Talk:Firehose of falsehood

Is this article propaganda in itself?
(talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Noting the main sources for this article, and their targets: Rand Corporation, Atlantic Council, Washington Post, New York Times, and then Trump and Russia. Is Firehose of Falsehood a thing, or is it just made up for the rhetorical purposes of American intelligence agencies? Shtove 08:01, 10 December 2019


 * No, User:Shtove (and please sign your posts). It definitely is a real phenomenon and propaganda technique, though people may reasonably disagree on alleged instances of it. It's true that the sources are mostly mainstream Western ones, so by all means suggest alternatives; but you wouldn't expect to find much in the way of Russian sources, since Russian media understandably tends not to report on its own propaganda. Robofish (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't find that convincing at all. As for alternative sources, there are none to be found, which suggests that nobody outside the Washington bubble takes this stuff seriously; and even if there were such a source, no doubt the guardians of articles like this would dismiss it as not reliable. Wikipedia is clearly being used by a network funded by the intelligence agencies to cement a widespread system of propaganda. Shtove 01:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A cursory look through the sources and it is clear that no scholarly rigor undergirds the various commentaries made through popular media outlets, rather they rely simply on citing the (single) original RAND article. The principle at play is clearly already covered in other, better sourced articles, (see Gish gallop) which could be emended to make brief reference to this and any other valid sources. Otherwise, the standards governing articles on this site are surely in breach. 106.68.28.22 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gish gallop definitely doesn't cover this concept very well at all. The entire idea of 'firehosing' is that you purposefully obfuscate your organization's goals and plans through sheer volume of inconsistent messaging via multiple media outlets. Deleting this article is all well and good, but at the very least it deserves mention in the propaganda techniques article. 23.93.101.167 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should include text about how anticommunist sources also use these propaganda technique, otherwise it seems charged towards making it seem like a communist and then a Russian thing, instead of the worldwide phenomenon it is. 177.236.74.185 (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely exists. The sources here are biased, but the concept of flooding the airwaves with inconsistent messaging that is designed to obfuscate the situation on the ground and serve the purposes of the state is a tried and true propaganda technique. Right now I think it's best merged and expanded in the Propaganda Techniques article.
 * It's clear that there is probably going to need to be further original literature on this other than RAND, WaPo, and journalists re-reporting what a think tank has put out in terms of analysis. More scholarly work-up is sadly needed before it gets its own wiki article. 23.93.101.167 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

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

This issue appears to be unresolved as of 22 Sept 2022. The article reads as a propaganda piece that attributes this technique solely to Russia and not to other states. It seems self-evident that this technique is a worldwide issue and deployed by nation-states on all sides of the geopolitical divide. I suggest keeping the NPOV flag until the issue is resolved. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. The lead ends with this sentence:
 * "The model has been adopted by other governments and political movements around the world, including by former U.S. President Donald Trump."
 * The body mentions other lands that use the technique. If you want to propose a way to improve that coverage, feel free to provide a suggestion here and we might be able to accommodate your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A single sentence in an otherwise completely one-sided article does not constitute NPOV. The entire article revolves around a single publication by a partisan think-tank and the technique is almost entirely attributed to a single nation-state. My suggestion would be to rewrite the article, to clarify that it's essentially a RAND Corporation publication, or merge the article with the "Big Lie", "Gish Gallop" and/or "Propaganda Techniques" articles (as this article concerns the same tactics, blamed exclusively on Russia). Or simply delete it because it does not add anything new beyond the aforementioned articles. Does every publication by a partisan think-tank deserve its own article?
 * Also I strongly object to the use of the "edit warring" warning regarding this issue, which you have added to my talk page; firstly, you're one of the editors engaging in said "edit war", if it exists. Secondly, if two editors ignore an existing unresolved talk page issue and remove a justified NPOV template without discussion, and the other attempts to reinsert it according to Wikipedia policy, who exactly is edit warring? It comes across as "I got here first, my edits will remain until it's resolved, I've got more clout here than you, and if you disagree you'll be blocked from editing". This does not contribute to a welcoming atmosphere for new editors.
 * I tried to continue the discussion on the talk page, and the template was twice removed *before* either editor addressed the issue on the talk page. Removing the template and issuing a warning before even contributing to the talk page discussion does not seem to be the best way to resolve the dispute, in my humble opinion as a new editor. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As written above to you, please suggest improved wording, with the reliable sources. We can discuss that and hopefully improve the article while meeting some of your objections. No article is perfect or ever "finished". We constantly improve them, and per WP:PRESERVE, we tweak and improve all the time. Let's see your specific wordings. Objecting without concrete wording improvements isn't helpful. You need to follow dispute resolution processes, rather than edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have a look at what I can do to fix it, but in the meantime, while the NPOV issue remains unresolved, the template should remain. It is not the job of the person highlighting the NPOV issue, and adding the template, to personally resolve the issue; the template exists so that a problem can be temporarily flagged until it is fixed. This way, readers are not inadvertently misled into thinking they are reading a neutral article with no issues. Is this not correct?
 * I am sure that you already know the purpose of the template, having cited Wikipedia policy repeatedly. This idea of "fix it yourself or it shouldn't be flagged" is completely contrary to the point of the flag template. It could potentially come across as simply not liking the fact that the article is flagged, and using a "Firehose of Wikipedia policy" to overwhelm newer editors with warnings and policy references in order to enforce one's preferred article version.
 * This talk page is evidence that it's not "one editor with a minor issue". Four separate editors (including myself) are of the opinion that the entire article is propaganda. That is not one editor, and it is not a minor issue. And regarding "edit warring", yourself and I have both reverted the article twice, the difference being that I immediately outlined my issue on the talk page, and you only did so *after* reverting twice, and *after* issuing a warning for edit warring. ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you cannot give any reliable sources that disagree with what the article says or use the term for the actions of other organizations than the Russian regime or its buddy Trump, there is nothing anybody can do, the article correctly represents the position of reliable sources, and any neutrality problem is imaginary. The template on the article is only justified if there is more than that. Since this section of talk page contains nothing but empty rhetorics, foot stamping, and "But I want!", the template should stay away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while, and nobody has expressed an interest in improving the neutrality of the article. I reject the premise that RAND Corporation's claims must be reported as fact, just because RAND ended up getting quoted. Journalists quoting a think tank doesn't mean the think tank's claims are fact. They are still claims, and must be presented as such. A neutral article would make it clear to the reader that this is a concept invented by a US military think tank, rather than something more widely accepted in academic communities... or even something that people outside of the USA have even heard of.

The entire article is essentially "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt or Disinformation, but when US propagandists accuse their geopolitical rivals of doing it". Does that really justify a separate article? Seems like a POV fork imo. An honest, good-faith mistake, but very convenient for the Pentagon.

Asking editors to find reliable sources that talk about, say, the USA using the "firehose of falsehood" for its own propaganda purposes is a red herring. It's a term exclusively used by US propagandists to describe something that is already covered more generally by the aforementioned articles. Other geopolitical players just don't use this catchphrase to describe it. If this fact were crystal clear in the article, it wouldn't be a problem. But the way it's written leaves the impression that FUD and disinformation barrages are a technique exclusively used by people that the Pentagon don't like.

Longer term, maybe a merger with the aforementioned articles is the best option. In the meantime, I will be re-adding Template:Disputed and will make small changes, as and when I have the time, to clarify which statements in the article are verifiable, objective facts, and which are partisan claims, from a propaganda outlet, on one side of a propaganda war. If a merger is out of the question, then the article needs rewritten from the ground up. As I said, I'm happy to work on it, but this article is not NPOV as it stands, so I'm re-adding the template.

