Talk:Eastern Bloc media and propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name[edit]

Who wrote this garbage up? Some Nazi Polish scumbag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.27.105 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


"information dissemination" is unwieldy and somewhat confusing. I suggest renaming this article to freedom of media in Eastern Block or control of media in Eastern Bloc, or simply, media in Eastern Bloc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Information dissemination is the most descriptive, and we can always put redirects on other related but less comprehensive concepts for which users might search.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Most descriptive? I think not; consider that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article (or a redirect) for information dissemination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop moving the entire page. The article is not just limited to media, and as such it is not named "Eastern Bloc media". If it was, I'd have no problem naming it as such, and would have out the outset. I actually created an "Eastern Bloc media" template several days ago linking to articles limited to that topic, which is more narrow. The name is not simple, but it is clearly more descriptive and redirects can take care of other more narrow topics, such as "Eastern Bloc media". And because the combination of two of the words in the article "information dissemination" do not currently have their own subarticle is absolutely meaningless. It is an often used term such that, for example, a google search on just that term's words (without conjugating them) produced a whopping 1.72 million hits ("information dissemination")Mosedschurte (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The name, as it is, is confusing and anything but simple. The concept hardly exists, and we have no article on "information dissemination". Perhaps a title we can agree on is state control of media in the Eastern Bloc? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems to me to be even more narrow and inaccurate than "Eastern Bloc media", and I probably came off a bit more combative than I should have about it, but I actually had put some thought into naming it before hand and specifically did not want to limit the article to Eastern Bloc media. It first arose as basically a subarticle of Eastern Bloc, it deserved its own topic as well, and so I wrote it to encompass everything having to do with information flow in the Eastern Bloc, because some similar (and some different) characteristics existed in the Bloc regarding that flow. Traditioanl media, samizdat, word of mouth, restrictions on communicating in all forms (spoken, written, disseminated), propaganda, etc. I don't know if this is an English primary language issue (not that I'm saying that's an issue here at all), but "information dissemination" is an incredibly commonly used phrase in the English language, as indicated with the whopping 1.72 million hits ("information dissemination"). There is no Wikipedia article on those two words consecutively most likely, because with tens of thousands of such other word combinations, such an article would make little sense where the two words are fairly specific, and there is no need to explain their meaning when used consecutively. Moreover, the frequency of the two words' consecutive usage is really irrelevant here (though they are used together quite frequently), as they describe the substance the article purports to cover. Redirects can easily be used for more narrow and widely used terms.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me being a non-native speaker of English, but I do find the current title confusing. I'll open an RfC and ask other editors to comment on this title, if they agree with you I guess I'll just have to learn the phrase... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a huge problem with "Eastern Bloc media", except that it will likely lead to future people coming along and attempting to prune the article of all other information flow topics therein (e.g., censorship, samizdat because it doesn't fall within traditional use of "media", western info flow in (VOA, BBC, RFE, FRG-TV, etc.). On the other hand, even more narrow definitions such as "freedom of media in Eastern Block" are pretty clearly just flat inaccurate given the article content.
That's why "Eastern Bloc information dissemination" was chosen. It's:
  • accurate regarding the material
  • broad enough to encompass all topics and potential topics
  • other more narrow, more frequently searched and classic terms for topics that fall within its scope (e.g., "Eastern Bloc media", "Eastern Bloc samizdat", "Eastern Bloc censorship") can be (and already are) easily redirected to the accurate broad title.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't particularly like "information dissemination", but I cannot offer better alternatives. But what's even more clumsy is the grammar. I believe "Information dissemination in the Eastern Bloc" would be far more grammatically correct. You should probably ask some native speaker. Renata (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment on RFC The name is atrocious as far as English style goes -- it's jargony and confusing. Why don't you try something like "Control of information in the Eastern Bloc." My comment is only as regarding English style; the title does appear to accurately describe the article. It just reads really poorly. RayTalk 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a broad consensus that the name needs to be changed, but no consensus on what it should be. Suggestions for a better name are welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, all of the suggested replacements are either worse (some even longer) or inaccurate (more narrow, media-only, control-of-info only, etc.). If there's a better one that's accurate, I have no problem with the change.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
--Suggestions:
  • "Eastern Bloc media and information"
  • "Media and information in the Eastern Bloc" (Renata3's preferred format)
Like I said, I guess I don't have a huge problem with "Eastern Bloc media", as long as media is said to be in the broad sense as the plural of medium (e.g., would include samizdat, word-of-mouth, etc.). My initial thought was to just redirect from that, but if "Eastern Bloc information dissemination" is viewed as simply a horrible name (I didn't think it was THAT bad, but that's just me), and the other suggested ones above aren't liked, then maybe just go with "Eastern Bloc media".Mosedschurte (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just reading the current title -- "Eastern Bloc information dissemination" -- is enough to give any reader a headache! Is the article an account of the dissemination of information in the Eastern Bloc, by the Eastern Bloc, or about the Eastern Bloc? The English language, lacking grammatical case-endings, requires prepositions to make the relationship between nouns and noun-phrases explicit, especially when they are piled up like this! Pace User:Mosedschurte ("some [of the suggested replacements are] even longer"), it is clarity, not length, that is the issue here. I therefore propose moving the article to "Dissemination of information in the Eastern Bloc". -- Picapica (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[Update:] The organization of material and – in particular – the use of language in this article remain pretty dreadful, IMV. The introductory sentence, for example, basically says that (in each country of the Eastern Bloc) the media and state propaganda were controlled by the Communist Party which controlled the media and state propaganda. So far, so circular! Ventilation of the rather turgid prose style of the remainder of the introduction wouldn't go amiss either. I'm reluctant to spend time on copyediting this article myself, however, so long as its basic structure remains so poor. The "Background" section, for example – with its repetition of great chunks of the main Eastern Bloc article – is far too overblown. Provide appropriate "see also" links by all means, but, please, can we get to the heart of the matter much more quickly than at present? -- Picapica (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Were the prior edit histories all wiped out by the attempted article move?[edit]

When I click "history", I no longer see all of the prior versions of the article. Have they been wiped out?Mosedschurte (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You messed up the move; you shouldn't have reverted my move by changing redirects but you should've moved the article back. No worries, in the future just to avoid this error. I'll fix it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Prominent Individuals[edit]

I think in order to improve the article in point 2.2.1. the name and reference of József Dudás should be removed based on the fact that in his own article it is stated that he was a liability for the state but not as an opponent or a free thinker just as a communist. During the revolution he used criminal methods against other people, sometimes not even caring if they really were employed by the state secret police or not, he approved of looting and contested the Imre Nagy-government seeing only his brigades as legitimate, eventually delivering propaganda material for the later regime that the "counter-revolution" was not by the people for the people. Even his own people disapproved of him making it thus pointless for the Soviets and the Kádár-regime to propagate that he was a negative figure. Shinichi1977 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern Bloc media and propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)