Talk:History of propaganda

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): AlexusCCarter. Peer reviewers: Graffrich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Laughable

How on earth is it that the word "Putin" does not even appear? It certainly ought to, and prominently. Pax 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Abolitionism

Abolitionism does not belong to a page on "History of Propaganda" as it's very hard (or impossible) to justify the use of the word propaganda from any dictionary or interpretation in this case, insisting on having Abolitionism figure in that page might be bias at best, motivated otherwise. As removals of that section of the page have been disputed with threat to loss of editing privileges, Seraphim System suggested the creation of this post. Dogfiveshield (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dogfiveshield: Please go read Bernays and consider your own, sad, bias. Propaganda is exactly what that was. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The article, as currently written in January, 2024, does not provide sufficient context, for why abolitionism became subject to propaganda. What is the difference between, for example, attempts at persuasion versus attempts to propagandize? If that could be clarified in the article, it would be a service to readers. Regards, Imdownwithbrowns (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Accusations of using propaganda should be associated with a proof of validity, thanks for pointing out an author, when that author's relevance will be established and his words successfully applied to abolitionism as a form of propaganda then Abolitionism will belong to the page on History of Propaganda and only then. Please establish how Bernays views apply to abolitionism before putting it on this page. Kind regards Dogfiveshield (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Odessastepsbaby.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Scientific propaganda

Can a section on scientific propaganda be added such as the use of industry sponsored "research" to politically benefit the industry - tobacco, oil, ...?

Is there also credible scientific data on pushing a fringe idea from the margin to the center via opinionated scientific research? 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DA2:C538:7078:C0D0 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Western propaganda

I was thinking of having a stand alone article Western propaganda, which is now a redirect to Propaganda model. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CPV Poster Da Nang.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

The third paragraph of the lead section:

Unfortunately, propaganda can be dangerous because it can be used to promote harmful or unethical agendas. It can be used to promote war or genocide, to spread false information, or to manipulate people into supporting harmful policies or ideologies. Therefore, it is important for individuals to be critical of the information they receive and to seek out multiple sources to verify facts and perspectives. The term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples.

(the parts I believe to be non-NPOV in bold)

While I strongly agree, does this fit the NPOV Wikipedia should have? I think it should be rephrased 2A02:C7F:2C25:8C00:7896:B91A:F09D:73D0 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the whole paragraph seems tutorial and instructive. I didn't see anything particular in the body that would support the statements. My remedy would be to salvage just the last sentence of the paragraph and append it to the second paragraph. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done what you suggested. Thank you - as an IP I didn't want to make a change like this without agreement 2A02:C7F:2C25:8C00:851A:A7C6:5668:C26B (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New additions are ungrammatical and often unclear

@TheRevisionary, you caught me as I was self-RVing in order to prevent further disruption on my part. The MOS does not contain every rule of English grammar. The issues are unfortunately multifaceted: due to the ungrammatical prose, it is often genuinely unclear what claims are being made. Why is this being presented as a new epoch when a modern example of propaganda is discussed in the previous paragraph?

• It is simply unclear what Initial and modern propaganda uses were witnessed during the 17th century this is trying to say about said 17th-century propaganda. What's initial about it?
• What is a primitive-judged area?
• The sentences added about Jefferson and Nast add exactly nothing to the article, as they do not say anything about the context or character of what these figures did.
• Modern political development has often accounted for the rise of party promotion by numerous means, with propaganda-related extensions forming is also incoherent. Rise of party promotion? Extensions?
• whereby one's performance may be regarded as propaganda should they demonstrate strong character, stances, etc. Numerous claims like this are not adequately verified in their sources.

Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Before I move any further, I wish to confirm that this is defence-orientated on your behalf to prevent what you interpreted as vandalism, correct? TheRevisionary (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, no vandalism has taken place. Remsense ‥ 论 17:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Then what validates your claim of further disruption, specifically on your behalf? If anything this suggests my edits as being such, a remark that one simply cannot help other than recognise as a fallacy. Furthermore, whatever self-imposed notions of "ungrammatical prose" you deemed as fallible beyond rectitude - as evident by your reverts - without any constructiveness, I implore to be reanalysed, given the fact that what I provided has quite little anomaly, if any, when correctly examined through focused definitions on its meaning. Any grammatic reverts without prior enquiry is in direct contradiction of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and therefore constitutes as arbitrary.

I shall elaborate upon the following enquiries;

• By "initial and modern propaganda uses", this refers to the first instances of academically-accepted propaganda recorded, likewise with modern examples, precisely defined as early modern and also the interval between then until late modern.
• Moreover, this is defined as areas primitively-judged by the highest seniority within the Catholic Church, or as more simply written, areas judged to be primitive by Roman Catholic patriarchs that were often regarded in their own language as "heathen lands".
• The entire premise of this claim was that since there was a lack of specificity within the sourcing, these extensions should be identified as obsolete and thus swiftly removed, despite immediate illustration of sources within one of my edits thereafter that you reverted.
• Furthermore, what justifies incoherency here? Party promotion is shortened for the promotion of political parties, whilst extensions refers to similar, albeit distinguished means of persuasion, convincement, etc. that have been formed in the political environment.
• I refer you to the sources again rather than assuming, as I reiterate that numerous sources have again been issued to support this, however I'm not sure how this would require a source or citation after similar sentences to this not having any are written elsewhere.

I intend upon repeating my stance already outlined within the aforementioned above, in that formal vocabulary is not "ungrammatical".

Should you have any further enquiries regarding the matter in question, I ask that you inform my behalf pertaining such.

Sincerely, TheRevisionary (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing can be done by good-faith editors—I was specifically referring to the disruption I myself was perpetuating by repeatedly reverting. Remsense ‥ 论 18:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)