Talk:Propaganda/Archive 3

Very long edit
Have moved this recent edit here so as not to loose any info. However, it completely overwhelmed the lede, and needs to be incorporated into the text.

{This is my final EDIT on PROPAGANDA...I have studied, researched, and investigated this History... Please take the time to learn from it...(I hope you enjoy my report)...[G.A.B.]... Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda. In the twentieth century, the term propaganda has been associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically was a neutral descriptive term. A wide range of materials and media are used for conveying propaganda messages, which changed as new technologies were invented, including paintings, cartoons, posters, pamphlets, films, radio shows, TV shows, and websites. In a 1929 literary debate with Edward Bernays, Everett Dean Martin argues that, “Propaganda is making puppets of us. We are moved by hidden strings which the propagandist manipulate". Propaganda is a modern Latin word, the gerundive form of propagare, meaning to spread or to propagate, thus propaganda means that which is to be propagated. Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic church (congregation) created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity was aimed at "propagating" the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries. From the 1790s, the term began being used also to refer to propaganda in secular activities.The term began taking a pejorative or negative connotation in the mid-19th century, when it was used in the political sphere. History of propaganda: Primitive forms of propaganda have been a human activity as far back as reliable recorded evidence exists. The Behistun Inscription (c. 515 BC) detailing the rise of Darius I to the Persian throne is viewed by most historians as an early example of propaganda. Another striking example of propaganda during Ancient History is the last Roman civil wars during which Octavian and Mark Antony blame each other for obscure and degrading origins, cruelty, cowardice, oratorical and literary incompetence, debaucheries, luxury, drunkenness and other slanders. Propaganda during the Reformation, helped by the spread of the printing press throughout Europe, and in particular within Germany, caused new ideas, thoughts, and doctrine to be made available to the public in ways that had never been seen before the 16th century. During the era of the American Revolution, the American colonies had a flourishing network of newspapers and printers who specialized in the topic on behalf of the Patriots (and to a lesser extent on behalf of the Loyalists). A newspaper clipping that refers to the Bataan Death March in 1942 The first large-scale and organised propagation of government propaganda was occasioned by the outbreak of war in 1914. After the defeat of Germany in the First World War, military officials such as Erich Ludendorff suggested that British propaganda had been instrumental in their defeat. Adolf Hitler came to echo this view, believing that it had been a primary cause of the collapse of morale and the revolts in the German home front and Navy in 1918 (see also: Dolchstoßlegende). In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler expounded his theory of propaganda, which provided a powerful base for his rise to power in 1933. Historian Robert Ensor explains that "Hitler...puts no limit on what can be done by propaganda; people will believe anything, provided they are told it often enough and emphatically enough, and that contradicters are either silenced or smothered in calumny." Most propaganda in Nazi Germany was produced by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, building on the experience of WWI, by Goebbels and the British Political Warfare Executive, as well as the United States Office of War Information. In the early 20th century, the invention of motion pictures gave propaganda-creators a powerful tool for advancing political and military interests when it came to reaching a broad segment of the population and creating consent or encouraging rejection of the real or imagined enemy. In the years following the October Revolution of 1917, the Soviet government sponsored the Russian film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films (e.g. the 1925 film The Battleship Potemkin glorifies Communist ideals.) In WWII, Nazi filmmakers produced highly emotional films to create popular support for occupying the Sudetenland and attacking Poland. The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of totalitarian states and the Second World War, are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Leni Riefenstahl, a filmmaker working in Nazi Germany, created one of the best-known propaganda movies, Triumph of the Will. In the US, animation became popular, especially for winning over youthful audiences and aiding the U.S. war effort, e.g.,Der Fuehrer's Face (1942), which ridicules Hitler and advocates the value of freedom. US war films in the early 1940s were designed to create a patriotic mindset and convince viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat the Axis Powers. Polish filmmakers in Great Britain created anti-Nazi color film Calling Mr. Smith (1943) about current Nazi crimes in occupied Europe and about lies of Nazi propaganda. The West and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations. George Orwell's novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are virtual textbooks on the use of propaganda. During the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro stressed the importance of propaganda. Propaganda was used extensively by Communist forces in the Vietnam War as means of controlling people's opinions. During the Yugoslav wars, propaganda was used as a military strategy by governments of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia. Propaganda was used to create fear and hatred, and particularly incite the Serb population against the other ethnicities (Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians and other non-Serbs). Serb media made a great effort in justifying, revising or denying mass war crimes committed by Serb forces during these wars. Public perceptions: In the early 20th century the term propaganda was used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to refer to their people. This image died out around the time of World War II, as the industry started to avoid the word, given the pejorative connotation it had acquired. Literally translated from the Latin gerundive as "things that must be disseminated", in some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. The connotations of the term "propaganda" can also vary over time. For example, in Portuguese and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word "propaganda" usually refers to the most common manipulative media — "advertising"... . Poster of the 19th-century Scandinavist movement In English, propaganda was originally a neutral term for the dissemination of information in favor of any given cause. During the 20th century, however, the term acquired a thoroughly negative meaning in western countries, representing the intentional dissemination of often false, but certainly "compelling" claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies. According to Harold Lasswell, the term began to fall out of favor due to growing public suspicion of propaganda in the wake of its use during World War I by the Creel Committee in the United States and the Ministry of Information in Britain: Writing in 1928, Lasswell observed, "In democratic countries the official propaganda bureau was looked upon with genuine alarm, for fear that it might be suborned to party and personal ends. The outcry in the United States against Mr. Creel's famous Bureau of Public Information (or 'Inflammation') helped to din into the public mind the fact that propaganda existed. … The public's discovery of propaganda has led to a great of lamentation over it. Propaganda has become an epithet of contempt and hate, and the propagandists have sought protective coloration in such names as 'public relations council,' 'specialist in public education,' 'public relations adviser.' Types: Identifying propaganda has always been a problem.The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach. Richard Alan Nelson provides a definition of the term: "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." The definition focuses on the communicative process involved — or more precisely, on the purpose of the process, and allow "propaganda" to be considered objectively and then interpreted as positive or negative behavior depending on the perspective of the viewer or listener. According to historian Zbyněk Zeman, propaganda is defined as either white, grey or black. White propaganda openly discloses its source and intent. Grey propaganda has an ambiguous or non-disclosed source or intent. Black propaganda purports to be published by the enemy or some organization besides its actual origins (compare with black operation, a type of clandestine operation in which the identity of the sponsoring government is hidden). 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. Propaganda poster in North Korea: The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda. Religious: Propaganda was often used to influence opinions and beliefs on religious issues, particularly during the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. More in line with the religious roots of the term, propaganda is also used widely in the debates about new religious movements (NRMs), both by people who defend them and by people who oppose them. The latter pejoratively call these NRMs cults. Anti-cult activists and Christian countercult activists accuse the leaders of what they consider cults of using propaganda extensively to recruit followers and keep them. Some social scientists, such as the late Jeffrey Hadden, and CESNUR affiliated scholars accuse ex-members of "cults" and the anti-cult movement of making these unusual religious movements look bad without sufficient reasons. Wartime: A US Office for War Information poster uses stereotyped imagery to warn lazy American workers they are helping the Japanese war effort. In post–World War II usage of the word "propaganda" more typically refers to political or nationalist uses of these techniques or to the promotion of a set of ideas. Propaganda is a powerful weapon in war; it is used to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external, by creating a false image in the mind of soldiers and citizens. This can be done by using derogatory or racist terms (e.g., the racist terms "Jap" and "gook" used during World War II and the Vietnam War, respectively), avoiding some words or language or by making allegations of enemy atrocities. Most propaganda efforts in wartime require the home population to feel the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be based on facts (e.g., the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania by the German Navy in World War I). The home population must also believe that the cause of their nation in the war is just. In NATO doctrine, propaganda is defined as "Any information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor either directly or indirectly." Within this perspective, information provided does not need to be necessarily false, but must be instead relevant to specific goals of the "actor" or "system" that performs it. Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations in which the identity of the operatives is depicted as those of an enemy nation (e.g., The Bay of Pigs invasion used CIA planes painted in Cuban Air Force markings). The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes (e.g., During the First World War, the main purpose of British propaganda was to encourage men join the army, and women to work in the country’s industry. The propaganda posters were used, because radios and TVs were not very common at that time.) The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant (see cognitive dissonance), people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda or views being presented. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control over populations. Britannia arm-in-arm with Uncle Sam symbolizes the British-American alliance in World War I. Propaganda may be administered in insidious ways. For instance, disparaging disinformation about the history of certain groups or foreign countries may be encouraged or tolerated in the educational system. Since few people actually double-check what they learn at school, such disinformation will be repeated by journalists as well as parents, thus reinforcing the idea that the disinformation item is really a "well-known fact", even though no one repeating the myth is able to point to an authoritative source. The disinformation is then recycled in the media and in the educational system, without the need for direct governmental intervention on the media. Such permeating propaganda may be used for political goals: by giving citizens a false impression of the quality or policies of their country, they may be incited to reject certain proposals or certain remarks or ignore the experience of others. In the Soviet Union during the Second World War, the propaganda designed to encourage civilians was controlled by Stalin, who insisted on a heavy-handed style that educated audiences easily saw was inauthentic. On the other hand, the unofficial rumours about German atrocities were well founded and convincing.Stalin was a Georgian who spoke Russian with a heavy accent. That would not do for a national hero so starting in the 1930s all new visual portraits of Stalin were retouched to erase his Georgian facial characteristics and make him a more generalized Soviet hero. Only his eyes and famous mustache remained unaltered. Zhores Medvedev and Roy Medvedev say his "majestic new image was devised appropriately to depict the leader of all times and of all peoples." Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.— Hermann Göring Advertising: Propaganda shares techniques with advertising and public relations, each of which can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person, or brand. World War I propaganda poster for enlistment in the U.S. Army. Journalistic theory generally holds that news items should be objective, giving the reader an accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. On the other hand, advertisements evolved from the traditional commercial advertisements to include also a new type in the form of paid articles or broadcasts disguised as news. These generally present an issue in a very subjective and often misleading light, primarily meant to persuade rather than inform. Normally they use only subtle propaganda techniques and not the more obvious ones used in traditional commercial advertisements. If the reader believes that a paid advertisement is in fact a news item, the message the advertiser is trying to communicate will be more easily "believed" or "internalized". Such advertisements are considered obvious examples of "covert" propaganda because they take on the appearance of objective information rather than the appearance of propaganda, which is misleading. Federal law specifically mandates that any advertisement appearing in the format of a news item must state that the item is in fact a paid advertisement. Politics: Propaganda has become more common in political contexts, in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, but also often covert interests. In the early 20th century, propaganda was exemplified in the form of party slogans. Propaganda also has much in common with public information campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage certain forms of behavior (such as wearing seat belts, not smoking, not littering and so forth). Again, the emphasis is more political in propaganda. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium. In the case of the United States, there is also an important legal (imposed by law) distinction between advertising (a type of overt propaganda) and what the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of the United States Congress, refers to as "covert propaganda". Roderick Hindery argues that propaganda exists on the political left, and right, and in mainstream centrist parties. Hindery further argues that debates about most social issues can be productively revisited in the context of asking "what is or is not propaganda?" Not to be overlooked is the link between propaganda, indoctrination, and terrorism/counterterrorism. He argues that threats to destroy are often as socially disruptive as physical devastation itself. Anti-communist propaganda in a 1947 comic book published by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society warning of "the dangers of a Communist takeover". Since 9/11 and the appearance of greater media fluidity, propaganda institutions, practices and legal frameworks have been evolving in the US and Britain. Dr Emma Louise Briant shows how this included expansion and integration of the apparatus cross-government and details attempts to coordinate the forms of propaganda for foreign and domestic audiences, with new efforts in strategic communication. These were subject to contestation within the US Government, resisted by Pentagon Public Affairs and critiqued by some scholars. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)) amended the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (popularly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within U.S. borders for the Archivist of the United States. The Smith-Mundt Act, as amended, provided that “the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall make available to the Archivist of the United States, for domestic distribution, motion pictures, films, videotapes, and other material 12 years after the initial dissemination of the material abroad... Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.” Public concerns were raised upon passage due to the relaxation of prohibitions of domestic propaganda in the United States. Workplace propaganda: The ease of data collection emerging from the IT revolution and a lack of control on the acquired data's use has led to the widespread implementation of workplace propaganda created much more locally such as in schools, hospitals, local retail outlets and Universities. The same article also notes a departure from the traditional methodology of propagandists i.e., the use of emotionally provocative imagery to distort facts. Workplace propaganda is suggested to use 'distorted data' to overrule emotion. For example, by providing rationales for ideologically driven pay cuts, etc. Techniques: For more details on this topic, see Propaganda techniques. Anti-capitalist propaganda Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. Some propaganda campaigns follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission, such as a leaflet or advertisement dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, etc. (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination. A number of techniques based in social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which the propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies become propaganda strategies only when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. Models: Social psychology; The field of social psychology includes the study of persuasion. Social psychologists can be sociologists or psychologists. The field includes many theories and approaches to understanding persuasion. For example, communication theory points out that people can be persuaded by the communicator's credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. The elaboration likelihood model as well as heuristic models of persuasion suggest that a number of factors (e.g., the degree of interest of the recipient of the communication), influence the degree to which people allow superficial factors to persuade them. Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Herbert A. Simon won the Nobel prize for his theory that people are cognitive misers. That is, in a society of mass information, people are forced to make decisions quickly and often superficially, as opposed to logically. According to William W. Biddle's 1931 article "A psychological definition of propaganda", "The four principles followed in propaganda are: (1) rely on emotions, never argue; (2) cast propaganda into the pattern of "we" versus an "enemy"; (3) reach groups as well as individuals; (4) hide the propagandist as much as possible." (Herman and Chomsky) Early 20th-century depiction of a "European Anarchist" attempting to destroy the Statue of Liberty. The propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky which argues systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes: The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers) and relying primarily on government and corporate information and propaganda. The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media: Ownership of the medium, the medium's Funding, Sourcing of the news, Flak, and anti-communist ideology. The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles the model postulates as the cause of media bias...(hope you enjoyed my debut Editorial on the State of the World)...{About|the biased form of communication||Propaganda (disambiguation)}}


