Talk:Black propaganda

message: I stated Bin Laden died before the tape was released. That was sloppy on my part. Apparently, according to this http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw100928556223B212 source, Bin Laden died at roughly the same time the tape was released (mid-December 2001). So my statement then that the authenticity of the tape was questionable based on this chronology was mistaken. However, this site http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html takes apart the "confession tape" and offers plenty of reasons why we should question its authenticity. If the tape is, as I believe, inauthentic, logic plainly suggests the tape qualifies as black propaganda. - Ron Leighton 
http://twains_ghost.typepad.com/
: Actually, no.  Logic would suggest that it is "gray propoganda" (going by the wikipedia definitions), since we don't know who released it or why. 216.220.57.164 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning War on Terror propaganda 

message: how about the so-called 'liberal' media, this seems like it would be a good place to put it..
All the media does is complain that the media is dominated by liberals AND then when it's done doing that it praises george bush,
maybe it's time to admit that the media is about as 'liberal' as george bush is 'compasionate' - 172.130.147.138 02:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Liberal' media

message: If any of this can be backed up with some cites, it's an excellent example of black propaganda. Black as in shady, not black as in African. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/coloring.html Qwasty 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COINTELPRO black panther coloring book 

message: How would people feel about adding information about Scientology to the article?
The term appears in a policy letter, excerpts here, and I would imagine (tho currently looking for cites) there would be ample examples of its use via the Fair Game policy. ElijahOmega (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: This article says "Disinformation is a useful form of black propaganda [...]". However, when I click disinformation, the first paragraph of that page tells "Disinformation [...] is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda.". Is disinformation one of multiple forms of black propaganda, or are they equivalent? 131.174.12.41 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicken/egg (our oldest meme). Disinformation ought to be the category (superset ...). Propaganda would denote purpose and technique (why and how). The main argument is that it would take quite a stretch for simple-minded mischief (the norm? okay?) which may result in disinformation to be considered as propaganda. Subsuming disinformation under black propaganda would equate the activity of a lonely malcontent with that of a large organization with power and money behind it. Now, having said that, disinformation may be one technique for black propaganda, yet there are a myriad other means to accomplish the deed (such as, airing the truth in all of its grit). jmswtlk (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence  to disinformation 

message: There are many instances of American black propaganda during WW2 as run by the OSS, , , in fact Revere's depiction of the Boston riot of 1770 could be considered the earliest such example of black propaganda.Twobells (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added an American section which is rather sparse atm but I'll fill it out when I have time, subsequent to that I have also added Paul Revere's depiction of the Boston Massacre, tbh though we really need a 'history' section.Twobells (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 And Cold War American Black Propaganda Needs A Section 

message: This section needs to be more carefully written, separating what is known about the OSI from speculations about it and making clear the source of the speculations.  At the moment the first quote is unattributed and the second is misattributed.  Also, the timeline could be made clearer.  The sources cited in this section (e.g. NY Times) make it sound like the office was still in the formation stages, 'circulating proposals' about possible operations and awaiting approval, when it was closed down.  It was started sometime after September 11, 2001 and closed down (as such) in Feb 2001.  What is interesting for the sake of this article is that elements in US military leadership were apparently considering specific kinds of black propaganda as open options in 2001/2001.    Offwalking (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office of Strategic Influence 

message: "By the 1980s, Service A consisted of nearly 120 officers whose responsibilities consisted of covert media placements, and controlled media to covertly introduce carefully manufactured information, disinformation, and slogans into the areas such as government, media, and religion of their targeted countries, namely the United States. Because both the Soviet Union and the KGB's involvements were not acknowledged and intentionally disguised, these operations are therefore classified as a form of black propaganda.[14] The activities of Service A greatly increased during the period of the 1980s through the early 1990s presumably as the Soviet government fought to maintain control during the declining period of the Cold War."
According to the definition given on this page, black propaganda is propaganda created by one party and deliberately made to look as if it came from another. Secretly introducing lies and disinformation into an enemy nation is NOT "black propaganda", it's GREY propaganda...propaganda from an uncertain source. If this propaganda had been, say, a "secret US document outlining a plan for the Federal government to disarm all US citizens" with the intent to stir up anger against the US government, THAT would be black propaganda. Black propaganda works by making people think it comes from a certain source, while the information actually is harmful to the source. Regular anti-American propaganda disseminated from covert or misleading sources is a whole different thing; it would have to be specifically tailored to look as if the US had released it. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not black 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Black propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719110627/http://www.ibiblio.org:80/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/19/fbi.html to http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/19/fbi.html
*Added  tag to http://www.fmsoares.pt/arquivo_biblioteca/Biblioteca/pesquisa_numerica_i_r.asp?Registo=006313
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128181621/http://www.nls.uk:80/propaganda/black/index.html to http://www.nls.uk/propaganda/black/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206192437/http://members.home.nl:80/ww2propaganda/slid31a.htm to http://members.home.nl/ww2propaganda/slid31a.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The idea that propaganda can be split into different categories in a spectrum is in essense simple, but that creates an idea sometimes that different articles are warranted, when in fact these are just gradients of the main topic. Note that, common to this form of article creation, white propaganda is just a paragraph and grey propaganda just redirects to propaganda. Suggest white propaganda and black propaganda articles be merged into propoganda. -Inowen (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge unnecessary fork articles 

message: I believe that I have found enough background material to start an article on the Penkovsky papers, which currently redirect here. Any objection, or some reason I'm not aware of that this would be problematic? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penkovsky papers 

message: The other chapters seems to cover specifics on anti Nazi events in WW2. But noticed there's hardly any info given on one of the 20th century worst massacres that was primarily sparked by black info. Anti-communist black information by the British ops led to the killings of 500,000 innocent people in Indonesia after they were wrongfully accused of a coup. Given the scale of the event, I reckon it deserves its own chapter that's titled as Indonesia, so I place a subheading called (Indonesia) under UK cold war chapter. 49.180.124.35 (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia