Wikipedia talk:Propaganda

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Proposal: Supplemental essay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggested this at WT:NOT, but I’d like to propose

this essay be made supplemental to WP:PROPAGANDA (a section of WP:NOT), and also
this essay be renamed so that the current name can redirect to same.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one’s responded, I went ahead and did it. WP:NOT is protected, so I can’t add the link there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The essay discusses the reliability of sources deemed to be propaganda and has little connection to WP:NOT. We already have WP:SOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (by first writer): Thanks for the proposal, but it's a bit too soon. This is an issue that I have not seen specifically adressed at any page. Not enough, I mean; most descriptions of unreliable sources seem to focus on the lone conspiracy theorist who writes a minor book that nobody cares about, and not in propaganda sources backed by manipulative national regimes. And so, I wrote this essay, describing the way I think that our policies would focus on this. But it's just an initial draft. Before being something else beyond a mere essay, it should have input from more editors, and some points mentioned in passing (such as how to recognize such sources, or how to deal with articles with such sources) should be expanded into sections. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I had taken your silence for tacit approval, but I hereby withdraw this proposal. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.