 * 1) REDIRECT audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using [[loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda.

-this information is overlong for the lede, and would be better formatted into the body of the article. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe everything in the article was relevant to the topic. There wasn't really anything that distracted me while reading it. I really like how they made the point throughout that as the times have changed and technologies have advanced so has propaganda. The article pretty neutral. The only issues is the word choice was a little overbearing and made it seem as though there was bias, but as you read on you could see there wasn't any. I would change the structure about how propaganda was used in the past. There aren't any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. In the history section the term propaganda used to be a heavily criticized word and it used to be negative. The article doesn't make the term come across as negative. There were no viewpoints that were overrepresented or underrepresented. In the section discussing how children are the most susceptible to fall for propaganda it was very informative and the information provided was unbiased and helpful. Links found throughout the article supported what the writer was saying and the links were correct and took you to other pages that were reliable. The facts were supported by links. Most of the links were from Wikipedia itself, so some of them may be flawed or may have bias, but others were reliable and little to no bias. Only one or two references were a little more out of date, but they still had the same information as newer articles, so they were still reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayoStephanie (talk • contribs) 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead images
Replaced with better because old one was obscure and not as notable, Goebbels is known worldwide. Massanino (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that those grotesque Weimar-ish caricatures are "better." The diptych of the Serbian boy neatly shows how art can be twisted to suit an agenda, which is an essential feature of propaganda. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You seeing them as grotesque is the point of those caricatures. Art is not always in service of an agenda and propaganda does not essentially rely on it. Goebbels is among first names if not the first name you think of when you think of propaganda, instead of some obscure newspaper in letters majority can not even read. Massanino (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who said art is always in service of an agenda? Not me. I agree that not everyone can read and understand Serbian, just as not everyone can read and understand English.


 * The point here is that blandly misrepresenting the source or context of an image can be more pernicious than the blatant hate-mongering shown by that Nazi imagery. Some propaganda is overt, obvious, and aimed at reinforcing the existing views of its intended audience. Other instances are more covert, disguising themselves as appeals to decency and fair play. I believe that latter kind is more insidious, more dangerous to audiences who may not be on the lookout for it.


 * Yes, I am aware of the history of Germany during the exile of Bertolt Brecht and I don't care who Goebbels was. Edward Bernays is more relevant to the modern world. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't care who Goebbels was" you don't care about most famous propagandist of 20th century and maybe all time, why bother commenting on this article at all? Massanino (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Famous propagandist or not, Goebbels may have known that he was on the wrong side of history, and that his efforts had ultimately been unsuccessful. At the time of his death, after having organized the murders of his own children, he certainly knew he was on the losing side of a war of global scope. He is appropriately mentioned and linked in the body of the article; there is no need to further memorialize a criminal and sycophant in the lead image of this article.
 * As another editor mentioned in an edit summary, the addition of those Nazi images was not the result of consensus. They are ugly and inflammatory, as intended for their time and place. In this encyclopedia article, however, they show a view of propaganda as blatant and old-fashioned, neither of which applies to the kind of propaganda which is effective at changing opinions. The two Serbian images show the distortion and deception at the core of effective modern propaganda. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on first images of article
Request for comment on whether is the Goebbels (Nazi) propaganda more appropriate as first image. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC). Massanino (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

votes

 * Support. Goebbels is one of most famous if not the most famous propagandist of 20th century and maybe ever. He is by far more notable than image used now and Nazi propaganda in general is more notable. I am open to usage of other Goebbels images but I think it should be him without doubt. Just plain Bill objection is mainly on grounds that he does not like it and that Goebbels was a bad guy. It is easy to argue that all propaganda and propagandist are in a way bad since they knowingly mislead people. Does he think Serbian propaganda is good and on right side of history? I don't know, you can come to that conclusion from his comments on this page.Massanino (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC) blocked sock 2600:1014:B100:1D39:717C:9447:AAC5:EF8B (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just plain Bill objection is mainly on grounds that he does not like it and that Goebbels was a bad guy.


 * Those are definitely not the main grounds for my opposition to those images. I see them as conveying an unbalanced view of propaganda. They only show the type aimed at an audience already on board with the message. They are an example of preaching to the choir, with a chorus of "Am I right?"


 * Propaganda which disguises itself as news or information is another, more pervasive type, seen and heard daily by most participants in society. It is The Hidden Persuaders who shape public perception without drawing inconvenient attention to themselves, avoiding Justice Brandeis's disinfecting sunlight.


 * Both overt hate-mongering and surreptitious opinion-influencing are forms of propaganda. This article needs to give them due weight, which I argue should be somewhat proportional to how much media space they occupy. For every blatant political cartoon, there are many thousands of messages promoting "lifestyle choices" which favor consumption of commercial products, from snack foods to specialized drugs, investment vehicles, and automobiles.


 * Goebbels may have been an amoral monster, but my opposition to giving him prominence with images in the lead section has more to do with the fact that what success he had was temporary, his efforts ultimately ineffective. To modern eyes, a lot of Nazi propaganda seems ham-fisted and tone deaf.


 * Edward Bernays may not be as famous in the general public's eye, but was arguably a far more influential propagandist than Goebbels. A well written encyclopedia article does not need to be a catalog of the "most famous" instances of its subject. I believe one purpose of an encyclopedia should be to illuminate subjects which may be unfamiliar to some, not to dwell on popular low-hanging fruit nor to confirm widely held biases.


 * Does he think Serbian propaganda is good and on right side of history?


 * Careful reading of my previous comments will show that to be a non sequitur. (For the record, I do not think that.) Addressing the content, not the contributor, is preferred in Wikipedia discussions. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Meh I find the arguments currently presented to be unconvincing. I would maybe express a slight preference for the Nazi propaganda example, but only because we could probably shorten its caption description to a less-distracting length (I think the biographical information about Goebbels can be cut, a wikilink to his biography is sufficient), whereas the Serbian propaganda example requires significant introduction in order for a typical English-speaking reader to understand the context. In light of Just plain Bill's comments about there being multiple forms of propaganda, I would suggest as a path to compromise to use one of the two images of Nazi propaganda, and an additional image of another example of propaganda that is distinct in both its style and its purpose (such as a commercial ad or a PSA), preferably one that doesn't require a full paragraph of exposition. signed,Rosguill talk 23:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Another possibility: How about head shots of Goebbels and Bernays, simply captioned with links to their WP articles? (or something like "Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany" and "Edward Bernays, father of public relations") Just plain Bill (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think having examples of actual propaganda is better than head shots of propagandists. While it may be appropriate to have the head shots elsewhere in the article, the first image on the page should be of propaganda. signed,Rosguill talk 02:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Nazi propaganda is surely the best-known form of propaganda. Therefore, using it will best help the reader understand the subject. Additionally, per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to start with the most important info in the body. Nazis have got to be it.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I support featuring both the above Nazi images in the lead.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lead of this article cites that historically, it is a neutral descriptive term. So I suggest the use of an image that fits the criteria outlined in the first few sentences of the article or one that reflects the information provided in the lead. Using the suggested Goebbels material may be inappropriate because the subject of the images are too extreme. These are even identified as hate campaign. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the above comments that Nazi propaganda is the best-known propaganda in history. Maybe include one photo of Nazi propaganda along with one that is already there. Cook907 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose with qualifiers I agree with some statements above and below this that propaganda isn't always so black & white as the two examples offered. Right now, most Americans can identify with the huge propaganda machine of the left and right media. It isn't whips and chains, but it is certainly propaganda. While I agree Nazi propaganda is historically well known, I don't think it is appropriate for this article. Other editors are correct, the use of these images immediately places propaganda in a negative, evil context. They have a place later in the article, but not for the lead image. I think we could do better. StarHOG (Talk) 12:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - Because these images are not in English, they do not help the reader to understand what propaganda is, and depend on explanatory captions, greatly reducing their effectiveness. I do like the idea of two images; to counter the comments that propaganda isn't always negative, perhaps one should be for something and one against; for example:
 * Oppose both per Anne Delong and Just plain Bill. I would support two pieces of more subtle propaganda that promote opposing sides and are in English. Hopefully they'd be examples that are much more modern, such as individual-targeted political ads. RockingGeo (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I'd still oppose this current idea even if my idea isn't considered. The Bosnian picture is better. RockingGeo (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich  19:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously Goebbels was one of the earliest propagandists. Krishna&#39;s flute (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously Goebbels was one of the earliest propagandists. Not really. The "History" section of this article shows examples dating back two millennia or more. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm not sure I find the arguments predicated on "Nazi propaganda is the most well-known and iconic example of propaganda" to be convincing. First of all, that claim doesn't appear to be supported by any citations provided. Secondly, even if we assume that Nazi propaganda is the best known, given how broad the actual category of propaganda is, I'm not sure it does our readers a service to provide it as an example, as it may have the effect of simply confirming a narrow stereotype about what propaganda is. signed,Rosguill talk 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Rosguill makes a very good point here - Nazi propaganda may be the worst propaganda in some ways - but that very fact makes it less "typical". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Very little on propaganda after WWII
There seems to be nothing on propaganda after WWII, not even stating historical and well-documented cases such as the CIA propaganda efforts in Chile, as identified in the Church Committee report or the Military Analyst program during the run-up to the Iraq war. 85.55.201.134 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

About commenting of Mai Chi Tho, Communist Vietnamese politician, Vietnam War.
Dear, I'm a Vietnamese, and I research Vietnam War's history. In this topic "Propaganda", when I read about commenting of Mai Chi Tho in a paragraph what is "Vietnam War", I don't agree with your information. That is a way in brain's thinking - of someones - not all ones - of cause, that is not all, and that is not the true. I want that you change to save the true. Thanks. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss wm001 (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

19th century claim
The claim that the word only started taking on a pejorative tone during the 19th C strikes me as incorrect. You can see a pejorative use of the word in Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, second addition (last line). Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.24.77 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No Bernays?
How is Edward Bernays nowhere on this page except in further reading when he literally wrote the book on propaganda and was nicknamed "the father of propaganda?" Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.132.255 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Self-Propaganda
I am working on editing the Self-propaganda article. I was thinking it might be good to add a sub section within the Propaganda article. Is there a good place to add such a sub section/are there any thoughts on this? thanks ~carose2001 --Carose2001 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Anglo-centric approach?
Propaganda also has much in common with public information campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage certain forms of behavior... In countries other than English-speaking, the word propaganda lacks the explicit negative meaning present in America. For example, in Russian, people say "anti-smoking propaganda". Might this article be expanded from this angle? The above is the closest to what I mean, and yet it establishes a line bwtween the two terms (even though the lede does mention the neutral nature of the term as the original one).--Adûnâi (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, so we need to defer to usage in English. The phenomenon that you're referring to above is an example of a False friend––While words that sound the same as "propaganda" in Russian (and Spanish, etc.) do have a different connotation than in English, what this means in practice is that we shouldn't translate "пропаганда" as propaganda in English, but rather as "advertisement" or "advocacy". If we can find secondary sources discussing this phenomenon, it may be worth adding to a section of the article.
 * Alternatively, if you have evidence that this is a US-specific phenomenon, rather than an English-specific phenomenon, then it would be appropriate to adjust our coverage. signed,Rosguill talk 19:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Purely anecdotal, but I think both US readers and non-specialist readers are less willing to admit that 'our side' also created 'propaganda' - aka public information when we make it. Why We Fight uses the word solely of the enemy films which it quoted from and was intended to counter. Individual films in that series are sometimes described as 'propaganda films', sometimes not - though all are in propaganda categories. Film historians, certainly in the UK, are more willing to admit that most WWII film output, including much fiction, was, necessarily, propagandist in intent. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: there was (e.g. in USSR era) wide use of word "propaganda" yet in "generalized" interpretation of Latin meaning (which is close to "something that should be spreaded among people"), was interpreted as "any material/info people on a a prticular factory should know"). Soviet cyclopedia wasn't denying this article's statement, technically, but was using it without being "specific".
 * Fun fact: there was (e.g. in USSR era) wide use of word "propaganda" yet in "generalized" interpretation of Latin meaning (which is close to "something that should be spreaded among people"), was interpreted as "any material/info people on a a prticular factory should know"). Soviet cyclopedia wasn't denying this article's statement, technically, but was using it without being "specific".


 * Technically, "advertisment [via media]" would also be translated as "propaganda" in USSR -- again, without political meaning; yet in general sense, "soap opera" would be "пропаганда" if funded by soap factory, or something like 1990 Toyota billboard would be, in a general sense, "a propaganda board for rent".
 * "Проп-" prefix in Soviet era was legit referring to "propaganda-something". ПропМатериалы (literally "PropMaterials") were Propaganda Materials, not "props" in movie meaning
 * Compare it with a "propellant" word, which has "spread" meaning too (yet in a non-humanitarian, physical meaning).
 * "Prop" as in movie stages trnslates to Russian as "Реквизит" (literally "requisit") for some reason. False friends like that are still common, but modern Runglishification (to the point many simple, common words like "case" are being adopted as is) makes it less and less of an issue.Uchyotka (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Head image
The pre-editwar version of the head with the propaganda image is the stable version. Any change of that in order to push for a another version, should be discussed by the community. There has been no attempt by the Serbian editors to start a discussion instead they have resorted to edit-warring in order to remove the image from the Yugoslav Wars from the lede. The content of the edits put forward by the two editors has nothing to do with MoS, but it is a content edit which argues that an infamous propaganda case from the Yugoslav Wars, which depicts Serbian wartime propaganda should not be in the lede. I'm not taking a position here, but the community should debate points of arguments for what they are, not something that they're not. The edit summaries of almost all reverts make arguments about MoS and WP:SANDWICH, but this edit-war is not happening because of an aesthetic disagreement about MoS. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd invite the involved editors, , and even  since the image was first added in this edit  to discuss the issue here. It does appear that the lead text was sandwiched at least initially by the two images but it's fixed now. As far as whether the picture belongs in the lead, it seems to me that it would make more sense for the image to reflect a textbook example of propaganda, one that is recognizable and relatable to the average English reader. While this one can be moved to the body next to the text on the Bosnian War. --Griboski (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with who said previously on this matter on the talk page “ shows how art can be twisted to suit an agenda, which is an essential feature of propaganda.” Surely a reader can understand this based on the picture and description. They wouldn’t come to the article to see what they already know or have seen. Misrepresenting content to push an agenda or mislead the target audience is part of what propaganda can do. Griboski, is there an alternative picture you have in mind? OyMosby (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with, and with OyMosby. The particular example is uniquely illustrative, at least in respect to other images available on the page, and it certainly deserves a prominent place in the article instead of being buried and obscured somewhere in the middle or at the bottom.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I thought the one added by AB was adequate. Deserving of being in the lead is a subjective opinion. It is just as deserving to be placed in the war section. Looking through the article's history, there's been a few different images used in the lead and there was none prior to the adding of this one. Just like it was subjectively added without consensus, I don't see why it can't be replaced and moved without consensus. I'd just like to hear more editors' opinions on it. --Griboski (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current image should be a part of the article but not the lead. "I want you" has been described as "famous propanda poster" and "iconic". It's far better for the lead as it can communicate to a much wider audience. The image added by AB is good as well.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Holding the line" image is the one that comes up first when doing a Google Images search for "propaganda" . These are strong grounds to make it the lede image. The famous "I want you" image comes up third. Both of these are good choices, and far better than the current choice, which appears only to be supported because it suits the ideological preferences of some users. Khirurg (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * “which appears only to be supported because it suits the ideological preferences of some users.” One could say the same for the reasoning to remove said existing image from the lead. I specified a reason. In that the image demonstrates manipulating an existing painting to fraudulently depict another scene to demonize a group or country. A major use of propaganda material. As viewpoint turns out to later support as well. Looking at the Google results, in second place is “Is This Tomorrow” which also fits the bill of warped imagery to instill anger and demonize a group. Seems like a good alternative that fits my “ideologic preferences”. OyMosby (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the head image in the lead was quite controversial. The change by which the image was added was subject of the WP:REVDEL, between and  (which was evident WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK), while the information is sourced by the E-novine, which was famous for elements of gonzo journalism and pro-Aleksandar Vučić editorial policy. Also, this version totally violates WP:UNDUE and many other policies. The image is important and illustrative example of propaganda, but it's really unreasonable and unencyclopedic to put anything above the most famous examples that most often appear in sources and web search results such as We Can Do It!, I Want YOU, Holding the line, the examples of Nazi propaganda, communist propaganda etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think about “Is This Tomorrow - America Under Communism”? It’s an example of anti-Communist American propaganda that incorporates demonizing and misrepresenting imagery vilifying “the enemy”. I think it would be a good visual to use. What say you?OyMosby (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing here whether an image is interpreted as demonization or something like that, this image is a shameful and illustrative example of Milošević's propaganda. Crucially, this version violates many of Wikipedia's key policies. Neither a reliable source is cited, nor does this image present a majority view and a proportionately the most significant example. However, it is quite ironic that Naom Chomsky, who established the most recognized propaganda model, criticized the anti-Serbian bias in the Western world. It can be seen that the I Want YOU most often appears in web search results, although it is not in the first place, and I'm sure that all of you will agree that it is the most recognizable propaganda poster.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We Can Do It! and I Want YOU it is not propaganda but a charge of morale in the event of war. The current main picture "Painful reminder" is a true description of false propaganda and how the truth can be twisted and a lie written to manipulate people. You should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.164.99 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is also propaganda. That term does not only mean manipulation and lying. There is also are many different methods, as well as well-intentioned propaganda. That focus on negative propaganda is precisely an indicator of WP:UNDUE. If we want to highlight negative propaganda, then we should add the example of Nazi propaganda as the head image. We really need to stick to the policy of neutrality, as well as the presentation of events according to their significance and representation in the sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WEBDuB I’m not sure you understood my reply. The other editors mentioned popularity it google search results and I found “Is This Tomorrow - America Under Communism” to be in second place and I was proposing it. OyMosby (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, sorry. Certainly, the other arguments stand.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you that there is well-intentioned propaganda. This main picture should remain and it is well explained below the picture what propaganda is and it's very funny such lying should be invented. A great example for readers to understand what propaganda is. Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.164.99 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you need to sign your messages. Further, this is not a forum. It doesn't matter what any of us think, but what the sources say.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries and if we are to provide an example of negative propaganda, is there a source for what the biggest example of negative propaganda is? Otherwise we would be discussing a matter of opinion at this point or popularity on Google based on the conversation so far. OyMosby (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * But which source cites the current picture as part of the propaganda in general? In particular, which source does cite as the most famous and important example of propaganda? We can't know which who added it because of WP:REVDEL (which means that editor has probably violated some important rules), or whether it was part of anti-Serb POV-pushing and proportionality overrepresentation of Yugoslav Wars, what has already been seen often. Current gonzo journalism and pro-Vučić portal? Verz interesting. A huge number of sources cite the Uncle Sam “I Want YOU” poster as one of the recognizable example of propaganda.          --WEBDuB (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The current lede has been the stable version for quite some time, so any change to it should involve large consensus, which doesn't exist at the moment. I will continue to not take a position because I don't think that a decisive argument can be made about which image best represents the term propaganda.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version was not created as a result of consensus, but by very controversial change without relevant sources, totally contrary to the WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:COMMONSENSE policies.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WEBDuB again.... I am not talking about the current picture in the lead so not sure what you mean. I am advocating “Is This Tomorrow - America Under Communism” which is not even Serb related. And was going by the whole popularity based on search results and was asking if there is RS on what is the most widely referenced example of negative propaganda. I was not asking for RS as some argument for keeping the picture currently in the lead. I don’t know if “I want you” is particularly negative if we want to provide an example of positive and negative images in the lead. As for if the image was added as some “anti-Serb pov pushing” you will have to ask  as it seems they added it to the article. Although claiming such conspiracy would need evidence as I am sure I would be chastised for claiming “anti-Croat pov pushing” if it were a piece of Croatian propaganda being placed in the lead for example. Also seeing that it was added within the past year without an RfC or consensus, I agree that it is an issue. OyMosby (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * attempts to move the head image without consensus while there is an ongoing RfC that emerged precisely because some editors (including you) wanted to change the lead (but had no consensus to do so), will eventually require admin oversight. That will not be necessary if you just wait for the RfC to close. If you achieve a consensus in favor of its removal, do so - but don't attempt again to make changes in the particular area without having RfC consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the lead photo should not even be in the article, let along at the top, because i don't think that it represents valid propaganda compared to many of the other examples. There surely were propaganda attempts by all Balkan sides in the media, but i don't think that this is a good example. Although the original name of the painting is indeed "Orphan at mother's grave" this painting is also a symbol of centuries of suffering of Serbian people. Considering that during the time of war a lot of crimes which were done to Serbs were covered up and pushed under the carpet, and also a lot of anti-Serbian propaganda was spread across mainly western media, one newspaper did try to present this painting in a similar manner as stated. However this presentation was momentarily discarded by everyone in Serbia, since it was clear from the beginning that it was one of the most famous Serbian paintings and not an actual photo of a child. Considering that actual propaganda usually organized and widely spread among people and influences them in to thinking in a certain way, i do not believe that this self-indicated publishing of one particular newspaper represents a good example considering it's backstory and the fact that it was discarded from the very beginning and did not have basically any influence on people or their perception.Ztoni998 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding lede image
Should the current lede image be swapped with the bulldog image on the right. Both images are currently in the article. I am not proposing removing any of them, just swapping. ? Khirurg (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. The current image unfairly stigmatizes one of the sides of the Yugoslav Wars. The proposed image is the top result when searching for "propaganda" in Google Images. Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Willing to Support I think the current image works well because it shows the original and then how it was altered for propaganda purposes. That being said, I would not object to a swap-- I think either works well. --Tfkalk (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As with Tfkalk, i think the current image works very well; it illustrates several features of the subject, and does so with a quality image. The bulldog is not as good: The quality is poorer (the folds are a pity), it doesn't illustrate the manipulative approach, which is very much part of the current understanding of propaganda and, in mine opinion, it isn't as obvious ~ the face of Churchill is not clearly him, i had to look twice to work it out ~ which makes it a less effective example.  I think the concern over unfairness in the first support is misplaced; we are not presenting the message of the propaganda ~ that this side or that was evil ~ but neutrally showing how propaganda works, and that image very much does that job for us.  Ultimately, i prefer to oppose the proposed change, though it would not be a disaster if it happened; happy days, LindsayHello 08:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Lindsay. I think an ideal lede image should contain at least some typically associated features like misleadingness, appeal to emotion, and divisiveness. Admittedly the explanatory caption is a bit long. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Although the current image fairly stigmatizes one of the sides of the Yugoslav Wars, it misleads the reader to think that being misleading is a defining feature of propaganda. That is absolutely not the case. ImTheIP (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This image is a mockery of Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and portraying him as a dog. It has nothing to do with propaganda except that the propaganda is a mockery of someone.94.46.164.99 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable propaganda from either of the world wars is far more pertinent to an English-speaking audience than that from a conflict that occurred as a result of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the Balkan image more appropriate reflects propaganda and appeal to emotion. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose using this particular image. It doesn’t capture the topic of the article. Also on aesthetic grounds alone. Having said that, there are a few images in the article that may be better suited to being up top than the current one. The North Korean poster, the soviet anti-religious poster or the Britannnia one.  Volunteer Marek   08:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the term "propaganda" is often associated with manipulation and deceit in contemporary times. The proposed image does not represent these qualities, though it is aesthetically pleasing. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It isn't even clear what is being propagandised - it does not epitomise any of the usual elements of propaganda and the 'unfair on Serbs' argument is weak. All sides in a war use propaganda, sometimes crudely sometimes less so, some images becone iconic. the current image does at least characterise the emotional manipulation element of some propaganda. Some WWII images might equally well do so.Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * History of the Churchill image here. Interestingly it began life as a Daily Express cartoon (albeit a non-satirical one] in the UK and only became a poster later in the US. According to this source, the Churchill/bulldog linkage was as a result of the cartoon.Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither the current or the proposed one are good (for reasons outlined in the comments above). A third alternative should be discussed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it's not clear what the purpose of this image is. I agree that there are other images already in-use in the article that are preferable to the current lead image, and among them I think that the anticommunist "Is this tomorrow" image is best as its purpose is immediately legible to English-language readers and it doesn't contain anything that could come off as offensive. Per others' comments, World War propaganda may be an even better fit, but the examples currently used in the article are either not obvious in their sentiment (such as the bulldog one) or contain slurs or racist caricatures that are unnecessarily inflammatory for the lead image. signed,Rosguill talk 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I believe that the lead photo should not even be in the article, let along at the top, because i don't think that it represents valid propaganda compared to many of the other examples. There surely were propaganda attempts by all Balkan sides in the media, but i don't think that this is a good example. Although the original name of the painting is indeed "Orphan at mother's grave" this painting is also a symbol of centuries of suffering of Serbian people. Considering that during the time of war a lot of crimes which were done to Serbs were covered up and pushed under the carpet, and also a lot of anti-Serbian propaganda was spread across mainly western media, one newspaper did try to present this painting in a similar manner as stated. However this presentation was momentarily discarded by everyone in Serbia, since it was clear from the beginning that it was one of the most famous Serbian paintings and not an actual photo of a child. Considering that actual propaganda is usually organized and widely spread among people and influences them in to thinking in a certain way, i do not believe that this self-indicated publishing of one particular newspaper represents a good example considering it's backstory and the fact that it was discarded from the very beginning and did not have basically any influence on people or their perception.Ztoni998 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per definition of propaganda. The current image meets all the requirements which an image should meet for representing this article. Some of them, like shaping opinions through emotional manipulation isn't achieved in the proposed image. The supporting opinions are quite weak and most of them just don't like it based on their ethnicity. Finding an image which everyone likes will probably not be possible since this topic always triggers somebody. I don't see any reason why the current image should be changed since it is no offense against any ethnicity.Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not about supporting the change because of someone's ethnicity, because by that logic we can say that you are opposing it because of your ethnicity...It's about what's wright. Although the newspaper went overboard with trying to present the painting as an actual photo, which i do NOT support, the fact is that similar crimes against Serbs were actually happening, but they were pushed under the carpet and never spoken of... which was probably the reason why the newspaper felt that they should do such a thing in the first place. But as i said this story was discarded immediately in Serbia. Either way, wouldn't you agree that a much bigger problem than 'Vecernje Novosti' or any other newspaper in the Balkans is the propaganda spread by international media, especially in english language and by big media houses such as BBC and CNN because of the publicity it reaches? I would because i've felt that propaganda on my own skin. You see, i do a lot of international projects, therefore i travel a lot. I have a dual citizenship, both Croatian and Serbian, so i represent both countries. And let me tell you, the way I am viewed by some people depending on who i represent on a certain project is completely different. I can't tell you how many times someone came to me and asked me about some absurd story they've heard or read in the media about Serbs and Serbia. How many untrue and frankly ridiculous things i've heard, and yet that's never happened to me when representing Croatia. The anti-Serbian propaganda which was spread over the past decades is a very real thing. Considering the fact that the US lead NATO pact had a lot to do with everything that was going on in the Balkans, as always stories presented in the big majority of western media were twisted and shaped to fit their interest.The problem is that in most cases propaganda is not realized through pictures or posters, but through incorrect information and one-sided and incomplete stories. This is exactly what transpired in this case, which is why as i mentioned a lot of crimes done to Serbs were covered up and never spoken of, because they didn't fit that narrative of villainizing Serbs. Who ever posted this, may or may not have had the intention to contribute to that narrative, but they certainly did so. Having all this in mind, i find it very unfair and honestly pretty ironic that the first thing people see when they search for propaganda on Wikipedia is an example of Serbian propaganda, considering how much anti-Serbian propaganda was pushed through the years, which as i've said, unfortunately i have felt myself.I hope this helped you and others understand why i believe that making this the main photo of this topic is really not doing it justice. Nothing but love, all the best to you brother.Ztoni998 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither: having a lead wiht a context-less, random xenophobic, antisemitic, etc. poster is not helpful. The page is about the subject of propaganda, so a better image would be one showing the process of creation of propaganda or use of propaganda. If this is challenging to find, then a poster that it independently notable would be suitable, such as the We Can Do It! poster ("Rosie the Riveter"). Then ppl would be able to click through to the article to get the necessary, sourced context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The two-pane image of Bosnian War propaganda is superior in conveying the idea. The Churchill/bulldog image is not supported by any analysis. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Post RfC comments
The RfC period is now over, and it looks like the proposal has failed to gain a consensus. A fair number of editors expressed dissatisfaction with both the proposal and the status quo; it may be productive to discuss further alternatives. So far, editors have suggested the North Korean poster, the soviet anti-religious poster the Britannnia poster, and the American anti-communist pamphlet from the article as well as Rosie the Riveter, as alternatives. signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm alerting some of the users who participated in the RfC and expressed dissatisfaction with either image being at the top or were open to a swap,, , and. Of course, everyone else is welcome to join. I think an alternative should be discussed here instead of opening a new RfC for every image. The famous "I want you" poster is one that appears a lot when searching for propaganda. Rosie the Riveter and the Anti-Communist pamphlet as mentioned by Rosguill have also been suggested. I would be willing to support either of those as they are classic examples that convey the article subject's in a clear manner. --Griboski (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also agree to support the use of I want you!, File:We Can Do It!.jpg, or Is this tomorrow. I think that the North Korean example is not as good because it is not in English, and the Britannia one's message is not as immediately obvious as the examples I'm supporting. signed,Rosguill talk 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I still think the American Anti-Communism poster is perfect in how it manipulates the audience in development of hatered of an “enemy” as the current Serbian propaganda example does. So I am still for the Anti-Communism pamphlet. Also I am noticing an sudden influx of new users and IPs trying to outright delete from the article the example of Serbian propaganda. I hope admins are looking into this. Is it is vandelism. Self concluded notion that only Serbs are “vilified” does not justify removal of the example to “repair Serbian image” and “honor”z Wikipedia is not a score settling blog. Croats and Croatia have faced negative press in Western media. Especially at the beginning of the war. When the Vukovar massacre happened, the BBC ran documentaries about the Ustashe to neutralize any humanizing empathy for Croats. The West initially favored a stable Yugoslavia that would remain. There are peer reviewed articles about this. Not to mention when representing as Croatia I have seen countless anti-Croat assertions and beliefs. Not to mention a plethora of crimes committed against Croats still seen no justice as well. It is based on facts and peer reviewed data. Not self claims of “most people didn’t take this propaganda seriously”. Which isn’t an argument as what makes something propaganda is not related to how many people believe it or how effective it is. Which such claims would need RS. This is not towards Roseguill or Griboski but to a new Wiki editor in the RfC above. OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are targeting me why don't you just tag me or respond to me directly? Just because i am a new editor doesn't make my words less valuable or less true. It's interesting how you lack understanding to why someone doesn't prefer the current photo, even though it obviously stigmatizes on side of the Yugoslav Wars, and yet get triggered when someone even mentions your country, although not even in a negative connotation.Also i find it interesting that you are using the word facts for articles,which often are the lead spreader of propaganda, written by certain people who in many cases have not even had any actual contact with the events of the topic, in this case Yugoslav Wars...but are quick to deny and look down on anything said by someone who has gone through it, and is talking from experience and not just what the media spoon-feeds.However i am interested in hearing the negative experiences you had because of anti-Croatian propaganda as you stated, considering that i myself never had a negative experience when representing Croatia abroad and that 9/10 articles found in foreign media will indeed portray Serbs as the "bad guys". The general idea that the Serbian image needs to be repaired, while the Croatian doesn't, despite crimes committed during not just the Yugoslav Wars like the ones in Oluja, but also the ones committed during WW2 like Jasenovac, goes to show who here has been portrayed as the villain in the past couple of decades.Maybe Croats did face some negative press at the beginning, but since then all the way to present day Serbs are the ones who are constantly thrown under the buss.I didn't say that Serbs are the only ones who are vilified, through the years it was Russians, Chinese,Koreans,Iraqis,Libyans,Iranians and basically anyone that the US either invaded or had conflicts with. In the case of Yugoslav Wars, it was the Serbs. That's why in Hague Tribunal more Serbs were prosecuted than Croats,Bosnians and Albanianas combined.To be clear there are no innocent sides in the Yugoslav Wars,everyone committed crimes, but the difference is that