Wikipedia

Talk:Propaganda/Archive 1

< Talk:Propaganda
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 98.194.122.45 in topic Bush-era Propaganda
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archived Discussion

Certainly there's more to propaganda than what's on paper. How about films and statues? Not that I even bothered to read the article. In fact, I can't read -- but how about some pictures?

I've changed the text under the picture that showed Hitler and a bird above him. Until somebody finds some source that analyzes it, I'm betting that it has more to do with Wodan than Christ. Maybe we shouldn't comment it at all because there is no source for that information...

About the Romanian propaganda poster in the article. Actually this is a movie poster from Romania. The title of the movie is "Promise land", this is the meaning of the first line instead of "Toward a new life". The second line is the same in Hungarian (since there are lots of ethnic Hungarians in Romania). The smaller text says in Romanian and Hungarian: "The first Palestinian talking picture". (I am Hungarian so I understand the text written on the poster, at least the Hungarian part of it). So this poster is not a poster promoting Jewish settlement of Palestine. --213.197.74.193 14:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm replacing it with something else, unless anyone else has any more info about this. Taak 01:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those stupid uninformed "administrators" have no idea what they are talking about. They don't even _think_ that they could be wrong. Dogmatics. - 212.137.33.208 15:02, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Could someone add a brief note with the etymology of the word? It comes from a Catholic Church congregation, the "Congregatio Propaganda something", the congragation for the propagation of faith. I don't do it myself because i don't remember the exact name.(established 1622)

Congregatio de propaganda fide; propaganda is a future participle, meaning that which ought to be propagated.

"The real paradox about propaganda arises from the fact that most readers will assume thatit is largely composed of lies and deceits and that the propagandist are ultimately manipulators and corrupt." TAITHE, B and THORNTON, T.,(1999) Propaganda. Surrey: Sutton (mp)

According to the Logic they are four ways to define an entity, in this case, the propaganda phenomenon could be defined as next.

The etymological nominal definition for propaganda reside in the latin word "propaganda", meaning "that which ought to be propagated" (cf. supra 2nd paragraph), that term is the future participle of the transitive and reflexive latin verb "propâgare" (to propagate) the which it means "to multiplify by generation or another way of reproduction" or, in a figurative sense, "to extend, to prolong or to increase something or its effects".

Some synonymical nominal definitions for propaganda could be "to disseminate", "to diffuse", "to spread", etc.

A sort of descriptive real definition for propaganda is evolving yet in this free encyclopedia.

The essential real description belongs to the realm of the Metaphysics.

About the origins of the contemporary use of the word "propaganda", those can be traced back to the Reformation. The Catholic Church found itself struggling to maintain and extend its hold in non-Catholic countries. A Commission of Cardinals was set up by Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572-85), charged with spreading Catholicism and regulating ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic lands. A generation later, in 1622, Gregory XV made the Commission permanent, as a sacra congregatio de propaganda fide, tasked to manage foreign missions and financed by a `ring tax' assessed on each newly-appointed cardinal. The first official propagandist institute was therefore a body charged with improving the dissemination of a group of religious dogmas. The word `propaganda' came to be applied to any organisation set up to spread a doctrine; then it was applied to the doctrine itself which was being spread; and lastly to the methods employed in the dissemination.

Please visit these web sites:


This site created by Aaron Delwiche, doctor in communications from the University of Washington, is inspired in the legacy of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). http://www.propagandacritic.com

Article "Powers of Persuasion (Propaganda)" by David Welch. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1373/8_49/55481498/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22Powers+of+Persuasion+%28Propaganda%29%22

And please, read this book:

Thompson, John B. "Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication". Polity Press, 1990

Sent by Luis from México.

A great example for scapegoating is a joke I know: When Kruschev was forced out of office in the Soviet Union, he wrote two letters for his successor. One was addressed, "Open me if you have a crisis." The second one was addressed, "Open me if you have a second crisis." Sure enough, something went wrong and Kruschev's successor had a crisis. He opened the first envelope, and it said, "Blame it on me." So the successor blamed it all on Kruschev, and everything got better. Not long after, a second crisis came up. The successor opened the leter, and it began, "Write two letters..."

D

I don't agree that propaganda is generally most extreme within totalitarian systems, if only because it seems unnecessary whenever a person can be executed or "disappeared" for dissension. I'd have to argue that propaganda seems more necessary in "open" societies. But again, I'm neither a sociologist nor a, um, political scientist, and I'm sure data in this area--especially data to be trusted--are hard to come by.

-- Propaganda is very common in totalitarian systems. I can confirm this by observation and monitoring for the last 30 years. There was propaganda in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. The right-wing Salazar dictatorship and Franco's Spain were also propagandists. The difference tends to be that dictatorships use propaganda in extensive domestic as well as foreign coverage. When there is no free discussion of ideas, there still has to be something to fill the airwaves and billboards. -- GABaker, 23 Oct 02

Propaganda, like censorship, is generally most extreme within totalitarian systems, and probably can be expected to increase, or decrease, as a government becomes more, or less, despotic.

I've removed this from the main page, because it's a controversial claim, which is not attributed or supported. I think propaganda techniques are used very commonly outside totalitarian governmental systems.

In fact most of the propaganda I see comes from large corporations. All you need to do is take some time looking at advertising, and you'll be able to find examples of nearly all of the propaganda techniques explained on the main page. Moreover, the use of film, radio, television, and print media in a concerted way -- which is typical of a large scale propaganda campaign -- is also characteristic of a major advertising blitz. MRC

I agree. Personally, I think the definition above has it backwards, and that within totalitarian systems there's less need of propaganda, since the consequences of dissent are both extreme and swift, whereas in a democracy or republic the best way to keep the natives down is to indoctrinate them. Yes, IMHO, this includes the U.S.  :-) --KQ

Best propaganda is truth with carefully choosed words and accents. I am not sure if it is reflected in article. Example is an old joke most of you probably knows: Chruszczow and Kennedy were racing once. New York Times reports: Kennedy won, Chruszczow lost. Radio Erewan reports: Kennedy finished just before last participant, Chruszczow finished just after winner.

While the authors may have used the US Psyops manual as a source on "propaganda techniques", most of those were named if not originated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, a group of American political scientists from the 1930s. That's almost certainly where the Psyops boys got their material from, and in any case the IPA ought to get some mention. Unfortunately I know very little about them and don't really know where to put the stuff.

About the IPA legacy I'd just pasted this link:

http://www.propagandacritic.com

(formerly was: http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/home.htm)

This e-place was created eight years ago, when the world-wide web was in its infancy, the propaganda site is inspired by the pioneering work of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). From 1937 to 1942, the IPA was dedicated to promoting the techniques of propaganda analysis among critically-minded citizens.

The author, Aaron Delwiche, holds a doctorate in communications from the University of Washington and a B.A. in political science from the University of California at Berkeley. He is currently employed as a lecturer in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington.

Sent by Luis from México.

We need to come to a consensus on the first few paragraphs. They keep getting deleted and added. I think starting with the assertion that all propaganda is lies and is used only in war is self-evidently false. I think we should start the article with the lines which currently read "In the broad sense of the term..." Jfeckstein 15:35, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We now have two interestingly contrasting images of Saddam Hussein: one Iraqi, one American. -- The Anome 14:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Propaganda flyers

File:EconNaziPropaganda.png Please do not use altered historic documents. If you do not want the Nazi-Text to be readable, do not use this example in the first place. Manipulating the image so that the original text becomes unreadable (without even mentioning it) is not an option: It is dishonest and leaves the reader uncertain what the image actually is all about (it only shows two buildings, after all). It would be cool if someone could contribute a better/clearer/more authentic sample of Nazi propaganda? 62.227.161.132 11:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. What about this one? It is from the German Historical Museum, but we can probably not use it as "fair use". -- Stw 11:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This is interesting "However, propaganda usually has political or nationalist themes." I would speculate that propaganda is commonly used for racial and religious themes as well, at least. The justification of slavery was racial and religious, but pretty much transnational, would have been my guess; also the continuing christian propaganda about how women should submit to men is transnational, and relgious (although not racial). The protestant propaganda that the rich are simply blessed by God, or the Islamic propaganda that the Jews are evil, are more examples of propaganda that I would term more religious than even political, although of course they (religion, politics, nationalism, racism) are all hopelessly intertwined. Of course in the Yugoslavian arena, propaganda is simultaneously racist, religious, nationalist, and political. :) Kyk 12:07, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, the list of propaganda techniques in the article shows a good fit for what I see commonly in Christian indoctrination in the United States. But I suppose it would take great care to put such an observation in the article. Kyk 12:11, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I miss the satement of some basic facts, such as the reference to what is propagated by propaganda.

Now as we all hold beliefs and have ideas that may not be chrystalised as opinitons or value statements, yet by being exposed to various verbally formalised propaganda, we gradually develop and dislose our own reaction. Depending on the strength of our convictions any propaganda aimed at us to change our attitudes will focus on conversion/reassurance, thr former of which is only likely to take place, if we are uncertain and not determined enough about our ways of seeing the world and its chunks, whether confessing them verbally or not.

Living in a world, which is as hugely complex as it is, most of the propaganda that we experience is about making us like or dislike something: a brand, a place, an object, a person, etc. By inducing the people to like/dislike something there is a constant pressure around to take sides in the social world, get organised and to join forces, as opposed to relating to it just like non colonising animals do (focus on your own world, ignore distant worlds).

Now this information on likes/dislikes is then used to motivate/manipulate the whole society in line with the objectives of invesment with a good ROI, by making use of public opinion polls and other paraphernalia of PO research plus intelligence/surveillance. This is possible by exploiting the natural inclination in humans to imitate and copy all sorts of things, patterns of acts and behaviour included. Under such circumstances all the communications, unbiased or otherwise, function as propaganda and as agents to modify and synchronise individual behaviour with results measured and felt on a mass scale. The differences in style and other aspects, that may range from subtle to enorurmous do not change the overall outcome of the intended (and probably indiscardable)presence of control. Apogr 10:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cult propaganda is missing

Were rank and file Nazis liars?

  • Another thing, that struck me is that the article said that the Nazis had no qualms about telling lies but the article mentions only Adolf Hitler as an example. I can think of one more clear example and this is Reinhard Heydrich but he didn't even believe in Nazism but was only interested in power. I don't doubt that Hitler and Heydrich told many, many lies but is it a fact that even rank and file Nazis told lies very easily? If so, where is the reference for this ? To me, it sounds more probable that quite a lot of Nazis were sincere but deluded by Hitler's and Goebbels' emotionalism, talks about national and racial superiority and threats. I even have my doubts about some high ranking Nazis like Albert Speer and Baldur von Schirach.
Let's not forget Walt Disney on the other side of the war, using Hitler's own images to American purposes. I think you shouldn't forget that all parts of international conflicts tell "many, many lies".. - Sigg3.net 08:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think you mean Frank Capra in the 'Why We Fight' series. Capra obtained the films from the Custodian of Enemy Property. The series used German, Italian, and Japanese newsreels. --GABaker

Too Much Emphasis on deliberate deception

  • My complaint about the Nazis is an example of my opinion that the article puts too much emphasis on deliberate deception at the expense of contagious illusions. Propaganda can run and can be done automatically when people suffer from a contagious illusiion

Andries

"Those novels were used for explicit propaganda such as the CIA secretly commissioned an animated film adaptation of Animal Farm in the 1950s. "

Can't parse that sentence... 217.211.131.17 09:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One could analyze the similarities among propaganda used by national leaders who want to start wars, such as the recent war in Iraq; the Spanish-American War; etc.

Walt Disney

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My younger brother thought he was downloading a Donald Duck cartoon while the file infact turned out to be a Walt Disney WW2 propaganda cartoon clearly aimed at children. I've seen it myself and I find it appaling the way this cartoon portrais the Nazis, as zombies raised to die. First of all this propaganda isn't any more right than the Nazi propaganda (which is alot better as such) and second of all it is aimed solely at children. Of course it is a few fun sections of it, like the animated Hitler going berserk, but considering the situation around and the goal of this cartoon I find it very distasteful. If I'm able to watch it again, I'll write some more about it and probably add it to the Propaganda article. - Sigg3.net 13:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That must have been Education for Death, which is NOT aimed solely towards children (pratically all cartoons of the 1940s were aimed primarily at adults, because they had to play before the major feature films of the day. And it and other such films were obviously results of World War II mentality; you can't judge such films from a modern perspective. --b. Touch 15:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's the one. You might be right re: targeting children, but there's no doubt this movie is a fine example of propaganda. Title is really: "One of Hitler's children" etc.. - Sigg3.net 13:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Injustice and Faint

IMO the usage of an archaic word (Faint) is not good in encyclopedia. Please replace by a suitable synonym. Mikkalai 19:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

...or may be the author simply misspelt "feign"? Mikkalai 19:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
...or "feint"? Robert Southworth 22:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Statistics

Is misusing statistics a specific form of propaganda (techniques section), or is it part of "testimonial" or another form? For example, pro-choice propaganda might say something like "4 out of 5 doctors believe abortion should be the woman's choice in all cases," but the doctors surveyed might all practice in liberal New England. --zandperl 21:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I think this is a very common form of misleading people in the Netherlands. Andries 21:28, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
George W. Bush has also be accused of it. For example in the post September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks NYC, he was accused of encouraging (forcing?) the EPA to change their interpretations of air quality data to ease public fears rather than show concerns. --zandperl 23:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
BTW let's sometime remember W's claims about Saddam, the WMD and involvement in 9/11 and al Qaida (both thoroughly discredited by the US and British intel services before the invasion, yet many still believe it), and the half-truths like Halabjah (which a contemporary Pentagon study concluded was done by the Iranians, so either the US was covering up then or is making it up now), and the mass graves in the South (of those GHWB incited to rebel then left to their fate, and the even bigger mass graves left by the US in '91 never mentioned - BTW don't forget Nurse Nayirah and the imaginary Iraqi army on the Saudi border), the weather balloons of mass destruction, the whole "Saddam is a new Hitler" thing (when Shrub is demonstrably a better parallel and even descended of Nazi collaborators), and the "we're the liberators" schlock unchaged from the 1812 invasion of Canada ... ugh it'll make an entire article one day, if technical civilisation much outlives the US, its empire, and its engineering of thought.
However, if that's too much to chaw at one time, try W's recent Medicare swindle.[1][2][3][4] (Although that would be ignoring the supreme international crime for run-of-the-mill domestic chicanery.)

I was just wondering.. Maybe we should put up some thoughts by Adolf Hitler, being pretty known for "his" propaganda? I know he wrote quite alot about this weapon, and how much he respected it, a reaction to having read Marxist documents. - Sigg3.net 13:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


yes, Hitler had some good quotes about propaganda. I was amazed to read it in Mein Kampf. Andries 22:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
When I studied for examen facultatum (a small, Norwegian introduction course to the philosophy of science) we worked alot with Hitler. The 20-35 first pages were about propaganda and psychological experiments, and spread evenly among these pages you could read excerpts from Men Kampf. - Sigg3.net 08:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a form of omission. There might be a specific term for this technique, but if there is, I can't think of it just now.

TaintedMustard 17:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Problem with current definiton

I have a problem with the current definition of propaganda and that is that in practice one can only know what is propaganda in hindsight. First of all propaganda has to be one sided or untrue and this is often difficult to know. Secondly one has to know that the leader of an organization knows it to be untrue or one sided. If a leader sincerely believes in the truth of what he says then it is not propaganda because propaganda involves deliberate deception. But it is very difficult to know whether somebody sincerely believes in his delusions or that he is lying. Any suggestions. Andries 22:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I might define it as "one-sided advertising to promote a cause, rather than a commercial product." Perhaps the "one-sided" aspect can be determined at the time of the propaganda by seeing how much opposition there is. I think typically it is socially frowned upon to object to propaganda. We might say rather than deliberately misleading, that propaganda "deliberately depicts the facts from one point of view." The current definition on this page may be POV, in that it implies that all propaganda is intentionally malicious, which is not always the case. --zandperl 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The current def does NOT imply maliciousness. It says exactly what you two mean: one-sidedness (with fat chance of deception and lies). Further, "propaganda" has three participants: "propagandist", "propagandee", and "observer". Even if the first two sincerely believe, it still may remain propaganda. (If the observer believes as well, then... do you remember that phylosophical puzzle about the tree that fell in the forest where no one could hear it falling?) Mikkalai 23:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As for the "difficulty to know", that's the very goal of propaganda, otherwise it would make no sense to bother. Mikkalai 23:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Propaganda does not need to be "one-side or untrue. What makes it propaganda is that it a) be systematically propagated, and that it is b) done for the purpose of advancing their cause. See the American Heritage Dictionary. Note that falsehood is not a part of the definition; not even bias, not even half-truth.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
The etymology of the word literally means "that which ought to be propagated," and, of course, if you look up the origins of the word "broadcast" it refers to a way of sowing seed. Dpbsmith 23:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Once again, First, the phrase "serving an agenda" says the same as yours "reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause", only a bit slangish, I admit, but hits the nail directly. Second, "specific type of message presentation" phrase covers your (1) and (2). Third, that wikipedia explicitely says "fail to paint a complete picture", is just a clarification of the "First". Fourth, etymology can play tricks with attempts to understand the meaning. As a non-native English speaker I went through great pains to learn this :-) Unfortunately, the meaning of the term is indeed tilting into negative, we have to deal with this. Mikkalai 00:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And Fifth, what you just did, is an excellent example of propaganda (of your POV): You write: Note that falsehood is not a part of the definition, and to confirm this, you conveniently omit a piece from the quotation from the American Heritage Dictionary, namely, "wartime propaganda" is actually written there as "the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda". Gotcha!!! Mikkalai 00:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, on checking, I find that my print copy of AHD 3rd edition matches your quotation. What I quoted was from an online copy of [AHD 4th edition]. I quoted it correctly, without omission or distortion and no intent to deceive. I don't know whether the definition changed from AHD 3rd to AHD 4th, or whether the online edition of AHD 4th is different from the print edition. Dpbsmith 03:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course is is known that the word didn't intend to be negative. Hitler had Ministry of Propaganda. Stalin had Agitprop (Agitation and Propaganda). Surely they didn't intend to have something read as "Ministry of Lies". But again, the word communism was not "bad" one, too. Since many people began thinking that "propaganda" is bad word, so it became. That's the life of language, you know. Mikkalai 05:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mikkalai, when I read the current version then I read from it that propaganda is always malicious. Andries 23:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I see it now; the overall article is definitely biased into malice. I was speaking about the very first definition, not about examples. Mikkalai 00:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think where the current article first indicates a change from the neutral "message to serve an agenda" to the POV "malicous lies" is in the section titled "Kinds of Propaganda," second paragraph. Such a statment that the term is often more used in a negative way is ok in itself. But then in "Techniques of Propaganda Generation" every example given seems negative to me. I think this could be solved by one of three ways: (1) rewording the examples so they're all neutral; (2) indicating which are examples of the negative connotation of propaganda; or (3) giving additional examples which are more neutral.
Meanwhile, should we add a {{msg:NPOV}} note to the top of the page?
--zandperl 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cuban propaganda

I lived in Cuba for three months last year, and I have quite a few photographs of the propaganda spread evenly across the country. Should I put them up here, or what? - Sigg3.net 08:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please do! GABaker 18:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consider it done. - Sigg3.net 08:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

..Or consider it put on hold 'till I get my camera back. - Sigg3.net 07:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Played Backwards

The statement that contains

... in which the radio program was recorded and played backwards over the air.

sounds meaningless. What's the propaganda goal of playing backwards? Mikkalai 20:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda can be aimed at a select audience, such as government or intelligence officials. By playing the broadcast backwards, the average listener in China or the Soviet Union would not understand it, but by reversing the reel, the message could be passed to the target audience. GABaker

The woman in the U.S. propaganda picture

Who is the woman in that propaganda picture about the "careless talk"? WhisperToMe 12:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Mao poster because first of all, the caption is wrong because there is only one Mao poster currently hanging on Tiananmen gate. Second of all, if an objective portrait of a political leader counts as propaganda then we should also count the Lincoln Memorial and the numerous portraits that have been done of George Washington as propaganda as well. -Qurex

"One of the" meant "one of the posters of Mao" (anywhere) not "one of the posters of Mao on this gate". And all those huge, omnipresent objective portraits of George Washington? Are you really serious? --Taak 05:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This complaint is silly. I'm reverting. →Raul654 05:56, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
That is one of the few posters of Mao still on publicly and prominently displayed in China. If you want Chinese propaganda use a poster from the Cultural Revolution period. There are quite a few of those and I will agree that they constitute propraganda. If you can show how the poster of Mao hanging on Tiananmen Gate meets the definition of propaganda, then I will agree to its inclusion. -Qurex
Isn't it at all representative of that propaganda? --Taak 06:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you want some good Chinese propaganda take a look at http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/. A drawing of Mao sitting doing nothing is not propaganda. -Qurex.
Must propaganda depict something more exciting in order to count? It doesn't matter what it shows exactly, it's how it's used. Literally billions of potraits of Mao were produced [5], and it looks to me like this is one of them. It doesn't really matter, anyway, as it turns out the image involved may be copyrighted [6], which I will bring up with whoever uploaded it. --Taak 16:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. Propaganda techniques can be deviously subtle. Producing countless, seemingly innocuous portraits and distributing them widely gives a sense of omnipresence, or that artists somehow feel he is worthy of their attention, while still (possibly) keeping the more intelligent citizens oblivious to the intent. But what do I know? TaintedMustard 23:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'd be thrilled to see what people could make of George W. Bush's war-inspired rhetorics. I.e replacing Occupation with Liberation, aso. Any thoughts? - Sigg3.net 07:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, wartime propaganda and political propaganda in general are always loaded down with doublespeak and glittering generalities. I'm not sure what you want to know - political speeches mean almost nothing, or are even self-refuting, once they're stripped of propaganda techniques. TaintedMustard 00:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cult propaganda, wouldn't this be a great pic?

I think this picture is important to show that propaganda doesn't have to be necessarily political.Andries 17:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 
Brochure of the People's temple portraying cult leader Jim Jones as the loving father of the "Rainbow Family".
Corporate propaganda maybe ... though that itself is a stretch of the term, with the implication that the corporations in question have power and resources comparable to governments. "Particularly egregious false advertising," perhaps ... I'm not sure about this one. - David Gerard 21:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David, the word propaganda is extensively used for cults. tiny url 4s2hd removed; blocked by spam filter The article should reflect that, but doesn't fully do that present. A picture should be welcome to make this clear to the reader. The word "advertisement" for "persuasive cult information" is less common than the word "propaganda". Don't forget that the origin of the word is religious. Andries 09:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're right, actually, yes. Could do with a section in the article on its use in corporate and religious contexts, which would go nicely with the picture - David Gerard 12:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, religious origins aside, propaganda simply means "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." It can be used by anyone with a point of view, though those with extensive monetary resources are, of course, more successful in reaching neutrals. TaintedMustard 23:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add information (or speculation) about today's propaganda and somehow avoid problems? Since there is information about propaganda in Afghanistan, I feel the article would need something about propaganda in western countries too. Though the topic may be a bit though one.

Dubious See also

Alternative political spellings, recently added to the See also list, looks to me to be trivial relative to the other inclusions, but I will leave it to those who have been actively working on this article to decide whether to keep. -- Jmabel 17:33, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Israel propaganda efforts are continuing

Please justify censorship of discussion Israeli propaganda. Jayjg. Alberuni 15:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Israel propaganda campaign against hasbara could perhaps be described in this article, but hasbara itself is not relevant. Jayjg 15:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you arguing that hasbara is not propaganda but the efforts to expose hasbara are propaganda? Can you provide any hasbara sources for this argument?Alberuni 18:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hasbara sources? Why would I be interested in them? Jayjg 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know. You don't need sources. Alberuni 19:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, I don't know what you mean by hasbara sources. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good thing there is an article on hasbara with external links to sources. Alberuni 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have read the article before, and understand what hasbara is. I still don't understand your initial suggestion; why would I need to restrict my "argument" to hasbara sources? Aren't any other sources valid? Jayjg 05:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, why do you think hasbara is not relevant as propaganda? Please elaborate, with links to substantiate your point of view. (In that case we'll be able to achieve NPOV by providing two alternative views, and attributing your sources.) Note that propaganda doesn't necessarily have to be false info dissemination – being funded by the government to strengthen the political platform is enough (in my opinion) to qualify as propaganda. The hasbara is often related by both Israeli and non-Israeli sources as an Israeli part in the "media war", which further strengthens the qualification as propaganda. BACbKA 18:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do we now include all media sources under propaganda as well? Jayjg 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Depends if they're used for propaganda or not (Pravda comes to mind as a positive example). Hasbara is not a media source, so I don't understand how that is related. Please stay on topic and answer my question above. BACbKA 19:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article does not give positive examples, though. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, this confirms my conclusions layed out in the subsection below. Looks like we have a good way out of the dispute then. BACbKA 21:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hasbara is not "a media source." It is the practice of persuasive "explaining" or political advocacy aka propaganda. Alberuni 19:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to add a minor observation to this debate: the hasbara article compares hasbara to Voice of America. The latter has been in the "propaganda" category for months. - pir 19:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is hasbara propaganda vs. Is hasbara propaganda as described in the wikipedia

Having thought a bit more about it, I believe there is a solution to the dispute above. The wikipedia propaganda as it is has a definite negative bias towards propaganda. Yes, I am saying the article is not NPOV. Things like anti-AIDS propaganda machine, e.g. advocating use of safe sex practices, come to my mind as starkingly missing.

I would like to correct my hasbara perception as noted above. I think that it is propaganda as will be defined by the future NPOV article version on such. I believe that this is also what Alberuni thinks. I think that Jayjg's (rightful) problem is that for somebody identifying with the hasbara efforts, classifying hasbara as propaganda on the WP right now automatically projects the same negative prejudice against hasbara, which makes it POV.

The solution I propose is:

  • stop fighting over the categorization revert
  • add the category to hasbara
  • rework the article on propaganda

Jayjg and Alberuni, please tell me if you agree or not, and why. BACbKA 19:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rework the article first. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The above is not an ordered list, the things are supposed to be done together. As a first step, I have added the NPOV template mark (with a missing "not" in the checkin comment, sorry :) ). I'm going to try to add positive examples tomorrow, I have some home duties to attend to right now – actually, I've been pushing them away until making sure we started achieving consensus here. BACbKA 21:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your suggestion sounds like a regular day at Wikipedia. I agree with it. Alberuni 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara is advocacy not propaganda

Hasbara is a method of Israel advocacy used by Jewish organizations. Hasbara seeks to increase awareness of Israel through activism by countering anti-Israel propaganda with facts. The term should be categorized under a category of Category:Activism or sub-category Israel activism. The contrasts between advocacy and propaganda groups are quite clear. Advocacy groups increase awareness of an issue in good faith while minimizing deceptive persuasive tactics. On the other hand, propaganda groups depend on controlling and manipulating the emotions of their target audience. Such propaganda groups often spread false ideas for the purpose of injuring institutions, causes, or persons, in order to damage the opposition and further their own cause. (Merriam-Webster). This is the complete opposite of the goals of Hasbara, which is to explain and advocate for Israel, and more importantly, to counter anti-Israel propaganda with verifiable information. An argument could be made that Hasbara should be categorized under Public relations, but many Hasbara groups do not take the offical government position on many issues, and often take on the activist role best exemplified by public interest groups. --Viriditas 10:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not just "anti-Zionist critics" who refer to hasbara as propaganda: "JEWISH AND CONTEMPORARY ORIGINS OF ISRAELI HASBARA Ron Schleifer Their negative image has become a major concern for Jews and Israelis. Standard arguments such as "reversal image of David and Goliath," Israeli democracy as a news gathering heaven, and split in freely expressed political views as opposed to Arab/Palestinian monolithic control, cannot explain properly the extent of Israeli helplessness in terms of image management. This article argues that the roots of Israeli "hasbara" [a positive sounding synonym for "propaganda"] lay deep in Jewish history and the Zionist stage of Jewish history was not able to make a fundamental change. This article analyzes the various attitudes towards hasbara and outlines the deeper changes that Israel should internalize as a vital preliminary step towards utilization of effective propaganda." Jewish Political Studies Review Abstracts Alberuni 05:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zionists refer to hasbara as "propaganda" at most in a popular, loose sense, not in a literal sense: "Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda, even though it is not really propaganda. While propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified." [7] Jayjg 19:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article you have cited adds further evidence to the case that hasbara is the new user-friendly term for propaganda. Whether the editorialist agrees with the use or not, he/she is admitting that the common usage of hasbara is as a synonym for propaganda. Later in the article, the writer even uses it in that context, "The time has come to leave propaganda efforts to the Israeli embassies worldwide, and to the millions of righteous pro-Israel gentiles who do not require our hasbara." Alberuni 19:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, in a popular or loose sense, but not in an accurate sense. The term "Nazi" is now used in a popular or loose sense to indicate anyone who has rigid and domineering, but that doesn't mean we include the Soup Nazi article in the category "Nazis". Jayjg 19:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hasbara is political advocacy designed to promote a particular political point of view, therefore, by definition, it is propaganda. The wiki page on hasbara even compares government hasbara efforts to Voice of America programming; VOA has been listed under the propaganda category since long before our discussion. Hasbara is clearly propaganda. Even your links admit it. Alberuni 19:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, I've been trying to discover a wording that will work here, and provided claims and counter-claims, but you just keep reverting. And since you point out the contents of the hasbara page, I've also noted that you are inventing new definitions for hasbara that are not found there; for consistency, the definition here should be the same as the version there. As well, you haven't addressed my point about re "Nazi". Regardless, it doesn't really matter whether or not you or I think hasbara is propaganda; rather, following Wikipedia NPOV norms, I've simply presented both positions. Jayjg 20:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Propoganda examples

I think something similar to the current state should remain, or the list should be removed. While the other examples arn't disputed (yet), others are sure to be added in time which there will be objections to. Is it balanced for the pro-israeli view to be the only "counter argument"? I donno, but so long as we don't top it off with "Anti-Zionist", it should be ok. It does set a precedent for "counter arguments" on this page however, and we may want to rethink this list. Sam [Spade] 20:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More on Hasbara

This sentence is confusing. I think you (Jayjg) may even be confused by the quote's meaning. "Others say hasbara is not propaganda, because "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified." [8]"

Hasbara seeks to explain actions even if they are not justified. The article is decrying the use of hasbara campaigns to justify the unjustifiable actions of the Israeli government. This is furtehr evidence, from a pro-Israeli source no less, that hasbara is used as government propaganda. Yet you are trying to use the quote to refute unnamed "some critics". This quote and article actually supports the case that hasbara is propaganda.

Look objectively at the definition of propaganda and Category:Propaganda and state why you think hasbara is not a form a propaganda. Alberuni 21:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the Israel conflict in the propaganda article because propaganda is a label that is applied in hindsight. I mean, it is very difficult to see what current political information is deceptive and what not. Andries 22:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Propaganda does not have to be false information. Read the first line of this article: "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture." Clearly, this definition fits hasbara because hasbara serves a partisan pro-Israeli agenda and does not pretend to do otherwise. I will admit that in many cases it may be easier to tell in hindsight what is propaganda and what is factual reporting. In the case of hasbara, hindsight doesn't matter because the explicit purpose of hasbara is partisan political advocacy. Hasbara may at times be surreptitious and presented to the public as neutral news but practitioners of hasbara are under no delusions about the goals of their agenda and there is no semblence of impartiality in that agenda. It is always pro-Israel political advocacy. That's what makes it hasbara. Otherwise, it would be something else, just plain old journalism, advertising, student exchange programs, Alberuni 00:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The author explicitly states "even though it is not really propaganda." And I think you might have misunderstand the author; the "unjustifiable actions of the Israeli government" that the author decries are the proposed removal of Jews from the Gaza Strip, and the erection of a fence in the West Bank which, in his view, turns Israel into another ghetto for Jews. As I understand the article, he is saying that "hasbara" efforts should be directed at increasing awareness and education among Jews (thus reducing Jewish assimilation and promoting Jewish emigration to Israel), and ignoring what non-Jews think about Israel. Is that how you understood him? Jayjg 22:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I understood the article the way you describe here. The author believes some Israeli government policies are unjustifiable and is decrying the deployment of Jews overseas to promote those "wrongheaded" Israeli government policies in hasbara propaganda campaigns directed by or on behalf of the Israeli government. The author thinks that those Jews would be better employed promoting aliyah and leaving the hasbara efforts to the government or pro-Israeli Zionist Christians. Also, I understand that the author's opinion is that hasbara "is not really propaganda" but then proceeds to use it that way throughout the article. Therefore, the use of this sentence and citation to indicate that some groups do not view hasbara as propaganda is confusing and, in my opinion, ineffective. Alberuni 00:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that you may be defending hasbara from the negative connotations associated with the word "propaganda" (and perhaps because you believe hasbara is well-intentioned) even though it should be clear as day to a neutral observer that both hasbara and propaganda can be defined as the presentation and promotion of partisan political messages for political advocacy and "persuasive explaining" on behalf of a government, its policies or a political ideology. Alberuni 00:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not think it is good to turn every Wikipedia dispute in interpretation into a "Disputed Interpretation" section of an article. These disputes should be worked out in Talk pages and an NPOV description should be written in the article without breaking everything out into "some people think A, other people think B" (although that's better than just presenting A OR B as if they are facts). A better solution than trying to censor inclusion of hasbara from the propaganda page would be to include the many other modern cases of positive propaganda, like recent US government initiatives in Arabic language broadcasting, US Information Service activities in general, Radio Free Cuba, Conservative Christian radio and TV, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. If you want to apply a tit for tat approach against Arab states and Muslim movements, you could explicate on Baghdad Bob's role as spokeman for Saddam Hussein, Osama and other al-Qaeda video and audiotape media campaigns, the recent Zarqawi media releases, (all receiving outlet on "independent" Al Jazeera TV) and the Islamist internet propaganda networks explored by Internet Haganah. Better to include more information than to try to censor the existing page. I will have no objection to NPOV descriptions of other examples of propaganda. Alberuni 00:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Anti-Israel propaganda campaign against hasbara

Please see Documented Evidence of Propagnada War Against Hasbara on the Internet --Viriditas 00:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Watch

Palestinian Media Watch is a good site on Palestinian propaganda. I'm wondering if a section on Palestinian propaganda techniques should be added to this page, and/or an external link. Some brief examples:

1. Schoolbooks: Published by the Palestinian Authority under the Ministry of Eduction since 2000. Includes the following propaganda:

  • One must beware of the Jews, for they are treacherous and disloyal.[Islamic Education for Ninth Grade p. 79, these and below from CMIP report]
  • I learn from this lesson: I believe that the Jews are the enemies of the Prophets and the believers.[Islamic Education, Part Two, for Fourth Grade p. 67]
  • Remember: The final and inevitable result will be the victory of the Muslims over the Jews. [Our Arabic Language for Fifth Grade p. 67]
  • The clearest examples of racist belief and racial discrimination in the world are Nazism and Zionism.[The New History of the Arabs and the World, P. 123]

2. Television: PA indoctrination of children through television, and incitement of hatred.

  • Muhammad said in his Hadith: the Hour [Resurrection] will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and the rock and tree will say: Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him! [Dr Hassan Khader founder Al Quds Encyclopedia (PA TV July 13, 2003)]
  • ...until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him! [Dr. Ibrahim Maadi, [PA TV Apr. 12, 2002]
  • The Jews are Jews, whether Labor or Likud, the Jews are Jews They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace They are all liars They must be butchered and must be killed The Jews are like a spring as long as you step on it with your foot it doesn’t move but if you lift your foot from the spring, it hurts you and punishes you. [Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya Sharia (Islamic Law) Rulings Council, Rector of Advanced Studies, Islamic Univ. said on Friday’s sermon (PA TV, Oct. 13, 2000)]
  • The concept of Shahada [martyrdom] for him [the child] means belonging to the homeland, from a religious perspective, sacrifice for his homeland. Achieving Shahada in order to reach paradise and meet his God. This is the best. We also to teach our children to protect the homeland, belonging, and to reach Shahada. [Firial Hillis, CEO of the Palestinian 'Children's Aid Association]
  • Interviewer: Mr. President, what message would you like to send to the Palestinian people in general, and, particularly, to the Palestinian children?
    Arafat: The child who is grasping the stone facing the tank is it not the greatest message to the world when the hero becomes a Shahid [dies for Allah]? ['Yasser Arafat (PA TV Jan. 15, 2002)]

--Viriditas 02:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you've lost your argument so: leave this page alone

The article supporting hasbara, The Hasbara Hijack clearly says that hasbara is now being used for propaganda:

"The time has come to leave propaganda efforts to the Israeli embassies worldwide, and to the millions of righteous pro-Israel gentiles who do not require our hasbara."

The objective of propaganda requires denying that it is propaganda, and the above is the strongest admission of propaganda one could expect from its supporter.

You have no evidence for your claim so leave this page alone, your constant reverts do not prove anything but that you stubbornly refuse to accept reality. HistoryBuffEr 18:43, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

We've been through this before, above; in fact, I brought that link. The link itself explicitly states "Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda, even though it is not really propaganda. While propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified." The author states explicitly that it is not propaganda, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If nothing else, we must let the authors of articles speak for themselves. Jayjg 18:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re-read the article title and the quote in my post above. If you do not see the obvious admission that hasbara is now being used for propaganda, then the problem is either your reading comprehension or your inability to accept anything contrary to your POV. Either way, you are not behaving as a reasonable editor should, so leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 19:07, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
""Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda, even though it is not really propaganda.". Q.E.D. Jayjg 19:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One last time (I'll type this slowly so maybe someone can help you understand):
  • The entire article is about how hasbara does not meet its official definition.
  • "hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified.
is the definition of propaganda.
Goodbye. HistoryBuffEr 01:38, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Removed examples

The examples given are presented in a non-satisfactory way. I am not questioning their validity, only presentation.

Examples of political propaganda:
"See..." in fact shows nothing of propaganda, at least nothing vividly, to serve as an example.
Germans sunk a passenger ship, thusly being called "barbarians". Where is propaganda?
This is an example of provocation, rather than propaganda.
There was plenty of propaganda against "murderous Poles" in Nazi Germany these days, but the case of the attack is a trick traditionally classified into a different sort of human treachery.
  • Israeli and Zionist hasbara campaigns, which explain official Israeli government policies and promote an Israeli perspective on the Middle East in western countries.
This is a claim without examples to prove the deliberate lopsidedness (if any) of hasbara.
Unless you agree that any statement of any state is propaganda in its favor, which is mostly true.

