Talk:Propaganda/Archive 2

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


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

Why is this an example of propaganda?:  In July of 2006 in responce to the outcry in much of the US and EU media of event in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict the World Union of Jewish Students started giving out a piece of freeware called the Megaphone desktop tool. This was a P2P software program that is designed to notify the user of internet polls and chats on the issue on notable news and opinion websites. This is an example of an opinion leader technique and is unusual in the fact that this is a NGO not a government and a unique implimentation of P2P. Which reliable, expert sources have described this as "propaganda"? Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


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

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

I've retained the relevant information, removed the stuff that has nothing to do with propaganda, and made explicit your reasoning for including it. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edit is cool with me.Hypnosadist 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me as well


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * By the way The Washington Times points out that "The important point here is that Mr. Hajj was doctoring his work for propaganda purposes." LA Weekly describes the photos as "one more victory in Hezbollah’s propaganda war against Israel and the U.S.". According to The Boston Herald, "it would appear that Hezbollah, or worse, Lebanese rescue workers, decided the best use of a dead child was to be dragged around for propaganda purposes." As has been pointed out by the Jewish Virtual Library in regards to this, "This incident should make editors and viewers alike suspicious of images being disseminated by freelance Arab photographers and videographers who are engaging in propaganda rather than photo-journalism." Now, what were you saying about there being "no evidence that the photo incident was "propaganda"? Oh, and there were quite a few "photo incidents". Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well i think the photo incidents and the Al-Manar section i wrote should be put in the article.Hypnosadist 09:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS i added a line to say who was talking about "tide of pro-Arab propaganda".Hypnosadist 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PPS Jayjg go to the CAIR talk page and have a look at the photos they have faked for propaganda reasons.Hypnosadist 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand the concept, but I don't see how that Megaphone software is relevant in this article. Perhaps it belongs to Activism, together with myriad of other activism efforts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The concept is quite simple, poeple with Megaphone change the outcome of Votes (in favour of Isreal) on Popular TV/Media outlets. This is an opinion leader technique, where undecided people will most often go for the side that is most popular (ie winning the TV votes). Thus the idea is to nudge public opinion in favour of Isreal through this software. Also given that a notable computer programmer(check out talk on megaphone software) could not find where they are hosted in the world puts them out of the activist league.Hypnosadist 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see; so in fact, you included the Megaphone material not (as you claimed) because it was a response to propaganda, but rather because you have used original research to decide that it is a significant example of propaganda - so significant that it needs to be mentioned in this brief overview of historical propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was a response to propaganda, thats what the Authors of the program say, and you believed them! And i used that belief to my advantage. And it really is a responce to a long term propaganda campain by NGO's and things like Al-Manar, but the section on Al-manar that i deliberately paired with it (for pov and completeness reasons) got taken out. But it still is propaganda and notable, you where more than happy before, not one word has and now you are angry because you find that you have been manipulated, thats propaganda! You bought the propaganda used to manipulate loyal jews to help their people by using this program, as oposed to the opinion leader technique used to manipulate the people reading the votes. I am a bit sorry about leading you up the garden path.Hypnosadist 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, ok; in any event, your novel narrative that this is a significant example of propaganda will have to be sourced. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverting to hyperlinks of wikipedia policies LOL, you supported the exact wording before, its just as notable now.Hypnosadist 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * The Times article is a single source, and it only talks about Arab propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the most important quote is "Amir Gissin, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director, said: The internet’s become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions.". This is still just as notable as before and youve just changed your mind on POV grounds. With the addition of the photo stuff as evidence of the "tide of pro-Arab propaganda" this will look much more balanced.Hypnosadist 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, a public relations director for an Israeli ministry said that? So what? Where is the source that says this is "propaganda", or notable? As for me, I haven't changed my mind about its notability - it was always non-notable, and including it here was, in fact, part of a propaganda effort. You, however, have changed your story; before you said "it is not claimed this IS propaganda", now you're insisting it is propaganda after all. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Chomsky is not even close to being a Marxist! He has been an ardent and public critic of Marx, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and Communism in general since the 1950s. Even putting aside that huge mistake, the point of this comment is difficult to understand. What is your point? User: 75.72.175.111 credit added by Anarchangel (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Isn't the 70 million dead from Chairman Mao, 26 million dead from Stalin, 3 million from Pol Pot and hundreds of thousands from Castro, 3 thousand from Pinochet and others deaths that should be counted. That is over 100 million dead from the practice of a certain ideology. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. User Beansac credit added by Anarchangel (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Added credits to these statements, without which it appears as though I wrote one of them. Was new to Wiki at the time, can't even remember why I wrote what I did. Perhaps I was commenting on the fact that the word practitioners was a weasel around the fact that these ideologies and the practices of their adherents are markedly separate. Anarchangel (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Thanks to both for having replied and for the support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thanks for the Hints SafeLibrarians.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

unreferenced FA
The article has sections tagged as unreferenced and yet this is supposed to be a featured article. Can someone explain what's going on and should the FA status be scrapped for this article? If not the tags ought to go if it's properly referenced i.e. Idleguy 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its status as an FA needs to be examined or revoked by the appropriate person(s), IMHO. Inline citations are now the norm and this article is severely lacking in them.  --ElKevbo 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the tags the article bears says “Propaganda appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2004.” Has any policy changed since then? 212.151.233.222 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Given enough time, should this be listed for delisting from FA status soon if no inline citations are added? Idleguy 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. --ElKevbo 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


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

Election surprise
Greetings all. I just wrote the page Election surprise, and was wondering if some of you could pop in, and tweak the page up some. It seems like it works symbiotically with propoganda. I'm looking for maybe: Thanks! samwaltz 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * a bit more clarification,
 * more incidents worldwide which would qualify as election surprises
 * categories

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * In small cleanup, I clarified this line: is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Citation 6 - Chomsky on Filters
The statement: "After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chomsky stated that the new filter replacing communism would be terrorism and Islam." is cited to http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomforumacrh.htm – but text searches for "Muslim", "Filter", "Islam", "Terrorist", and "Terrorism" on that page show nothing that seems relevant. What precisely did Chomsky say, and when did he say it? - RedWordSmith 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maoist China
Maoist China definitely deserves a section here, a lot of the posters show Mao as larger than life, helping to encourage the "cult of personality around him.
 * do it then. Ecth (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining Propaganda
This is actually very tricky to do! Are we going for a broad or narrow definition on this one? I personally believe that Propaganda is: a message or suggestion communicated through a medium, by an individual or organisation, designed to have an impact upon the beliefs or mood of the observer. A very broad definition I admit, but the only one I've personally been able to fit to the concept. Propaganda is a pejorative term in the English language (something that I believe should be strongly emphasised in the opening para on an English language article on it!) but we are, in my view subjected to it all the time, election campaigns anyone? Opinion, rather than reportage, in the press? I think any decent historian on the matter would agree with me that it is not only produced by the state or incumbent government, which is what the article and this talk page seems to focus upon. Either way, I'm actually going to narrow the article in the meantime by getting rid of much of the 'buzz-wordy' opening paragraph, hope everyone else finds that OK. Jezze 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Still not entirely happy but I think the definition is better than the previous one. Will try to do other alterations as soon as possible, eg. the term 'propaganda' and its connotations become negative in English speaking countries after the First World War not the Second Jezze 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One Final Note
This article really is a mess....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I went ahead and changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

Redundancy
At least the paragraph about Spanish and Portuguses meanings of "propaganda" is repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

What it means to be epistemically defective
This section should be referenced.

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

This is not an encyclopedic voice... who is "some" in "as some do"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

Former featured article
That's what they want you to think. This has been a message from your local friendly butcher shop. BEEEEEEEEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

Children.
Here's a gallery full of comic book propaganda, nagging little boys to buy war bonds (as if they even could) with super heroes beating the snot out of politically incorect drawn Asians (as if the artists had never layed eyes on a real Japanese man before). [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

Novel as unintentional US propaganda?

 * The Novel Johnny Tremain featuring a young colonial adult who turns from his European/aristocratic heritage to embrace Republic/American Independence-possible unintentional pro-US propaganda or just a good story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk • contribs) 08:20, September 20, 2008

Pro-American/Pro-Ally Bias
Right at the top of the page, there's Nazi Propaganda and there's Russian Propaganda. This whole page seems biased against Axis powers, when, at least the US, used as much proganda as the USSR or Nazi-Germany. Could someone please do a piece on American Propaganda during the wars, maybe pro-American propaganda in general. The country is ridiculously guilty of it(the PATRIOT Act, for example). I came here looking for the name of the girl they used on the poster in WWII to support women in the work-place, only to find there's no real mention of federal propaganda in America at all.
 * It struck me that theres an abundance of Nazi/Korean/Russian propaganda and just a single poster of propaganda from the USA, when its well estabilished that the USA used at the very least as much propaganda as the powers described. This comes to me as a highly biased page.LtDoc (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps I should add a reference to the Tanaka Memorial, as it is fairly widely believed to have been a U.S. forgery, or is it too disputable? Ecth (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about 'propaganda' is that it should be a lie, or at least a half lie. You Chomskyite fruitcakes at Commopedia do not seem to understand, or care, that you would be the first up against the wall. Believe it or not, Russia was only an Axis power for 18 months, then she was an Ally, considerably longer than the USA. But when USA newsreels said one would be free to walk down the street if the Allies won the war, they were not bullshitting, unlike the Nazis or the Soviets. That is the difference between Propaganda and Truth. One can do horrible things with Truth, but one cannot turn it into a lie. It takes an academic to do that.

DylanThomas (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice job, you've succeeded in eliminating the bias... and in reversing it. How could it not be blatantly obvious that the choice of images on this page constitute extremely heavy POV? If I didn't know anything about this subject, and I stumbled on this page, I would assume right off the bat that propaganda was born out of, or at least mostly proliferated in, the U.S. and western Europe. How could anyone in their right mind who was aiming to construct a NPOV article be responsible for choosing and arranging these images? It's incomprehensible. I don't know about you, but when I google 'propaganda', this page is the first link I see. This community has a responsibility to ensure that articles are consistent with the standards of an encyclopedia. Right now, this article appears more like a piece of propaganda. Now, isn't that ironic? Kellenwright (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Yeah, me and the anti-vandal bots keep "inserting" this. Please acknowledge that I restored this material, after unexplained blanking, and did not insert it.
 * Your contention that WP:NOR forbids inclusion of material unless sources document that it's a significant example of the subject matter appears to be unsupported by actually reading WP:NOR. Perhaps there's a stronger case under WP:NPOV, if you were to argue that this section is overly long for the subject matter. But this has nothing to do with original research and unverified claims.
 * I am concerned that, if every user with a POV to push began applying such overly rigorous standards to sections they didn't like, virtually every section of wikipedia would have multiple warning boxes.
 * Eleland 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who, besides you, says this is a significant incident of "Propaganda"? That is the topic of the article. I will remind you that, among other things, forbidden Original Research "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Which reliable source cites this as an important example of "propaganda"? Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would imagine that whoever originally inserted this material into the article thought so. And it is not clear to me what "particular case favored by the editor" is being made here. As I said in my original comment, your reading of WP:NOR would subject every single section, if not every single sentence, in the 'pedia to be tagged or removed unless a citation can be found specifically and explicitly stating its notability with respect to the subject matter.
 * Are you arguing that the inclusion of any material whatsoever is an implicit "analysis or synthesis"? While intriguing, your argument appears to be unsupported by published policy.
 * Eleland 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eleland, I am dealing with this one section in this one article; I will not be led down other rabbit holes. The topic of this article is Propaganda. Which source states that this incident is an example of "propaganda"? And please don't invent straw man arguments for me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the material should be deleted. It should probably be moved to the "Propaganda in the US" article and properly sourced. Generally this article has far too many "examples" of a huge field (often introduced for POV reasons) and not enough analysis from notable works (Ellul, Bernays, etc) of what Propaganda is and isn't (clearly a problematic question). So can I suggest it gets either moved to the sub-article or left in until somebody (perhaps me) gets round to cleaning up this whole page? Having said all which, Jayjg I disagree with you, this is clearly an example of Propaganda in my opinion. I just don't think it belongs in the main Propaganda article. SociableLiberal 05:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "this is clearly an example of Propaganda in my opinion". There you have it. Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't matter; what matters are the views of reliable sources. Which reliable source has described this as "propaganda"? I'll wait for proper sourcing for one more day. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you misunderstand me (see straw man). This is obviously Propaganda as defined by e.g. Ellul but not as defined by e.g. Bernays. I tend to prefer Ellul's definition (which is far more up to date (1962), and includes the propaganda of e.g. Mao, much of which is excluded by Bernays' 1928 definition) so in my opinion (i.e. taking the notable definition I prefer) it's Propaganda. If you say this isn't propaganda, I think you'd end up saying the US doesn't use propaganda at all except in Psyops and maybe Public Diplomacy, which is a view I think most (citable) scholars on the topic would not share. The problem is that the article doesn't deal properly with the theoretical question of what is and isn't Propaganda, leading to interminable unproductive discussion on this page about NPOV etc whenever there's a disputed example (like this one). Hence my suggestion.
 * I can source my definitions of propaganda (including the ones I disagree with), and plan to include them in the article as soon as I have time to write them up properly. Can you source the definition of Propaganda that leads you to conclude that this isn't it? SociableLiberal 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a footnote: the definition at the top of the article gives: deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist - are you saying this was not deliberate, not systematic, not an attempt to shape perceptions, or not intended to further the aims of the person who sent the letters? As far as I understand it seems to be clearly (objectively) all of those things. SociableLiberal 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to fundamentally misunderstand WP:NOR, and I'm not sure how I can make you understand it. Do Ellul and Bernays talk about these letters, and does, for example, Ellul, say they are an example of "propaganda"? The issue is not with definitions of propaganda, the issue is that you must find a reliable source that describes these letters as propaganda. What you have done here is "introduced an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." If you want to prove these letters are an example of propaganda, you can't do it by appealing to your own understanding of various definitions of propaganda - instead, you must provide a reliable source that describes these letters as propaganda. Is that clear? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, ok, I concede the point: Whether or not it objectively fits the definition of propaganda, it's only an interesting example if a source uses it as one, and it's not for editors to cherry-pick the field. I don't actually favour any viewpoint that might be supported by including this as propaganda (except a preference for the broader definitions that would implicitly include it), but I do concede that I hadn't read WP:NOR carefully enough. I'll take it out now myself. Thank you for not biting me! :-) SociableLiberal 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eleland did you read the above before reinstating the section under discussion? Please respond if you disagree with the thrust of the discussion as it appears here. There's lots in this article that doesn't fit NOR as discussed above, but that doesn't mean it's ok to make it worse by adding more, no matter how nicely edited. What's your source? Cheers, SociableLiberal 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

World War 2 Cartoon Shorts...
I came across an article (Armed Forces Shorts) that I can't figure out how to incorporate into your article and I don't wish to compromise the work that is there. It's a little more than a stub, but I'm sure it'll get expanded soon. --Hourick 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Progaganda - Cult-feminism
Modern Progaganda - Cult-feminism

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

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

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

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

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

Ehhhhh?
Did someone get rid of the disambiguation? I came looking for "Propaganda" the book. How the hell else am I gonna get there? Plaese would somebody add that back? Jiminezwaldorf 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it back I don't know why it had been replaced by a link to one specific use, probably fanboys. Jackaranga 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Restoration
Restoring text deleted without summary or discussion on 12:51, 21 August 2007 by 85.226.209.186. Without it, the following text makes no sense. diff of original deletion. Left a citation (A selection of Chomsky's posts from the ChomskyChat Forum) out of the restoration; beyond that, have no opinion either way about the citation's inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Clients are Enforcing Government Approved Censorship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are all sides of the Balkans conflict guilty of spreading propaganda. Please find an example of non-Serb propaganda during the wars.I'll find you tons of examples of Serbian nationalist hate propaganda.What you're doing is called relativism.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how one turn an article on propaganda into propaganda. It's quite a feat. The sad fact is that the grinding propaganda machine was anti-Yugoslav from day one of the Yugoslav tragedy - including the propaganda of Serbian nationalistic movements in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia, as well as the vehement Croatian and Bosniak leadership propaganda, and, of course, the anti-Yugoslav propaganda of most major media and leaderships in the West. Only a handful European and a few non-European countries had a fairly impartial and balanced view on the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.3.19 (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg
The image Image:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Tomorrows Pioneers Assoud.JPG
 * Image:Spitfire2xs.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Test


 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.158 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Types of Propaganda"
Seems to me that this section is in and of itself propaganda, seeing as many of the "types" listed have no opposing counterparts (am I supposed to seriously believe that *only* logging opponents use propaganda,and pro-loggers do not? yes? then why are trees still being cut down?), and it appears to be written from a highly biased perspective when the people the section's author wanted to be perceived as using propaganda are taken as a whole. I honestly have very little idea how Wikipedia works, but that sections screams "DELETE ME" to me. 72.219.233.42 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The list has been removed. Given that any group with a viewpoint they wish to advance could potentially be listed as generating propaganda, there is no was to no way a list such as this could satisfy Neutral point of view without violating Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

only 6.6m people in german reich at 1933?
The Jews are aliens in Germany—in 1933 there were 6,606,000 inhabitants in the German Reich, of whom 499,682 were Jews. What is the per cent of aliens?[22]

To me this statement seems completely wrong, from what i've gathered the population in the German Reich is far greater than 6.6m, unfortunately I lack the sources to change it. (I know, I'm a lazy bastard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.243.85 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if you read carefully, it's a quote from a math book. It is not very important whether the number is correct, it's important that the quote from the book is genuin, which seems likely to me.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Checked the book -- the correct figure is 66,060,000. Fixed it, Bytwerk (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda is Binary (two-part) Emotional Rhetoric
An actual condensed definition of Propaganda needs only three words Binary Emotional Rhetoric. "binary emotional rhetoric is a short and concise definition of propaganda that is consistent with the seven various forms of propaganda indicated by '"The Institute For Propaganda Analysis'', The Fine Art of Propaganda -- A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches. The original Institute For Propaganda Analysis, Inc. was located at 130 Morningside Drive, New York, NY and was established in October 1937, to conduct objective, non-partisan studies in the field of propaganda and public opinion. A non-profit organization it sought to help the intelligent citizen detect and analyze propaganda, by revealing the agencies, techniques and devices used by the propagandist.

The Institute For Propaganda Analysis published the results of its researches in monthly bulletins and in special reports, of which "The Fine Art of Propaganda" -- A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches is one. At the same time, the Institute For Propaganda Analysis conducted an educational program in adult study groups, and in Junior High Schools, High Schools and Colleges.

Officers at the Institute For Propaganda Analysis, Inc.: President, E. C. Lindeman, New York School of Social Work; Vice President, Kirtley Mather, Harvard University; Executive Secretary, Clyde R. Miller, Teachers College, Columbia University; Treasurer, Ned H. Dearborn, New York University.

Advisory Board: Frank E. Baker, Milwaukee State Teachers College; Charles A. Beard; Hadley Cantril, Princeton University; Edgar Dale, Ohio State University; Leonard Doob, Yale University; Paul Douglas, University of Chicago; Gladys Murphy Graham, University of California at Los Angeles; F. Ernest Johnson, Teachers College, Columbia University; Grayson N. Kefauver, Stanford University; William Heard Kilpatrick; Robert S. Lynd, Columbia University; Malcom S. MacLean, University of Minnesota; Ernest O. Melby, Northwestern University; James E. Mendenhall, Stephens; Robert K. Speer, New York University.

Staff: Editorial Director, Harold Lavine; Educational Director, Violet Edwards

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, "The Fine Art of Propaganda", A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches, Edited by Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee, Copyright, 1939, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc. New York -- Typography by Robert Josephy, Printed in the United States of America by Quinn & Boden Company, Inc., Rahway, N. J.

Binary Emotional Rhetoric was derived from an exhaustive analysis of "The Fine Art of Propaganda", A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches and each type or use of propaganda can be broken down to three words:

Propaganda = binary emotional rhetoric

Binary emotional rhetoric is a proper and easy way to understand propaganda. It was the intention of The Institute For Propaganda Analysis to make a way for all U. S. citizens to be able to understand how propaganda is used against U. S. citizens as a weapon.

Binary being a two-part conundrum. Emotional pull at your heart strings. Rhetoric to make you conclude that you have to make a choice of one of the two part conundrum -- that is propaganda every time, and it is widely used in today's world.

Since it has been determined by Congress that propaganda can no longer be used against American citizens of the United States, it is necessary that an easy definition be available.

No content listed violates any copyright, and no royalties are wanted, so there is no reason to delete.

American citizens need to know that it is not so difficult to tell propaganda when one hears propaganda, if they will start watching.

Author Thomas Gann Miller and Martha Ann Miller, 17607 E 380 Road, Unit C, Chelsea, OK 74016 (918)231-2140 MarthaA (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC) MarthaA (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Roderick Hindery citation and gender
I'm changing "She" to "He" in the paragraph about Roderick Hindery, based first on Roderick being a masculine name, and second on the assumption that the web page is his. I'm also restoring the reference to "Hindery, Roderick R., Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought? (2001)" which disappeared from the "Further reading" section some time ago. See for when the female pronoun was first introduced (presumably by accident). Someone who has the book should confirm that the citation is correct. Mesopelagicity (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a number of references were deleted, by accident or vandalism, on 7 May 2008. See the diff:. I will restore them, but I suggest that someone more experienced with this subject should review them. Mesopelagicity (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Lie "invented" by Hitler?
I removed the word "Hitler" and associated link from the sentence regarding Soviet use of the Big Lie; the sentence had read as though the idea was specifically invented by Hitler, Goebbels, et al. I think it's more accurate to say that the Nazis are currently more famous for the technique but that it evolved more or less contemporaneously in either country. Krazychris81 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See also section
I just removed everything but the link to the list of propaganda and public relations topics. Is there any reason to have a list that huge when they are on a separate page? --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Children section
A good chunk of this section is unsourced. The claims seem reasonable, but without sources it's WP:OR, so some more links would help.

I also broke part of it into a sub-section, Anti-Semitic propaganda for children, as there were two well-sourced sections for that, beyond just the general statements of how propaganda affects children. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"usually" !
/* Types */ "Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect generated usually by the Government" is unsubstantiated... which government are we talking about here? The Cuban, DPRK, New Labour, or Chinese govt? This is in itself propaganda, ironically!!!

212.159.117.182 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC) MacDaddy]

"Techniques" Section (inconsistent and incomplete list of Logical Fallacies)
I propose the editing of this section for quality...

Might I also add that I think a list of logical fallacies belongs in an article about logical fallacies, because logical fallacy is quite a large topic in its own right that extends beyond the topic of propaganda; and, because this list simply doesn't include the full extent of logical fallacies that can be deployed in propaganda; it also uses alternative names for logical fallacies without reference to extant articles about them on Wikipaedia - whoever input them does not appear to have done a check on the actual existing articles about them.

"Appeal to Prejudice" is not a class of logical fallacy - all logical fallacies are appeals to prejudice by definition! They seem to have conflated Argumentum_ad_populum with a nod to countless other types of fallacy. You may deduce from that that the other ones for which no page exists have an existing page with a more commonly accepted name...

Just provide a link to List_of_fallacies and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

History: Add a section on Polish poster propaganda war
The sub heading on revolutionary 1989 propaganda is too tiny & vague.

A new specific sub heading could be Poland's Poster Propaganda War - Solidarity Versus the State Notably, the American movie image of Gary Cooper from the 1950's movie High Noon is still connected with the poster war done over Communism versus the free state. These images involved various propaganda for their respective sides.

Lech Walesa, the leader of the Polis uprising, says he is still asked to autograph the Gary Cooper poster as it was put on posters and plastered over portions of Poland to try & rouse the people against their Communist rulers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianezine (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me, if sources are provided that is. Borock (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Too soon to add a section on global warming?
Do we really have to wait for more people to wake up? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon known as Global Warming is not a product of propaganda, but something that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees is real. However, it is true that the attacks on the validity of Global Warming often do use classic propaganda tactics. Spartan2600 (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Children
Warning: the following text is a fine example of ignoring context, and is ironically, propaganda against a group. It uses Oversimplification and Ad hominem

Is this line really appropriate? I could probably write a similar line in half the articles in wikipedia? the comment seems to be a referenced anecdote concerning the overarching topic, namely antisemitism directed at children. any arguments about whether the anecdote is truly representative of antisemitism would be appropriate. also, any comments providing the context that is considered to be lacking. however, making a general attack on the veracity of the anecdote, and even going so far as to criticize it in terms of the rhetoric of the article should not be presented here. perhaps this is better suited to metawikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.12.23 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rwanda Media Propaganda
There should be links to and from this article and section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Media_propaganda to your very fine article on Propaganda: perhaps there should even be a separate section of this article devoted to the part that propaganda played in causing the Rwanda Genocide? Thanks, Rumjal --rumjal 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Ancient propaganda
The 12th dynasty (c.1900 BC) Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (modern name) has also rightly been classified by Georges Posener in 'Littérature et politique dans l'Égypte de la XIIe dynastie' (1956) as propaganda. Pamour (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Can you read French well enough to cite this in the article? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition
The following definition is too much neutral and accurate to be left somewhere in the text.

Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."

—Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.48.14 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in "Labeling" section - What is "the Mark"?
Labeling section - Numerous unclear references to "the Mark". This section is very difficult to understand. Possibly vandalism.

In any case, the "Labeling" section should be revised for clarity, and this should probably involve removing/rephrasing "the Mark". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.102.178 (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Black-and-white fallacy example
The new example use for the Black-and-white fallacy does not seem to apply. eg: Now is not the time for partisanship, it is the time for citizenship. I'm new to edits, my apologies if I'm not going through the proper Wikipedia procedure. AntoineBonnin (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Expansion: History-->South America
This is a phenomenal article; best I've run accross on Wiki (although I may be biast as it's one of my favorite subjects). Would love to see someone include current propaganda in Latin America. Of course, you have a variety of countries to choose from, ranging from the most to least obvious, Venezuela and Chile respectively (i.e. with Bachelet and the Chilean channel TVN, Educardo Frei's recent presidential campaign.) You would just check off that list of techniques! It's shameless; pretty juicy examples. If anyone is game, God speed! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

cleanup
to clean up the article I deleted a duplicate paragraph,  put an alternative def in a footnote and gave its page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many alternative definitions that putting just one in a footnote makes one ask why just this one. Besides, you may agree that a definition is not the type of thing to be left to a footnote. Footnotes are being used mainly for references. About the deletion of a duplicate paragraph, you could have deleted the second appearance instead. The thing is, with so many changes the article has had, this definition and this lead section were lasting for a while, which was a good sign. Moreover, it is a very neutral definition, as itself says, and by being clearly an “author's” definition it was not being disputed. So I think the lead section deserved to remain as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.28.9 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Inoculating the public against propaganda
Propaganda is mentioned in "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. I'm not a regular editor on this page, so I'm really providing the link for consideration by the regulars to do as they see fit. Good luck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really worth putting into the article. In the grand scheme of things, FRC has just as much propaganda to push as anyone else. Here, that is called POV. Wikipedia has no need to include every example of the word "propaganda" showing up on a random web page. Just plain Bill (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree. Another problem is that virtually all propaganda posted is from 1920-1950, with nothing afterwards. Also, most of the examples have to do with some war or conflict. We should add some more modern advertising, like a Mcdonalds ad (although that probably couldn't be done due to copyright) or something similar. Spartan2600 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article should have some modern examples of propaganda. However, McDonalds ads are NOT propaganda, it is advertising. They sell products, not ideas. I think most modern examples of propaganda is far more subtle than what we found in the past. There IS, however, a lot of modern anti-war propaganda, and the game "America's Army" should really be mentioned. --Kasper Hviid (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"so as to benefit oneself"
in the first sentence should be taken off. May I? Rp (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"History" section
The history section of this article is a huge mess. So bad that, right now, I feel the whole article would be better of by completely removing it. At the very least, the horrible "state X propaganda" parts all need to go and the section organised by something like epochs. Even in that case it needs a complete rewrite. --Xeeron (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. Decora (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern propaganda
Please see the discussion here and consider adding this image to this page. I'm no propaganda expert, so I'll leave it up to you guys whether it fits here or not. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arab propaganda
I't reguarly used in the the Middle East against Israel and Bin Laden by journalists from the USA, Turkrey, Greece, Italy, Quatar and Iran.Al Jazeera English, Fox News and Press TV are full of it. 82.27.18.32 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda inside Wikipedia (?)
I have read the following signpost Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-12/More government editing and also Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia and I am wondering if we could include these informations as a form of propaganda. Perhaps other countries or political interests are using the wikipedia as a propaganda tool, these attempts could have been documented and presented in this article.--Francisco Valverde 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See also --Francisco Valverde 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and Congressional Staffer Edits --Francisco Valverde 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And now anti-Ossie smears on his death.--82.18.207.217 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A child in Poland in 2007 petting doves/pidgeons? Nazi propaganda?


Why is this picture in the Propaganda gallery?
 * It shows a child in Poland in 2007 petting doves. Venustas 12 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it is definantly not Nazi.82.18.207.217 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whats so NSDAP party about it?82.18.207.126 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

this article needs a hatchet taken to it.
there is more information in this article about 'propaganda in the united states' than in the actual article named 'Propaganda in the United States'... meanwhile the article doesnt even seem to have a single poster from Communist China let alone North Korea. . . states that were/are absolutely overflowing with propaganda.


 * 1. rip out the 'techniques' part, make them a separate article List of techniques of Propaganda. make it a small section that provides an overview
 * 2. rip out most of the US pictures, have an equal balance of US, Soviet, China, and other countries.
 * 3. Move a bunch of the US specific info into the Propaganda in the United States article
 * 4. the long winded descriptions of academic theories need to be split out into their own articles, and a shorter section called 'academic models' or something needs to be an overview

Decora (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree82.18.207.217 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, this article has major deficiencies,   including NPOV issues (negative slant).  It might be good to begin with a few major recent treatments of propaganda,  and attempt to merge/explain the ideas and conceptions,  especially,  positive portraits of propaganda -- or go back to Aristotle/Plato/etc.  KenThomas (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible anti-Bin Laden propaganda and the 'faked pornography'
It could have been put there by the special opp’s team to damage Ossie’s reputation in the Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be part of a VERY ESTUTE covert smear campaign by portraying Ossie as a supposed pervert to undermine his credibility in Pakistan, if not the entire Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this porn stash[]? By any account it was real, but yes it could have been planted by the team.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heyhoe, more tactics?....213.81.118.99 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Porn would run counter to Sharia law.82.18.207.217 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