while Serbs are accused for both what they did and didn't do, majority of crimes against Serbs are constantly covered up and pushed under the carpet, which is why war criminals such as Naser Oric,Ante Gotovina,Ramush Haradinaj,Hashim Thaci are still walking free.To get back to the current photo, it's not about most people not taking it seriously as you said. It's about that there is a big difference between propaganda which is self-initially portrayed by an individual newspaper but not supported by the general media or the public of that country, and propaganda which is planed,pushed by general media reaching enormous publicity and often orchestrated by the government itself in effort to brainwash people, which is the case with many of the other examples.Anyway my previous comment was not an attack at anyone, especially not Croats, as i myself am a Croatian citizen and have many friends and family members who are Croats. It was an effort to underline the injustice of having an example of Serbian propaganda as the lead image of this topic, not just because of the insignificance of it compared to many others, but especially because of how much anti-Serbian propaganda was pushed through the years. I don't want to be stigmatized when representing Croatia, what i want is not to be stigmatized when representing Serbia. That's all. A znaj moj brate da ti ja želim sve najbolje i da to od srca i mislim.Ztoni998 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop twisting. It shouldn’t be “interesting” that I Am against someone downplaying what one group went through to bolster up an image of what another group went through. Which is what you did multiple times. Let’s be real here. You didn’t simply mention Croat or Croatia but downplayed their treatment and experiences. Thought you are against such behavior?? You repeatedly deleted the propaganda photo from the article despite it having cited sources based on your justification that “most people didn’t believe it therefore should be removed”. Multiple editors had to undo you. And yes, denying the vilification of Croats and your edit on Operation Storm are in fact provocative and downplaying experiences by others. So please do practice what you preach. Rich that you call me “triggered” given your diatribe about Serbs in response to an editor who simply didn’t like the Churchill photo. Christ almighty, this isn’t Reddit. As is your reply to me which I will let slide this once. I corrected your incorrect assertions about Croatian experiences. Sorry that set you off. If everyone removed content from Wikipedia because they don’t like it as apposed to having valid sources, it would be a mess. Nothing in your reply refutes mine. Stay on topic as apposed to ranting about Croats and WWII (which is constantly in the media so not sure how you miss it) as the Chetniks are an interesting subject you left behind. Also you being new isn’t the concern but that a couple of new accounts suddenly pop up removing the same content. Usually raises concerns. I don’t care what your background is. Actions speak louder than words, my friend. The irony in you calling others triggered. Self reflect on your first three big posts on this page. I mearly responded to your “triggers”. And the fact that you admit to being on some mission to “repair the Serbian image” is astounding to see said out loud. What is really interesting is your miss characterizations of me and hypocrisy on the subject at hand. You clearly hold a bias for a “side” and disregard what others went through. You are conflicting with your own advice. That is what’s “interesting”. I already gave an example during the war about the BBC. I’m not gonna even go through the rest of what you wrote on this page as this is not a forum. I’m not discussing this off-topic matter further. Also had no interest in discussing it directly in the RfC if you must know. By the way if you read my reply more carefully, you would see that I am In favor of removing the photo from the intro and placing the anti-Communism poster. Also, known that I hold no anger towards any ethnic group or people but wanted to speak out against what others didn’t want to get involved in. It had to be said. I am tired of the oversimplification of victimhood blathered by various “sides” about the Balkans. This ain’t the website for blogs. Have a good day. And take a breather. OyMosby (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misinterpreting my words so that they better fit your response or do you actually hear what you want to hear. And yet im the one who's twisting? I removed the picture from the lead and provided my explanation to why i do not believe it should be there. Being a new user i did not now that there is a Talk page where the changes should be discussed (altho the picture was added without any discussion), but as soon as Rosguill directed me to it all i have written and edited was on the Talk page. I'm sure you already knew this, so i don't see the reason for trying to make it controversial. Despite all my explanations, honestly i find it pretty pathetic that you are still trying to diminish my words by just putting it in a "most people didn't take it seriously" category, although i explained that it wasn't about that. My response to the previous editor had nothing to do with him not liking the Churchill photo as you conveyed, but praising the current one calling all the opinions for changing it weak and classifying it in "just not liking it because of someone's ethnicity and for no good reason". And yet i'm the one downplaying what a certain group went through? Can you please elaborate where in my comments in the previous Rfc did you possibly see me downplay or even talk about what other groups did or didn't go through? My only mentioning of Croatia was to say that during my international projects (which have nothing to do with politics), as a person who represents both countries i definitely felt the difference in treatment by some people only due to which country i represented. So me talking about how i basically didn't have any problems or negative experiences when representing Croatia today, which is definitely a good thing, you somehow attempted to display as me downplaying Croatian experiences during the war 30 years ago? Seriously? The point of that comment was neither Croatia or Croats, but how due to the anti-Serbian propaganda, Serbs are often looked down on by certain people compared to other ethnicities whether they are Italians, Bulgarians,Belgians or like in my case Croats. This does not mean that others should be treated badly as well,but that Serbs should be treated equally, which is why i stated: "I don't want to be stigmatized when representing Croatia, what i want is not to be stigmatized when representing Serbia." The problem is that unlike the vilification of Croats that to your statement happened almost 30 years ago at the beginning of the war, the vilification of Serbs is a ongoing process where 9/10 modern articles in the foreign media will indeed portray Serbs as the villains and attempt to dump the entire blame on them. If the fact that fighting against the propaganda and the numbness of western media towards multitude of crimes committed against Serbs in effort to sustain that narrative of Serbs being the villains, somehow makes you interpret that as downplaying what another group went through, then i'm afraid that's on you. Parts of the 'article' on operation storm however did exactly that, not only downplaying what Serbs went through during it, but trying to make it seam justified by manipulating the numbers,data and terminology such as what is and what isn't called ethnic cleansing, despite the existence of, as you like to say, valid sources which suggest othervise.For someone who's family went through storm this is just disgraceful. Also may i remind you that you are not only the one who laid out the idea of me of trying to repair Serbian image, but apparently have now 'admitted' it in my name as well. Read my response to your idea more carefully. You will also see that was the only sentence where i mentioned WW2 so i don't know how you consider that "ranting about it", but since you mentioned cetniks,although both them and ustase were fighting against partizans and committed crimes, i think even you would agree that it would be a very long stretch trying to equate them to NDH.If you didn't' want to continue this off-topic matter further than you shouldn't have started it in the post Rfc comments.None of my comments in the section above spoke ill about any of the Balkan ethnicities,but rather talked about the injustice of having a picture of Serbian propaganda as the lead photo, considering it's background and how much anti-Serbian propaganda was and is pushed due to the US influenced media.You felt the need to defend yourself,even though you were never under attack in the first place,as the subject matter of my comment was neither Croatia or Croats.The idea that talking about the anti-Serbian media propaganda,which in effort to sustain that narrative of Serbs being villains, constantly pushes only one-sided stories and is numb to crimes committed against Serbs is somehow a taboo subject and by people like you associated with downplaying what others went through is exactly the problem i've been talking about. Let's not forget that i'm the only one here who clearly stated that there are no innocent sides in the Balkan Wars and that everyone suffered. I don't know if i left an impression on you as being sarcastic with the last sentence in my previous comment, but i wasn't. When i say that i wish you all the best from the bottom of my heart, know that i really do mean that.Ztoni998 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say that there is an innocent side. No you are not the only one there is no innocent side. Enough with the moral grandstanding and making things person. This precisely why I am not interested in having this full on back and forth off topic argument. There are countless articles kn Wikipedia and media about war crimes perpetrated against Serb and Serbian civilians. That is the issue, that is your only concern here and portraying a fiction conspiracy that there is an agenda to hide only crimes against Serbs or intention not talk about them. And using such logic to remove Sourced content is not valid. Also Please do not move my comments again. My first reply mainly had nothing to do with your essay but about the anti-Communist image proposed. Nor did I call you out by name as you did with me. This isn’t a battleground site for social justice. Not all crimes have been properly reported for all sides. And it seems I am the only one here acknowledging that and how not only Serbs were demonized in the media. Notice that? Please reassess your previous comments. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But please do tell me where are these countless articles? It seems to me that you are either assuming their existence or we have a different definition of countless.The issue here is not Serbian, Croatian or any of the Balkan media and what they did or didn't report. The issue is international media, specifically western, which strongly influenced by the US, as we all know, tends to vindicate their involvement in conflicts and justify their actions, which among others were bombing Serbia with depleted uranium. Therefore pushing media propaganda which fits them, leads to presenting Serbs as the ultimate villains. This is why, as i stated multiple times 9/10 foreign articles you come across will portray Serbs as "bad guys", and in effort to do so not talk or barely talk about the crimes and injustice they faced. This is why there is a big difference between how many war criminals were/weren't prosecuted or convicted between Serbia and any of the other sides. I honestly find it insulting that you are using the term "fiction conspiracy", as this is something you could easily check and conclude yourself. There is no innocent side, everyone committed crimes, everyone suffered and at some point of time everyone must have been exposed to badmouthing and propaganda by at least some media circles...but saying that over the past couple of decades Serbs have not been "demonized" in foreign media more than any other side of Balkan Wars is just not true, and is pretty obvious by just browsing through the western media articles. When it comes to the photo, tho i am much more restrict to call any source "valid", the source wasn't the issue here. The issue was taking all factors in consideration, does the photo belong on the cover of this particular article and was it justifiably put there or not? In my opinion the answer is no. Also i didn't move your comment, i moved Rosguill's tag for the separate section, because if we are being honest 90% of your first comment was also off-topic and had nothing to do with the anti-Communist image. I think that it's only fair that our entire conversation is inside this segment, and not part here-part there. If you still chose to move the tag under your first comment so that the off-topic section doesn't encompass it, i will not change that. But by doing so please move it also under my first comment, as again i don't think it's fair that all of my comments from our conversation are inside this section, while yours aren't. Hope you understand. Ztoni998 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the American Anti-Communism poster also works well as the image. The other two would technically fall under propaganda, but I think they're weak examples given, as the article notes, propaganda has "often been associated with a manipulative approach." Tfkalk (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the anti-communist poster is representative. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the Anti-Communist poster, although i would also support the I Want You and We Can Do It considering that they are perhaps the most famous examples of propaganda. But yes, i thing that Is This Tomorrow is a good choice especially considering that the stereotypes towards communist considered countries such as China are pretty much alive even today.Ztoni998 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A really big No to We Can Do It! because that poster was barely seen in its day. It was rediscovered decades later and widely misinterpreted, making it a very poor example of propaganda. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree on both. I still think the American Anti-Communism poster is perfect in how it manipulates the audience in development of hatered of an “enemy” as the current Serbian propaganda example does. So I am still for the Anti-Communism pamphlet.