From WP:NPOV :

''Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.''

and

Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

If there are any objections, I'd appreciate it if this time we could discuss it here, rather than simply reverting without discussion, and posting threatening warning templates on editors' talk pages. ShabbyHoose (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My bad, I should have added Template:POV and not Template:Disputed, I've fixed it. ShabbyHoose (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hob Gadling. Your editing and tagging seem to be POV driven. You need to suggest very specific concerns right here in a list form and then provide the wording and reliable sources you would use to fix the issues. We'd be happy to fix such issues if they are genuinely supported by RS. Until then, stop your POV pushing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not POV pushing to add alternative viewpoints to what effectively amounts to a US military propaganda article. Please stop assuming bad faith from the get-go. Please stop reverting without talk page consensus. Nobody else made any attempt to fix the page, so I did. I provided reliable sources. 5 or 6 of them, I believe. If you think a particular statement is unsourced, then feel free to highlight it. Please don't just mass-revert something I spent hours working on and immediately assume bad faith. Maybe a RFC would be more productive than your "revert it all, it's all POV because I say so, but I won't/can't explain why" approach? ShabbyHoose (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I did address specific concerns. They're addressed in the edits I made. Rather than insta-reverting all of it, why don't you detail which edits you take issue with and why? ShabbyHoose (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is currently NPOV and the recent changes were POV? Seriously?
[edit: this is in response to the entire above discussion being hidden, along with multiple accusations, POV, SPA etc, I've re-opened the thread] ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And you respond by instantly accusing me of bad faith, not addressing any of the reliably sourced statements, just mass-reverting all of them. I'm trying to do other edits, most of my time today was spent fixing grammar and formatting about the locations and histories of war memorials. And then to top it all off, you hide the entire discussion which contained concerns from several other editors besides me? I am trying really hard to assume good faith here. Which exact edits did you take issue with, and on what basis? Why are you hiding the concerns of several editors because of an out-of-the-blue accusation of bad faith?

