Category talk:Propaganda

Proposal for major modification of this category

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)

James, your proposal is absolutely the right way to go. We should not turn this category into the typical Moore/Franken vs. O'Reilly/Rush/Coulter battles we are so famous for. Folks, let's make sure to apply NPOV concepts to categorization instead of using it as a scarlet letter. We all know propoganda is a loaded term, so turning to the dictionary for a technical definition is not sufficient. The word evokes Goebbels, Big Brother, 1984 and the Red Scare. It is not a label to be applied loosely to anyone who has a strong opinion. Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically, ditto. Perhaps an exception could be made for commonly accepted historical propagandists or works of propaganda (e.g. Goebbels,Mein Kampf). But even then we may have problems. For example, was Tom Paine a propagandist? I think he clearly was, but the label still has negative connotations people may resent applying to a national hero.Wolfman 00:27, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should really be an all or nothing category which should also include subcategories like Category:Propagandist, Category:Propaganda Films, Category:Propaganda Books, etc. Regardless of Michael Moore's fans, he will go down in history along side of Goebbels as a famous propagandist along with most of his works, the same can be said about Ann Coulter and others no matter where your ideology's fall. I don't feel the word propaganda is necessary negative, thats a matter of opinion and is the crux of this debate. So should this category and it's potential subs be banned from wiki or not? I don't think exceptions should be made. Wiki is not designed that way. Also adding more articles to this category to make a point is juvenile. --Buster 01:09, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Categories also run the risk of clubbing readers over the head with simplistic, noncontextual interpretations. This is one such case. Wikipedia has always touted the ability to present the facts and let the readers decide. Instituting a category scheme above (with such a strong view of Moore and Coulter) is a bad idea because it goes against providing more knowledge about a subject. Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not to make this personal, but your comparison of Moore to Goebbels is disingenuous and calls into question your credibility. To equate someone who was part of a dominant war machine and directly influenced the death of millions in Europe during WWII to someone who made a few op-ed films and is astounding. We're bordering on Godwin's Law area here. Fuzheado | Talk 01:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Buster is quite right that perceived negativity is the heart of the issue. That goes against NPOV and is bound to lead to endless categorization fights. Is there a different word to use? A kindler, gentler word. A word with basically equivalent but neutral meaning? That might solve the problem quite cleanly.Wolfman 01:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your evaluation of my credibility is irrelevant, Goebbels was picked as a matter of convenience, don't blow it out of proportion. "one mans truth is another mans propaganda" --Buster 01:56, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Credibility is relevant. Coulter/Moore are not in the same league as Goebbels. Fuzheado | Talk 02:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your evaluation of my credibility is irrelevant to me. After your last two additions to this discussion, leads me to question your sanity. Are you suggesting that there be subcategory's for different levels or leagues of propagandist? --Buster 02:35, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, you'll see that I have suggested quite the opposite - to keep the category very narrow, small and strict rather than making it a blacklist. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No_personal_attack. Fuzheado | Talk 05:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately restricting a category's width is not practical, it's still an all or nothing proposition. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Civility it may help you from getting to the point where you feel the need to post links such as Wikipedia:No_personal_attack. --Buster 13:22, Aug 1, 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)

James' suggestion might work if we included "Polemics" under "Propaganda". I'm still in favor of deleting the category, though. Works about propaganda is just not what I'd expect in a category called "Propaganda". anthony (see warning) 14:09, 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 case... VoA

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)

The original purpose of the category was propaganda in the official sense (white or black). I listed VoA because that was their original purpose, even if it isn't now. Michael Moore wouldn't qualify because he's a political pamphleteer, just working in film. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't qualify either. It's the official sanction aspect that makes something propaganda.

(Of course, the word is also used for "corporate propaganda" and "cult propaganda".) - David Gerard 12:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion made on Talk:Michael Moore was that it's propaganda if it "has one viewpoint," so that propaganda "is part of everyday life: advertising, news, religion." My response is that, if the category were to be retained and defined that broadly, then there would be a "Category:Propaganda" notation at the beginning of every article about a politician, every article about a religion or religious leader, every article about a business (if it advertises its products), and quite a few other articles that are getting pretty far removed from Goebbels and the like. (For example, Dante had a viewpoint.) When the reader goes to one of those articles, does the "Category:Propaganda" notation add to the information, or help locate usefully related articles? When the reader goes to the Category:Propaganda page, is there any value to a list of a more than a thousand articles (my wild guess, but certainly lots and lots of articles), a list containing such vastly disparate elements? Defined that way, the category would be completely useless and should be deleted.

