Talk:History of propaganda
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlexusCCarter. Peer reviewers: Graffrich.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Laughable
How on earth is it that the word "Putin" does not even appear? It certainly ought to, and prominently. Pax 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Abolitionism
Abolitionism does not belong to a page on "History of Propaganda" as it's very hard (or impossible) to justify the use of the word propaganda from any dictionary or interpretation in this case, insisting on having Abolitionism figure in that page might be bias at best, motivated otherwise. As removals of that section of the page have been disputed with threat to loss of editing privileges, Seraphim System suggested the creation of this post. Dogfiveshield (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Dogfiveshield: Please go read Bernays and consider your own, sad, bias. Propaganda is exactly what that was. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The article, as currently written in January, 2024, does not provide sufficient context, for why abolitionism became subject to propaganda. What is the difference between, for example, attempts at persuasion versus attempts to propagandize? If that could be clarified in the article, it would be a service to readers. Regards, Imdownwithbrowns (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Accusations of using propaganda should be associated with a proof of validity, thanks for pointing out an author, when that author's relevance will be established and his words successfully applied to abolitionism as a form of propaganda then Abolitionism will belong to the page on History of Propaganda and only then. Please establish how Bernays views apply to abolitionism before putting it on this page. Kind regards Dogfiveshield (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Scientific propaganda
Can a section on scientific propaganda be added such as the use of industry sponsored "research" to politically benefit the industry - tobacco, oil, ...?
Is there also credible scientific data on pushing a fringe idea from the margin to the center via opinionated scientific research? 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DA2:C538:7078:C0D0 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Western propaganda
I was thinking of having a stand alone article Western propaganda, which is now a redirect to Propaganda model. --Mhhossein talk 06:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
NPOV
The third paragraph of the lead section:
Unfortunately, propaganda can be dangerous because it can be used to promote harmful or unethical agendas. It can be used to promote war or genocide, to spread false information, or to manipulate people into supporting harmful policies or ideologies. Therefore, it is important for individuals to be critical of the information they receive and to seek out multiple sources to verify facts and perspectives. The term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples.
(the parts I believe to be non-NPOV in bold)
While I strongly agree, does this fit the NPOV Wikipedia should have? I think it should be rephrased 2A02:C7F:2C25:8C00:7896:B91A:F09D:73D0 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole paragraph seems tutorial and instructive. I didn't see anything particular in the body that would support the statements. My remedy would be to salvage just the last sentence of the paragraph and append it to the second paragraph. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've done what you suggested. Thank you - as an IP I didn't want to make a change like this without agreement 2A02:C7F:2C25:8C00:851A:A7C6:5668:C26B (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles