of view, so as to suggest fairness and balance, the suppositions suggested become accepted as fact. Here is such an example of a hypothetical situation in which the opposing viewpoints are supposedly represented: the hawk (see: hawkish) says, "we must stay the course", and the dove says, "The war is a disaster and a failure", to which the hawk responds, "In war things seldom go smoothly and we must not let setbacks affect our determination", the dove retorts, "setbacks are setbacks, but failures are failures."

In this example, the actual validity of the war is not discussed and is never in contention. One may naturally assume that the war was not fundamentally wrong, but just the result of miscalculation, and therefore, an error, instead of a crime. Thus, by maintaining the appearance of equitable discourse in such debates, and through continuous inculcation, such focused arguments succeed in compelling the audience to logically deduce that the presupposions of debate are unequivocal truisms of the given subject.'

Not only is there a loaded term 'insidious' in the opening para, but the example is a very poor one, is it in conversation or in a genuinely free media, (in which case the 'dove' is an idiot, the hawk is not putting out propaganda!), is it within a controlled medium, eg. a privately owned news channel with a specific agenda, which obviously can give out 'truthful' news or at the very least news that is percieved to be 'true' and issued without an agenda.... oh I give up! Basically the example is iffy and in my opinion, while the point it makes is quite a good one, as presented it almost gives the impression of a paranoic world-view. Jezze 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"For instance, propagandism may be transmitted indirectly or implicitly, through an ostensibly fair and balanced debate or argument. This can be done to great effect in conjunction with a broadly targeted, broadcast news format."

This is quite clearly an attack on Fox News and is therefore POV and should be changed, as should the example featuring a "hawk" and a "dove" directly below.

Pro-American/Pro-Ally Bias

Right at the top of the page, there's Nazi Propaganda and there's Russian Propaganda. This whole page seems biased against Axis powers, when, at least the US, used as much proganda as the USSR or Nazi-Germany. Could someone please do a piece on American Propaganda during the wars, maybe pro-American propaganda in general. The country is ridiculously guilty of it(the PATRIOT Act, for example). I came here looking for the name of the girl they used on the poster in WWII to support women in the work-place, only to find there's no real mention of federal propaganda in America at all.

It struck me that theres an abundance of Nazi/Korean/Russian propaganda and just a single poster of propaganda from the USA, when its well estabilished that the USA used at the very least as much propaganda as the powers described. This comes to me as a highly biased page.LtDoc (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps I should add a reference to the Tanaka Memorial, as it is fairly widely believed to have been a U.S. forgery, or is it too disputable? Ecth (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq letters - Gannet news service

User:Eleland keep inserting into the article two paragraphs about an article published by Gannet News service in 2003, regarding letters purporting to be from American soldiers supporting the Iraq war. This appears to be pure original research; can anyone provide documentation that this alleged incident is considered to be a significant example of "propaganda"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me and the anti-vandal bots keep "inserting" this. Please acknowledge that I restored this material, after unexplained blanking, and did not insert it.

Your contention that WP:NOR forbids inclusion of material unless sources document that it's a significant example of the subject matter appears to be unsupported by actually reading WP:NOR. Perhaps there's a stronger case under WP:NPOV, if you were to argue that this section is overly long for the subject matter. But this has nothing to do with original research and unverified claims.

I am concerned that, if every user with a POV to push began applying such overly rigorous standards to sections they didn't like, virtually every section of wikipedia would have multiple warning boxes.

Eleland 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Who, besides you, says this is a significant incident of "Propaganda"? That is the topic of the article. I will remind you that, among other things, forbidden Original Research "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Which reliable source cites this as an important example of "propaganda"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine that whoever originally inserted this material into the article thought so. And it is not clear to me what "particular case favored by the editor" is being made here. As I said in my original comment, your reading of WP:NOR would subject every single section, if not every single sentence, in the 'pedia to be tagged or removed unless a citation can be found specifically and explicitly stating its notability with respect to the subject matter.