 * and


 * A really big No to We Can Do It! because that poster was barely seen in its day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchyotka (talk 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should this article's lead section contain a juxtaposition of grainy and obscure images from the Yugoslav Wars (whose inclusion isn't reliably sourced and one of which isn't even public domain) as textbook examples of propaganda? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * The current RfC statement isn't neutral, and the discussion's scope overlaps considerably with the already-open RfC above. signed,Rosguill talk 17:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Motivational posters (as in "Keep Calm And Carry On"
ALSO, I wonder if "motivational posters" can be attributed to propaganda "in broader sense of the word", such as "Keep Calm And Carry On". Uchyotka (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation on the Politics Sub-Header
I plan to place the following section in a new light. I will not be making actual edits to the section on Politics for the Propaganda wikipedia page but instead will leave recommendations on the talk page. While the page goes in depth about the extent to which propaganda became pervasive in politics throughout history, there is a lacking aspect with regard to documenting the history of propaganda, in politics. In order to provide a more complete picture of propaganda politics the history of propaganda in politics must be documented without bias or without the lack of ultimate understanding. As noted by the text Film propaganda in Britain and Nazi Germany: World War II Cinema by Jo Fox. The author documents the history of propaganda in political theaters through the use of documenting the government(s) use of the advertising to control nations, such as in Nazi Germany.Further, to avoid the bias previously mentioned, the text "Facts, propaganda, or history? Shaping political memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle." Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire by Caroline Waerzeggers documents the historical aspect of propaganda in politic. Overall, the sub-section does a good job of attempting to capture the role of propaganda in politics, however, these are the areas one find they can be improved upon. After engaging in this project, describe your sense of the practice of developing shared knowledge--why might this process be important? The practice of developing shared knowledge is one that goes back to ancient times. However, as we have become more technologically advanced, one finds that the development of shared knowledge while has expanded in its ability to reach more people than ever before, it has also isolated us. This process of developing shared knowledge allows there to be deeper understanding not only on the topic at hand but also of others, and how to work together to achieve levels of understanding that we perhaps might not been able to do on our own. This is why the practice of developing shared knowledge is important. With regard to ethical considerations, one finds that the practice of developing shared knowledge is heavily implicated. On our own we are left to reach our own conclusions without peer review which brings different perspectives. This can lead to biased knowledge-production, as we have seen in the past. Due to the practice of developing shared knowledge, the ethical considerations seem to imply a beneficial factor due to the plethora of perspectives and sources of knowledge to draw from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredburtonw (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonahx11!. Peer reviewers: Mmwilli, Jnapier22, Pkoewle, WarrenforPrez, MayoStephanie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Graffrich. Peer reviewers: Elizatangen98, Glparks.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sugarandsage, EthicsForAFreeWorld, Sam Davila, Fredburtonw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reneehobs. Peer reviewers: Reneehobs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
There's been some back and forth reverting over the lead image, between the Is this tomorrow book cover selected after a 2020 RfC and a Nazi propaganda stamp suggested by. I'm not opposed to a new suggestion in principle, but I do think that the Nazi stamp is a subpar example for a few reasons: a) it includes a visually offensive antisemitic character and b) its message is not immediately legible to readers (Who is the original target audience of the image? What does "a Jewish war" mean? Does it matter that Stalin wasn't actually Jewish? There are answers to these questions, but including them in the lead image is awkward). Moreover, I'm not sure I understand the counter-assertion that the Is this tomorrow cover has controversial contemporary baggage. Pinging other involved editors,. signed,Rosguill talk 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for bringing this up. I think after a few years, a new lead image would be fine with me. That said, I do not think it has to be the one suggested by Pulpfiction621. I am open to other suggestions as well. Final point for now, I do not think that the "offensive antisemitic character" of the image should in any way detract from the images use though, we are talking about propaganda after all! Any image may well likely be "offensive" in nature, and antisemitic propaganda has historically been used in many contexts, and in fact would likely serve as an excellent example of propaganda in its lowest (but perhaps most revealing form). I tend to think of the "childrens books" that used images of Jews presented as poisonous toadstools (mushrooms) as Nazi propaganda when I think of that notion, and those might well be some of the best images for the lead for an article on propaganda. Just my two cents. I'd like to see which "North Korean poster" was posed as an option as well in the 2020 RfC, that sounds interesting, and NK is known for essentially only producing propaganda in their imagery for the past 70ish years, so that would be a particularly non-controversial choice in my view. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 15:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some that might work well. Poster of Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang, North Korean propaganda poster, circa 1951, but perhaps my favorite of all, the all time favorite for me as a clear example of propaganda is this one... the famous "Destroy this Mad Brute" image from WW1 making Germany out to be a version of King Kong, the famous/infamous "Destroy this mad brute" war poster designed to entice men in the USA to enlist in the US army and stop the "brute" from coming ashore! If no one would object, I'd upload that one. :) ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Rosguill, thank you for your suggestion. It did not occur to me for a moment that this would come off as anti-Semitic, I was mostly looking to make the photo less controversial but have perhaps had the opposite effect. I like @Th78blue's suggestions. I think that the examples, particularly "Destroy this mad brute" combine my intention on making the introduction photo less controversial and simultaneously demonstrating a clear cut case of propoganda. I would be in favor of utilizing that photo instead of either the Jewish photo or the original anti-communist photo. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "Destroy this mad brute" out of the ones suggested here, as I think it's beneficial to have the lead example be in English. signed,Rosguill talk 16:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated. Thanks. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 18:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

History
What is the form of communications that provided by mostgoverments to people 2409:4060:2E1F:2BAC:0:0:940A:7801 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)