I have a lot of sympathy for the view expressed here that "propaganda" applies only to what governments put out. That conforms more closely to my intuitive understanding of the term. Still, is everything government does to influence opinion propaganda? I'd have no problem calling the color-coded terror alerts in the U.S. propaganda, but I assume that other people would consider that to be just an anti-Bush POV. JamesMLane 04:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taking into account the mentioned purpose of the propaganda category, I can see that it isn't intended to cover all propaganda. It is specifically targetted at propaganda used against an enemy. In this use, enemy is a broad word. Are we only referring to country against country? How about a country's use of propaganda against possible rebels/freedom fighters? Is it only limited to countries? Can a single man (DW Griffith) produce a work of propaganda (Birth of a Nation) to sway the view of what he sees as the enemies (Northerners and Non-Whites) while praising his allies (the KKK)? I freely admit that I'm using a movie reference here because of the comment earlier that Michael Moore's movies cannot be classified as propaganda. Kainaw 13:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The deletion discussion

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)

Here's my idea: articles about propaganda should be placed into this category. This includes general classes of propaganda, such as heroic realism. Specific examples belong in Propaganda examples. Accusations of propaganda in articles otherwise unrelated to propaganda should be removed. Pcu123456789 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on category definition

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)

FYI, I dealt with this issue in April of 2012 at this diff. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Separating examples and general discussion

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:

>Propaganda

>>Examples

>>>Cold War

>>>Country

>>>Interest

>>>Medium

>>>Vietnam War {under-populated}

>>>WW1

>>>WW2

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)

Sounds unnecessarily busy and confusing. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain my reasoning. I would argue that Category:Propaganda is currently too busy and confusing and needs more clear distinctions. In particular, the important distinction between overall discussion of propaganda, and specific historical examples is not obvious. If we are to consider the role of categories in providing a hierarchy to allow readers and editors to quickly find the set of pages they are after, then I would argue that Category:Propaganda is not providing this as well as it could. I feel this category tree needs an overhaul. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

One other thought also occurred to me, perhaps the following tree would be neater:

>Propaganda

>>Examples

>>>Country

>>>Interest

>>>Medium

>>>War

>>>>Cold War

>>>>Vietnam War {under-populated}

>>>>WW1

>>>>WW2

--Andrewaskew (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting confused by Category:Propaganda examples. It seems unnecessary, just as your using Wikilinks to disguise all those existing categories does. It is not clear what you are trying to do here.

If you feel there are a number of articles in some missing category, then just create that and put some relevant articles under it. CarolMooreDC 01:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be bold. I had asked a question here to find out if any editor had an idea for any changes. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All you've done is hide important categories under "examples" which probably not too many people will go to, thinking its isolated incidents, not whole big categories. CarolMooreDC 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. As I explained before making the changes, the Category:Propaganda was too cluttered, with specific examples not being easily discriminated from broad theory. If all the articles I moved to had fit into pre-existing subcategories, I would have simply moved them as such. However there were some that did not fit into any of these categories, thus I re-opened Category:Propaganda examples.

I'm not sure here what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that Category:Propaganda did not need tidying, or are you proposing some different classification system for the Propaganda category tree? I am happy to listen in either case, can you please explain? Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:22, 16 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)

I would argue that I have not violated WP:OR because this classification between examples and theory comes from the pages themselves. Some are historical instances, others are theoretical discussions. This is not OR any more than the distinction between propagandists‎ and propaganda theorists‎. Hopefully the cfd discussion will settle the point. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Category Deletion discussions

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:

• The Classification header is problematic because the categories are? (And I still don't remember seeing "Classification" instead of "See also" for relevant categories before and it looks like an extension of the WP:Original research problem with your four new categories. CarolMooreDC 00:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)