You really think the article, as is, is NPOV and doesn't have a pro-US bias? Count the references to RAND Corporation, to a US military propagandist essay (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2019/Blythe-Calhoun-Influence/), and to news organisations quoting RAND. That's a balanced article, according to the multiple accounts acting in instant tandem? ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * And I did not edit war once, for the record. I was the only one to make a serious attempt to discuss it on the talk page and I repeatedly requested that we attempt to reach consensus here, rather than just mass-reverting each other. Those requests were ignored and multiple accounts acted in tandem to ensure their preferred version remained, without *technically* breaking the max revert rule.
 * I reverted once, along with a request to bring it to the talk page. That's an edit war? ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And as for "SPA", I am obviously going to be more interested in an article with blatant POV issues that's being weirdly defended by the same guy each time who militantly refuses any kind of discussion or attempt at consensus and just reverts, reverts, reverts... It's more captivating than fixing word order in machine-translated paragraphs about war memorials. Like, sorry, I just find it more interesting and I think it's important to be an encycloedia, rather than a megaphone for the US military. I've put more time and energy into this, because I think NPOV is pretty critical and worth spending time on. If you want to just fob me off as a "Single Purpose Account" then that's up to you. I don't really know what else I can do to prove that I'm genuinely just a new editor who came across this and decided to focus on it. I don't think this really constitutes an assumption of good faith, but what do I know, I must be a Russian bot or something. ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You should read a few Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example WP:CLAIM and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The first one is justification enough for your last edits to the article. That dictatorships which control the media in their country lie all the time is a pretty uncontroversial fact, and to call it "propaganda" is not WP:NPOV (another one for you to read). --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hob Gadling thanks for that input, I'll have a read of those articles. I don'tthink that this is a fair characterisation of my concerns regarding the nature of the article, though. I outlined my concerns above and I used reliable sources for my edits, then a while later I got dogpiled by three accounts simultaneously, who immediately jumped to accusations of bad faith. I think it'd be better to wait for some third-party input from the RfC. 85.219.32.216 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, this is ShabbyHoose, I'm writing on my phone hence the IP. 85.219.32.216 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one is justification enough for your last edits to the article Of course, I meant "justification enough for reverting your last edits to the article". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you think it's better to report the claims of a US state-backed think tank, some journalists who quoted them, a US military treatise by two propagandists, and a disgraced ex-NYT book reviewer using the voice of Wikipedia, rather than specifying that it's their claims?
 * Again, from WP:POV : Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.
 * And no, it doesn't justify reverting all of the edits, because there was loads of stuff in there that was nothing to do with specifying "claims", and was simply other examples of the firehose of falsehood in action, for example, the cited case of the video game footage being passed off as the Ghost of Kyiv. These things are important to include when all the US state sources attribute this tactic exclusively to [insert rivals and enemies of the USA]. That is moving away from POV and towards NPOV.
 * There were also edits clarifying the "literary critic"'s background, and I took those citations directly from her own Wikipedia page, I think it's relevant to clarify their lack of expertise, if not remove their claims altogether. Lenin invented the idea of repeatedly lying? Come on, now.
 * And is it not relevant to point out that while the Coalition was "combating Russian propaganda", according to the two US military propagandists, they were doing a bit of propaganda of their own, sweeping 1,600 civilian deaths under the carpet? Again, NPOV would suggest that we should highlight this type of propaganda whether it comes from Russia, or the USA, or Ukraine, or Barbados, or whoever else.
 * Honestly, the article, as it is, reads like a handout you'd get on your first day as a US intelligence officer, it's not encyclopaedic in the slightest. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to read WP guidelines. Regarding the Ghost of Kyiv, for example, that was WP:OR, more specifically, WP:SYNTH, since the source does not mention "firehose of falsehood". You cannot just pluck untrue things you find and add them as examples to articles about specific propaganda methods!
 * I am done trying to teach you how to do it; it is a waste of time since you are marching towards a ban and showing no signs of stopping. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hob, for that productive input. So, to conclude, this is a redundant term almost entirely used by pro-US sources to describe regular ol' disinformation, and the discourse around it is almost all targeted at [insert US rival], but we're not allowed to point this out. Rules aren't to be followed, they are hammers with which to batter the newbies. Well, I'm at least glad I'm not alone in thinking that this article is extremely problematic. I don't think people get banned for trying to improve the encyclopedia in good faith, with reference to the rules (which can apparently be selectively ignored), so I'm not particularly worried about that. Unnecessary aggression, talking down to people, losing your temper, stomping on the newbies... that kind of stuff can get you banned, afaik. I think this conversation has run its course, so let's just see what else we get from the RfC. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Firehose of falsehood last year, when it was a newly coined term by the RAND Corporation that had been picked up in a few op-eds against Trump. Certainly it is propaganda, since it attempts to discredit Trump and now Putin by comparing them with Stalinism. It may be however that since its coinage, reliable sources, such as peer reviewed articles, have commented on its use, so we might be able to re-write the article from a neutral point of view, rather than the propaganda style at present. TFD (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to know I'm not the only one.
 * In terms of solutions: maybe if we can get folks to agree on some way to distinguish fact from propaganda without using words like "claim" that are seen as loaded, we might be able to reach some kind of compromise. Of course, loaded language is fine when it's describing "hostile" nations. But using the same language to describe the US military really crosses the line and might get you banned, so watch yourself, bub! Just a good faith piece of friendly advice. In all seriousness, I have some suggestions for better wording:
 * For the RAND report
 * According to RAND...
 * RAND state in their report that...
 * Based on RAND's publication...
 * For the journalists that picked up on the term
 * Several Western journalists have now picked up on RAND's analysis. For example...
 * For the propaganda manual
 * A report produced by two US Army propagandists states that..
 * For the book reviewer
 * To be honest I would drop the book reviewer entirely, someone who goes from reviewing Harry Potter books to writing authoritatively about the history of propaganda is not the best of sources, although I'm sure there's some rule somewhere that says if you get a book published then you're reliable, or something. Pinning this invented technique on Lenin of all people, because apparently he was the first person in history to try and confuse people with a barrage of lies. That's pseudohistory, a failed NYT book reviewer, playing to their audience's biases to sell books. Literary analyst... Jeez. If she must be kept as a source, we can just use some neutral language, like "her book states that..."
 * As for the rest of the article I think it's largely OK. Those are the main 4 things that need addressed, in my opinion, and I think they can be easily addressed.
 * What do the others think? Or will it be another case of silence, then three accounts appearing simultaneously to gang-revert any further attempts at improvement and cover up the discussion? I'm sure there's some good faith reason for this behaviour and it's just a misunderstanding, but it is a rather frustrating thing to deal with. ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not “gang-reverted” you; you’re disrupting the article by constantly adding contentious material despite clearly achieving no consensus to do so. If a consensus is established, THEN you can add the material. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop wandering off topic to potshot the US— it makes you sound like you yourself are a propaganda warrior. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus? On this talk page, I count four concerned about the article versus three satisfied, and a total refusal of the latter three to offer any sort of compromise or solution.
 * Yourself and two other accounts are the only ones enforcing this POV article and blocking changes, all making edits almost simultaneously. That's not consensus, some might say it looks like a small group of co-ordinated editors abusing Wikipedia's systems in order to keep their preferred POV version of the article up, a la WP:GAME, justifying actions that defy common sense with selective rule applications a la LAWYER, because quoting enough policies is usually enough to intimidate the newbs into shutting up.
 * I really think this needs a RfC and some outside opininions (I attempted to submit one before but I messed up due to not understanding how the system works). I will submit a proper RfC now, because I don't think this constitutes consensus at all and I don't think there's any productive conversation left to be had here, given the approach these three editors have taken to discussions. In the interests of good faith I'll avoid speculating as to the reasons. ShabbyHoose (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4:3 still isn’t consensus, we are WP:not a democracy. Dronebogus (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was consensus, I am refuting your characterisation of this discussion as one guy versus everybody else, when that's not the case whatsoever.
 * Tell me, how does one establish consensus if the editors reverting you ignore the open concerns on the talk page for literally two months, refusing to engage in conversation that whole time, and most interestingly, the same people reappear simultaneously, an hour or two after the article is edited taking it in turns to revert, and immediately throwing around accusations of bad faith?
 * Kinda feels like there's a bit of WP:GAME going on tbh. ShabbyHoose (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no game. There is an ongoing controversy; once the RfD is done the page can be edited accordingly. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sounds like the best way forward. ShabbyHoose (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All the sources that fail News organizations should be removed. it says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Then re-write the article based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the concept coined by the Rand Corporation.
 * I find that News organizations makes sense. A reasonable person who wants to summarize a topic whether in social sciences, natural sciences or any other area of learning should use sources written by experts rather than opinion pieces by people who have no expert knowledge and are writing in order to persuade people why their side is right and the other isn't. TFD (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s completely reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sounds like the best way forward. ShabbyHoose (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All the sources that fail News organizations should be removed. it says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Then re-write the article based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the concept coined by the Rand Corporation.
 * I find that News organizations makes sense. A reasonable person who wants to summarize a topic whether in social sciences, natural sciences or any other area of learning should use sources written by experts rather than opinion pieces by people who have no expert knowledge and are writing in order to persuade people why their side is right and the other isn't. TFD (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s completely reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on NPOV of article and consensus of talk page, or lack thereof
There is a dispute over NPOV of the article and whether there's consensus on the talk page to keep it as it is. I apologise for the very vague summary, but I don't trust myself to summarise it in detail while remaining neutral. If anyone can be bothered reading through this short talk page, and a couple of edit records, to throw in their 2 cents, it would be highly appreciated. Thanks! Apologies if this isn't how the system works, this is my second attempt at getting it right. ShabbyHoose (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ShabbyHoose's edits are blatant POV, inserting various claims to undercut sources (like adding this about someone cited: '...described by various authors as "the stupidest person in New York City", "full of baloney" and "fabricating and drunk"') and inserting clumsy modifiers/asides to weaken or reframe statements. It's the really obvious kind of POV to catch. The kind of POV Shabby is alluding to is a much harder kind to deal with: where the term came from, the lack of independent development of the term, and the wording of how it's used. I remember coming across this term a few years ago and starting to look for sources for a Wikipedia article. I was disappointed that apart from the RAND report, a couple stories about it, and then some news stories applying it to Trump, there wasn't much real development or analysis of the concept apart from writing about it in the context of this or that recent news event. Like there wasn't much to say about it other than summarizing the RAND definition (which is all many of the news stories were doing) and adding a section about the application to Trump. There was a weak claim of notability, but I held off, and someone else created it. Now, in 2022, notability isn't a question -- the invasion of Ukraine attracted a bunch more stories about this concept -- but the other challenges remain. I don't know if there's much we can do about the first two issues I mentioned: where the term came from and most sources being applications rather than analyses/development. We have the sources we have, and as long as the concept is notable, we just summarize the sources effectively. What this RfC should focus on (if it's going to run at all -- productive RfCs don't usually start with a cryptic statement) is the language used (and possibly some WP:WEIGHT issues where large pieces are taken from RAND). By language I mean wording that presents this as a model that Putin and Trump made a choice to employ ("model has been adopted by...") rather than RAND's description of their tactics and the effects of those tactics, either as applied by RAND or adopted by journalists. Putin and Trump have been lying to the press and the public for literally decades before this term was coined, and in a variety of contexts. For Trump especially, it's been a staple in his self-promotion. When he's just trying to make himself look good, it's hard to call it a propaganda technique intended to weaken the public's trust in media, etc. As president, it may have gotten more sophisticated with advisors/propagandists around him, but it's still hard to say he "adopted" the model as much as the model describes the tactics he employed. That's a tougher distinction to work in. We can say Putin/Trump chronically lie to the media and disseminate false or misleading information as a core part of their communications, but did they "adopt the firehose of falsehood model"? it's tough... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * First take: I am not certain that either of those people have this terminology in their mental furniture. However they do seem to use the technique. I will take a closer look before commenting further. I know you currently have your hands full, but you may have thoughts about this.  you too, come to think of it. Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, much appreciated. Fair enough, I did start with the intent of simply going over the article and changing Wikipedia-voiced statements of fact into attributed statements of opinion, but I took it too far and went full POV.
