Talk:Shill/Archives/2015

Business "shill"

Regarding this edit, which was repeated recently: The issue is not whether the material is factual, or even whether the writing needs improvement. The problem is that the section is entirely unsourced, and I can't independently find any sources that discuss this concept. It also doesn't appear to match the definition of shill, which is "a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." (emphasis mine) What's described in the passage in question is a person who does have a public relationship with the person or organization. It certainly sounds like bad-faith business practices, but I don't see the connection to this article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your reversions on that. I have no idea the source of that huge description of a business shill, nor have I heard of any examples. But it looks like the contributor should write a letter to a newspaper or get this onto her blog or something. While this may have happened once or twice, and these folks may be called shills, it hardly seems likely that we need to describe it here in such lurid (and generic) detail. Angelina, if you are watching this, why don't you write a letter to your attorney general or trade commission or board or minister of trade or something. I like to saw logs! (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Shills in the justice system

I would like to see a section in this article about jurors who might be "planted" with the intent to influence the verdict in a trial. 216.23.185.158 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That'd probably be deemed as contempt of court, perverting the course of justice or even perjury. Mere Mortal (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Further potential content

I'm going to draw up a list of well sourced additions to make. I'll be focusing on the state practice of shilling, where there is information available. I will not be making dubious claims as above and instead focusing on allegations and documented fact where available. I may also change the structure of the page. Do people think that it needs a definition vs. history section? With a history section we could list famous examples and this is pretty typical for a word.

Content I will probably add:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mass_Appeal
* Elements of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chaos
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Student_Association  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 
* Particularly information from this source http://www.nowpublic.com/world/uncovered-british-journalists-who-are-spooks
* Some of this mans claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler
* Relation to a false flag operation
* Relation to a puppet regime, eg. that they often claim to represent their nation but actually represent another power
* Relation to state sponsored counter-revolutionaries / insurgents? This seems like perhaps a bit of a stretch.
* More later ... feel free to put stuff into a list for me that you want added.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)