Are you arguing that the inclusion of any material whatsoever is an implicit "analysis or synthesis"? While intriguing, your argument appears to be unsupported by published policy.

Eleland 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I am dealing with this one section in this one article; I will not be led down other rabbit holes. The topic of this article is Propaganda. Which source states that this incident is an example of "propaganda"? And please don't invent straw man arguments for me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the material should be deleted. It should probably be moved to the "Propaganda in the US" article and properly sourced. Generally this article has far too many "examples" of a huge field (often introduced for POV reasons) and not enough analysis from notable works (Ellul, Bernays, etc) of what Propaganda is and isn't (clearly a problematic question). So can I suggest it gets either moved to the sub-article or left in until somebody (perhaps me) gets round to cleaning up this whole page? Having said all which, Jayjg I disagree with you, this is clearly an example of Propaganda in my opinion. I just don't think it belongs in the main Propaganda article. SociableLiberal 05:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"this is clearly an example of Propaganda in my opinion". There you have it. Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't matter; what matters are the views of reliable sources. Which reliable source has described this as "propaganda"? I'll wait for proper sourcing for one more day. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you misunderstand me (see straw man). This is obviously Propaganda as defined by e.g. Ellul but not as defined by e.g. Bernays. I tend to prefer Ellul's definition (which is far more up to date (1962), and includes the propaganda of e.g. Mao, much of which is excluded by Bernays' 1928 definition) so in my opinion (i.e. taking the notable definition I prefer) it's Propaganda. If you say this isn't propaganda, I think you'd end up saying the US doesn't use propaganda at all except in Psyops and maybe Public Diplomacy, which is a view I think most (citable) scholars on the topic would not share. The problem is that the article doesn't deal properly with the theoretical question of what is and isn't Propaganda, leading to interminable unproductive discussion on this page about NPOV etc whenever there's a disputed example (like this one). Hence my suggestion.

I can source my definitions of propaganda (including the ones I disagree with), and plan to include them in the article as soon as I have time to write them up properly. Can you source the definition of Propaganda that leads you to conclude that this isn't it? SociableLiberal 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a footnote: the definition at the top of the article gives: deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist - are you saying this was not deliberate, not systematic, not an attempt to shape perceptions, or not intended to further the aims of the person who sent the letters? As far as I understand it seems to be clearly (objectively) all of those things. SociableLiberal 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand WP:NOR, and I'm not sure how I can make you understand it. Do Ellul and Bernays talk about these letters, and does, for example, Ellul, say they are an example of "propaganda"? The issue is not with definitions of propaganda, the issue is that you must find a reliable source that describes these letters as propaganda. What you have done here is "introduced an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." If you want to prove these letters are an example of propaganda, you can't do it by appealing to your own understanding of various definitions of propaganda - instead, you must provide a reliable source that describes these letters as propaganda. Is that clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, ok, I concede the point: Whether or not it objectively fits the definition of propaganda, it's only an interesting example if a source uses it as one, and it's not for editors to cherry-pick the field. I don't actually favour any viewpoint that might be supported by including this as propaganda (except a preference for the broader definitions that would implicitly include it), but I do concede that I hadn't read WP:NOR carefully enough. I'll take it out now myself. Thank you for not biting me! :-) SociableLiberal 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleland did you read the above before reinstating the section under discussion? Please respond if you disagree with the thrust of the discussion as it appears here. There's lots in this article that doesn't fit NOR as discussed above, but that doesn't mean it's ok to make it worse by adding more, no matter how nicely edited. What's your source? Cheers, SociableLiberal 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

World War 2 Cartoon Shorts...

I came across an article (Armed Forces Shorts) that I can't figure out how to incorporate into your article and I don't wish to compromise the work that is there. It's a little more than a stub, but I'm sure it'll get expanded soon. --Hourick 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Progaganda - Cult-feminism

Modern Progaganda - Cult-feminism

While this is my 'original research' let this be a lead to someone to add a more contemporary form of 'propaganda' and or 'brainwashing'.