 * About the Michiko Kakutani, those citations about her came directly from her own Wikipedia page. She's a reviewer of books, mostly novels and biographies, and even her statements in that field are considered highly controversial. I don't think she's a reliable source in the history of propaganda, despite her expertise in other fields. Although maybe it's best to simply not include that source, rather than include a claim by a Harry Potter reviewer that "Lenin invented the idea of scattergunning lies". I think we've been doing that for as long as humans have been able to speak. WP:COMMONSENSE
 * I apologise for going too far with the POV edits. As for potential consensus I'd be happy with simply attributing the statements to their sources as their own opinions, rather than using Wikipedia's voice to state them as objective fact. Re WP:NPOV:
 * "''Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sourcs, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - called by bot. Since this is a political topic related to ongoing, intense conflict between political and military rivals, this article would just benefit from a lot of attribution, something that's especially beneficial to readers, and that really gets under the skin of political POV pushers. So, when citing information to the RAND Corporation, an American think tank more or less founded out of and for the US military, yes, you should obviously attribute statements to RAND. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, when in doubt, attribute. This solves many problems. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Bannon stuff
Does still not belong in the lede because the lede is supposed to summarize the article and the article does not contain it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be adding it back. The latest episode of On the Media supports it, and it should never have been removed from the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it belongs in the lead, but I will be adding it to the body with professor Jay Rosen as the source. This admission by Bannon needs serious looking into, in regards to quotes, cites, and background. This is also not the first time Bannon has suggested that he's a fan of Russian propaganda strategies, with his famous quote about being a "Leninist" easy to source.  My question is about consistency: did Vladimir Lenin ever use some variation of the firehose of falsehood?  I will ask on the ref desk for a definitive answer. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite. ChatGPT says this:
 * No, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution and the first head of the Soviet Union, did not use any variation of the "firehose of falsehood." The concept of the "firehose of falsehood" refers to a propaganda technique that involves overwhelming the public with a continuous stream of false or misleading information to create confusion and make it difficult for the truth to prevail.
 * While Lenin was known for his use of propaganda to advance the goals of the Bolshevik Party, there is no evidence to suggest that he specifically employed the "firehose of falsehood" strategy. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did utilize various propaganda methods to shape public opinion and consolidate their power, including the establishment of newspapers, pamphlets, and posters to disseminate their message. However, the "firehose of falsehood" technique is a more contemporary concept that emerged in discussions about disinformation in the digital age and is not associated with Lenin's era.
 * Not a RS, but interesting, as it has access to all RS. If any RS had connected Lenin with use of the firehose technique, ChatGPT would have mentioned it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Valjean. I remember reading several years ago, in a tweet or an opinion piece, I don't recall which, that if Trump got into really hot water and was facing jail time for one of his crimes, someone somewhere would release a report saying that the government had disclosed the existence of UFOs to distract the public.  I'm pretty sure it was a joke, but it's hard to ignore the fact that just three days before Trump's most serious indictment to date, an indictment that has him facing serious prison time at worst, or the revocation of his 2024 political candidacy at best, the Debrief published a report claiming that the government had disclosed the existence of UFOs in its custody.  Not only that, the next few days, the claims got even crazier, with the so-called whistleblower saying they had captured alien bodies and recovered craft from the time of Mussolini, etc. To me, this is an example of the firehose of falsehood at work, in real time. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Draftify
Came from WP:NPOVN posting about this article. My take is to draftify the article. That shall automatically put pressure to improve to better standard. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is not an avenue for dispute resolution. If you want to help, you can help to resolve the dispute or just improve the article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is not a legitimate option. This is covered by WP:Preserve. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions, comments
1. Is the article about the use of the term or about the technique the term refers to? (See Trumpian "flood the zone") 2. I would prefer to see less reliance on the Rand Corporation, but the report does meet the criteria for a reliable source. This does not mean it isn't biased. 3. That "book reviewer" won a Pulitzer. The article does rely a great deal on her writing though, and more sources would improve the article. 4. For other sources, see the following articles, which almost certainly have their own problems but may help provide other points of view: Gerasimov doctrine and Russian information war against Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. Agreed on (1) as an important question. The "Firehose of falsehood" is Fear, uncertainty, and doubt but with a name coined by a US state-backed think tank and picked up on by journalists / allied politicians. If it's about the term, then the article cannot present it as a novel technique, as if the enemies of the USA are the only ones to have ever employed Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. There's nothing wrong with citing the definition and examples as long as it's clear that it's the opinion of a partisan source, and that currently isn't the case with the article as it stands. If it's about the technique more broadly, then it's a POV fork of Fear, uncertainty, and doubt that almost exclusively relies on partisan US and allied sources, and thus should be merged with Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Agreed on (2), absolutely nothing wrong with the inclusion of the RAND Corporation's statements, IMO, as long as they're clarified as RAND statements and not reported in Wikipedia's voice as immutable fact, as the article does currently. On (3), she won a Pulitzer Prize for reviewing books, mostly biographies and novels. Stephen Hawking may be a great source Black Hole, but not for Shropshire bulla. On (4), agreed on the need for new sources on a fairly obviously generalised and widely used propaganda technique per WP:COMMONSENSE, but the editors blocking any changes demand that any source must contain the phrase "firehose of falsehood"; if they describe the use of the technique, but don't use that phrase, then apparently it doesn't belong in the article.
 * IMO this constitutes a POV fork. We could find terms that the Russian or Chinese media use to describe universal propaganda techniques as practiced by the USA, and make an entire article about each one, but what purpose would that serve to be encyclopedic? We'd just clutter up the propaganda category with duplicate articles of the same technique with added POV spin. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well. I see some daylight between the two terms but they could perhaps reasonably be dealt with in a single article, along with "Flood the zone" and Gerasimov doctrine. The distinctions I see are that I have never seen FUD used outside of high-tech, and that term does not carry the same implication of high volume. Similarly, the Gerasimov doctrine includes the firehouse concept and more, but that terminology suffers from mis-naming, as Gerasimov did not invent the concept but merely described what he saw as Western tactics, which he thought the Russian Federation should also adopt. I think this can be discussed; mind you I have not looked at the article history. I suggest less heat all around. I will try to check back in to this talk page. IMHO, for whatever that may be worth, those with strong opinions about this should start by trying to agree on the answer to question 1. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that a source is associated with the US military doesn't make it unsuitable, btw. And the categories tend to support Shabby's contention, on the other hand. The US, the UK, and Italy could all reasonably be included imho. On the third hand we can't both-sides this either.
 * I suggest that Shabby make specific proposals of limited scope. One at a time Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. One specific proposal and one that I think would fix the main issue (as I see it anyway) would be to use Wikipedia's voice to report the statements of RAND and co. rather than stating them as facts. I don't know how making proposals works and if each edit needs to be approved one-at-a-time or we can just agree on a style and apply it to the whole article. And I don't know how to make votable proposals or if it's appropriate at this stage. But basically I suggest following this, from WP:NPOV:
 * "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sourcs, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
 * Taking the lead paragraph as an example / test case:
 * The  current version :
 * "The firehose of falsehood is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin."
 * The  proposed version :
 * "The firehose of falsehood is a term coined by the US state-backed military think-tank, RAND Corporation. RAND describe the firehose of falsehood as a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. RAND describe this an outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, and characterise the firehose of falsehood as a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin."
 * I understand after previous feedback that words like "claim" can be problematic and I've been directed towards MOS:CLAIM so I'm aware of the words to avoid.
 * I think this seems reasonable, it doesn't impose any value judgements on the statements, but it clarifies that they are statements and clarifies where they come from, which I think is important for accuracy and to avoid misleading readers who may think there's an academic, scholarly, or global consensus when there isn't one.
 * I'll leave it up for discussion, and I'll go away and read about how to make votable proposals while waiting for feedback. Thanks for the help. ShabbyHoose (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a concept developed by two senior social scientists, Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews, at the Rand Corporation, originally applied to Putin but later applied to Trump. It's been picked up in partisan political columns and also in a limited way in some academic writing. Therefore we have to base the concept on the original Rand Corporation article. But I would not say it was developed by the Rank Corporation.
 * We should treat it as a concept rather than an actual method because it has not gained general acceptance (yet) in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you need a formal RfC and would caution you that a lot of them are plagued by people who want to help but aren't willing to do a lot of reading. Snap judgements in groups aren't necessarily more accurate, and I have seen horrors enshrined as consensus because somebody ran an RfC. I would just start a new section titled "proposed change" or something, and start it with pretty much the above. Several people here seem willing to discuss if it's put in that format. If not, then that changes the nature of the issue. I really don't want to mediate this, but I've worked on overlapping articles and have a little familiarity. I will check in a few days and see how it's going. My current question is whether you have a source for RAND "coining" the term. You can't impute that from not being able to find an earlier source, yanno ;) If you are a new editor that doesn't quite know the procedures, I don't mind helping a bit with that, but this topic area is quite fraught and possibly not the best place to start. If you really really want to work on this one though, you are completely entitled, but you should be prepared. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I really appreciate that you took the time to give this advice. I'll put up a new section with the proposal. As for "coined by" that's a good point, I've had a look at some RS and have come up with this article from The Guardian already used as a reference (#18 currently) in the current article - "Ever heard of “firehosing”? It’s a relatively new term coined by Rand researchers Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews in 2016 to describe the propaganda tactics Russian authorities use to quell dissent and control the political landscape. The term has since been applied to the authoritarian behavior of leaders in the US, Brazil and the Philippines." - I'll mention this citation in the new section. Thanks again. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * without looking at the reference, I would say that "firehouse" and "firehosing" are close enough, for me at least. And the Guardian is generally considered a reliable source, with the usual caveats about context and the case-by-case application of the RS policy. Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the help, and I'll also keep in mind your advice about finding less contentious topics to start out with. ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Specific Edit Proposal for Lead Paragraph
For a concrete proposal to kick things off, I propose this change to the lead paragraph:

The current version:

"The firehose of falsehood is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. "

The proposed version:

"The firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a term coined by the US state-backed military think-tank, RAND Corporation . RAND describe firehosing as a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. RAND ascribe firehosing to an outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, and characterise the firehose of falsehood as a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin . The firehose technique has also been noted in government propaganda in the USA, Brazil and the Phillipines ."

Reasoning:

1) Per WP:NPOV:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sourcs, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

I think this change achieves that, while avoiding value judgements. It clarifies that they are statements and clarifies where they come from.

2) Again per WP:NPOV:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."

Thus, IMO, we don't want the header attributing this technique solely to the Russian government when other RS have attributed it to other governments too. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC) (N.B. the article in ref #2/3 in this proposal is already used in ref #18 in the current article version and is used here as a source for "firehosing" as an alternate term, its coining by RAND, and the use of the technique by other governments.)


 * further feedback: there is a policy whose details escape me about references in the lede. For purposes of this discussion however, I think it should stay in your text. You should also be prepared to support "US state-backed military think-tank" with sources, although I don't think that they should be in the actual first sentence, and perhaps this language shouldn't either. I'd suggest putting it in its own sentence right after the attribution. Otherwise a reasonable and well-detailed proposal that deserves a reasonable answer, imho. Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elinruby. References are allowed but not required, so long as the lead summarizes sourced information in the body. We should be able to describe the Rand Corporation in a more neutral tone. Maybe we could devote an entire sentence to it. TFD (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @TFD and @Elinruby, the feedback is very much appreciated. Based on your feedback I've come up with the below amended version:
 * I'm not sure if I'm meant to edit the original proposal or not, so I'll leave this here for now. I've changed RAND's description to one sourced from their website, and moved it from the lead sentence.
 * Thanks again! ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * rules feedback: that's a primary source but it probably falls under ABOUTSELF, and quoting them is a) more neutral and b) makes the US link more incontrovertible. Since you've had answers already, your best bet is to preserve the original version as you have done. Format quibble: references 2, 3, 4 and 6 seem to be identical. Not sure if you have learned to name references yet, but that is the way to go there. Otherwise the suspicious might think you are trying to make it look like you have more sources than you do.


 * Just noticed that the Guardian source is about antivaxxers. I don't think that's an issue -- firehose certainly describes what I've seen about that on social media -- but I'll want to examine what it says exactly when I have a little more time. Also, some people have attributed antivax misinformation to Russia, but you don't say otherwise, and as it stands the article is categorized as propaganda *in* Russia, which is indeed a problem imho. Thank you for your good listening. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I appreciate the patience and good advice. I'll read up on how to write references so as to avoid future confusion. I thought I could just copy-paste the reference's source code but there's seemingly more to it than that. ShabbyHoose (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pick one. The code for that is . The code for the others is . Once you get this down it will save you a lot of typing, also. If that's confusing maybe the Teahouse can help; dunno if you have encountered markup before. Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Quick question: How long should I leave this open before - assuming no issues - going ahead with the edit, closing this section, and proposing further edits? I really appreciate your taking the time to explain how things work. I've done some reading and found out about WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias and I think I'm going to make that my focus going forward, maybe focusing on some less contentious articles after this baptism of fire! ShabbyHoose (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NB. regarding the primary source, I'm thinking of changing
 * to
 * This way it'd be clear that it's from RAND itself rather than a secondary source. Not repeating the full paragraph because I've messed up the references and they'll keep duplicating underneath if I do so, and I'm not sure what the etiquette is with fixing them if I've already posted it. ShabbyHoose (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This way it'd be clear that it's from RAND itself rather than a secondary source. Not repeating the full paragraph because I've messed up the references and they'll keep duplicating underneath if I do so, and I'm not sure what the etiquette is with fixing them if I've already posted it. ShabbyHoose (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This way it'd be clear that it's from RAND itself rather than a secondary source. Not repeating the full paragraph because I've messed up the references and they'll keep duplicating underneath if I do so, and I'm not sure what the etiquette is with fixing them if I've already posted it. ShabbyHoose (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually am not sure if there is a formal policy about that. I suggest pinging everyone who said above that you were doing things wrong, then waiting until say Monday for responses. That is a bit longer than usual, but at least one of those editors lives in the US, which is going into a long-weekend mega holiday in which people often travel to visit family. I am explaining this because I have gotten the impression that you are not from there yourself ;) I pinged you in this message; if you go into edit mode on this  thread you'll be able to see the syntax to do that. If you are looking for other work, there are several lists at the Community Portal: you can find a link to that on the Main page Elinruby (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites @Hob Gadling @Valjean @Dronebogus Hi folks, any objections to the proposed lead above? The OP isn't the final suggested version, there are a couple of corrections in the replies. Thanks! ShabbyHoose (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Implementing further edits
I've made the edit discussed above, with some changes (imo minor), and would welcome any feedback. I'll also be making further edits. I'll deliberately make these edits one at a time. in small chunks, so that if there's any objections to a specific edit, we can resolve the issue without mass-reverting absolutely everything, re: WP:BABY. Thanks! ShabbyHoose (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * OK... I've gone through it and I think I've fixed the worst of the brazenly POV stuff, reducing the overall "This Wikipedia article was brought to you the US State Department!"-type vibe of the article.
 * Proper attribution, extra sources, alternative viewpoints, less of the use of Wikipedia's voice to present contested claims as fact, etc etc.
 * I've tried to avoid the mistakes from my previous attempt and haven't simply gone POV in the other direction.
 * For the more potentially-controversial edits, I've explained my reasoning in the edit summary.
 * Again: If there are issues with any edit or edits, I'd really appreciate it if those edits could be reverted individually, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater like last time. There are lots of minor edits to grammar and formatting and so on, and it would be a shame to lose all of them in any potential POV dispute.
 * Next on the to-do list is to expand the "Examples" section a little bit. The major issues were in the other sections so I mostly skipped over that section this time around. I'm also open to any ideas for further improvements. TIA! ShabbyHoose (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Article reads partially like political Propaganda
Especially the section as of „ The firehose of falsehood has been used in propaganda across the world, including by the governments …“ and then follows a list of right wing figures. Especially with Donald Trump we know now after the release of the „twitter files“ that his allegations of a rigged and stolen election in 20202 where not completely baseless.