21st Century?
I can see that the 19th and 20th century sections are welly organised and written but what about the 21st century. We are 1/10 way through and the way propaganda messages are spread have completely revolutionised with the creation of Youtube and social media like Twitter and Facebook. YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is woefully barren. It conveys the common attitude that propaganda is something that is used intermittently before and during large scale military conflicts, and then is shelved for later use by the propagandist. The idea that propaganda is not being utilized in some fashion in all forms of mass media, at all times, is pretty naive to say the least. There seems to be a general void of 21st century propaganda in any academic or mainstream discussions, for that matter. Look at books written decades ago like "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul. Here is this whole body of literature on the subject going into great detail of specific techniques and processes and this was a time when only television was starting to get popular. Where are these researchers today? Where is the discussion? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the pitfalls in any analysis of propaganda is distinguishing the ordinary efforts to persuade others that humans have engaged in since time immemorial from what we choose to call "propaganda." Too often the definition boils down to "efforts to persuade in directions I disapprove of." Have you a better, tighter definition that will allow us to improve this article by giving it the proper focus? This will be particularly important if there is a section on 21st century propaganda, with the enormous potential for POV-pushing it will introduce. --Yaush (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate to leave the section blank because of a potential for POV issues. This is kind of an elephant in the room, when you look at how few of hands are in control of such a massive amount of world media today. Undoubtedly a singular point of view is being disseminated over the airwaves with little to no potential for alternative commentary. It seems silly to adopt the stance of "well everyone has opinions", when referring to News Media in general. As it stands, someone curious of this subject and looking this up is going to leave with the impression that propaganda is little more than leaflet bombs dropped during wartime, which is like saying Advertising only exists where the viewer is overtly told a product is for sale. I think Wikipedia can do better than that.72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly a singular point of view is being disseminated over the airwaves with little to no potential for alternative commentary. Undoubted by whom? You've nicely illustrated my concern -- that without a great deal of care, a section on 21st-century propaganda will turn into an exposition of various conspiracy theories. --Yaush (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, would you call it a particularly diverse amount of viewpoints being broadcast over mass media, considering the small handful of network ownerships? Is it not a bit of a POV issue to assume that media is neutral and that there are no specific agendas making it through these media programs? That seems like a very non-objective POV stance to take. Yes, it seems logical and leaves little room for doubt, that a small group of interests' viewpoints are being deliberately propagated through mass media, for better or for worse, and whether by malicious intention or not. Not sure what's complicated about this. I understand it invites a lot of "conspiracy theory".. So, you're saying Wikipedia's not up to the challenge of forming a rational and up to date body of knowledge around this subject? Like the above commenter stated, we're already 1/10th of the way through the 21st century. So where's the discussion?72.224.189.211 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying Wikipedia's not up to the challenge of forming a rational and up to date body of knowledge around this subject? I have my doubts. And, frankly, you're not helping. The truth is that it has never been easier to broadcast your views to as large an audience as they can bear, via the Internet. A section on 21st-century propaganda must acknowledge that fact. --Yaush (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that it has never been easier to broadcast your views to as large an audience as they can bear, via the Internet. If the potential viewership for the average person has risen significantly in the age of Internet, what does that mean for potential of the organized propagandist? I find this article severely lacking in that it makes no mention of such considerations. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one contemporary example, using labeling/transfer/guilt by association to slander those who accept AGW: Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder (guardian.co) -Soulkeeper (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Math Problem
This doesn't look like a math problem to me. It's not a question, just a statement. Did someone vandalize it? 174.118.22.93 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Iraq
CURRENT CONTENT The extent to which the US government was guilty of propaganda aimed at its own people is a matter of discussion. The book Selling Intervention & War by Jon Western argued that president Bush was "selling the war" to the public.[46]

President George W. Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. About half way through the event Bush said, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

People had their initial reactions to the War on Terror, but with more biased and persuading information, Iraq as a whole has been negatively targeted.[47] America’s goal was to remove Saddam Hussein’s power in Iraq with allegations of possible weapons of mass destruction related to Osama Bin Laden.[48] Video and picture coverage in the news has shown shocking and disturbing images of torture and other evils being done under the Iraqi Government.[48]

SUGGESTED REVISION The extent to which the US government was guilty of propaganda aimed at its own people is a matter of discussion. The book Selling Intervention & War by Jon Western argued that president Bush was "selling the war" to the public.[46]

President George W. Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. About half way through the event Bush said, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

People had their initial reactions to the War on Terror, but with more biased and persuading information, Iraq as a whole has been negatively targeted.[47] America’s presumed goal was to remove Saddam Hussein’s power in Iraq with allegations of possible weapons of mass destruction related to Osama Bin Laden.[48] In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in spite of [|extensive searches conducted by United Nations inspection agents] (See USA Today 2004 news article). At this point, the justification propogated for having invaded Iraq (and Afghanistan) began to evolve [|evolve], first to fighting terrorists on their own soil to stave future terrorist attacks, then, to spreading democracy and free enterprise to the less advanced regions of the world. After Americans began questioning its government leaders' motives for invading Iraq, video and picture coverage of shocking and disturbing images of torture and other evils being done under the Iraqi Government [48] were disseminated through the news, which tended to temporarily appease American criticism for the sustained and costly occupation of Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.231.23.240 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Peter Litwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.231.23.240 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a platform for railing against the Iraq War. It's going to take a lot more work to make this paragraph neutral and back it up with citations to reliable sources. --Yaush (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the techniques section of Propaganda be merged into Propaganda techniques. Please discuss at Talk:Propaganda techniques/Archives/2014 ---Vroo (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
Shouldn't the etymology be given in the Etymology section of the article? There's a brief mention of it in the Types section. The Etymology section isn't really pulling its weight. It makes a comment about the using not originally being pejorative. I think the etymology should be moved to the Etymology section, or else the Etymology and Types sections should be merged. &mdash;DavidConrad (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky's Irony
Of course Chomsky's stance that anti-Communist media bias is a vehicle of propaganda is the height of irony when one considers CNN, HN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc. Here be sarcasm: Chomsky being immune to hubris would never fall for his own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.119.145 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Red Guardsman of DC Comics = Propaganda or Cult of Personality?
Would the Socialist Red Guardsman developed by DC Comics for China be considered Cult of Personality or Propaganda? : http://www.comicvine.com/socialist-red-guardsman/29-41242/ Twillisjr (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is propaganda only about politics?
"As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda." This is a rather biased or incomplete conclusion since nothing in the previous text indicates that propaganda is restricted to politics. In fact, both religion and advertising (among others) are fields where propaganda is massively used. The article shouldn't restrict the concept of propaganda to the politics field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.21.104 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-palestinian propaganda in jewish schoolbooks
In jewish schoolbooks, for example, palestinian people are always depicted as non-educated farmers or wearing a veil (for women).They are never reffered to as Palestinians unless described as terrorists. This is the image that all israeli youth have in mind when entering compulsory military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge2011 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation, please? --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

66.192.119.145 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Maybe that's because Palestine isn't actually a country but a region. I'd also remind you of the Israeli-Arab schools' teaching children that Jews are descended from pigs.


