Talk:Propaganda in the Soviet Union

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ytutu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim by a single KGB member does not merit lengthy paragraph

There is a long paragraph on the claim by Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer) that the Soviets invented the idea nuclear winter as propaganda, but the only evidence for this claim is Tretyakov's word, and the author of the book which reported it notes that whether this is true is "impossible to discern". With no evidence given that historians or members of the intelligence community find this claim likely to be true, devoting so much space to it seems to violate Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight. I suggest either removing the paragraph entirely, or adding the following to the existing lihst of Soviet propaganda:

• Senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov made the claim to writer Pete Earley that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter" as disinformation (see Sergei Tretyakov for details), although Earley said that the accuracy of this claim "is impossible to discern".

Also see the existing discussion on an attempt to add a similar section to the nuclear winter article at Talk:Nuclear winter#Edit Conflicts on this page. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a at least a couple of phrases to explain what the claim was about and put it in proper context. What others think?Biophys (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are details needed here, when anyone interested can just click the link to Tretyakov's own article as suggested? I copied all the same information you had written here into that article. Again, putting lots of info here is giving "undue weight" to a completely unsubstantiated claim. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because information about Soviet propaganda belongs to article about Soviet propaganda.Biophys (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Information about Soviet propaganda that large numbers of experts in the field believe to be true belongs here, but mere unsubstantiated assertions by individual KGB members should not be given "undue weight", if they are mentioned at all. As I said in the disinformation talk page, putting a disproportionately large paragraph on one unsubstantiated claim just because you have the information is not the way to build a good, encyclopedic article. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, if you insist, just make some kind of a compromise version that you are comfortable with. I will be working with that article some time later.Biophys (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well H did make a compromise, but you reverted it [1]. The idea the NW was a massive disinfo campaign is insupportable, even if we take all your sources at face value, and I don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would have been happier deleting it entirely, but this was meant to be my compromise version:

*Senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov made the claim to writer Pete Earley that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter" as disinformation (see Sergei Tretyakov for details), although Earley said that the accuracy of this claim "is impossible to discern".

Do you consider this unacceptable? If so, why? Hypnosifl (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's keep your version restored by William. This article should be improved and expanded a lot, so it is meaningless to argue about this minor detail right now.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I copied the section in question to Nuclear winter#Criticism of nuclear winter theory, where it belongs. I suggest to trim it here to a b brief summary. `'Míkka>t 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I took it out of NW; we have a long discussion on talk already and don't want it, thanks. Its junk from one person. Why do you believe it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is sourced to book by Pete Earley who dedicated almost a chapter of his book to this story. This is a reliable (perfectly "verifiable") secondary source (as confirmed at WP:RS), not simply a claim by Sergey Tretiakov, which would be notable enough even by itself.Biophys (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a source for the fact of ST making the claim, but not for the truth of the claim itself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I cited a secondary source. Pete Earley asserts, after looking at other materials that Tretiakov was right. Which does not make their claim "the truth", but this is not required per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Earley himself writes that it "is impossible to discern" whether it is truth or not. Wikipeia is for facts which are (a) encyclopedic and (b) notable. You have to demonstrate that Tretiakov's claim is a notable blurb, i.e., widely discussed. Yiou are right, truth is not the issue; we have articles about various hoaxes and conjectures. But these are notable. Tretiakov's claim's notability is questionable. `'Míkka>t 16:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

After stepping back and looking what this issue about, I realized that this is not "propaganda". This is disinformation, a rather different Soviet kind of information warfare. Therefore I removed it from here. `'Míkka>t 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Earley's book reveiws way that the main interest is Tretiakov's inside view in KGB training, etc., and skeptical about his numerous claims about KGB successes. `'Míkka>t 17:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Reliability of Soviet propaganda photographs

Please see Talk:Soviet_historiography#Soviet_propaganda_photos_as_a_source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War and Soviet influence on western peace movements

Please see Talk:Soviet-run_peace_movements_in_the_West#On_the_Russian_Revolution_and_the_Polish-Soviet_War_section. There is a discussion as to whether Soviet foreign propaganda of 1920s should be discussed in that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Effects and aftermath

movements influenced by soviet propaganda and policy that they advocate to this day should be noted this is the most felt influence of the soviet union outside the CIS today. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ex - policy towards states and factions , political parties , international holidays etc. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

oh also try to separate the 'well meaning' political art and idea presenting especially of the early communists from the more extreme and practical manipulations of the latter mid ussr and the world-left movements 79.176.49.28 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda itself

I feel that this article is not written from a neutral perspective... can't we get one of those boxes at the top of the article that says so? I don't know how to do that myself. Just an idea. --Interlaker (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing some research (will be working harder once finals season wraps up), and am looking to fix some of the NPOV issues with this article. As it is now, the article basically claims that every major conspiracy theory in US pop culture was the direct produce of the Soviet propaganda machine... Of course, all that comes from one outdated source put out by the notably Right-wing Hoover Institute. We'll get to the bottom of this. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, as far as the big, overt dispute boxes (my wikibrain isn't fetching the word), they're to be used when there's something wrong but no talk happening on the talk page... There's talk now, and I'd encourage others to chime in - we clearly have a problem here. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The first "robert conquest" quote demonstrates using propaganda and should warrant HIGH scepticism. That was a blatant and poor choice. Someone really has to revise the sources.

-G

File:Poster27.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Poster27.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:GPU.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GPU.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Polish propaganda

The article doesn't cover anti-Polish propaganda. Poland was one of the main enemies of the SU and a Pole was a stereotypical enemy.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-German

Names should be included, eg. Ilya Ehrenburg.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

although they were pioneers in the documentary field.

No names of authors, no titles.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

"employed 70,000 full-time staff" was removed in April and not restored. The statement wasn't sourced so I don't restore it. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

I have just been reading about the Soviet propaganda used to justify the 1956 invasion of Hungary. "Fascist counter-revolutionaries financed by the West" and so on. The Russian propaganda campaign against Ukraine has been remarkably similar, and even more successful - due perhaps to the lack of intelligent investigative journalism these days, and a western reluctance to see Russia as a Soviet-like enemy. However should there not be an article on modern Russian propaganda, or an additional section in this article noting how Russia continues to use the same official lies in support of its illegal actions?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Propaganda in the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/21/interviews/kalugin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro section needs to be specific

The first section is a bit too general. It talks about the need for propaganda in restrictive societies but doesn't really do a good job of summarizing the article or introducing the propaganda used in the Soviet Union. Karthanitesh (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotes of Defectors (WW2 era)

Viktor Belenko famously claimed a rejection of the propaganda led him to depart. Any others who may have quotes to be put into the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.197.120 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pyoveli Mannerheim2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced reference

Reference 143, taken from 'The Black Book of Communism', is without an associated page number. This is especially egregious considering the it is is a direct quote. Cr0ssb0w2 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've verified one of the three uses to page 750, but I can't confirm the two longer quotes:

• Some historians believe that an important goal of Soviet propaganda was "to justify political repressions of entire social groups which Marxism considered antagonistic to the class of proletariat",
• According to writer and propagandist Maksim Gorky "Class hatred should be cultivated by an organic revulsion as far as the enemy is concerned. Enemies must be seen as inferior. I believe quite profoundly that the enemy is our inferior, and is a degenerate not only in the physical plane but also in the moral sense"

The second quote I see in two other works on Google Books but they look self-published and we could be dealing wit WP:CITOGENESIS... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@IP: If a book from Yale University Press is not WP:RS, then nothing is, and writing encyclopedias should be abandoned. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)