Many of the forms of brainwashing mentioned on this thread were used by 'cult feminists' to attack men, and polarize the family.

Examples: "Stop violence against women" polarized the issue of abuse, to attack all men based on the false assertion that 'most abusers' are men, then all abusers are men.

The Faces of Feminism on the internet explains this in more detail and can be used as a source for information.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhhh?

Did someone get rid of the disambiguation? I came looking for "Propaganda" the book. How the hell else am I gonna get there? Plaese would somebody add that back? Jiminezwaldorf 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it back I don't know why it had been replaced by a link to one specific use, probably fanboys. Jackaranga 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Layout / Display Problem

The boxed quote from R.A. Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States... extends to the right, -underneath- a picture, on Navigator 8.1. I have seen this sort of problem before, where Firefox users see something as perfect, but the right hand border is compromised on Navigator. My only proposal for a fix is to italicize the quotes and remove the box, but hopefully something better can be found. Here at Wiki, at least, I hopefully won't be hearing that the solution is for everyone to get Firefox :o). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Propaganda Techniques

Propose that a link to Camel's Nose be added. Not only does it quote Barry Goldwater as using the expression, but because it notes the expressions Slippery Slope, Thin End of the Wedge, Domino Effect, Foot in the Door, For Want of a Nail, Boiling Frog, and Give them an inch, they'll take a mile, most if not all of which have surely been used in or as propaganda techniques. Domino Effect notably has been, and encountered Thin End of the Edge used thusly while in the UK. Slippery Slope seems to be the US equivalent of Thin Edge. Note that Camel's nose does not specifically describe any of these sayings as propaganda techniques, whether that is an omission or not, I will leave to that page's editors. Also, if you would note how to make changes to such lists that are seemingly not within the scope of the regular edit page, on my talk page or something, I would be grateful for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop music group

Propaganda is also a pop music group. Some songs are Duel, and Dr. Mabuse. I guess desambiguation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.230.66 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect cartoon caption?

The caption describes "...a monstrous 'European Anarchist' attempting to destroy the Statue of Liberty." From my looking at it, that E.A. is sneaking in under the welcoming torch of the S. of L., but he seems to be looking into the distance at some other target. He doesn't seem to have sinister designs on the Statue herself. Kejo13 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish propaganda

Thers alot of German propaganda degrading jews and simply talking bad about them. Any propaganda published by jews or in favor of jews...im sure there some out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.88.27 (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech Insignificant on Wikipedia

What we write on these pages is controlled by Internet Information Sources, we are being handfed propaganda by Totalitarian Oppressive Law.

Wikipedia Clients are Enforcing Government Approved Censorship.

Modern truth is what the government says the truth is, which are basically Preconceived Opinions & Popular Prejudices. Vandals were an ancient German tribe, referring to me as a Vandal is without a doubt a Hasty Generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom from Restriction !

Wikipedia please start supporting "Encyclopedias Free from Incompetents & Oppressive Law".

If you are worried about; Open Source, Open Content & Internet Groups being polluted by immorality & corruption, then you might aswell start focussing your attention on another absolute group which are unjustly imposing government approved censorship on the truth & freedom of speech.

Help join in the effort to make the Internet a better place free from incompetents & restrictions.

Aristocrats are in no authority to tell us anything, if there'd be such authority it would be the most disturbing.

As so many of us have witnessed all around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.117.14 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

I think there's an error in the above section. It was Pope Gregory XV, not Pope Gregory V, who established the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. Gregory V died 423 years earlier.

Squidkin (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb/Balkan Propaganda Section

This section is blatant POV. I suggest having it rewritten under the heading 'Balkan Propaganda', since all sides of the Balkan conflicts are to blame for propaganda. Only blaming the Serbian side ignores, for instance, propaganda songs and poems from the Croat side mentioning things like 'we do not drink wine, we drink the blood of Serbs from Knin' and 'Hang the Serbs on the willows; if there are not enough willows, hang them from train carriages'. Ganseki (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)