Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Category:Propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Category:Propaganda

This category was listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion for one week. By my count, there have been twelve votes to delete (60%) and eight to keep (40%). The consensus is not clear. According to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies, categories where consensus is not reached in one week, and where the has been enough discussion that the decision might be controversial, can be listed at VfD to request further comments and votes.


Delete. Since the word "propaganda" has pejorative connotations, I believe that makes this catagory POV. This sort of thing would be more appropriate at Disinfopedia (which is ironically listed) rather than here. Grice 12:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete--Josiah 22:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Jayjg 22:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete RedWolf 01:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep E.g. Joseph Goebles. CheeseDreams 01:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Goebbels deserves to be linked in an article on Propaganda, but no category is necessary, and any category will quickly degenerate into POV additions. Grutness 02:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. See also the subcategory Category:Propaganda examples. -Sean Curtin 03:15, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is always a shame when good words go bad, but I don't think that propaganda can be called Point-Of-View (POV). It is very well defined in the dictionary: "the systematic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests". If you had a category like "Good propaganda" or "Bad propaganda" it would be POV. But because Category:Propaganda makes no distiction in the type, it is not POV. Additionally, without this category where would you put articles like Propaganda model, Propaganda film, and Cold War propaganda in Germany, to name just a few. —Mike 03:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the fact that "propaganda" is a legitimate word in the dictionary is a good justification for its own article, which does already exist here at wikipedia, but not neccessarily for its own catagory. Articles like Propaganda model and Propaganda film can be linked to from the propaganda page. Grice 12:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      Just because something can be linked to doesn't mean it can't be categorized. Every page should be linked to many other pages in some way or another. —Mike 23:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The fact that a category may be abused as POV vehicle does not mean it should be deleted. Currently there are no POV inclusions (from a cursory glance) in it, so why the fuss? And if we are talking about future potential, any category can be abused. For example, Category:Medicine currently includes links to Acupuncture, but does not include a link to Prayer. There is ample evidence that Acupuncture does not work as medicine and some slim evidence that Prayer does. Shall I take the inclusion (or omission) of an article in that category as an endorsement of certain medical practices by Wikipedia? Aren't we biased? Removing the Category:Propaganda would be a huge mistake. :( In fact, by trying to avoid all bias people here sometimes make the encyclopedia more biased, biased against facts, because some facts are just not reported. Paranoid 17:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • These concerns about Category:Medicine sound just as controversial as this one. Because of that, this comparison doesn't help us with this catagory. Grice 01:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete persuaded by arguments below that it's more trouble than it's worth. Keep I expected to find Michael Moore and Ann Coulter listed, in which case I would have said delete. But it seems that people are using it responsibly. Wolfman 03:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. People do keep adding the tag to the Michael Moore article. It's been removed several times. There have also been a couple different threads on Talk:Michael Moore in which people make good-faith arguments to include it, i.e., it isn't vandalism. Efforts to define the category so as to make it non-POV (on Category talk:Propaganda) have failed. Wolfman, you yourself pointed out that Tom Paine could well be considered a propagandist. I'm afraid that the conclusion "people are using it responsibly" amounts to saying "the category is being applied to propaganda by Nazis, Stalinists, and others who have few or no supporters among currently active Wikipedians, but it's not being applied to Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, or even to the press releases the U.S. government puts out about the glorious march to freedom in Iraq". This isn't a sound basis for categorization. JamesMLane 19:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 19:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a tool for POV wars. See Talk:Michael Moore. --Key45 20:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This will suck up so much time spent arguing about the application every three months when someone tries to add it to Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. It's not worth the trouble. Gamaliel 20:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove contested topics. Many of the items listed are about propaganda itself or about self-defined propagandists and propaganda techniques. AndyL 22:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you provide a better replacement category. There are many controversial topics, like terrorism, traitors, list of villains, etc. Being controversial is not a reason for deletion. A consensus policy may be added that if someone objects inclusion of an article into a category on the grounds of POV, then it should not be categorized so. Mikkalai 23:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There are a few Nazis or neo-Nazis in the world today. Under your suggested policy, if one of them were to create a Wikipedia account and then object to the inclusion of Joseph Goebbels, would that mean that the Goebbels article shouldn't be included in Category:Propaganda? In other words, a single objection would suffice for removal? JamesMLane 07:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way this can be made NPOV. Do you want to include everything owned by Rupert Murdoch in the category? How about anything ever published in the Soviet Union? You'll never get consensus on this, unless dissident voices are suppressed. --Tkinias 03:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This category doesn't actually help someone to find all articles related to any particular definition of Propaganda, and can be applied to so many subjects that it is, for encyclopedic purposes, meaningless. Sure, Goebbels was a propagandist. But, then, what about Voice of America, or Scientology or any country on the planet? Or any news organization that someone may feel has a slant? This category can be dilluted way too easily, and sparks lots of POV/NPOV arguments. --NightMonkey 10:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep If I were doing research on propaganda I would find this category very useful as it lists quite a number of articles that are relevant to better understanding the history of propaganda and how it has been used in the past. In fact, the ongoing discussion about inclusion in the propaganda category reflect the very real historical controversy in the definition and use of the word. I understand that people may be sick of that discussion, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore a concept that is clearly relevant and useful (50 articles in the category). If we get rid of the category now someone else will bring it back later because it is a needed category that brings together inherently related articles. I believe the fact that it is so controversial is in some ways a reflection of its importance. mennonot 10:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe that we would be "ignoring" the subject by just removing a useless and POV category, since we still have the article Propaganda to cover the subject. You are right that it could be used to bring together some related articles, but the problem is that it may bring together too many, making the category useless by not being narrow enough to make a distinction from, say, "opinion" or "news". By the definitions of Propaganda available to us, so many subjects could be labeled Propaganda as to make a large chunk of Wikipedia a part of this category, undermining Wikipedia's usefulness for research. I agree with you that, indeed, Propaganda as an adjective is controversial. But just because a word is controversial doesn't mean it should become a category. In fact, the Category Guidelines discuss how a goal should be to avoid this. --NightMonkey 20:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion seems pretty evenly split, we may be able to come to a compromize. Right now, this catagory is not NPOV. It's not giving the NPOV dictionary definition of "the systematic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests" that Mike brought up, but rather gives the pejorative definition that we are all familiar with and it even has this catagory as a subcatagory of Category:Deception. If the catagory stays, we should get rid of all the "examples" listed (which means we should also delete the subcatagory Category:Propaganda examples) and stick with things like propaganda film and propaganda model. Grice 23:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On Category talk:Propaganda, I made this suggestion: "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 [those were Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, and The O'Reilly Factor]), would be deleted from this category." Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? JamesMLane 07:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just got done reading the talk page and can see that my concerns about this catagory are nothing new. Discussion about the issues in this delete section have been going on for months on the Category:Propaganda page and the fact that it's still an issue means that nothing has been resolved. Also, maintaining vigilance on the catagory page is much more difficult than an article page because the history page only archives changes made to the page itself by the editors but doesn't show additions or subtractions of pages added to the catagory since those edits are taking place at other pages. The result is that someone could easily sneak an article onto the list that doesnt belong there and the change won't show up on your watch list. For now I'm going to take back my new suggestion and go back to the old. Nuke this catagory and list articles about propaganda at the propaganda article under the heading see also. Grice 11:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This category has seeded endless edit wars, and a "See also" section in Propaganda would allow more nuanced treatment of linked articles than the simple yes-no method of categorization. - Mustafaa 00:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as the meaning of propaganda is becoming negatively connotated, and there is much confusion as to the meaning of the word as regards categorization. It's potentially a good category, but a word with a more universally understood meaning might be better to name a category with... or 2 categories. Propaganda might mean "anything one does to convince others of an opinion" and might also mean "creating false beliefs with sneaky techniques" or several other loosely related meanings. Categories need to be less ambiguous. (I understand there is a precise well-defined meaning, but that meaning itself seems to be shifting, from a non-judgemental meaning to one with no neutral meaning at all -- English is a living language)Pedant 17:58, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


