![]() | This category was voted for deletion on 18 November 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Someone added Michael Moore and two of his films to this category. I responded by adding Rush Limbaugh. The latter categorization was deleted. There followed a revert and counter-revert on Fahrenheit 9/11. This whole situation needs attention. Initial discussion occurred on Talk:Michael Moore#Category: Propaganda?, with some further comments at Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11#Category: Propaganda? and Talk:Bowling for Columbine#Category:Propaganda. I'm suggesting that all the discussion be consolidated here. I plan to add a Propaganda categorization to a few articles like The O'Reilly Factor to alert people sympathetic to conservatives that they should get involved here.
Identification of specific works as propaganda is inherently POV, because of the pejorative connotation of the term. Furthermore, the reversions and arguments we've seen so far about Moore will be only the beginning, as similar fruitless disputes will break out in many articles.
I propose the following: This category will be reserved for articles that are about propaganda or some aspect of it. Articles like Big Lie and Black propaganda would stay. Articles about specific works characterized as propaganda, or individuals listed here only because they created such works (including all the articles listed in the first paragraph of this comment), would be deleted from this category. JamesMLane 23:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In answer to Wolfman's request for a "kinder, gentler" word, we could create a category like Polemics to include Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, Jim Hightower, Pat Buchanan, etc., and all their works. That word is definitely more neutral. Another alternative would be have a new article (not category), one that would amount to "List of people who try to influence public opinion and as a result have been called propagandists by someone or other" (whatever actual title it got). Would any of this benefit the reader? I don't see how. The narrow version of the Propaganda category, which I've suggested above, could be useful to a reader who wants to read about different aspects of propaganda and propaganda techniques. Beyond that, we're just venting, not informing. JamesMLane 06:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the larger POV category issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#List of POV categories -- Gary D 02:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Another problem case is Voice of America and Radio Marti. VoA has already been added to the category, but it's not that simple. VoA has redirected their mission substantially since the Cold War when it was broadcasting into Communist strongholds. While it is still funded by the US government, it does not have its editorial policy set by the government anymore. Radio Marti and Al Hurra (Disinfopedia [1]) could be plausibly called propaganda, but we then need to consider all other government sponsored broadcasters. Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
By my count the vote was 15 to delete, 10 to keep. The misleading feature of that tally, though, is that the "keep" voters included people voting to keep different versions of the category and how to handle it. AndyL said "Keep and remove contested topics." Similarly, Willmcw wanted to delete the examples as being too subjective, while Mikkalai said, "Just the opposite".
It's naive to think that the term "propaganda" has no negative connotations. The result of this inherent POV, and of keeping the category, is that, in practice, the category consists of articles about propaganda, plus some specific examples by propagandists (Nazis, etc.) who have few or no supporters among currently active Wikipedians. I expect that we'll continue to see occasional additions of Michael Moore or one of his films to the category. I'll continue to remove that listing. I agree with Moore's views and disagree with Leni Riefenstahl's, so her detractors will still be able to use this category to express their disapproval of her. JamesMLane 03:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As the introductory text clearly states, the term has two distinct meanings, the original one and the more recent, pejorative one. The non-pejorative meaning is still in use (e.g. by communists). Unfortunately the text doesn't make clear which meaning of "propaganda" the category is about. I don't see any objective criterion to distinguish between "propaganda" (2nd meaning) and PR, it's all based on whether you personally like or dislike its contents. IMO any inclusion of items in (or exclusion from) a pejorative category is inherently POV, to the effect that such a category should not be part of Wikipedia because it cannot comply with its basic rules. So either make this category about all kinds of PR/propaganda, good, bad or ugly, or delete it.-- 84.188.163.134 11:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The definition of this category as primarily political has lead to some discussion on Category talk:Anti-gay propaganda. Anti-gay propaganda could include religious propaganda and so could be argued to not be a suitable child of this category based on its current definition. A similar argument could be applied to Category:Antisemitic propaganda and Corporate propaganda topics which are currently children of this category. Are there any thoughts of refining the definition to extend the primary definition beyond government sponsored propaganda or explaining how to interpret "easily classified as propaganda" when the item in question may not be government sponsored?-- Ash ( talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose keeping Category:Propaganda for broad points of discussion and moving the examples into sub-categories.
There are currently several sub-categories for examples, but not every example has an obvious home within one or more of these.
My solution would be to re-open the old Category:Propaganda examples and use that for keeping examples that have no obvious home. Probably the current sub-categories could be moved down a level as well.
So my proposed category tree for examples would be:
I would also introduce classification to make it easier to move up and down.