 * This comment is a red herring with a pro-Israeli bias. Both points it makes are commonly held Israeli beliefs that are completely unrelated to the claims they pretend to refute.

As the original comment suggests, the current article on propaganda is seriously unbalanced. It has a section on the propaganda of one side of a dispute with no section on the propaganda of the other side. No serious person denies the existence of a large body of xionist anti-Arab propaganda. Burressd (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Indoctrination in North Korea
Regarding the the indoctrination system in North Korea, young children are taught many things: (1) that the U.S. is the "imperialist wolf" seeking to pounce on the Korean people; (2) that when U.S. missionaries first came to Korea, they committed all sorts of barbarous acts; and (3) that Kim Il-sung was alone in his independence struggle against Japan. A propaganda poster reviling the US as the imperialist wolf can be found at http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/Do-not-forget-the-US-imperialist-wolves.png.68.4.28.33 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Does propaganda based on sincerity exist?
I added the category propaganda to atrocity story, though I think that in many cases atrocity stories are sincere, but also somewhat misguided, and one-sided. What do you think? Andries (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

State Controlled
I think we should emphasize that propaganda is state controlled, and include that in the introduction. The anti-communist magazine cover isn't propaganda simply because it's about politics. Propaganda is used by the state to simplify topics/events and mislead the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.2.246 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ? But it's not always state controlled. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Techniques
One editor says "Virtually the whole section is original research." I don't see it that way at all. Each paragraph is a brief summary of a major Wikipedia article on that specific technique. That is exactly what an overview article like this should provide. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

US PSYOP Link in Iraq war Image Box
The image box here reads US PSYOP, however US likes to the United States and PSYOP links to PSYOP in general. What should be done here? Make both words one link to the US PSYOP page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 602p (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright
I see no good reason to remove File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg from this article. Just because it might not be absolutely essential to have it here (and it might be essential), doesn't rationalize removing it in my mind. I have concerns that removing the image here will only bolster a later argument by some to delete it altogether.

Let me assure you, no one is going to sue Wikipedia for a copyright violation on that image and about whether or not the image is public domain is folly. It's a good illustration of propaganda and belongs in an article about propaganda. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion established quite clearly that the image is not public domain. However, it still is usable as fair use. The question then is do we need this particular image or could an alternate one be used. I would say an alternate one could be used, so we don't need this particular image, especially since there are so many on this article already. At the very least, the image should be moved to a section discussion Nazi propaganda. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree with the first part of what Ego White Tray said - use an alternate one. However, I would go further and say that the article would not be seriously hurt if there was no Nazi propaganda poster at all in this article.  If the image is kept, it should be moved to the place in the article which discusses it.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. That discussion determined there was "no consensus for deletion." The image is public domain per the German legal article 134 KUG. I've yet to see a consensus that says otherwise. Regardless, this isn't the place for that discussion. You had that discussion already and accomplished nothing. I say the image stays in the article (wherever it gets moved to) until we have a determination that it's not public domain.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nazi publications are public domain in the USA says Peter Hirtle: "the copyright in most of them would have belonged either to the Nazi Party or to the German government. While [US law] 104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S., this would apply only to published items." at Library Law. That is reflected in federal court rulings cited at  Wiki Commons Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: If it can be proven that Nazi publications such as the one we are discussion are in the public domain, could you help overturn Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nazi WW II poster from Latvia.JPG, whose status probably falls under the same laws? Thanks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  06:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion did not address whether the image is in the public domain or not. The file's description page has (in some form or other) marked it as a non-free image as far back as 2006.  Given that long history, the burden of showing it is a free image is on the person who makes that claim.  I would welcome proof that it is a public-domain image in both the United States and its country of origin, so it could be transwikied to the Commons.  However, I am not optimistic that it can be proven to be in the public domain. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * US court decision is [Price vs US it states: " On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images “to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.”  The National Archives makes all these images public domain in the US. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This was in 1951. Berne convention and related acts likely restored the US copyright in 1996.  See Non-U.S._copyrights.  In Germany, the copyright to artistic works such as this likely belongs to the artist himself.  If it was not in the public domain in Germany as of 1996, then it's US copyright was likely restored.  Unless it can be proven that the artist was anonymous and remained anonymous (which is a practical impossibility) the copyright will last until 70 years after he dies (presumably Germany has something similar to America's "presumed dead after 120 years" rule).  In short, the image is probably NOT in the public domain in Germany or in the United States, and it would likely take a great deal of effort to prove otherwise. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Davidwr says that the German copyright was restored. Not true--the restoration explicitly did not restore the copyright of Nazi German material seized by the US Alien Property Custodian. The current 2014 US laws says: "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work. " cite  Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, a public thank-you for showing me what I should have seen all along - the file's description page clearly says (in plain English) that this was a Nazi-party publication, making it PD-US (not PD-Germany, so no Commons use until it's proven to be PD-Germany - which may be 70 years after publication (now??) or 70 years after the artist's death). I got it mixed up in my head with some of the other Nazi-era posters that were not clearly created by the gov't or the party.  So, to everyone who got dragged into this discussion, let me apologize for wasting your time.  The issue of copyright on images whose copyright is not owned by a government (Bravaria, in the case of Nazi Party and Third Reich-owned copyrights, I think) is still open and will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me praise davidwr for his dogged insistence that we do thinks right on Wikipedia! He stimulated me to track down the answers. Rjensen (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of images
Off-topic a bit: This article has too many images. Even if this image is in the public domain, there is the editorial decision about whether the image is a good image to have in this article. Personally, I think the article would be better served with fewer images than it has now. I would prioritize keeping at most 1 example that demonstrates a major form of propaganda, then deleting as many more as are needed to get the number down to a reasonable number. When deciding which images to delete, I would aim to keep those images which are both free and which provide a "high value" in increasing the reader's understanding highest on the "keep" priority list, and put non-free images with a "low value" at the bottom of the list, with those which are either free or high-value but not both somewhere in the middle of the list. As I said before, I do not think this is a high-value image for this article. While I would love to be able to prove that this is a "free" image, I'm far from optimistic that this can be done. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  06:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A great deal of propaganda is visial -- we can't embed a whole movie here but posters are terrific sources. the more the better. Teachers and students can use them for history classes, for example. Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As Rjensen says, lots of propaganda is visual, so I would not recommend reducing the imagery here. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time assuming good faith when some are tilting at windmills to delete images that are clearly public domain. This is not moot court. Try your wikilawyering elsewhere. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "that are clearly public domain" - if the images that I have been treating as non-free were clearly in the public domain we we would be in agreement that the images should be on the Commons. The fact that I'm clearly continuing this conversation should indicate that those images are not "clearly" in the public domain.  Public domain or not, there is such a thing as "too many images." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've conceded that I was wrong on this one - see comment above with the same timestamp as this comment. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Techniques merger
A merge request was made over a year ago and had no dissention. The merge occurred today. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete
Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:

Again, I've noticed nothing written on Canada. This makes it appear as though there were no government messages to encourage settlement or during WWI or WWII. There are a number of government ads for all sorts of things on TV, from health-care to Harper's "economic action plan"--"which program will work for you?" I remember one a short while ago from Calgary Police encouraging people to "put abusers where they belong." It compared protecting children to a herd of zebras protecting their young from a predator by moving around and confusing it. I think someone should start a section on Canada as well.

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon Painting
I don't think, this can be called propaganda for it's not like it was copied thousands of times and hang around at every corner. Paintings of that era and detail are mainly private and portraits mostly owned by the portrayed person in which's house (or in this case palace) it hung. Since propaganda is used to influence the public opinion a private painting can't be categoryzed as such, can it? -- 2A02:8070:84C0:100:CDFC:8D17:9428:D120 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-war
Post-which-war? Xx234 (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia
The section about Russia doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Most of its sources come down to Institute of Modern Russia and Freedom House which are in themselves good examples for this article, one funded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the other by US Government. In other words, WP:RS. A lot of claims in the section are questionable at best.

In my opinion, this section is absolutely WP:POV and has to be rewritten from scratch to meet Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The history of propoganda Suggestion
Hello all, I suggest to make an entry for the history of using the techniques of propaganda for political reasons. Historians believe that Darius the Great was the first to apply political propaganda. The most notable propaganda example being the image of Darius the Great with the Faravahar. Also the article could be improved with addition of notable references to the past (including ancient) usage of the techniques of political propaganda. The article focuses on the usage of propaganda in the nineteenth/twentieth centuries. Despite the acknowledgement of the term propaganda, the propaganda itself has been known for centuries. --Verbal.noun (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the history of propaganda suggestion, should we not add the Cocacola "DRINK" advertisement as an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.47.223.226 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many images
I feel there are too many images in this article and should be significantly reduced. ProjectHorizons (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Great Examples of Propaganda
I do indeed believe that one of the most revealing and telling examples of capitalist propaganda is the "Drink CocaCola" propaganda. By definition, this is not something you need but something you want or are convinced of wanting. Telling people all over the world to 'drink' CocaCola is, in this editors opinion, a clear example of propaganda. Please discuss. CT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:838E:18D2:103E:6497:3765:EEC1 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would see it more as an example of Marketing, aimed at convincing potential customers that their product is great or superior to other similar products. The purpose is to increase sales and turn up a profit, which frankly is what every company has to do to stay in business.

The example lacks a main element of propaganda, the use of the method to deliver ideological and political messages. To simplify matters, the aim of propaganda is usually to convince people to join a particular cause, to present its leaders in the best possible light, and to present the ideological opponents in the worst possible light. When it works well, it can change the perceptions of entire populations and give birth to mass movements. Most marketing campaigns do not aim so high. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Corporate Propaganda
This section could be cleaned up. It is definitely worth having but it reads as the basic narrative from The Century of The Self and could be dramatically improved. MHP Huck (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda had a bad name before Hitler and the Soviet Union
Under the "Types" heading, I removed the statements claiming that the negative connotation of the word "propaganda" was due to its use by the Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany. Those statements had been marked with a "citation needed" tag since June 2012. I know of no evidence for them. Indeed, Harold Lasswell's assessment in 1928 seems to refute the idea: he reports that the term had fallen out of favor due to public consciousness of its use by "propaganda bureaus" in democratic countries, citing by name the American Committee on Public Information which operated from 1917 to 1919. I have edited the section accordingly, quoting Lasswell. Poluphemos (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This page is really rough
Some of this writing is pretty painful. I'm doing some minor clean-up here and there, but certain paragraphs should be completely struck. In the Social Psychology section, the paragraph beginning with "Social cognitive theories suggest..." is US-centric and POV, and the reference links vaguely to a fact-checking website.

In the Children section, I struck the sentence that said "Children's vulnerability to propaganda is rooted in developmental psychology" because it makes no sense. (Did the author mean to say that developmental psychology has a lot to say about children's vulnerability to propaganda? And if so, where are the references?) SlickVicar (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I gutted the section on corporate propaganda because it wasn't about corporate propaganda at all. It focused on Bernays, who the author says "literally wrote the book on the topic" (a tone issue). I also found the section difficult to follow, not having read the book. Perhaps if the author thinks Bernays still has a place on the page, the "Models" section is a better fit? SlickVicar (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake news
I have suggested but am making a bish of it that "fake news" be merged into here. Since "Fake News" was only crated on 17 February 2017 and appears to me to be something created by the Donald Trump campaign and perhaps not WP:WORLDWIDE and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEOLOGISM, I think it is better incorporated as a section here. I have done the merge to and merge from tags but made a bit of a bish of it along the way. In British newsprint and other sources I have seen outside the US, it tends to be in. Merge in the content, but I think it is too WP:RECENT to be particularly encyclopaeidic as a term. If not, WP:PROD for same reasons
 * CONTRA. Fake news might be a confusing term, but it is definitely NOT something that you can easily subsume under propaganda. Fake news can be used by propaganda, but a lot of it is probably only created as sensationalist click bait for entirely other indirect reasons. The phenomenom itself is huge and thus I strongly oppose your merge proposal. -- Kku (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * AGAINST. Fake news is not necessarily propaganda. Although fake news can also be used for propaganda purposes, the manifestations and purposes of fake news is not limited to that. Tiv kurss (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120710125156/http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54chmky.html to http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54chmky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151217144035/http://datanotpropaganda.net/ to http://datanotpropaganda.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)