Should be corrected/re-worded with a disclaimer. 2003:E3:5F48:892:30B0:5FD2:160A:E154 (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may know that, but the rest of us who cares about reliability of sources does not. Even if you had reliable sources for your claims, the next question would be if they are WP:DUE for this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would improve the article to show less certainty in the lead. Instead of saying, "The firehose of falsehood has been used in propaganda across the world," we could say that accusations have been made.
 * This technique incidentally is also used by centrists, although to a lesser extent and often in tandem with the Right. For example, Democrats joined with Republicans and mainstream media joined with Fox News Channel in pushing the false claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. Repeated claims that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence was widely disseminated but turned out to be baseless. Unfortunately, we don't yet have sources for that. TFD (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Repeated claims that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence was widely disseminated but turned out to be baseless".. Nope. To quote Mueller himself, "We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term". The Steele dossier is a distraction. The links between Trump associates and Russian officials is well known, established, and proven. We also know that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was an official Russian program to help elect Donald Trump. By way of analogy, I just finished reading the spy novel The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (as well as the previous two books in the series).  What so fascinating about this book, is that the central conceit involves a dossier put together to try and implicate the leader of an organization as a spy, in much the same way as the Steele dossier. In the novel, it turns out the claims in the dossier, while entirely true in reality, are compiled to have the opposite effect—to falsify the truth.  It’s interesting to me that it appears that this is what the Steele dossier actually did, just like in the 1963 novel.  In other words, it appears the purpose of the Steele dossier was to falsify the truth that Trump was working for the Russians.  It’s almost as if the Russians were paying homage to the novel. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Same issues as before
I've got hardly any time to spend editing Wikipedia and I am relatively new but coming back to editing after a few months away, it was disheartening to see that the end result of all this was a simple restoration of the same US-centric RAND Corporation-reliant propaganda piece that has no place in an encyclopedia. I am sure that everyone was acting in good faith, but an encyclopedia should not simply repeat opinions, as if they were fact, from major global superpowers and their think tanks, on what purports to be an article about international political propaganda. Yes, they're notable, no, that doesn't mean their opinions should be voiced in WP's voice. I will try to make incremental improvements in the article to restore the more neutral version, while taking into account the very legitimate points raised in the other edit summaries prior to the article's re-RANDification. ShabbyHoose (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So right now I'm drawing up a version that a) reverts Special:Diff/1132451253, because I think such a massive edit, binning all of the work done by multiple editors on the grounds of "returning to last stable version" (the "stable version" where it reads like a page on the RAND corportation website, and has caused multiple concerns by multiple editors across multiple years because RAND is a government propaganda outlet) with no talk page explanation, is out of order. I'm not going to elaborate on my thoughts on that one too much, because I'm assuming good faith and I'm assuming it's a simple error for other more innocent reasons, but it's certainly a little bit insulting to everybody who has contributed to the article since concerns were first acted upon. I think a little bit of "instability" (continued editing, without warring) is actually quite healthy for a constantly growing crowdsourced encyclopedia.
 * 1) Regarding edits like Special:Diff/1130342338, I think this is a bit of a cake and eat it situation. Can Wikipedians make entire article sections based on the content of a RAND Corporation webpage, or can they not? I don't see how policies like WP:SYNTH apply to this one specific thing - which makes the provenance much clearer for readers who don't know what RAND is - but does not apply to the rest of the stuff in the article that is also cited from the same website (worse, it's cited in WP's own voice rather than RAND's). I don't think such edits with vague policy references are appropriate so I will not retain these edits, although if I've misunderstood something here and it's OK to write an entire article using RAND as its main source, but not OK to point out what RAND are in their own words from the same source, then I'm open to suggestions for a better way of doing it rather than wholesale removal without discussion.
 * Regarding edits like Special:Diff/1130340241, if we can have an entire article based on the whims of a US think tank, I think quotes from Bangladesh Institute of Peace & Security Studies can be included without being called "original research". It's not original research, it was written by the aforementioned, who specifically used the term. It would be OR if they'd described a similar practice but didn't refer to the "Firehose of Falsehood", but they did refer to it by name. They have the same right to inclusion in a global encyclopedia just as much as RAND Corporation do. See WP:Systemic_Bias, are they considered of lower quality or an unreliable source because they are from Bangladesh and not one of the "smarter" countries like the USA who have a much more intelligent, unbiased take on international propaganda? I think the only reason there aren't a tsunami of Bangladeshis taking issue with this is because they and their perspective is clearly unwelcome on what claims to be a global encyclopedia, which is in fact incredibly US-centric, at best, Western-centric (not a lot of media from the millions of English speakers from non-Western countries seems "reliable" for some reason, and I think deep down we all know what that reason is). I really don't understand the reasoning why it should be removed, especially not as OR, because it certaintly isn't. And I don't see any other policy-based reason either, besides "oh no, this makes the US look bad" and "what's a Bangladesh?"... again, WP:Systemic_Bias
 * The above is part of multiple edits by the same user, who was removing stuff contradictory to the RAND narrative with vague references to policies that upon analysis do not even make sense as grounds for removal. WP:AGF becomes more and more difficult in such a situation, but I will assume that this is a simple misunderstanding and nothing more.
 * 2) Regarding other edits like Special:Diff/1128119065, these are totally legitimate so I'm working on restoring the previous NPOV version while preserving these edits, or at least preserving their intent. The link does say:
 * I think "peer-reviewed MacEwan University student journal" is better wording than "student-reviewed MacEwan University journal" because the former clarifies that it's a student journal with a peer-review process overseen by highly qualified section editors, whereas the latter does not clarify who the writers are and implies that it's just students reviewing unspecified writers, which may cause the reader to disregard a well-regarded scholarly source. It's worth noting that all peer-reviewed journals can publish papers by anybody if they are of sufficient quality, and it's worth noting that if an article in MUSe did not meet academic standards, the aforementioned highly qualified Section Editors would ensure it wasn't published. As I understand it from their documentation, they're essentially letting students do the grunt work, and then the "peers", the qualified Section Editors, give it the green light for publication if it meets MacEwan University's normal peer-review standards, the same standards applied to their other publications. Opinions welcomed on this, obviously, I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article here, and I'm willing to accept that my interpretation is incorrect. I just think the proposed wording gives the impression of a bunch of politically-excited undergrads writing all kinds of stuff and approving each other with no expert academic oversight, which isn't the case.
 * There are other such edits like this where I'll either just keep their original wording and add it to the more NPOV version of the article that existed before, or will keep the original wording of the edit.
 * Such as the absolutely valid points about the governments of Australia and Canada, easily solved while conserving the fact that the Firehose of Falsehood really was employed in these countries; "including by current and former governments and major political parties in..."
 * I am still new at all the formatting stuff, so figuring out all the ins and outs of restoring a previous version while preserving previous edits will take me a while, at which point I'm open to any, God forbid, comments...? Because if I didn't know better I'd say people with very little interest in engaging with discussions and arriving at consensus are still very, very interested in making sure that this article remains in a particular state, with a particular POV slant. Of course, I'm assuming good faith, so I assume it's a result of something I'm simply not aware of as a new editor. ShabbyHoose (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still new at all the formatting stuff, so figuring out all the ins and outs of restoring a previous version while preserving previous edits will take me a while, at which point I'm open to any, God forbid, comments...? Because if I didn't know better I'd say people with very little interest in engaging with discussions and arriving at consensus are still very, very interested in making sure that this article remains in a particular state, with a particular POV slant. Of course, I'm assuming good faith, so I assume it's a result of something I'm simply not aware of as a new editor. ShabbyHoose (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * RAND is a government propaganda outlet I see we're starting from the point of trying to discredit the organization, using language to make it similar to, oh I don't know, Russian propaganda? It's an organization with ties to the US government, yes, and it produces very widely cited research. When that research receives sufficient coverage in independent sources and when it's built upon in further research, we include it in Wikipedia. Trying to dismiss it as "propaganda" doesn't make me thrilled to read the rest of this wall of text.
 * is out of order - WP:BRD is not out of order. You made a bunch of bold edits, and  reverted them. to everybody who has contributed to the article there were scarcely any edits by others that were reverted, and I suspect their edits weren't the reason for the revert. I'd encourage Valjean to restore and material that others added, which was an improvement. This is a good reason why major changes to an article are better made piece by piece, so that good edits don't get swept up with the bad.
 * Regarding edits like Special:Diff/1130342338 - That material has nothing to do with SYNTH, so I don't know why they cited it. If anything, it's WP:UNDUE, but that's a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up here.
 * if we can have an entire article based on the whims of a US think tank - "Whims" again betrays a pretty clear POV, but yes, we have entire articles on the whims (and by whims, I mean research, products, ideas, books, fictional worlds, etc.) of individual people, companies, and organizations, yes.
 * Regarding this, it's more accurate to just say it fails verification. As far as I can tell, that source does not say "Simen Agnalt Nilsen describes U.S. state-run media outlets, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Marti, as following the Russian "firehose of falsehood" model". It mentions the firehose of falsehood, then mentions Radio Free Europe as another example of an influence operation, not another example of the firehose of falsehood. It's not OR, it's straight up misrepresenting sources.
 * "oh no, this makes the US look bad" and "what's a Bangladesh?"... again, WP:Systemic_Bias - not relevant to anything.
 * I'm only part way through this long post above, but will stop here. If you would like to make changes to the article you can of course do so, but I fully appreciate the frustration of spending time working on something just to have someone undo it all in a flash. It feels awful - I've been there. What I'd recommend is making a single change that might be controversial, justify it, and see if there's pushback before continuing. As my responses above might indicate though, I don't have a lot of faith that you're coming to this for anything other than pushing your own POV, but I'm happy to be wrong. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RAND Corporation's own page describes it as being founded by Douglas Aircraft Company (who would later merge into Boeing) and a former U.S. Air Force/Army general with the general backing and support of the U.S. Department of War . If Wikipedia policy says you cannot describe RAND's output as American State-Backed Propaganda, you can describe NO ORGANIZATION, from whatever "Asiatic Horde" you've been directed to despise, as propaganda of any kind. But, of course, it's the people who have been trying for months to make this page not just be repetition as fact of that same U.S. propaganda who have an unjustified POV slant that makes our edits unviable, right? Fucking pathetic. OwlbearArmchair (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Attributed the edit to the wrong username that starts with V, sorry. Fixed now. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course I have a POV, that is, opinions on stuff. I'm sure you do too. I thought the talk pages is where we can be honest about the POVs we personally hold instead of pretending that we are emotionless robots with no opinions about anything. I'll freely admit to a political POV. I don't think a single nation's propaganda should be written in the voice of an encyclopedia, full stop. That's my POV. The neutrality belongs in the article, doesn't it? So my POV, like that of the other involved editors, and maybe yourself (or are you completely objective about everything?) is neither here nor there. What we're trying to do is achieve NPOV in the article itself.
 * The talk page here isn't the place to discuss things like whether or not RAND is a US government propaganda outlet, but it is telling that although a) it's obvious to everyone outside the USA who know who RAND are, and although b) it's against every policy under the sun, the first stop in this conversation is to go on the offensive because somebody outside the USA has a different worldview. And, out of order in common parlance in other parts of the Anglosphere just means unjustified and unhelpful, which it was. Global encyclopedia?. Barely a grasp on the rest of the Anglosphere, let alone the rest of the world. Still assuming good faith here, just perhaps a lack of knowledge of other countries.
 * I'm not making that many changes, actually I'm re-reverting a dubious revert to a previous, clearly POV version, and the changes I've made consist of, I think, two sentences, which actually were worse for my personal POV, and that I outlined on the talk page (something maybe others could do). The rest is simply restoring a version that was clearly accepted by the community for weeks with multiple edits and changes, changes that I took into account in my restoration of the previous version, hence the two changed sentences (that is to accomodate the wishes of other editors with differing POVs, not my own). I simply reverted to another version that multiple other editors considered stable for weeks, because I don't see "reverting to previous stable version" with no further explanation as a legitimate reason for binning everything that has been discussed and worked on by multiple editors, not just myself.
 * There was no "edit warring" by myself any more than there was by Valjean and others, and the edit history clearly demonstrates that. I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of stuff I didn't do, unless we're stretching the definition, in which case there are several other editors who you should be scolding.
 * Aaaand it has been reverted by the same person who, before, was incapable of sustaining a discussion on the talk page but still acts like a WP admin, as if their decisions are final and uncontestable. Maybe now that there is a specific proposed version, and there is the original allegedly "stable" version, we could ask the community which is more NPOV? It's a clear question, isn't it?
 * Can you see why it's impossible for your average Joe to get involved in editing Wikipedia if they have a political opinion and everything the[edit: they do] is jumped on within minutes in this way? ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And of course, we don't want to give undue weight to the Bangladeshis by writing a single sentence about a Bangladeshi think tank in an entire article about a term literally invented by a US think tank. Not even trying to hide the WP:Systemic bias ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * pretending that we are emotionless robots with no opinions - To clarify, when I say I'm concerned about your POV, I don't mean "I'm concerned that you have an opinion". What I mean is "it sure seems like you intend on editing the article to fit your POV, contrary to WP:NPOV".
 * clearly POV version - If you feel you're being stonewalled here, there's WP:NPOVN, but I suspect you won't find the outcome you're looking for. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you that my personal views are far more POV than my proposed article version, because I have no interest in pretending to be an automaton that doesn't have opinions on stuff. But if you look at the proposed changes, they're actually adding more neutrality; adding more example countries, adding RS that contradict RAND's narrative, and making sure that RAND's opinions are presented as RAND's opinions rather than the opinions of Wikipedia.
 * If you want my real views on the article, it's literally just an article about propaganda, and shouldn't even exist. The only purpose it serves is to give examples of propaganda exclusive to enemies of the USA. The "firehose of falsehood" is known as propaganda by most people, and the article literally only served to have a jab at those the RAND corporation didn't like.
 * Hence my attempt at neutrality, which seemed, at the time, accepted by multiple editors for multiple weeks, and I even went to the effort of addressing their concerns in my edit.
 * I added examples of the same technique being used, as cited by reliable sources using the term "firehose of falsehood", of the same thing happening in countries that are not US enemies. I also changed Wikipedia's voice to quoting RAND as opposed to stating their opinions as fact.
 * I assure you my POV on the matter far surpasses any of that, and I don't see why the aforementioned changes are unreasonable. Maybe if people engaged in the talk page instead of randomly citing policies that make no sense in edit summaries, we might get somewhere productive.
 * I make no apologies for having a POV, and anybody who claims not to have a POV should be treated with the utmost suspicion IMO. Of course, good faith suspicion. I'm sure that the pretence of having no POV is uninentional without any ulterior motives present. ShabbyHoose (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Your many disruptive edits and edit warring were reverted by many editors, so accept that you do not have a consensus for your changes. If you want to have success, propose very small changes on this talk page in their own threads and get a consensus. We must place these special restrictions on your editing. We really need you to do this as your whole approach and POV is so dubious that we can't trust you to edit in an NPOV manner. If you don't do this, then we'll have to get you topic banned completely. That will include your own userspace, IOW you won't be allowed to even mention it anywhere at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Aaaand it has been reverted by the same person who, before, was incapable of sustaining a discussion on the talk page but still acts like a WP admin, as if their decisions are final and uncontestable. Maybe now that there is a specific proposed version, and there is the original allegedly "stable" version, we could ask the community which is more NPOV? It's a clear question, isn't it? ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For further context, this is the editor who engaged in edit warring then added an edit war warning to my userspace, after they'd made more reverts than I had. Everything available for scrutiny in the edit history. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And by "many editors" they mean, well, if you've ever tried to edit the pro-US slant in certain articles, you probably recognise the names, as that was what several people told me at the time. WP:AGF has clearly gone out the window, so I'm not going to tolerate straight up personal attacks without mentioning that. ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what? I've followed WP:BRD, and you've immediately gotten stuck in with personal attacks instead of *actually discussing the specific changes to the article*. Please have a think about your own behaviour before replying. WP:AGF. Everyone has a POV. Anyone who claims not to is lying. Thanks. ShabbyHoose (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC between two proposed article versions regarding NPOV
Which of the two article versions do you conider more NPOV from a global (non-US-centric) perspective? Special:Diff/1155967719 or Special:Diff/1132451253?