This would leave Propaganda a much cleaner category, and allow users to find what they are looking for. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It took me reading the deletion criticism of your categories to realize WP:Original Research was the issue here. I am saying it is WP:Original research for you to declare that some categories are examples and others are somehow stand alone categories. I'll change them back, unless I see something that actually is a subcategory of an existing category. "Examples" category itself should be deleted as well; tomorrow will list. CarolMooreDC 00:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Given these discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_14#Category:Collective_consciousness where several people call for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_18#New_Categories_synonymous_with_Category:Propaganda which I started and which one other person so far agrees needs deletion, do you understand that:
![]() | This category was voted for deletion on 18 November 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Someone added Michael Moore and two of his films to this category. I responded by adding Rush Limbaugh. The latter categorization was deleted. There followed a revert and counter-revert on Fahrenheit 9/11. This whole situation needs attention. Initial discussion occurred on Talk:Michael Moore#Category: Propaganda?, with some further comments at Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11#Category: Propaganda? and Talk:Bowling for Columbine#Category:Propaganda. I'm suggesting that all the discussion be consolidated here. I plan to add a Propaganda categorization to a few articles like The O'Reilly Factor to alert people sympathetic to conservatives that they should get involved here.
Identification of specific works as propaganda is inherently POV, because of the pejorative connotation of the term. Furthermore, the reversions and arguments we've seen so far about Moore will be only the beginning, as similar fruitless disputes will break out in many articles.
I propose the following: This category will be reserved for articles that are about propaganda or some aspect of it. Articles like Big Lie and Black propaganda would stay. Articles about specific works characterized as propaganda, or individuals listed here only because they created such works (including all the articles listed in the first paragraph of this comment), would be deleted from this category. JamesMLane 23:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In answer to Wolfman's request for a "kinder, gentler" word, we could create a category like Polemics to include Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, Jim Hightower, Pat Buchanan, etc., and all their works. That word is definitely more neutral. Another alternative would be have a new article (not category), one that would amount to "List of people who try to influence public opinion and as a result have been called propagandists by someone or other" (whatever actual title it got). Would any of this benefit the reader? I don't see how. The narrow version of the Propaganda category, which I've suggested above, could be useful to a reader who wants to read about different aspects of propaganda and propaganda techniques. Beyond that, we're just venting, not informing. JamesMLane 06:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the larger POV category issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#List of POV categories -- Gary D 02:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Another problem case is Voice of America and Radio Marti. VoA has already been added to the category, but it's not that simple. VoA has redirected their mission substantially since the Cold War when it was broadcasting into Communist strongholds. While it is still funded by the US government, it does not have its editorial policy set by the government anymore. Radio Marti and Al Hurra (Disinfopedia [1]) could be plausibly called propaganda, but we then need to consider all other government sponsored broadcasters. Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
By my count the vote was 15 to delete, 10 to keep. The misleading feature of that tally, though, is that the "keep" voters included people voting to keep different versions of the category and how to handle it. AndyL said "Keep and remove contested topics." Similarly, Willmcw wanted to delete the examples as being too subjective, while Mikkalai said, "Just the opposite".
It's naive to think that the term "propaganda" has no negative connotations. The result of this inherent POV, and of keeping the category, is that, in practice, the category consists of articles about propaganda, plus some specific examples by propagandists (Nazis, etc.) who have few or no supporters among currently active Wikipedians. I expect that we'll continue to see occasional additions of Michael Moore or one of his films to the category. I'll continue to remove that listing. I agree with Moore's views and disagree with Leni Riefenstahl's, so her detractors will still be able to use this category to express their disapproval of her. JamesMLane 03:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As the introductory text clearly states, the term has two distinct meanings, the original one and the more recent, pejorative one. The non-pejorative meaning is still in use (e.g. by communists). Unfortunately the text doesn't make clear which meaning of "propaganda" the category is about. I don't see any objective criterion to distinguish between "propaganda" (2nd meaning) and PR, it's all based on whether you personally like or dislike its contents. IMO any inclusion of items in (or exclusion from) a pejorative category is inherently POV, to the effect that such a category should not be part of Wikipedia because it cannot comply with its basic rules. So either make this category about all kinds of PR/propaganda, good, bad or ugly, or delete it.-- 84.188.163.134 11:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The definition of this category as primarily political has lead to some discussion on Category talk:Anti-gay propaganda. Anti-gay propaganda could include religious propaganda and so could be argued to not be a suitable child of this category based on its current definition. A similar argument could be applied to Category:Antisemitic propaganda and Corporate propaganda topics which are currently children of this category. Are there any thoughts of refining the definition to extend the primary definition beyond government sponsored propaganda or explaining how to interpret "easily classified as propaganda" when the item in question may not be government sponsored?-- Ash ( talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose keeping Category:Propaganda for broad points of discussion and moving the examples into sub-categories.
There are currently several sub-categories for examples, but not every example has an obvious home within one or more of these.
My solution would be to re-open the old Category:Propaganda examples and use that for keeping examples that have no obvious home. Probably the current sub-categories could be moved down a level as well.
So my proposed category tree for examples would be:
I would also introduce classification to make it easier to move up and down.
This would leave Propaganda a much cleaner category, and allow users to find what they are looking for. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It took me reading the deletion criticism of your categories to realize WP:Original Research was the issue here. I am saying it is WP:Original research for you to declare that some categories are examples and others are somehow stand alone categories. I'll change them back, unless I see something that actually is a subcategory of an existing category. "Examples" category itself should be deleted as well; tomorrow will list. CarolMooreDC 00:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Given these discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_14#Category:Collective_consciousness where several people call for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_18#New_Categories_synonymous_with_Category:Propaganda which I started and which one other person so far agrees needs deletion, do you understand that: