Talk:Airborne leaflet propaganda

Untitled

This article reads like it was taken directly from a 1950's manual. I think there should be some mention of dissenting opinions that address military propaganda as ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.203 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Korean War

Later during the Korean war a modified version of the leaflet bomb - the 'feather bomb' - was developed by the American military to be used to disseminate biological warfare agents.

What does this have to do with "Airborn leaflet propaganda"?

It was also controversially claimed by the Chinese government - and supported by a United Nations commission led by the British biochemist and historian of science Joseph Needham - that US had actually used biological weapons during the Korean War.

Where is the evidence that any U.N. Comission reached this conclusion?

This claim has recently been the subject of a book by two historians.

The book was published 11 years ago, which hardly makes it "recent".

Incidentally, the review linked to harshly criticized the book, but this information has been completely left out in the article.

71.65.71.145 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

SectionLeaflet bombs and terrorism

Surely this has no relevance to the article, as it's nothing to do with the Airborne delivery of propaganda leaflets.

It's simply about small explosive devices that scatter leaflets. Catsmeat (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought when I saw that section too, however airborne[1] doesn't necessarily mean from aircraft. The two main methods of delivery discussed in the article are aircraft and "public park" bombs, but other methods (could) include rockets, missiles, cannon shells, kites, helium balloons, sky lanterns or even just throwing from a tall building. This article should cover the subject in general - with more specific articles if appropriate. DexDor (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

While you are correct about the dictionary defination. I (and I think the vast majority) would assume from the title that the article discusses leaflets that are delivered by some kind of aircraft (the term aircraft does, of course, include balloons etc.) Artillery shells aren't aircraft. And including leaflets flung from buildings (although technically they're briefly "airborne") feels like like it's stretching the title beyond breaking point.

However, those other topics are worthy of inclusion - a quick Google shows both rockets and artillery shells have a history of being used for leaflets (the overwelmingly huge "terrorism" section needs to be trimmed but that's another matter). So I feel the fault lies in the title of the article, rather than its content. I think there's a strong case for renaming it to something like Leaflet Propaganda. The only aspect of propaganda leafleting that article would need to include, that is beyond the scope of this one, would be the distribution of leaflets by hand by agents etc.Catsmeat (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's stance seems to be that this propaganda distribution method is "terrorism" when practiced in Latin America and something else when practiced by the Allies, Irgun, or NATO. vivacissamamente (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

leaflet delivery via artillery shells and mortar rounds

in WW2 Eastern Front is mentioned in corresponding Russian article alongside with aviation bombs. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WWII section needs copyediting

It reads like it was written by a non-native speaker and is riddled with errors. MikeTango (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)