Talk:Subversion

message: What this term means, should be clearly stated in the first sentence!!--P-Chan 10:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: It seems POV to me that "Modern Uses" of subversion consists exclusively of anti-corporate, anti-advertising subversion - though that's really a request for expansion, I guess. However, phrases like "the all-powerful corporation" are clearly POV, unless attributable, so that section needs to be re-written a bit. Eikimart 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite to avoid POV

message: While categorising pages I found myself working on Angkatan Gaya Baru, which is described as "a subversive movement". Now, I know nothing about this particular movement, but my instinctive thought was to wonder whether this was POV. Looking at this page (subversion, that is), perhaps it's not - but - well, I'm a bit worried. Can any subversion experts help me? Is it NPOV to describe a movement as subversive? It sounds a bit weaselly, somehow. --JennyRad 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to answer you, but you're asking about something closely related to what I wanted to raise here, which is the need to add a discussion of the use of "subversive" as a power word. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the governments of Argentina and El Salvador both used the term to disparage and demonize popular opposition movements. I think this ABSOLUTELY belongs in the article as fast as we can find sources to reference; I have taught college Spanish classes, for example, in which students who encountered the word "subversive" in different media tended to take it at face value and not recognize that it can be a label to undermine opposition. Explaining these kinds of things is part of Wikipedia's mission. Lawikitejana 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term Subversion 

message: In the present definition "advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence" seems wrong : subversion is using other means that force and violence? A classic propaganda trick from governments is to picture any organization with alternative views as "violent and subversive" since it creates an amalgam between people that want to change a government and those willing to use violence to do so...the next step is to brand them as "terrorists". In my views this should be amended in wikipedia's text?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.234 (talk • contribs) 
There is a whole section on 'russian and french subversion' but nothing on US / UK ? Seems a little POV  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.220.148 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: the incumbent govt could use subversion to entrench their own power by creating society unrest and manipulating outcomes through various means including corrupted media and govt institutions 64.79.133.107 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: See Talk:Subversion#Requested move; proposed move of this article to primary topic (subversion), and disambiguation page currently at that title to subversion (disambiguation) (currently a redirect of that page). TheFeds 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I'm about to remove this sentence from the lead for a variety of issues: 
When a comedy or comic is referred to as being subversive, it is as much of a compliment to their work as it could be an accusation, from comics like Charlie Chaplin, Lenny Bruce, Andy Kaufman and Stephen Colbert to writers like Paddy Chayefsky, Larry Charles and Mel Brooks, to activists like Abbie Hoffman, and Michael Moore, to artists like The Yes Men and monochrom.   Satire is one of the most potent forms of subversion for artists and comics, and it can take shape in films, television, books, and even political protest.
We need to be clear that there's nothing especially subversive about poking fun at the hypocrisy of those in power; you might only be attempting to embarrass the powerful into doing the right thing in the first place. 
I don't myself regard Mel Brooks or Michael Moore as subversive. What were they trying to subvert? Lingering Nazi sympathy in America? Unclean water? 
I also don't like Colbert on this list. Trump was busy subverting pre-existing presidential norms, and Colbert was busy subverting Trump's subversion, as I saw it. I don't think meta-subversion really belongs in the lead here. 
Additionally, the phrase "as it could be an accusation" suffers from problems of tone. 
I have no particular concern about whether this sentence is restored or not, but I do think there needs to be several opinions that agree, either way. — MaxEnt 00:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Having given this another minute's thought, maybe the right thing is to create an article section "subversion in comedy". But let's be a lot more clear about the distinction between actual subversion against the established order, and merely making the established order squirm with annoyance over accurate portrayal. — MaxEnt 01:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random ragged list sequestered