[Edit: these are additional questions not compulsory to the RFC]

Could the two be combined into something that is more NPOV than either?

Where do you see the NPOV issues in the two versions? ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: My understanding is that a Request for Comment is to ask a single question, not three significantly different questions.  I'm not sure this Request is properly framed? (But, admit I'm not very experienced in the area, so will defer to editors who are more experienced with RfCs.)  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have made it clearer in an edit that the other two questions are more things that I'd appreciate input on, but the RfC is about the two diffs and which is more NPOV. ShabbyHoose (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There's not "NPOV from a global perspective" and "NPOV from a US-centric perspective". NPOV is just whether we appropriately summarize the available sources. This RfC will inevitably be a train wreck. Propose specific changes to the article without walls of text, and yes, I think there are a number of edits. I see that you've doubled down on your misrepresentation of this source, trying to reframe it as somehow systemic bias against Bangladesh instead of pointing out that it does not say what you say it does. You're past POV-pushing and getting into disruptive editing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you're saying that this *does not* implicate the USA as well as Russia in the firehose of falsehood technique? ShabbyHoose PS. inb4 Bangladeshi English therefore unreliable (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I apologise for replying to myself but I'm still newish and not completely sure how much editing to an original comment is allowed/frowned upon. NPOV and pointing out the importance of a global view and a non-US-centric perspective... I don't see why that has to be a train wreck, it's pretty clear to anyone who reads the two diffs IMO. I trust other Wikipedians to know exactly what I meant by that. If you don't trust them to, fair enough. ShabbyHoose (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * you're saying that this *does not* implicate the USA as well as Russia in the firehose of falsehood technique - Right. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Following up on Rhododendrites’s recent edit to the article, I would suggest that there should be a discussion of Trump in the main part of the article, with those cites. (I restored them a couple of months ago when an IP editor deleted them as « fake news » or some such phrase.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think that the other examples from the second para of the December version should be re-included. My recollection from back in December was that those examples were backed up by reliable sources. Not sure why they were deleted? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the Bangladesh article, I agree with Rhododentrites’s understanding of it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz if that's the prevailing view then I'm happy to concede that, and I apologise to Rhododentrite for implying that the issue was because of it being Bangladeshii rather than its content. I still read it as implicating both but I can see how others might consider it OR/synthesis to read it that way. I still of course think that the other changes to the article as a wholee are justified, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to drop the Bangladeshi source at least, as it's unclear if they are delineating or conflating the two tactics. Better to err on the side of caution. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Agreed, I also thought them well-sourced and it seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bsthwater. Obviously I have my ideas for why they were all removed, but for the sake of civility let's assume it was just an oversight. I hope they can be included in whatever outcome of the RfC. I personally felt that those examples were very important in demonstrsting it's a worldwide issue and not unique to any one government. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz definitely agree with this, it's well-sourced and a perfect example of the Firehose in action. If I left it out of the edit I made, that was my mistake, sorry! ShabbyHoose (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are restored (and I will go back and check the cites to make sure my recollection is correct), I would suggest that the sentence from the December article needs to be altered, because it lumped governments, individuals in government, and political parties (two of which were not in power) all together. I think there is a hierarchy of concern between (a) government policy;  (b) policy of an individual officer-holder that is not necessarily government-wide;  and (c) policy of a political party, that is not in government.  There are different levels of concern there, and the discussion should make that clear, rather than lumping them all together. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Fair point. I'm on my phone atm but I will take a stab.at a rephrased version when I'm back at a PC one that clearly delineates the different types of actors. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites Fair enough, as it also seems to be the view of another contributor I'll concede that although that's not how I personally read it, and I apologise for the insinuation that you rejected it for being Bangladeshi and not for its content. Would you agree with a compromise of removing the Bangladeshi psrt, rewriting the second paragraph to more clearly delineate the different types of actors involved? I still think the vast majorty of changes have merit. I don't know how to link on mobile but WP:BABY. If there are other edits that you take issue with then I'm happy to discuss them. ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're asking by rewriting the second paragraph to more clearly delineate the different types of actors involved. Are you talking about the material that follows the Bangladeshi citation in this version? If so, I started to look at the very next statement (Andi Sweet..., and again it fails verification. The article it cites (putting aside, for a moment, whether a "student ejournal" is a reliable source), it doesn't even mention the subject of this article (unless my "find" feature isn't working). It uses the word "firehose", but it's complete WP:OR to say they're talking about the firehose of falsehood. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites I'm on mobile and I'm out for the night so it's difficult to refer to precise details with quotes/links, but I'll get back to you soon. Thanks for engaging. The main issue here imo has been the rapid reverts and orders to take it to the talk page, followed by no engagement on the talk page, making things difficult.Appreciste it ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the last paragraph from the revision dated 07:30, December 18, 2022. I've added my comments to the refs.  It seems to me that this information should be included in the article, since it appears to be supported by the refs (except where I've noted I do not have access to a particular ref due to paywall, or foreign language).  I would add the last bit which I've put in italics, and is dealt with in detail in the December 18 version, relating to political parties in Canada and Australia:
 * The firehose of falsehood has been used in propaganda across the world, including by the governments of the United States, [paywalled] Russia, and Brazil, [can't read Portugese] former Filipino president Rodrigo Duterte, Indonesian presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto, former U.S. president Donald Trump,    the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, , the anti-vaccine movement, and political parties in Australia and Canada.
 * The firehose of falsehood has been used in propaganda across the world, including by the governments of the United States, [paywalled] Russia, and Brazil, [can't read Portugese] former Filipino president Rodrigo Duterte, Indonesian presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto, former U.S. president Donald Trump,    the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, , the anti-vaccine movement, and political parties in Australia and Canada.


 * I've taken another look at the Sweet article, and I think it is talking about the same phenomenon. It only has one reference to "firehose" in the sense used here, but the patterns it describes fits with the general theme of this article, in my opinion.  But open to discussion.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * but the patterns it describes fits with the general theme of this article, in my opinion I don't necessarily disagree, but this would be WP:OR. If "firehose of falsehood" were part of a common lexicon such that anyone would agree what does and does not qualify, there might be an argument to search for sources that meet the description. However, it's kind of jargony. Just like we wouldn't take the definition of vaporwave and search out examples to include in the article, even if no source connects them explicitly to "vaporwave", so too we shouldn't try to search for instances we interpret as being a "firehose of falsehood" if they don't use that term. At the most basic, a firehose was a common metaphor long before it appeared in this usage.
 * As for the rest, the only three listed that aren't mentioned in the article are Duterte (not supported by the citation), the UK (I wish the sourcing were a little more direct, but it might merit inclusion; it seems like this is another example of Russian use of the technique rather than some other country/politician, though), and Brazil/Bolsonaro (which could be included). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I very much advise against an RfC, as the average editor who responds to them wants to help but isn't willing, usually, to even read the article. As long as discussion is happening between people who are listening to one another it would be better to proceed that way, one item at a time. who has given some thought to this concept and may care to comment. I will try to look in again shortly. Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think recent edits by Rhododendrites and others are fine. The RfC is malformed and probably not needed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Special:Diff/1155967719 is better from an NPOV perspective Jack4576 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, so perhaps you could share your thoughts as to specifically why, and are you comparing it to the outdated version linked from the top or the current version? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential candidate for merge with "The Big Lie"
I read through the article and it seems like a lot of the topics covered here are also covered by "The Big Lie" article. The technique itself is something I have heard about for a long time and does not seem to he particularly novel or unique. I think folks may have gotten confused and assumed "The big lie" is only about one huge lie and not a large volume of lies that ultimately support the one "Big lie". Note the "Subsequent use" section in "The big lie" covers most of the events covered here.

Is there any need for this to be a separate article from and "The Big Lie" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie 81.39.141.80 (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this. A big lie typically has a particular untruth or misrepresentation it intends to reinforce. Firehose of falsehood undermines trust in information more broadly. There may be a particular aim behind it, but it's not a structure erected in support of a particular lie -- it's lots of lies about everything. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose. There are clear connections between the two, but the firehose concept strikes me as a different propaganda technique. The firehose approach could include sending out contradictory messages, but so long as they undermine trust, that is the goal. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot combine them unless a source says they are the same thing. TFD (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)