For an example to be useful, its presentation must contain at least three elements

  • What was stated
  • What was not stated (or lied)
  • How it was intended to work
    • Optionally, how it actually worked; examples of misfires of propaganda would be useful as well IMO.

And it must be in a separate section, to allow for detail, rather than cursory list.

Mikkalai 19:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I agree with you that the examples should be expanded but you removed useful content and I do not agree with that. Andries 20:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unjustified deletion of this section is itself an example hasbara, censorship and manipulation of information to promote a pro-Israeli political agenda. Alberuni 20:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cool down your political emotions. I explained why this content is useless, and explained how to make it useful. As it stands, the examples are simply name calling without reasons given, i.e., propaganda itself, if you want. Alberuni, you are welcome to present an example of misleading hasbara. The person whose name you are using was smart and I take an occasion to say that I greatly respect him. Are you his relative? Mikkalai 21:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Complete removal implies complete denial. A passage which is "not properly presented" should be improved, not removed. HistoryBuffEr 01:44, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
You got my point. I completely deny presenting general statements without proper factual corroboration as "Examples". Without facts they are "examples of opinions" at best. How can one edit/criticize the article about propaganda without keeping a careful difference between facts and opinions? By the way, last time I've seen the article, there were plenty of propaganda examples, still more in other wikipedia articles about various conflicts, e.g., Russian Civil War, or political things: Red Army, T-4 Euthanasia Program. Am I missing something important here? Mikkalai 07:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You've missed my point that if you think that examples should be improved then you should roll up your sleeves and do something about it (other then just hit "Delete"). HistoryBuffEr 18:28, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Mikkalai, I completely agree with Historybuffer. The attack on Poland example is well known example of deceptive propaganda. If you do not know the subject then do not touch it. Andries 18:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You seem to completely ignore what I wrote. This is a touchy subject. Unless you want an endless edit war here, the claims must be substantiated. And by the way, hitting the "del" key is a valid editing operation, described in many manuals. In this particular case I see no devastating harm done, since examples are already abundant in the article. The attack on Poland example is well known example of provocation. This is a well-defined term and best suited to the case, and that is what I only see from the linked article. Your reference to being "well-known" is irrelevant, not to say false. It is yours, his, mine goal here to make it "well-known". Formally, the bare "it is propaganda" statement looks false, (not just incomplete, begging for improvement), and it deserves the "del" key with sleeves rolled up, like any other irresponsible, unsubstantiated, opinionated text. Mikkalai 20:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just look at the sections: Propaganda#Nazi Germany, Propaganda#Cold War propaganda. they are nothing but excellent, written "with sleeves rolled up" examples. Mikkalai 20:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mikkalai, I feel I have to give you a beginner's course in history of WWII, which will take me a lot of time for no good reason except of your ignorance. I admit that this a controversial subject but the attack on the sender as an example of propaganda is undisputed, except by you. If you do not know the subject then do not touch it. Andries 20:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I feel I have to give you a beginner lesson in logic and comprehension of other opinions, rather than your own. I wrote above: "There was plenty of propaganda against "murderous Poles" in Nazi Germany these days". I do know about the Sender Gleiwitz and even more. But the facts that I know it and you know it does not make it an "example", even it is "well known". The example is a thing to help the understand the issue with the help of a concrete situation. How the Sender example in context of wikipedia may help? Wikipedia says zilch about propaganda that surrounded the case. Is reader supposed to trust your word that there was propaganda? Lack of diligence is the source of most edit wars in wikipedia. Everyone is only happy to present opinions, but slow to present facts. Mikkalai 01:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One more time:
The article shows examples of propaganda. If the summary "Examples" is not well written, then rewrite it. Deleting is a cop-out, not rolling-up your sleeves. HistoryBuffEr 20:43, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
One more time. The issue is not about well written or not. Please, "cop-out". Are you saying that I have to rewrite every single statement an undergraduate middle school student wrote to impress his girlfriend? The issue is lack of substantiation, which disqualifies the statements altogether. If the author cannot support his claims during this long dispute, why would you expect me to drop all what I am doing in wikipedia and start digging into a subject marginally familiar to me. The pain with many "improvements" is that they are done by underinformed people with good intentions. Mikkalai 01:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let us have a deal. You show me where exactly in wikipedia there is a slightest mention of Lusitania and Gleiwitz cases used in propaganda, then I rewrite all three examples, using additionl data known to me. If not, you go and moderate Communism and Communist state articles, if you think I am too picky and lazy here. Mikkalai 01:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By the way, WWII is long gone and opinions are mostly stabilized. But how do you expect me to "improve" the hasbara case? Our angry friend Alberuni is quick only to call me zionist, but much slower to stand for his point of view with the help of facts. Mikkalai 01:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is a joke here how to make the statement "The Earth is flat" into a true and NPOV statement: "Idiots say that the Earth is flat". I could have easily done something along these lines. and done with your accusations in laziness. But I am begging for facts from those who knows the subjects. Isn't it what encyclopedia about? Mikkalai 01:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)]
to Mikkalai, in the case of the attack on the sender, your behavior is like someone who removes the Pythagorean_theorem in an article because there is no proof of it in the article, and insisting that the law can only be re-added together with the proof. Your behavior may be justified and constructive for disputed examples, but not for this example. Andries 15:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The comment of Sam Spade below disagrees with you. And why you think I started the new section (#Propaganda: is negative connotation dominant in native English usage?) here in the talk? (BTW what is your opinion: is propaganda a mostly negative word? Please comment in the resp. section.) The whole problem is that the prevailing perception seems to be that the term is loaded, hence most likely POV. I think I have an idea how to ovrecome this problem smoothly and I will try to write something constructive here (if someone elese will not do it before me). Mikkalai 19:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you have no time or desire to improve this article, then why butting in here? Your deletions appear to be just POV pushing. HistoryBuffEr 01:57, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
The only POV I am pushing that the author must stand for his words with facts. So far I've seen only personality attacks: POV, sleeves, "del" key. Here is the deal. If you show me a slightest mention in wikipedia of usage of the Lusitania and Gleiwitz cases in propaganda, I will rewrite the disputed examples, using other knowledge. If not, you go and mediate Communism and Communist state articles. You will have plenty of people to bash for the usage of "del" key. By the way, WWII was long time ago, and the opinions are pretty stabilized. But how you expect me to rewrite the hasbara case? Our angry friend Alberuni is quick only to call me zionist, but slow to stand for his opinion with facts. Mikkalai 02:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have explained patiently in many posts above why hasbara clearly qualifies as propaganda. It has nothing to do with hindsight or whether you believe that hasbara is true or in a good cause. I am not angry. I am just disgusted by Zionist manipulators constantly and mindlessly pushing their Pro-israel biases and POV onto an encyclopedic project that is supposed to be neutral. Alberuni 02:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda: is negative connotation dominant in native English usage?

My apologies to Alberuni. Indeed, you put much effort into defending your position. It amounts to the definition that all governmental statements are propaganda, because I don't know any state which would not pursue its own policy. I suspect that neither you nor me are native English speakers. Just like you, I don't have the feeling that the term is strongly bounded to a negative connotation. If native English speakers insist on primarily negative meaning of the word, then the definition must be reconsidered. There is already an attempt to distinguish propaganda and advertising.

Therefore before proceeding any further, native English speakers must clearly define here to what extent the term is considered negative. The problem is aggravated by internalization of English, and I have already added a phrase about possible miscommunication. Without this decision every speech of Bush is propaganda (his opponents are already 100% sure :-). Mikkalai 02:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker. You presumed wrong. Alberuni 02:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then, in your opinion, is the phrase "In English, the word "propaganda" often carries a strong negative as well as political connotations" correct? If yes, any idea of the amount of "neutral" usage of the term? Mikkalai 02:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you think hasbara is positive or negative. Read the article: "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments and political parties." Alberuni 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You wouldn't believe if I'll say that this is my definition, that survived several hundred edits. I am surprized how smart I was only half year ago :-) Mikkalai 03:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The term is rarely, if ever, used in a positive or neutral sense. Jayjg 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is that why you believe hasbara is not propaganda? Because you believe hasbara is positive and beautiful?Alberuni 03:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I believe; there are critics who believe hasbara is not propaganda, and have stated so explicitly, with cogent and rational arguments. Thus the characterization is disputed, and should be presented as such, with positions on each side given. That is NPOV. Jayjg 03:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg that hasbara should not be presented as an undisputed example of propaganda. Andries 16:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am tempted to add that nothing should be presented as an undisputed example of propaganda. However, I also agree with Alberuni that it would be absurd not to link to Hasbara from here, given that it appears to be a rather obvious example of the genre, and is often cited as such. - Mustafaa 00:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My two cents' worth: I think that propaganda is a loaded word. Its literal meaning as "a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda" is a good one, but the word does also carry strong negative connotations about being deceptive. Calling any message propaganda sounds insulting by default. So calling any contemporary information campaign propaganda (like Hasbara) is going to necessarily be controversial. In my opinion, the article should contain a disclaimer early in the synopsis that propaganda is often considered to be a loaded term, like the Assassin article does. This would be more consistent with the--predominantly negative--way in which propaganda is presented in the rest of the article. As for the section listing examples of propaganda, I don't think that they add anything to the article that is not already supplied by the many pictures and their captions. Seeing is believing, and the pictures necessarily provide more convincing examples of propaganda than any brief verbal description will. Verbal examples probably need to be so detailed that they should be in their own article anyway. --Susurrus 23:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda does carry a very negative connotation. If you were to write a story regarding say, the war in Iraq, and it was written off as simply propaganda, that would not be "neutral" much less positive feedback

Propoganda is POV

Providing examples is POV. Almost no one admits to producing propoganda. Communists and Facists are a bit of an exception however, so perhaps examples of them admitting to using propoganda should be in one section, and a list of disputed claims of propoganda can be placed elsewhere. Sam [Spade] 16:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, and I have reasons to believe the word gained the negative connotation exactly because the word "propaganda" was a routine official term for communist/fasicsts, used, e.g., in the names of ministries of dissemination of their ideology, like agitprop and Propagandaministerium. Is there anybody old enough here to remember whether the word was bad in pre-1930s? Mikkalai 19:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When I was in Cuba I came over a central bureau of propaganda material. I think I took a photo of it. I'll check. - Sigg3.net 08:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam, do you mean that before we include an example of propaganda by Nazis, we should first find a confession of using propaganda in the current meaning of the word? E.g. a confession in the form of a quote in which Goebbels or a former employer of the propagandaministerium admits it? Andries 19:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The thing is that the only difference between "old" and "current" meanings of the word is negative connotation. That's why I posted the question here, which you all happily ignore to discuss. And the problem with the word "propaganda" is exactly the same as with the word, say, Russia: does the latter refer to Imperial Russia or to RSFSR, or to Russian Federation? In some cases the distinction is unimportant, in others it is crucial. Mikkalai 20:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Are you American? In Norway, Russia is the Russian Federation, while Soviet or USSR are used to refer to the old stalinist state. We must remember that our culture partly decides the connotation as well. An example from my own everyday: In Southern Norway Sami people is a positive thing mostly because of the "cultural heritage" and the embracement of indigenous people by the UN. In Northern Norway, where Samis live, it is mostly negative. Propaganda's negative connotation is basically a historical consequence, but we hold this term like it was an outdated one, which produces a problem. I consider the webpage of Amnesty propaganda, for instance, and many could agree that alot of politcs are propaganda. The "historical consequence" I would like to point out it's our thinking of propaganda as twisting the truth instead of a "netural" tool of governing. It's the one who weilds the tool who decides what actual connotation it deserves. .... At least that's my opinion. I think it's great you brought it up! - Sigg3.net 08:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As per your question, it shows only that the article Propagandaministerium is poorly written. The examples you are talking about are abundant. BTW, whose was this phrase that an enormous lie becomes truth? 20:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mikkalai, I think the usage of propaganda in a neutral sense is extinct. Why don't you re-write the example of the attack on the sender? At least then you would do something constructive. The Big lie comes from Hitler. Andries 20:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hesitate to enter this fray, but I just wanted to add a couple notes. First, dictionary definitions notwithstanding, the word "propaganda" certainly has a negative connotation, at least in American English (speaking as a native born Midwesterner who is also a professional writer). The connotation is that it is somehow false, misleading or, at minimum, incomplete. It has a connotation of being more overtly manipulative and less fact-based than other forms of speech, lacking in credibility.

For this reason it would probably sound funny to most Americans when a Spanish speaker refers to advertising as "propaganda." It may be true, but it is certainly sounds less neutral than the word "advertising"! (The distinction is certainly not a matter of scale: the budgets of the largest corporations far exceed those of many governments.)

For old-time definitions of propaganda, you may want to check out the book Propaganda and Persuasion by Eduard Bernays. I have not read it yet, but I suspect it would be a good source for early 20th century usage of the term. -JG--68.165.47.138 18:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lost piece from "Propagandaministerium"

One may want to "recycle" the following piece commented out and forgotten in Propagandaministerium. Mikkalai 19:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Already in 1916 the Creel Commission succeeded in bringing the US population into World War I. In 1920s Germany, many parties and lobby-groups set up propaganda offices and developed propaganda strategies.
World War II was conducted more propagandistically than World War I, especially in the new media of film and radio. Because of practical experience and scientific occupation with propaganda in Europe and USA, propaganda was organised in a planned fashion. A new psychological warfare was born.

I guess we all agree with linking to Wikiquote Wikiquote:Propaganda. Neutrality can you do that, because it is locked now? Andries 22:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, wheatpaste is a synonym for propaganda

It's not just a kind of glue. See for example, [9] and [10]. If you don't understand concepts, perhaps you shoyuld refrain from editing them. Stick to subjects you know, or do a little research first before deleting information that others may find useful. --Alberuni 02:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this is so, please write this somewhere. I don't understand slang. Please stick to writing encyclopedia, not jumping at people. I didn't delete "information". I deleted a link to a page which contains a word "propaganda" and noting else related to the topic. Allah Akbar. Mikkalai 07:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wallahi, I'd suggest you yourself to read what you suggest to others. Your link http://www.utanimalrights.com/primer/flier.htm says: "Wheatpasting is a more permanent form of advertising". In other words, it is a synonym to hanging posters. Mikkalai 20:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No Mikkalai, the word has two meanings, both as a glue to hang posters up and as a low budget advertising/propaganda method. --Alberuni 06:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Alberuni; you said the word: it is propaganda method and not only of propaganda. So it cannot be synonym of propaganda. And it is not described as such in wikipedia. If you are an expert an I am not, please do me a favor, describe it to me and other couch potatos who are not familiar with activism in deep. Mikkalai 07:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not the editor who included the wiki link but I recognize it as a form of propagandizing. Like leafletting or letter-writing or lobbying, it can have purposes other than propaganda but I think the link to propaganda is appropriate and informative. --Alberuni 15:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

9 reverts in one day Alberuni!

I see you've been busy; your previous record was 7. Jayjg 20:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken about both the "reversions" and the count but I'm not counting your errors. --Alberuni 05:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, he's quite correct. You reverted the page 9 times in less than 24 hours, a violation of the three revert rule. --Viriditas 05:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, they were not all reversions. Some were edits of other material, re Mikkalai and wheatpaste. Second of all, the count was not nine. Third of all, if either of you was concerned with the three revert rule and not the censorship of mention of hasbara as a form of propaganda, you would be making the same complaint to Jayjg's logrolling buddy User:Jewbacca who reverted 4 times as 216.155.74.28. --Alberuni 06:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Jewbacca was posting as 216.155.74.28, and if you don't have any evidence for your assertion, please stop making it. Jewbacca did not revert the page 4 times. Regarding your nine reverts, I reveiwed them to make sure, and indeed they were reverts. You may have added minor information or made minor changes in a few cases, but the substantial content was reverted from previous content, classifying your change as a reversion. --Viriditas 06:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jewbacca was posting at that time on multiple articles under his user name and anonymously from 216.155.74.28. See his User page. I don't think that editing as an anon is a violation of rules unless done to conceal bad faith edits or his identity while violating three revert rule..... I'm sure he is man enough to admit it if you care to ask him. By the way, who defines the "substantial content" of edits? You? What is your position on whether hasbara should be categorized as a form of propaganda? --Alberuni 07:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You already know my position, Alberuni, as it is outlined on this page here. Again, you are appealing to the fallacy of distraction by objections and shifting the burden of proof. --Viriditas 07:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are so enthralled at playing rhetorical logic games that you seem to have forgotten that the purpose of the Talk page is to improve the article, not play debate club. And I don't keep track of your positions on every subject. I didn't remember your impassioned defense of hasbara, Israeli propaganda, until you reminded me. You admit that hasbara is political advocacy. Now what's the difference between political advocacy and propaganda? --Alberuni 15:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's use a practical example. The San Francisco Chronicle and many others describe the Arab American Institute as a "political advocacy group"[11][12][13][14]; does this mean the Arab American Institute is a propaganda group? Jayjg 16:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. Political advocacy is propaganda. --Alberuni 16:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think they (and others) would strongly dispute that characterization. Propaganda, regardless of its neutral seeming etymology, has a negative connotation in English which implies deceitfulness or untruthfulness. Moreover, propaganda involves a much narrower range of activities than political advocacy. Jayjg 16:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since when are you entitled to speak on behalf of the Arab American Intitute or the English language? Propaganda does not imply deceitfulness or untruthfulness although some propagandists resort to falsehoods. Propaganda refers to a presentation advocating a point of view for purposes of convincing people to adopt or accept that point of view. Advertising is a form of propaganda. Political advocacy is propaganda. Jingoism is a form of war propaganda. Hasbara is pro-Israeli propaganda. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. You should be very familiar with the practice as you engage in it on a daily basis. There's no denying that hasbara is propaganda. You can twist and turn, "moreover" this and "furthermore" that, make up definitions and imply connotations but the fact remains, pro-Israel political advocacy is clearly a form of propaganda. Nothing you say can change that fact. If anything, you are just reinforcing the veracity of the definition. --Alberuni 17:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Propaganda has a negative connotation, and it's not just my opinion: "the word "propaganda" has come to have a somewhat negative connotation" [15]"Propaganda has a negative connotation" [16] "Today, a negative connotation"[17] "Public relations connotes a positive image while propaganda carries a very negative one." [18] etc. There are thousands of references like this. Find a comprehensive definition for "political advocacy" and you'll see it covers much broader territory. As for the rest, I note that you were actually able to enter one brief civil reply to my comments before returning to your usual violations of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies; like your 9 reverts on this article, this may be a new record for you. Congratulations! Jayjg 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda has a negative connotation?

Presenting one side of the story to advocate a political position is negative if you believe in neutrality and accuracy. That's why propaganda has a negative connotation. Whether a particular form of propaganda is deceitful depends on your POV. If you agree with israeli hasbara propaganda, you insist that it si not propaganda because you think it is the truth. If you perceive the lack f neutrality in hasbara's one-sided presentation of pro-Israeli perspective, then you recognize it is propaganda. Your extremist Zionist POV is getting in the way of Wikipedia yet again Jayjg. --Alberuni 19:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SMOKING

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anti-tobacco propaganda is the most prevalent type in modern America. Someone should write a section about it. 68.121.211.74

Anti-tobacco campaigns promote human health through the propagation of health information that attempts to inform the public as to the impact of tobacco addiction on human health. In fact, you will find that pro-tobacco propaganda is far more pervasive throughout the world, and has negative connotations, especially in terms of appealing to young children in advertisements, movies, magazines, and through promotional items, not to mention the damage it has on human health, especially the health of non-smokers who are exposed to tobacco smoke. The difference between "anti-tobacco" campaigns and pro-tobacco marketing is quite clear. The former consists of health information and safety warnings, while the latter is propaganda intended to promote tobacco addiction. The promotion of human health is beneficial, whereas the promtion of tobacco addiction is negative. --Viriditas 01:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both are propaganda, though. The numbers of cancer deaths in Norway are uncritically related to smoking, which is not facing facts. People get cancer for numerous other reasons as well. But, we all now that smoking may cause cancer, and in the long run the probability is close to 1. Hmm.. I need a cigarette. - Sigg3.net 11:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. See the main article: In English, the word "propaganda" often carries a strong negative as well as political connotations, despite being accepted in a general meaning of "advertising" in rare occasions... Presenting clear and unambigious health risks is not propaganda, but merely a public health advisory. On the other hand, the tobacco industry continues to rely on propaganda to sell their product -- propaganda that is based on promoting addiction and manipulating human emotions. --Viriditas 12:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When anti-smoking forces use their advertising to sway the public into supporting laws that compromise private property rights, and these advertisements are being funded by organizations who support such draconian laws, I'll sure as hell call it propaganda. And I don't even see health concerns addressed on many anti-tobacco television advertisements anymore except as a side-note, when they seem to be more concerned with bashing tobacco companies and portraying people who knew what they were getting into as victims of someone else other than their own behavior. The social and political agenda in these advertisements is clear and obvious to [I hope] most people, and falls into the propaganda category. --66.120.156.159 03:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still think both are propaganda. "The promotion of human health is beneficial, whereas the promtion of tobacco addiction is negative." This is culturally dependant, and promotion of tobacco addiction is very positive to people selling it.. But I digress. Promoting anything (in this case human health) by showing an anti-thesis (lungs from a smoker) is typical for propaganda. - Sigg3.net 12:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Vector art style -- what's its real name?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That style of art you see on a lot of old Soviet/socialist propaganda posters, such as that North Korea one, or that one with the Soviet workers with the soldier in front (both in this article), looks a lot like today's vector computer art such as that by the fellow who does cover art for KMFDM albums, or some of the art from The Orb's singles, or even the art you see by The Designer's Republic when they design architecture and, once again, album covers.

What is the precise name of this art style? That is to say, what it was called before computers even existed? Outside of computer CG art and music art, I don't recall anywhere else I've seen art like that outside of early 20th century propaganda.

Damn it still feels weird referring to "20th Century" in past-tense...

Cloisonnism.--AI 01:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Bush-Era Propaganda

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to add something like the following to under the current Afghanistan heading (renamed to Bush-Era propaganda). I figure I would post it here for thoughts and comments on the content. While I admit the analysis/explanation is mainly POV, this is the easiest way for to explain and argue the reasons why I think something like this is important enough to add. I think that at least key phrases such as "war on terror" should be added to this section with or without this style of explanation and would welcome comments on both the proposal to add, as well as the content and explanations that you guys think are or are not POV. I'm sure there is stuff in here that can be agreed upon if people here think something like this warrants addition. Text is as follows:

During the current George W. Bush presidency, propaganda is predominantly subversive semiological propaganda which, as with this type of propaganda, moves as memes throughout the citizenry.

Phrases put forth by the US government such as "war on terror", "axis of evil", "outposts of tyranny", and "rogue nation," as well as various phrases involving the use of the word "terror", worked their way into the common lexicon of the American people in the US government's attempt to recontexualize abstract concepts and connect them to concrete events, places, or to introduce stereotypical thinking. This retains the original, and literal, semantic meaning of the words while concurrently augmenting them with concrete pragmatics. Thus, someone not familiar with the usage would find the phrase "war on terror" to be nonsensical because they are not familiar that "terror," in this instance, is a word used not only as the literal meaning, fear, but additionally connects to many different US-centric memes, such as September 11th, Al Qaeda, dictatorships, freedom, patriotism, and many others.

These phrases have been widely accepted by the elite, and the American media, and are frequently used by American news channels and wire services. CNN, an American news network, has a show named "Terror Watch" which can be observed to be about terrorists (specifically, Muslim terrorists) and the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil. Wire services make use of the word "terror" to indicate "terror suspects," which is a post hoc label indicating the suspect will commit terrorism. Most English-speaking countries other than the United States do not use the phrases, and if needed, often reference the terms in situ (quoted) rather than in communication.

Additionally, in this era the United States commonly uses argumentative propaganda in public address to convince its citizens to support the ruling government, involving numerous propaganda techniques based on logical fallacy. For instance, "the terrorists are fighting freedom" is a fallacy of the single cause. The argument that if no weapons were found by the US weapons inspectors in Iraq, then the Iraqi President must be hiding them is ad ignorantiam and the further argument that because of this he does have them is called petitio principii. Many citizens still use arguments like this today. In fact, many American citizens believed, and still believe, via repetition of pragmatic implication in public address that Iraq committed the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Additionally, even though they may have personal reason to believe this, many believe that this has been determined to be true by the US government, without the government ever stating that it is so.

The United States has also used more traditional media-based propaganda in the current wars.

and continue with the rest of the current Afghanistan section —Ben 03:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And also something on "The Terrorists" (with comparisons to "The Communists" of course) and how it is another abstraction made conrete in the imaginative and stereotypical sense. As in, someone in Ireland would understand "The Terrorists" in context with the IRA but understand the main sides of the conflict and know that it is limited to Ireland. In the US, the phrase has an even broader meaning defined by the US government as "enemies of freedom," etc. similar to "The Communists" except more stereotypical and a "fill-in-the-blanks" or "figure it out yourself" style of phrasing which implicates unknown hidden enemies intent on US destruction with prejudicial overtones. This fallacious concept can then be re-directed through fear to support US government actions. Or something. Really I'm just mad that noone else seems to even notice the possibility of stuff like this let alone write anything about it. Ah well. One day I'll be able to explain it (or prove myself wrong, but I'm positive there's at least something subversive and manipulative in the words and phrases Bush, the US government, and even Americans in general, have started using)

After all, "Some of mankind's most terrible misdeeds have been committed under the spell of certain magic words or phrases." -- James B. Conant ...and if noone likes the rest of the stuff, can we at least put this quote in? I like it. :)

I would also be especially interested in response from non-American wikipedians. —Ben 03:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with Ben, and would like to take this further. The communication around the war in Iraq is riddled with propaganda, because many contentions arose, and would be a very pedagogic paragraph, since it is still very fresh in our memories. On the American side, name-calling such as those that Ben mentioned, and of the countries that opposed the war (France especially with the renaming of French Fries, etc.). A short and incomplete list: Appeal to fear, using the 9/11 events to validate the need to act immediately in the USA, and Tony Blair using the 15 minute atomic bomb threat argument in the UK; Appeal to authority, using 'intelligence' sources as something more trustworthy than political motives (I suppose those sources would normally be kept secret, and as it turned out, unduly used); Bandwagon: was used against countries reluctant to 'enrol', when both USA+UK and France+Germany+Russia insisted that most of the world was on their own side; Obtaining disapproval was used by the USA and the UK (more maybe?) against Iraq (listing all the atrocities committed in the past, for example the gazing of its own population, which had been previously attributed to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war) and countries opposing the conflict (like France being a dictator-supporter, as if everyone had forgotten about Henry Kissinger, etc.); Glittering generalities were used by the USA in words like 'freedom', 'democracy' etc., by France with 'international law', 'peace negotiations' etc., by Saddam in posing as a victim with statements 'unlawful invasion' etc.; Oversimplification: as Ben pointed out, 'Good vs. Evil' theme. Of course, these are only short examples that need more work and thorough referencing if such a paragraph were to be added. I beleive it should. --House of Shin 21:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Bush Era propaganda. This is nothing but a personal attack on George Bush because you do not support his policies. Im sure if you were to ask any American (who this propaganda is aimed at obviously)how they feel about him and his administrations use of terms like "outposts of tyranny" or "axis of evil" they will not say its propaganda, the American public are not "brainwashed" and whatnot to support Bush and his policies. To single out the Bush administration because of their use of a few phrases would be illogical.

Dear Mrs/Mr(?), you have proven my point: why did you defend GW Bush, and not Tony Blair, or even France+Germany+Russia that I accused of using the Bandwagon technique? By the way, "use of a few phrases" is exactly what this is all about. Those are the "few phrases" (from the US AND the UK especially) that are, IMO, to be used as examples of propaganda in their own right. --House of Shin 21:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
"There is no such thing as Bush Era propaganda" (House of Shin). Uhm, yes, there is. Whatever you choose to call it you have a policy which someone wants to get through/promote/advocate and they use different semantic tools to do it. Whether you call it a terminology, rhetorics or propaganda doesn't really change any of its content. The content is (more or less easily) available for checking up against the (f)actual source. In my opinion, though, you get closer to propaganda when you advocate e.g. an attack against terrorists when terrorists are undefined in the discussion. The way the Bush administration (as the British or my own - Norwegian - government) fails to define what terrorists are, makes it very possible to re-use this blurry cloud on completely other target-groups. From what I gather from the statements of the White House since 9/11, terrorists are very bad people since they kill innocent civilians... The war on terror seems to engulf its own administrators, then, since this is mostly what they do.
It will always be them or us whatever you choose to call either. A 'we' creates a 'them'. I think it's important to focus on this in politics, though, since people are growing into a frightening state of believing what they see and hear on the news without checking the sources or actually experiencing things by themselves.
And nothing is non-POV. - Sigg3.net 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Sigg3.net, I think there is a slight misunderstanding here: I was answering an unsigned message (you can check the history of this page) - I have slightly modified my earlier post so that no one else gets tangled. Obviously, I agree with your comments. The use of the term "terrorist" fits perfectly the description of the name-calling technique... It is a vague term destined to stir fear, hatred, and other negative *emotions* rather than giving a straightforward description of those who are placed in that category. I also get the impression that Americans have difficulties in admitting that they are being force-fed with propaganda (brainwashed...?), hence the comment I was answering, hence the total lack of a such paragraph in the main article. (Prove me wrong... please!!!)--House of Shin 17:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I was away from the discussion too long, I guess. - Sigg3.net 14:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

To try and equate phrases like "axis of evil" and "outpost of tyranny" with the other types of propaganda featured in this article by labeling them "Bush-Era propaganda" would be outrageous, plain and simple, stop trying to demonize Bush guys

This is not a simple attempt to "demonize Bush" as is claimed. The "axis of evil" metaphor caused quite a stir in the world of social research, and several papers have been released about it. From a summary presentation by The Maxwell School of Syracuse University and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI):
The Rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”
1. Bush used “evil” five times, three times referring to enemies.
2. Bush as a “born-again” Christian with a dualist view of life
3. A struggle between Good and Evil | Us and Them
And then you've the Cognitive Mechanisms and Effects on Political Discourse in Iran by the same authors. And Axis Powers and an Evil Empire by James Kruzer at the Harvard Political Review. Etcetera ad infinitum.
This is not to demonize Bush, this is apparent strategt for many of the world leaders, but in order to raise awareness we should focus on something people can relate to. - Sigg3.net 14:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Cut from mind control

With the spread of mass electronic media like radio in the 1930s and later television, totalitarian régimes of the time capitalized on the new possibilities for manipulation and state propaganda. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda genius, pioneered most of the methods which modern spin doctors still use. Many people attribute the insightful claim: "A lie repeated many times becomes the Truth" to Goebbels. Ironically, spin doctors play a very important role in those democracies dependent on public opinion.

I have no idea why this was in the intro to the mind control article. Can it be merged into propaganda? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Very good article, imo

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks to the authors. Just wanted to say it. --Pgreenfinch 14:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me too. One of the best around here. Great work! --b. Touch 04:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. IMHO, the Propaganda article is part of Wikipedia's foundation for becoming a factual encyclopedia.--AI 07:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it really missleading and false?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Generally saying propaganda is not missleading or false but just distributed extremely simply model of the very complex non-linear real world. Like "All men in army improve national security". This message is extremely simplified model of soldier<->army interaction. Indeed the interaction is complex and leads to many results. Or RIAA, MPAA propaganda "Copyright piracy steals jobs". Extremely simple model featuring correlation. The real world situation is much more complex and non-linear. The same about Hitler's propaganda message saying about negative correlation between number of Jews and Life quality of Germans.

Asking wiki-moderators for edit. Please respond if you read that --Anonymus 27 Apr 2005

I am not a wiki-moderator, but what is your point? I think you are offering POV argument and perhaps motive is to influence wiki-moderator opinion regarding the following policy:
"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."
Maybe I am wrong but the only reason I am here is because I noticed that Wikipedia is against propaganda. When they change their policy regarding this, then I leave.--AI 04:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi image

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Image talk:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg. The newspaper text runs in the opposite direction to the cartoon text, and the image can therefore only be digitally manipulated. At best, something very odd is going on. - Mustafaa 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Expand lead

As per Wikipedia:Lead, this lead is too short, it should be at least doubled in size to 2 paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ADL Chinese boy

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
File:ADL-Chinese-boy.jpg
An ADL poster uses the image of a young Chinese boy to argue that anti-Semitism hurts not only Jews.

This poster is not arguing that antisemitism hurts non-jews. Rather, the boy is Jewish and the poster is an example of how antisemitism hurts Jews such as this young Chinese Jewish boy. Additionally, such a claim is contradictory, as the definition of Anti-Semitism relates directly to descrimination against Jewish people. "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism" (posted by user:211.30.92.84)

Please explain where it is described that the boy is Chinese Jewish. Also, why do you think the claim is contradictory. Are you saying that discrimination against Jews does not hurt anybody else? Then you are wrong. A very straightforward example exists: during WWII many Armenians were killed in Belarus by Nazis because they looked like Jews, and what is more important, they fit Nazi's "scientific" antropometric criteria. mikka (t) 01:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am going to put this back into the article until a more credible argument is provided why it should not be included.--AI 21:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think user:211.30.92.84 is probably right. Propaganda on posters is usually so simple that EVERYONE can understand it without thinking too much (at least that's what Hitler defined it). The fact that anti-semitism has also a negative effect on ... non-jewish people is not straightforward to all the people, and the poster doesn't explain it either. If it were straightforward to all the people, there wouldn't be any need for such a poster. And just because a little boy claims anti-semitism is also against non-jewish people, doesn't convince anti-semistic people to stop being anti-semitistic. As a rule young people are more naive than more mature people. For example who'd be convinced to vote the political party XY simply because a little boy says: "XY is good!"? It would be more effective to portray a wise-looking, smiling man who says that XY is good.
Assuming the boy is jewish, however, seems more realistic. Anti-semitists have a stereotype about jews and that stereotype would conflict with the image of a little, chinese boy. Who could hate that child? Assuming the boy is jewish and the viewer knows that, how could the viewer not understand the message? The poster couldn't be more effective then.
But just because the caption is wrong, doesn't mean the poster should be excluded.NightBeAsT 18:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If they wanted to show a Jewish boy, they'd not pick a Chinese face. Not to acknowledge that the boy is not Jewish can be explained only by denial. What's so hard to understand: ethnic/religious hatred hurts not only Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is he half/half jewish/chinese who looks mostly chinese but is growing up in a jewish community.--AI 03:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to compliment you AI: good joke, good imagination or both. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't make assumptions here; is there any hard evidence of the child's ethnicity, rather than idle speculation? Jayjg (talk) 14:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that this is inept propoganda for a number of reasons, but there is no reason not to include it due to its low quality, at least until a better example can be found. The caption is silly tho, and should be reworded. Sam Spade 14:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, the argument over whether this boy is Jewish or not is not the point. -"Not to acknowledge that the boy is not Jewish can be explained only by denial. What's so hard to understand: ethnic/religious hatred hurts not only Jews" and "are you saying that discrimination against Jews does not hurt anybody else? Then you are wrong. A very straightforward example exists: during WWII many Armenians were killed in Belarus by Nazis because they looked like Jews, and what is more important, they fit Nazi's "scientific" antropometric criteria."

Both these users point out that the aim of the poster is to show that anti-semitism hurts not only Jews - and this has been undoubtedly supported by those who are even supposedly for the picture remaining in the article. Yet this is exactly why the picture undeserving of a spot next to "leaflet bombs" in the Korean War, and photos of Nazi Propaganda. Why not put an image up of a starving African boy with a caption "starvation in Africa kills children" while your at it? Both are true are they not? Anti-Semitism does hurt non-Jews as has just been shown to us...And starvation kills young Africans...This is not a suitable example for an article explaining what propaganda is. Especially considering the dispute over whether the boy is Jewish or not.

Agreed. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Considering all this, the poster is not really propaganda. --AI 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

All of you are forgetting that anti-Semitism is not only the "anti-" of Jews but of ALL Semitic people. This might be a stretch but some Biblical scholars consider all Asiatic peoples to be Semitic. (Or rather, all African peoples as Hamitic and all/most European peoples as Japhetic.) So if we consider "anti-Semitism" with its broader meaning, it all makes sense because the Chinese boy IS Semitic. Of course, why ADL would use a discredited Semitic-Hamitic-Japhetic classification system is beyond me. -Hmib 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Anti-Semitism article; anti-Semitism is Jew-hatred. Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
That is the narrowed-down, modern meaning. The word itself means hatred of Semites, not just Jews. -Hmib 17:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You are mis-applying etymology here. The term is a misnomer, it was invented by Wilhelm Marr specifically for Jew-hatred and always carried that specific meaning. As a matter of fact, only in the modern times some propagandists attempt to dilute its meaning to apply to other groups. Read the article. BTW, this is a wrong place to discuss it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda in today's United states

Hey guys, i saw www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/100605snitchposter.htm this] today. and while, yes, it's from the site of Alex Jones, it DOES have a very distinct agitprop propaganda look and feel. so, i want to add a section about propaganda inside today's US. can i? thanks :)

Project2501a 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(yes, it freaked me out when i saw that)

-- nobody said nothing, so, i'm going right ahead.


I haven't seen it in commuting in Maryland (though I don't take the MARC). There are also a few satirical posters featuring a Soviet style of propaganda.

While we're at it, we should discuss public information campaigns and the difference between them and propaganda. There is a fine line between the two, but a line nonetheless.

GABaker 18 Jun 05

agreed. while we're at it, we should include anne courltairwhathername, rush limbough and michael moore as people trying to push a line. Project2501a 18:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ok, but now that the 'war on drugs' is historically well documented beginning with nixon in early 70s, and it seems obvious that now the 'war on terror' will be seen as a similar attempt at 'public information'. What level of documentation would acceptable if an article was to appear other than 'undisputed/POV'? I couldn't find anything on the 'politic of fear', which to me, should have at least one article dedicated to it.

User:hblekk 18:07, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)

Rush Limbaugh has become a multi-millionaire by employing propaganda... his last contract started out with around $30,000,000 as a signing bonus. "Only in America!"

June 26th, 2005 02:47 Z

Move to talk page

United States

File:100605poster.jpg
Poster reported as being used on the MARC commuter train

In its July 2005 www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/100605snitchposter.htm article] prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com], a site run by radio host/journalist Alex Jones reported the use of the poster on the right. The poster has very close resemblings to the cold war Soviet Russian agitprop propaganda productions.


Hokay, what are we supposed to hash out? Project2501a 8 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

History

Can't there be more added on the History portion of the article. I mean propaganda wasn't just used in World War I, II, Vietnam and Korea. In the revolutionary war, e.g. the Boston Masacre was embellished and used as a tool to encourage patriotism. I believe that would be considered propaganda Rentastrawberry 00:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Commonest in Wikipedia

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term African-American is the commonest re-writing of history on the Internet. It appears in this article on propaganda at "Techniques of propaganda generation."

Some American Negroes have defended their nation in various wars since 1776.

Zillions of articles in Wikipedia refer to "African-Americans" which means that Wikipedia is an instrument being employed to distribute a corrupt history of slaves and colored people who were never called African or black while they were alive.

Strange people submit propaganda into Wikipedia relentlessly.

141.151.176.154 13:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish Plumber

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Those who can see and read would agree with the example of propaganda. Does anyone except for Polish POV-pushers disagree with my inclusion of the Polish plumber? Neutrality Plumber 11:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Who created the phrase "Polish Plumber"? It was the French, but I don't see you describing the speech of De Villiers as propaganda. In the interest of NPOV, this example is not clear cut, and if you wish to explain why it would be considered propaganda, I again invite you to explain it in the Polish Plumber article. Tim! (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's giving a fuck about De Villiers or anything else you're talking about. This propaganda poster of the tourist institute is a perfect example of propaganda, no matter how you look at it. You were enligthened about it being propaganda on your talk page and the Polish plumber talk page. You said it was advertisement but it is more accurately referred to as propaganda because it tries to give a good picture of Poland, a political intention. Poland isn't a commercial product. "Propaganda shares many techniques with advertising. In fact, advertising can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product; however, the word "propaganda" more typically refers to political or nationalist uses, or promotion of a set of ideas." You could say nothing against that but you removed any reference to advertisement or propaganda, which I agreed with. But obviously some wanted it to be called advertisement campaign, so I called it an example of propaganda. Anyway as such a perfect, visible example and the lack of a picture here, why not post it here? Look at the other pictures here. Do you have a better example? It is modern, it is current, it is visible, it has a political background, it is uses a model while none of the pictures has used a model. This deletion of you isn't based on any reason.--Neutrality Plumber
POV-pushing? What's possessing you? Can you say why? No, of course not. You can only vandalize and accuse.--Neutrality Plumber
So the French making a stereotype of Polish people isn't propaganda? Maybe you should read this article and the background to Polish Plumber advert more carefullly. By saying what the Polish do is Propaganda and denying what the French say isn't, you present a lop-sided view, contrary to WP:NPOV. As I said above, it is more complex than you try to make out, and you should make your point in the article as the appropriate place, if you can do it neutrally, which so far you have not. Tim! (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
What the fuck has that got to do with the picture here? Tell me that. The political speech, which you could describe as propaganda, as any political speech, is completely irrelevant. It's the fear by the French which this slogan enshrined and that is not propaganda but a symbol of a fear. It is the fear. Anyway, we're not talking here of the saying but of the picture and you didn't delete the saying - you deleted the picture. And as I clarified, it's an excellent example of propaganda PERIOD--Neutrality Plumber
"Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.".

You cannot in a neutral point of view put the Polish Plumber image here without accompanying context of the events in France. Which is why I keep asking you to put some dicussion in the Polish Plumber article, a neutral dicussion of Propaganda in relation to the advert, as you are only presenting one half of the story. Tim! (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There's enough context. Thank you. And yes, that's neutral. Look at all the other posters. Are you saying " Hey there was also propaganda against Saddam in Iraq back then. That's not neutral" No, you're not. So your excuse for your vandalism, which was only motivated by our dispute yesterday, is irrelevant. Like I clarified, it's a perfect example of propaganda and just because the Polish are also included, POV-pusher, doesn't justify anything. Or else you have to delete all the other pictures too. But since you are a POV pusher, you are not going to do that apart from my edit.--Neutrality Plumber Do I have to repeat myself? Any political speech is also propaganda, and if you're going to include the word propaganda in Polish Plumber article, yes, you can also call the speech propaganda. But we're talking of the picture here--Neutrality Plumber
So actually, the Polish tourist poster is using the French propaganda back at them... maybe it's not such a perfect example then? Tim! (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
A fear is not propaganda. The speech didn't create the fear but entshrined it. And even if it were a response to the speech (which it isn't but to the fear and even that only in part: promoting a good picture of the country for tourism is the main focuse): just because propaganda is combatted with propaganda, which is almost always the case, doesn't reduce the quality of it at all.--Neutrality Plumber

Ok please clarify your position:

  • De Villiers calls Poles Plumbers, Estonians Gardeners and Latvians Masons, none of these are propaganda,
  • Polish Tourist board uses Polish Plumber stereotype in an advert in France, that is propaganda?

Tim! (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I have never head of De Villiers in my life. Until yesterday I didn't even know he said something about Polish Plumber. And if you told me he said added "all Russians are ducks" or "pigs can fly" or anything, I wouldn't care a damn. Yes, it's propaganda like any political speech, but I've explained you very very well that this doesn't change a fuck. A fear is not propaganda. The speech didn't create the fear of the French but entshrined it. The fear existed before, at that time (or he wouldn't have said so) and after that. And even if it were a response to the speech (which it isn't but to the fear and even that only in part: promoting a good picture of the country for tourism is the main focuse): just because propaganda is combatted with propaganda, which is almost always the case, doesn't reduce the quality of it at all.--Neutrality Plumber

Well you've made your view perfectly clear now. All I can say is I disagree that the De Villiers stereotypes are not propaganda. Now, we will have to wait for 3rd parties to intercede to establish consensus. Tim! (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh my God, I've just conceded twice that this De Villa's statement is also propaganda, but also that this doesn't matter at all. Now you know very well that I'm right but after our dispute you just cannot give in this time: last time I gave up calling it propaganda, why cant you gain an advantage this time? Now there's no unbiased way to change the picture: I didn't even call it propaganda there but only poster, and there's really absolutely no way you can POV-push it this time.--Neutrality Plumber
So putting an image in an article called propaganda doesn't imply said image is propaganda? Tim! (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh of course this reveals that this is propaganda but unlike many other pictures it refers to itself as poster and that's all that can be done about it. Sorry but when the sophists thought they could win any case with rhetoric they were wrong too. There's really nothing you can do about it: this time I thought more about my edit.--Neutrality Plumber
I am yet to see a propaganda-free poster or a commercial. If we flood the article with such material, the essential historical encyclopedic narrative will be hopelessly diluted if not entirely lost. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As if one more picture would overrun the aritcle! From above I can see that the Chinese boy was removed, so this picture can have his place. How many propaganda pictures are without relation to a war? One. It's this weird cult leader or whatever it is (what the hell is it by the way?). The rest focuses on WW2 or Iraq war or Afghanistan war. Is most propaganda from wars or is the word defined by the amount of fighting nearby? Certainly not. So propaganda that looks just like normal advertisement except that it doesn't promote a commercial product helps make the article less misleading. Pictures aren't bad and this will have no effect on the "historical encyclopedic narritive" at all. Without pictures the article would look dry and poor and attract less readers. I'm certain that one (subliminal) reason for its awards were the pictures.--Neutrality Plumber
While I disagree with you on most points (e.g., there is no "his place"), I am not strictly against exposing modern propaganda unrelated to war. I am simply not convinced that this is a good such exmaple. Let's bring more opinions and more choices. Who advocates stripping the article completely "without pictures"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
No one is advocating so, and similiarly no is advocating a flood of pictures. Please tell me what bothers you about the example.--Neutrality Plumber

Wikipedia as a potential propaganda tool

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'd like to start a discussion on the possibility of wikipedia being used for propaganda and examples of such. The Propaganda Panda 20:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an important discussion. We should give examples for that claim. Wikipedie is a propaganda tool for Neo-Nazis, which is not a surprise. One example is the article on "Adolf Hitler", where you will find in the introduction a propaganda photograph of Hitler taken by Heinrich Hoffmann (Hitler's personal photographer). This picture does serve the only purpose to make the article more attractive to the reader who has neither a clear idea of Hitler nor of his crimes. There will hopefully follow more such examples. (By the way, propaganda pictures like the one you normally find on the "Hitler" article, will always be removed by the ones like me.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (27112005)

Change lines

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I kinda went ahead & changed this because I think mine is better, but read it & agree :-)

original: The technique is to create a false image in the mind. This can be done by using special words, special avoidance of words or by saying that the enemy is responsible for certain things he never did.

-->not neccesarily (+ language used doesn't match the rest)

new: The technique is to create a false image in the mind. This can be done by using special words, special avoidance of words or by saying that the enemy is responsible for certain things the propaganda target opposes to.

--> Think that's the right/accurate way to say it... You know, correct me if I'm wrong ;-)

82.134.248.99 11:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it, because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Jayjg (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Fide

Should a mention be made to its etymon Propaganda Fide?

British Propaganda

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is there none in this article, but loads of American? Even if you just look at 1/2 WW there's loads. How about the famous "Daddy, What did you do in the Great War?"? Or "Wants you!"?


-I think there is not enough British, French, Indian, Iranian (Islamic Revolution and Shah Regime) American, Italian, nor Turkish propoganda put up, how about CHinese, Japanese, and fanatical propoganda's? I would love to see more pictures, of propoganda and a bried history of the first propoganda used, one great example would be the Persians in their take over of Babylon. Or Greek propoganda during for attacking the Persians etc etc --Aryan Khadem 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Century for the coinage of the term Propaganda strange

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed this while casually browsing: "The English term is an 200th century coinage". Since I'm sure we couldn't have coined the term in the future, so what's the date? We need sources as well. Poke-Dude1995 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for an explanation of the item in question along with strategies for dealing with this type of situation. --Allen3 talk 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo Caption Correction

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The photo containing a U.S. Army PSYoP humvee in Al Kut is incorrect. It is a 312th not the 350th PSYOP Company team (look at the left front of the vehicle for the identifier, the Marine article incorrectly identified the Army PSYOP vehicle). I know that particular vehicle in the photo and what a pain in the rear it was to maintain it.Virgil61 05:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would there be an interest in a WikiProject Propaganda? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A Great Book on Propaganda

Distinguished social-psychologists Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis has written a very good book on propaganda titled "The Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion" (ISBN: 0805074031) PJ 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry mates, but I think I speak for a lot of NPOV-enthusiasts when I insist that the main image for this article not be about any current US (or otherwise) conflicts, and uses a historical image instead. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush-era Propaganda

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(I've added this new section as I think this differs from the discussion above) I've readded the allegation of Bush-era propaganda but asked for a citation. Unless I missed something, this is a much more specific allegation than the general ones discussed above. I know I've personally seen several television reports on "news" reports which were produced by government officials but not labeled as such - and that's quite a feat for someone without a television. I don't know if this is limited to the current administration or it was only during this administration that the practice was discovered and publicized. It may not even be linked to the admninistration and its political appointees and may simply be "business as usual" for various government departments. It may turn out that the issue needs to remain in this article but the link to the Bush administration removed. I don't know the answers to these questions so that's why I asked for a citation. --ElKevbo 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could revise this section (I write on Inauguration Day) as "Propaganda done by Presidents".

Has there EVER been a presidency which did not use at least a bit of propaganda? This article is one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia because (overall) there are few jabs and few obvious slants...It would be good to keep that neutral tone consistent.Victorianezine (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the anti Iraq war propaganda in the U.S. media? There was a lot of negative coverage of the war that went away once barack Obama became President. The section on the Iraq war propaganda is biased in favor of the anti-war point of view, suggesting the U.S. media was dominated with pro-Iraq war coverage, when in fact the opposite was true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.122.45 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Laden vs USA

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to remove the newly added Laden vs USA image. It doesn't strike me as propaganda. It appears to be just a cheap toy chasing in on a popular sentiment, not an attempt to influence sentiment. Objections or thoughts? --ElKevbo 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

hum?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
U.S.PSYOP leaflet disseminated in Iraq. Text: "This is your future al-Zarqawi" and shows al-Qaeda terrorist al-Zarqawi caught in a rat trap.

so dropping pictures out of an airplane of a vaugely middle eastern man in rat trap with a poorly worded translation to explain who the caricature was supposed to depict, must have really brought out that pro-US sentiment, eh? Join us or we'll put you in a cage and take humiliating pictures of you and post them on the internet, oh, wait--64.12.117.9 01:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda icons

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Looking at the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf page I found that it links to several other personalities widely known as propaganda broadcasters/personalities during various wars. Looking at these personalities, most of them have similar links. However I also noticed all of them are personalities not affiliated with the US/UK side. I appreciate that as the US/UK were the victors (well except for in Vietnam, but we all know the US likes to pretend they won there anyway), and as an English wikipedia, we tend to hear more about those on the other side but for balance we need some links (and some articles if they don't exist) on propaganda announcers on the US/UK side! I know very little about this so can't help much but hopefully someone who is more of an expert can help... Nil Einne 13:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Category:Propagandists is also similarly one sided. And Hasbara is still not listed under Category:Propaganda and instead only Hasbara (disputed whether it is propaganda) is listed. At least Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is listed under Category:Propagan Organisations for example. I think someone with an open mind and time on their side needs to make an effort to correct this clear bias whereby propaganda by the Allies (WW2), US and Western Europe (and Israel) is frequently not properly listed whereas propaganda by the Axis (WW2), communists, Arabs etc is listed. From a quick read through, this article seems fairly well written with an adequate coverage and recognising propaganda from both sides so there are clearly some people in wikipedia able and willing to adopt NPOV when it comes to coverage of propaganda. But for whatever reason, this is not reflected in our categorisation and coverage of propanda in other articles on wikipedia. Nil Einne 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Propaganda in the United States

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

I am proposing merging the POV fork Propaganda in the United States back into this article if it is not deleted. It doesn't have enough unique content for its own article and loses the context and definitions that this article provides. --Ajdz 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propaganda in the United States gives plenty of reasons. `'mikka (t) 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
They say why it should exist, not where. --Ajdz 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I thought it must be clear. Wikipedia's mode of operation is to split big articles into subtopics, not to merge big ones into even bigger. Now, the "P" article is big, the scope of the subtopic cannot be defined better. Q.E.D. `'mikka (t) 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Much of the argument on the AfD page is whether or not the information should exist. I don't think geography works for subtopics in this particular article because the article is largely chronological. If Propaganda in the United States exists, mention of U.S. propaganda should be deleted from Propaganda, which would severely damage important sections like "Cold War propaganda." Major sections like history or techniques would be much more suited to spinoff because they are much much more independent of each other. --Ajdz 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem in turning "Cold War propaganda" into a summary. This is done all over wikipedia all the time. We have separate Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Propaganda in the Republic of China, Category:Nazi propaganda, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. So, why not in the USA? there is a whole Category:United States government propaganda organisations, so I say the current article merely scratches the tip of the iceberg of Ameriprop. `'mikka (t) 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point about those different articles about propaganda in whatever country it is. It did seem a bit awkward to me to have a separate "Propaganda in the US" entry, but if that is the customary Wikipedia practice for propaganda in other countries, then okay. Perhaps the country-specific propaganda articles could be linked to from the main one, for readers who might not find them intuitively. DanielM 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't all the U.S.-specific content be removed from the main article so they aren't redundant? Because the U.S. is so involved in world affairs, most of the examples belong alongside others, like in the Cold War and Iraq sections. I don't believe that China is as active internationally, so their article would be largely domestic. The same can't be said about the U.S. --Ajdz 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, IMO the main article should cover the best examples of and issues relating to propaganda from any country. The country-specific article allows in-depth propaganda examination for that country. DanielM 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the history section should be renamed "best examples" as it would be incomplete by design. --Ajdz 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a complete history of propaganda, which would be many hundreds of pages long or more. So I don't think it's a question of the history section being "incomplete by design." The titles of sections should be determined by editors based on the text therein and the overall organization of the article. I think the redundancy issue is worth considering periodically for editors as they develop both articles. You don't want a lot of redundancy, but a moderate amount of incidental redundancy that occurs naturally as the articles receive independent development is not a problem, IMO. DanielM 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While this article certainly can have a section about this phenomena, all national propagandas are notable and deserve their own articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - this article should be written in summary style with subarticles for specific nationalities. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - If we merge the US article, then by principle we'd have to merge the the Propaganda in the PRC article as well, making this an overly cumbersome article. Joshlmay 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - You mustn't judge from the current content of this article, I have myself read much on american propaganda, and there clearly is a lot of missing information. This article must be kept and expanded. I will try to work on it myself --Ludvig 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The United States and other western market states are very sophisticated users of propaganda. Currently, this article is heavily biased, and can itself be construed as propaganda (though omission), because it makes it appear that propaganda is something that is used by "other" / "less free" forms of government, and not something that happens in market economies. This entire article is in need of a major cleanup and balancing exercise. Either split out propaganda use by individual countries, or make sure all heavy users of propaganda (eg, the US, UK, Australia, etc...) are considered. 203.11.72.4 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

USSR Photos

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've found an interesting source of many Russian posters dating from 1917 to 1991. If anyone thinks the link should be added to the main article here it is:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bpx/sets/72057594117941491/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintlink (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 May 2006

What is their copyright status? --ElKevbo 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation names

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The choice of operation names like "peace for galilee", "just cause", "iraqi freedom", and "enduring freedom" is a use of propaganda not yet described. Añoranza 01:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Haw-Haw

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Might a reference to Lord Haw-Haw / William Joyce be relevant in the Nazi section? Joyce's controversial execution as a traitor (to a country he was not a citizen of) is an interesting footnote to WW2 and the role of propaganda therein. Dugo 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Definately Dugo, go for it!Hypnosadist 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article used to be better.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Go back and take a look at [19] from 2005. That's better than what we have now. --John Nagle 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, according to the current definition of propaganda, a simple question could be considered propaganda as it also aims to influence the listeners behaviour. The earlier definition was better, but may still need work on it.

Include propaganda on animal rights

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Large stock of propaganda is on Wikipedia, in chapter about animal rights. Classical emotional photos, one-sided arguments... everything. Might be worth including - with bold Wikipedia referring to it's own shortcomings. Indeed, somebody could make a nice sociological study from that chapter alone.

Screenshot of top of Wikipedia article "animal testing" would be worth including. Big photo of sad-looking monkey and below, in a small type, explanation that most of test animals are rodents.


The Nazis actually did a lot of propaganda for animal rights. Maybe that could be included somewhere. Ink Falls 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hasbara should it be in the see also?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Someone keeps adding Hasbara back as a "see also" link. Now, I agree 100% that Hasbara is an example of propaganda. You may find a few people who disagree and would say it is POV to call Hasbara propaganda, but actually I don't think this is the reason it should not be a link here. I think it should not be a link here precisely because it is an example of propaganda. All the other See Also links are to topics about propaganda, mostly types of propaganda - not to examples of propaganda. The examples of propaganda that exist are too many to list and are not the point of the article. Notice that none of the other See Also's linked relates to a specific political issue. This is by design. The point of the article is not to call any specific thing propaganda, even if it clearly is. The point of the article is to explain the nature of propaganda in the abstract.
I am writing this so that we can establish some consensus about the issue to form the basis for the final state of that link. Rlitwin 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read you answer i see your point, i think Hasbara should be mentioned in the section on the megaphone software. Also i think a notation of Al-Manar's position as an accused propaganda outfit should be added to the section for both completeness and NPOV reasons, what do you think.Hypnosadist 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know. I guess I'd have to see it. Rlitwin 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on 19th-21st centuries?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm way too far out of my field to significantly contribute to this article but it does seem to me that there is an over-emphasis on the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. I'm sure that with modern technology propaganda has become much more widespread but it also seems to me that we are lacking discussion and examples of older propaganda. But I could be wrong and I'd welcome anyone who could set me straight if I am wrong. --ElKevbo 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A little out of my field, too, but I agree. I would like to see more examples of historical propaganda if they still exist. 134.129.74.42 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Menk

2004-2005 discussion archived

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I archived discussion from 2004 and 2005. Please feel free to bring anything out of the archive if I made a mistake or we need to revisit an old issue. --ElKevbo 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for a New Opening Sentence?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What if the opening sentence was changed to something more grabbing like:

Propaganda is a specially formed message, designed by a propagandist with the sole purpose of soliciting an intended response.

Propaganda is meant to present a blunt point in few words and the opening sentence is too weak. Also, if you need to provide some contrast with regular, honest communications, use a second sentence like "Unlike more honest forms of communication, propaganda is written to be palatable to the common man and presents events and information in a meticulously designed depiction of a chosen subset of facts available." Further, a third sentence might be "The combination of a believable arrangement of a specific group of facts and making the propaganda easily accessible and understandable by the intended audience yields the most effective use of Propaganda." LighthouseJ 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda is more than a message, it is at the least a complex of messages to a single endArodb 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda in song

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to see a section on propaganda in song. Some songs are about propaganda. Some songs ARE propaganda. Let me find a few examples. Then maybe someone can work them into the article. --SafeLibraries 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

HAVE YOU GOT PROBLEMS?
written by Paul McCartney / Michael McGear
Album title: McGear


YOU WAKE UP, YOU SIP HOT TEA,
MINDLESS MUSIC, RADIO FREE.
YOU SEE BLUE SKIES AND THINK OF SEA,
HOW ARE YOU DOING?
THEN LATER ON, SWITCH ON TV,
THEY GIVE ME THE NEWS,
THEY GIVE HALF TRUTHS TO ME.
THEY GIVE US WHYS, THEY FEED US LIES,
HOW ARE WE DOING? (yeah, yeah, yeah)
TO EDUCATE, THEY FABRICATE,
AND WE SIT BACK TILL IT'S TOO LATE.
HAVE YOU GOT PROBLEMS?
WHAT ARE YOUR PROBLEMS?
BRING ALL YOUR PROBLEMS STRAIGHT TO ME.
TRUST IN ME NOW,
'CAUSE I'M YOUR LEADER,
DON'T HESITATE NOW, I'LL PUT YOU STRAIGHT.
THINK OF ALL THE PROMISES MADE TO YOU,
THINK OF THE LIES THAT WE'RE GOING THRU'.
I AM THE LIGHT IN YOUR DARKEST HOUR,
THRU' ANY CRISIS, I WILL BE YOUR POWER.
DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE
ALL YOU'RE TOLD, ALL YOU READ, ALL YOU'RE TAUGHT,
ALL YOU SEE, DON'T BELIEVE, DON'T BELIEVE,
ALL YOU'RE TOLD, ALL YOU READ, ALL YOU'RE TAUGHT,
ALL YOU SEE, DON'T BELIEVE.
DO WHAT YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU DO,
WHAT DO YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU LIKE.
DO WHAT YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU DO,
WHAT DO YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

That song is ABOUT propaganda. --SafeLibraries 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one ABOUT propaganda:

ONE OF THE FEW
Written by Pink Floyd
Album title: The Final Cut
When you're one of the few to land on your feet
What do you do to make ends meet?
Teach
Make them mad, make them sad, make them add two and two
Make them me, make them you, make them do what you want them to
Make them laugh, make them cry, make them lie down and die

--SafeLibraries 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another:

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL, PART II
Written by Pink Floyd
Album title: The Wall
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all its just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teachers, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

--SafeLibraries 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite some quality sources and you've got the makings for a good addition to the article. You might also want to look at some of the more overt forms of music propaganda such as (a) that used by various countries in wartime broadcast in their opponents' language (some of whom earned some very colorful nicknames from combatants) (b) commercial radio jingles and (c) political jingles (not very popular in the US anymore but apparently popular many decades ago in the US - I do remember a relatively recent radio news spot (NPR?) about some songs used in current non-US elections). --ElKevbo 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. A perfect answer - providing more information. Now I'm not the genius in this area. That's why I'm here and I'm suggesting others throw in their ideas as well. Yours are excellent. --SafeLibraries 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Check the McCartney song "Give Ireland back to the Irish" cirac 1970s during Ireland conflict has some strange statements in there including the title (majority of Irish Republicans consider the part of Ireland occupied as property of the Irish and not the property of Britiain to give back);
Tell Me How Would You Like It
If On Your Way To Work
You Were Stopped By Irish Soliders
Would You Lie Down Do Nothing
Would you give in or go berserk
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today
There are also a lot of Republican/Fenian and Loyalist songs containing propaganda. See Irish rebel music & Billy Boys RandomGalen 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to butt in here too much, because I think the root of this idea is certainly positive and worth exploring, but this seems like the wrong tac. Introducing musical propaganda might be okay, as a sub-heading, but I'm not sure it is truly germaine. Lyrics like those you've cited mainly seem distracting to the content of this entry. I'm not suggesting more WWII posters/images, or quotes from Lord Hee Haw, or anything, but coming to this page I'm not sure a reader is looking for McCartney lyrics. I mean, what would you include? Who's to say that anyone with a political agenda isn't dispensing propaganda. Forgive me for quoting Cypress Hill among all you intellectuals, but on their Black Sunday album a song states: "I got ta get my props/ Cops/ come and try to snatch my crops/ These pigs wanna blow my house down/ Head underground, to the next town/ They get mad when they come to raid my pad/ and I'm out in the nine-deuce Cad...."
I mention this because not only does it portray law enforcement in a particluar way, but it is (I assume generally) and unpopular view of the police. Couldn't this rightly fall into the definition of propaganda? And further, what constitutes a 'salient' example of propaganda in song? Tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree? 134.129.74.42 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Menk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Propaganda/Archive_1&oldid=1137101010"