Talk:Propaganda#rfc D868551

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_College_of_Idaho/Criticism_as_Praxis_(SP22) | assignments = Blakemurray7 | reviewers = Sarvesh Nyachhyon, JoeyCalzo | start_date = 2022-02-03 | end_date = 2022-04-23 }}

What are some ideas for turning this article from a vital C-class article to a GA? Or at least, a B-class article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:Happy to pitch in @Philomathes2357. The first thought that comes to mind is to start by making the article more global and less Western-focused, including in the examples and images. Superb Owl (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Posters shown were examples of advertising rather than true propaganda. True propaganda is convincingly able to engineer consent of the mass population. Merely being racist or stereotypical or even nationalistic does not make them true propaganda 97.120.210.206 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

These are excellent articles about propaganda (a MUST read!) dealing with MAGA's war against truth, freedom, and democracy. It is carried on by elements of Trumpism (MAGA, GOP, Trump) and Trump's autocratic dictator friends.

• "The New Propaganda War"{{cite web | last=Applebaum | first=Anne | author-link=Anne Applebaum | title=The New Propaganda War | website=The Atlantic | date=May 6, 2024 | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/ | access-date=May 8, 2024}}
• Oliver Darcy's commentary about it: "Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it 'one of the worst crises for American democracy this century'"{{cite web | last=Darcy | first=Oliver | title=Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it 'one of the worst crises for American democracy this century' | website=CNN | date=May 8, 2024 | url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/media/journalist-dangers-of-propaganda-reliable-sources/index.html | access-date=May 8, 2024}}

The refs are fully usable as is. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how to use these sources in this article. Perhaps they could be added to the "history" section. That whole section is sub-par, and should certainly have more information about post-Cold War propaganda besides a cursory mention of, of all things, the Yugoslav wars.

:However, I'm not convinced that Anne Applebaum's opinion about propaganda is due in this article at all. A stronger argument could be made that her commentary is due in another article, like History of propaganda, Propaganda in the United States, Propaganda in Russia, or Propaganda through media. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:: I guess it would, as always for any source, depend on how her article is used. Otherwise, as she is an eminent, widely-published, and multi-award-winning subject matter expert on the topic, I don't understand the objection. Check out her bio at Anne Applebaum. It would be hard to find a better source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I don't object to using the articles at all. It's just not immediately obvious to me how the sources can be woven into this article as it exists currently. My first thought, like I said, would be the "History" section, which is woefully lacking and could use a lot more information about post-Cold War propaganda. How would you go about incorporating these? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

Is the Bisotun Inscription still regarded as a piece of propaganda? I found a more rcent journal article than the current source that argues this is due to biased scholarship. Also note that the current wikipedia page for the inscription does not mention the propaganda debate. Is there a more appropriate example of early propaganda which is less contentious?

The Bīsotūn Inscription - A Jeopardy of Achaemenid History: https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1473187&dswid=-8136 24.206.69.90 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:The above source notes in its own abstract that it is presenting a revisionist view that contradicts the general views of the field. Generally, the appropriateness of including such claims on Wikipedia depends on the impact that they managed to have on the field; do subsequent publications regarding Achaemenid history defer to and/or cite Ahmadi's paper, or do they continue to uphold the prior dominant view? I wasn't able to find any evidence of citations to Ahmadi in a quick Google Scholar search. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)