Talk:Propaganda/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Propaganda flyers

message: *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)
thread_title:  Too Much Emphasis on deliberate deception 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Walt Disney 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...or may be the author simply misspelt "feign"? Mikkalai 19:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: ...or "feint"? Robert Southworth 22:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injustice and Faint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cuban propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Played Backwards 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cult propaganda, wouldn't this be a great pic? 

message: Please justify censorship of discussion Israeli propaganda. Jayjg. Alberuni 15:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hasbara sources?  Why would I be interested in them? Jayjg 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. You don't need sources. Alberuni 19:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't know what you mean by hasbara sources. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing there is an article on hasbara with external links to sources. Alberuni 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Do we now include all media sources under propaganda as well? Jayjg 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This article does not give positive examples, though. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Rework the article first. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Your suggestion sounds like a regular day at Wikipedia. I agree with it. Alberuni 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Israel propaganda efforts are continuing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Rework the article first. Jayjg 20:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Your suggestion sounds like a regular day at Wikipedia. I agree with it. Alberuni 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is hasbara propaganda vs. Is hasbara propaganda as described in the wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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."  Jayjg 19:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hasbara is advocacy not propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propoganda examples 

message: 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." " 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  More on Hasbara 

message: Please see Documented Evidence of Propagnada War Against Hasbara on the Internet --Viriditas 00:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Israel propaganda campaign against hasbara 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Palestinian Media Watch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: The term is rarely, if ever, used in a positive or neutral sense. Jayjg 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that why you believe hasbara is not propaganda? Because you believe hasbara is positive and beautiful?Alberuni 03:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Jayjg that hasbara should not be presented as an undisputed example of propaganda. Andries 16:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Propaganda: is negative connotation dominant in native English usage? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Propoganda is POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality can you link to Wikiquote? 

message: It's not just a kind of glue. See for example,  and . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mikkalai, wheatpaste is a synonym for propaganda 

message: I see you've been busy; your previous record was 7.   Jayjg 20:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken about both the "reversions" and the count but I'm not counting your errors. --Alberuni 05:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Let's use a practical example.  The San Francisco Chronicle and many others describe the Arab American Institute as a "political advocacy group"; does this mean the Arab American Institute is a propaganda group? Jayjg 16:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, obviously. Political advocacy is propaganda. --Alberuni 16:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Propaganda has a negative connotation, and it's not just my opinion: "the word "propaganda" has come to have a somewhat negative connotation" "Propaganda has a negative connotation"  "Today, a negative connotation" "Public relations connotes a positive image while propaganda carries a very negative one."  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)
thread_title:  9 reverts in one day Alberuni! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propaganda has a negative connotation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SMOKING 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vector art style -- what's its real name? 

message: Thanks to the authors. Just wanted to say it. --Pgreenfinch 14:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. One of the best around here. Great work! --b. Touch 04:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  IMHO, the Propaganda article is part of Wikipedia's foundation for becoming a factual encyclopedia.--AI 07:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article, imo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it really missleading and false? 

message: Please see .  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)
thread_title:  Iraqi image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expand lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commonest in Wikipedia 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Propaganda 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Century for the coinage of the term Propaganda strange 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo Caption Correction 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Great Book on Propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Bush-era Propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Laden vs USA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hum? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Propaganda icons 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propaganda in the United States gives plenty of reasons. `'mikka (t) 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They say why it should exist, not where. --Ajdz 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  USSR Photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Operation names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lord Haw-Haw 

message: Go back and take a look at  from 2005. That's better than what we have now. --John Nagle 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article used to be better. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Include propaganda on animal rights 

message: :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)
replies: text: I don't really know.  I guess I'd have to see it. Rlitwin 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hasbara]] should it be in the see also? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on 19th-21st centuries? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2004-2005 discussion archived 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Time for a New Opening Sentence?