Talk:Psychological operations (United States)
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychological operations (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox
[edit]@Michael21107: per WP:BRD, I'm starting the discussion you should have, instead of reverting. Instead of back-n-forth edit summaries, it's preferrable to discuss the matter here. In the meantime, the page should remain at WP:QUO. So, now please explain why you're so dead-set against this infobox? Thank you - wolf 13:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- The infobox looks like an extremely informative summary and, in my view, it would be most unhelpful to lose it. Dormskirk (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- i think its not necessary to have such infobox and may even be confusing for someone looking for a military unit Michael H 14:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get that. If I was looking for an article on US psychological operations, this article would meet my expectations and an infobox would simply enhance my satisfaction. Dormskirk (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Purple_arrow_down.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_down.svg.png)
- Psyop
its not Psyophelpful to have a military unit infobox on a page not about a military unit, please read my reasoning and dont just undo it, thanks Michael H 14:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comments about this issue belong on the article talk page, we don't split discussions across multiple talk pages unnecessarily. (also, the initial heading of "userbox" here was a typo, no need to have to have to different threads because of that).
- As for your reasoning for removal, don't assume that people who disagree with you are only doing so out of ignorance from not reading your reasons for removal. I read them, I'm sure Dormskirk did as well. To me, it boils down to you just not liking it and I don't find that to be a compelling reason to remove a farely standard component of articles in general, and one in this case that is useful and has been with the article since it's creation seventeen years ago. - wolf 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Anti-vaccine propaganda targeted at the Philippines
[edit]I just saw this summarized at https://youtube.com/watch?v=3f_LteS5ua8&t=685 and I think we need to say something more substantial about the extent of the harm done. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the point of this article. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- How so? 141.239.252.245 (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)