A record of past discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Propaganda (where you may also vote, as far as I understand it; you may also vote here, I suppose). -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This shouldn't be brought here. It should be resolved on the CfD page. RickK 00:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The Categories deletion policies say that it should be brought here because it cannot be resolved on the CfD page. If that's not appropriate, the policy should be changed. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Listing it here works for me, this place does tend to get more eyeballs. Delete, as whether or not something is propaganda is mostly subjective, and you can't put "some groups say that" in a category inclusion. --fvw* 11:43, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
    • Sure you can. Mikkalai 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Category membership is binary. --fvw* 06:01, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. The logic that pushes for deletion of this category reminds me an old Little Johnny joke: When asked at a lesson to produce a word starting with letter "A", he readily blurted "asshole". The shocked teacher told him such a word doesn't exist, only to get a retort: "How can it be: the asshole exists, but the word does not?". Mikkalai
    • So you also want an assholes (in the figurative sense) category? --fvw* 06:02, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
      • Why not? Category:Persons who made notable blunders or, rather, simply Category:Notable blunders, is perfectly valid. Mikkalai 07:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems like a keep to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the category. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Category:Propaganda, Strong Delete Category:Propaganda examples. The former category has the topics that I would expect - Tokyo Rose, Goebbels, Propaganda film, etc. But there is no way that the latter subcategory, propaganda examples, can be NPOV. The title alone is too prejudicial. Willmcw 11:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Just the opposite; category:propaganda examples is for specific facts and actions that are defined as "propaganda" in someone's opinion in the corresponding article. Hence the category is absolutely objective. Mikkalai 20:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Does that mean that, if even one person wants an article tagged as an example of propaganda, it must stay in the category? Or do you mean that we go through some edit wars about including "Some people say his work is mostly propaganda" in articles like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, and if, when the dust settles, that statement has survived in the article, then the article is included in Category:Propaganda examples? JamesMLane 04:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No. "Some people say" will not do. If there is no consensus, the reason of calling it propaganda must be substantiated. If there is a disagreement, all the better an example will be, to show that the issue is controversial. If one wishes, there can reasonably be the Category:Disputed propaganda examples, to the point. There are plenty of categories about unpleasant things. Shall we shut down them all? Mikkalai 05:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't subscribe under the negative connotation of "propaganda" word. It is a "necessary evil". Everyone loves to bash advertisements, as long as they don't sell themselves. And other examples abound Mikkalai 05:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.