< April 6	April 8 >

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus seems to be that this is being used in a way not condusive to Wikipedia. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notpropaganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an absolutely horrible template. It is somewhat inflammatory, very pointish and will discourage editors from editing articles, and goes with a long line of similar templates such as ((POV Russia)), ((Insufficient propaganda)), and just recently ((Let it develop)), in that they lack good faith. We don't need such divisive templates on Wikipedia, and given the last TfD for this, it should have been deleted back then (consensus was clearly in favour of deletion), instead of being allowed to poison article talk pages for so long. It does absolutely nothing that ((controversial)) can not do, except controversial doesn't assume bad faith like this does. Russavia ^Dialogue 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ugly template discouraging editing of the article and harassing editors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A humourous template that reminds us all to leave our particular barrows at the door. We all need to lighten up a bit. Don't see how it is divisive, inflammatory or harassing. Could the proponent explain why the template statement "If you feel you are biased by any such propaganda campaign, please refrain from editing this article" would be discouraging or harassing to anyone, other than those who actually have been biased by such a campaign? Seriously guys. Martintg (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? Martintg (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Listen, this is exactly why this template should be disposed of. You have replaced a template which is succinct, and can not be seen to be assuming bad faith, or anything else, and have replaced it outright with this monstrosity. Take a look at the other articles it is located on; they are all ((controversial)) in nature, yet this ridiculous template is the only one present on Talk:Walter Duranty, Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, Talk:War on Drugs, Talk:Occupations of Latvia, Talk:Drug, Talk:Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Talk:Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 and Talk:Leuchter report. I also suggest you look at your own comments from the last discussion at which this rubbish was kept, quote: "while we need to represent all significant POV's, there is a need to remind editors that some POVs are derived from active government sponsored information campaigns rather than some more legitimate published source." Given it's existence on 5 articles which all share a common link, your own opinion in that discussion is summed up by what Vecrumba suggested in that, "I propose [[Template:AntiStalinist]] which is the actual intent of the template." and as Termer stated, it is intended to mock other editors. It is a template which is the ultimate assumption of bad faith, does nothing to create a harmonious editing environment, and will turn away editors from editing articles. If it is supposed to be humourous, I dare say that if we were to ask a random group of people if they find it humourous within an encyclopaedic setting, that most would fail to see the humour at all, and we can do without such "humourous" crap like this on the project. It's really that simple.--Russavia ^Dialogue 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You haven't actually answered the question about your original assertion, I'll rephrase it: How exactly would it discourage a new editor? Martintg (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alex Bakharev and Russavia. Offliner (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was once sign on a club door. If you are violent and have intentions of beating someone up, please do not enter. While having smoke outside it was interesting to see different kind of reactions from drunk people coming to the club. Some people laughed at the sign, and entered. They obviously weren't violent. Some people looked at the sign, grumbled and actually left. At one time, one guy actually tore down this sign as it found it offensive to him. This one is bit similar. If you don't feel you are biased by the propaganda, then this template doesn't touch you. If you do feel biased... Well, there are two options, clear your head and think about the wikipedia principles like WP:NPOV... Or start yelling at the template cause it reveals the hurtful truth. It's sad that people keep blaming me of not having a good faith behind it. I think the template serves it's purpose of opening peoples minds and think that propaganda might have actually influenced their views. Some minds ofcourse are not designed to be opened... Generally I feel this template has been useful and I think it should stay. I don't mind if someone edits this template to better wording while keeping the meaning though. Suva Чего? 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want better wording, may I suggest This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.? --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Too vague, many topics have actually been subject to government propaganda campaigns, this template humorously reminds us of that fact and to examine our own notions. Martintg (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is totally different thing. Controversial doesn't necessarily mean influenced by propaganda. Nor does this template have the same idea behind it. Current template under discussion was made to tell people to consider first the fact that they may be influenced by propaganda and it may cloud their judgement. To make people to keep back a little and listen to other side arguments to retain neutrality. Suva Чего? 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the name of Ministry of Truth = Keep, of course. Useful talk template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if you feel you are biased by any such a propaganda campaign, please refrain from deleting this template.--Termer (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question This template was present on Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, but because I don't find the template very humourous at all, I have replaced it with ((controversial)). But the question, which "historic propaganda campaign" in particular was being targetted with this template on that article? Perhaps someone (Martintg maybe) can clarify this for me? --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Template is a reminder to edit based on historical reputably verifiable facts, not, in this case, that Latvian and Russian "opnions" on "history" are "equal" as has often been argued by armies of fact-free POV-pushers who have come and gone. Latvian position is based on historically verifiable facts. Russian position (at the moment) is based on nothing. The Duma has still provided absolutely no basis for its reminder that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. Such contentions can be noted as contentions (which they are), not as fact. The template is informative and essential. I fail to see Russavia's huge interest in Baltic et al. topics changing long-standing items or suggesting deletion except to stir up the hornets' nest again. My perception of course, Russavia is only defending Wikipedia based on its rules. PetersV TALK 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That voting here is along party lines already proves the hornets are awake. PetersV TALK 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now we get to the WP:POINT of the template. The template is not humourous at all, as I and others have disputed. What the template says that only Latvian POV is valid, and anyone who wishes to insert materials which dispute the Latvian POV, to put it bluntly, can f**k off, because they and their propaganda are not welcome on that article? WOW!! This is absolute evidence that this is nothing but a totally disruptive template and we should have been rid of this blight on WP 2 years ago!! Thanks for clarifying that Vecrumba. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Russavia, we now see your true stripes. My editorial opinions deal only with verifiable facts. Unfortunately there are many propaganda "truths" out there which through repetition over half a century and more (far more in other cases outside the Baltics) are completely false but which some recite as fact, whether earnestly or choosing to do so in bad faith knowing the truth (no quotes). Regardless, the only editor using the word FUCK here is you. Your screeching self-appointed self-righteous indignation (sorry, my perception) is not contributing to cross-cultural understanding. PetersV TALK 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't say ANY POV is valid. Can you read it from template? Can you? I can't! It says that if you are influenced by a propaganda, then you should think before editing or falling into battles. It doesn't say one propaganda is better than other. You say it! Because obviously in your heart you feel that you are influenced by some form of it, and this template stops you from editing the article. It's not the template that stops you editing the article, it's the rules and guidelines of wikipedia that do it. The template itself is just a reminder for it. The fact that most WWII topics ARE influenced by various kinds of propaganda, some even apply today. This includes Soviet, American, Nazi, Japanese, etc. propaganda. No point in taking this personally, unless you feel that you are influenced by one of the aforementioned propaganda machines. Suva Чего? 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Russivia, the template says nothing about the Latvian viewpoint is correct. The template says that the article should not be seen as an opportunity to push "versions" of history with have as their basis only historical propaganda and nothing else. Nor are reputably sourced facts based in indisputably verifiable events to be labeled "opinions" of history while fact-free fabrications are labeled as equally valid "opinions" of history. I regret you do not see the significance of sticking to facts versus propaganda versus, per your editorial substitution, contending there is "controversy" because some maintain historical opinions which are based in propaganda and not on fact. That is not "controversy". Controversy is a genuine difference of opinion based on the same indisputable facts, not opinion based on fact versus opinion based on fabrications. I hope this clarifies. PetersV TALK 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI personally can't see any humor in the template itself. The way I got the joke, it's funny that some editors want to delete the template that reminds everybody not to use WP:Propaganda pr. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND on Wikipedia. And in case the template's presence can have a potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles is true, it just shows that the template works just fine. Because the only one who could be turned away by this template would be someone who'd want to edit any of those articles according to one or several historic propaganda campaigns. But Wikipedia was suppose to be based on WP:RS, WP:NPOV instead? --Termer (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The distinguished gentleman from Fiji makes a good point -- if humour helps us to gently remind our editors why they're here, if it helps the project, then this template should not be deleted. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encyclopedia Dramatica called; they want their template back. Óðinn (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ambiguous at best, if not downright silly; sick and evil at worst. Has been placed on the talk page of Leuchter report and appears there as an invitation to Holocaust denial. RCS (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I subsequently removed it. --RCS (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Nevertheless, the template does not belong to that article's talkpage. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can abuse anything. If we took abuse as a measure of validity, the way WP:GUIDELINES have been abused and perverted in edit wars would lead to their wholesale deletion. There's nothing silly: as I mentioned as just one example, the Russian Duma has passed a resolution reminding Latvia of its joining the USSR legally according to international law, a flat out lie based on nothing but Stalinist propaganda. Ergo, in this example, the template reminds editors that such propaganda cannot be represented as fact or as an "equally valid opinion" versus Latvian and just about the entire rest of the planet's "opinion" as to whether Latvia was occupied and annexed illegally in gross violation of human rights and international law. Please (to RCS) reconsider your intepretation. PetersV TALK 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a P.S. to Russavia on "Latvian POV" versus, implication, "(official) Russian POV." It's not "POV" if it's based on indisuptable facts open for the entire world to view. And what does Russia base its "POV" on? Nothing. The template merely reminds editors that on the topic in question, they should reflect upon their editorial POV, look under the cover, and determine if there's actually some basis there or if it's just an empty house of cards. It's an invitation to be thoughtful, which you appear to take as vulgar and offensive judging from your putting expletives in my mouth and the mouths of other editors. PetersV TALK 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt your good faith, PetersV, and i've been to Riga and seen the Memorial Museum. But i'm pretty sure that disagreements concerning mainly, or exclusively, as it were, former Soviet Republics, can lead to the creation of a more focussed, more precise template, that is not as ambiguous as the present one. --RCS (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if for no other reason than that it's entirely redundant (and inferior) to ((controversial)). — Gavia immer (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see two problems with this template. This first is that it offers misleading advice. By suggesting that persons biased by propaganda should "refrain from editing [an] article", the template implies that there are actually those among us who do not have any biases. All users have their biases, and it is their willingness to work collaboratively and respect consensus and the views of others—rather than some imagined ideal of perfect neutrality—that makes them good editors. The second problem is the one noted by Gavia immer. The simple fact is that this template does not do anything which is not already accomplished by ((controversial)); the wording is different, true, but there is no practical/functional difference between them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Emphatic DELETE! Out of common sense this template violates Wikipedia policy: this is a blatant personal attack at editors. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General notice It needs to be mentioned here that 3 of the 7 articles this template was placed on are on article patrol, and there are Wikipedia:General_sanctions in place. This is in relation to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia, in which two of the parties are two editors who are right here on this very thread; one arguing that it is humourous (when no-one else sees the humour), and the other who is expressing reasons to keep it which blatantly go against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles, in particular No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. The placement of this template on half of the articles on which this template was found is in direct violation of that Arbcom and general sanctions on these articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not constructive; if an article is controversial, that could be pointed out by other means.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, April 9, 2009 (UTC)
Delete an attempt to use NPOV policy to make a POV statement. Offensive and counterproductive. Russavia and Black Falcon have it right. DGG (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template is usefull in identifying problem articles. All of these should be moved from Category:History to Category:Historiography. The text could be changed to something like:

This article is part of a series on Baltic historiography. It does not present history in itself, but how pro-Baltic sources discribe history.

Until then, delete. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)![reply]

The flaw in Petri's argument is that so called "Baltic historiography" is really Western historiography. There is no cabal of Balts lurking in the history departments of Western universities. Martintg (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments While these comments are directed to Petri and Russavia, I'd appreciate other editors perhaps seeing this template for the first time to consider my comments as well.

To Petri: Your template belies your personal opinion regarding Baltic oppression of their Russophone minorities and worse during WWII and your (voiced by yourself) perspective that today's accusations of a neo-Soviet/neo-Stalinist Russia and negativity regarding the Soviet era is a post-1991 (after the fall) concoction of Eastern European hordes looking for retribution and ungrateful for their liberation from Hitler by Stalin. If I were to construct a similarly personally POV'ed template to yours (and I do separate editorial from personal) from the supposedly Russophobic side on articles promulgating official Russian propaganda as "history", I might create something based on Putin's statement that even as a "drunk student" he "knew" the Baltics weren't occupied, such as:

This article is part of a series on Russian née Soviet historiography. It presents a fabrication of history as learned by contemporary Russian world leaders in their Soviet-era self-professed drunken youth.
"In the news there is no truth, in the truth there is no news."

To Russavia: Regarding "presenting all perspectives": The maligned Baltic "POV" is not a POV, it is a factual accounting supported by more than just Petri's ethno-fascists. As such, the lying official Russian "POV" as represented by the Duma's declaration that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law is not another "POV" to be represented equally to the Baltic so-called "POV", as the Duma's "POV" is one with no factual basis for which no one espousing that position (including WP supporters purportedly with multiple international law degrees) has produced a single shred of supporting evidence over the years that this so-called content dispute (as largely successfully painted by espousers of the Russian position, with no facts on their side, simply by haranguing Baltic editors to the point they leave WP).

To the crux of the issue here: Petri's and Russavia's arguments here demonstrate, in a nutshell, the effort to smear the facts of the case, to denigrate reputable accountings of indisputable facts to a mere "POV" and, in conjunction, elevate and place as equally valid a "POV" which has as its basis nothing but half a century of fact-free Soviet propaganda. As I am bound to assume good faith, I must accept that Petri and Russavia may genuinely believe the Russian position--and such belief is the very reason for the need for the template: Don't repeat what you've heard about history as factual just because you have heard it all your life, consider that what you have heard all your life may not be representative of historical events.

Lastly, for those uninvolved editors believing it's just a content dispute, check the historical reputably verifiable facts for yourselves before judging the template originated, as has been essentially described, as a Baltic WP editor ploy to offend those who grew up in the Soviet era holding sacrosanct the struggle against Nazism and to fill WP with Baltic fascist/Nazi/Russophibic/et al.--I've heard them all--lies.

And a P.S. to RCS: Misuse of a template is a reflection on the editor, not the template. Don't conflate the two as to which: editorial behavior or the template, is offensive. The template is not, as both Petri and Russavia would misdirect us, about who is the holder of the truth. Nor is it, as Russavia would have us believe, a slanted substitute for an indication that the topic is "controversial." The template embodies no "truth", no "controversy": the template is a reminder that the topic in question has been the subject of extensive historical propaganda--which may be the only "facts" a prospective editor may have learned and heard all their life. That is informative, not offensive, in any language, on any topic. That such a reminder has been portrayed here as "offensive" speaks volumes. PetersV TALK 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, I am sure, was being facetious with that template, in that this is exactly how the current template appears to look to numerous editors; explicitly discounting a particular POV, and that if any editor wants to bring that POV, in any way, shape, or form, to the article, they are not welcome to edit that article, and should go elsewhere. But thank you for also creating an example of exactly what the current template insinuates. But I can say, that if any such thing that you or Petri showed above (Petri I am certain has no intention to create it, but put it here to show how shocking the current template is) was to put on any article, particularly any within the scope of several Arbcoms, I would not hesitate to report it to AE, or contact the arbcom directly, to report what is an absolutely BLATANT breach of those Arbcoms. As to what my opinion on the Baltics history is, don't assume anything with myself, because I have never made my opinion known on that, but if you wish to assume that's your right, but you will only make an ass out of u, but not me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Russavia: Petri, who I have dealt with on this topic in detail, was not being facetious. Nor was I. And look who is using "humor" as a defense now that it suits someone whose opinion falls in your camp. The template insinuates nothing. It states simply and directly that the topic in question has been the target of extensive propaganda and that editors should bring an open mind, not the historic litanies they have heard all their lives, to participating in editing the article. Your histrionics over "shocking" templates are nothing but an attempt to generate the appearance of genuine umbrage. And please now with the open threats to contact Arbcom over anything that doesn't meet your personal POV. And you are correct, you have not made your opinion known at all, you only edit war over categories, templates, and insisting on the deletion of suitably references sources that don't suit your sensibilities regarding Soviet honor. This is just more content- and fact-free fulmination on your part practicing the WP:BATTLGROUND tactics you freely accuse others of. PetersV TALK 18:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Russavia, consider and contrast the kinds of constructive editing you have done in the past to improve Wikipedia and the contentious diatribes laden with personal attacks you now engage in. Are you sure you're Russavia and not someone who hijacked their account? PetersV TALK 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. I think this template served only one purpose: to expose the existing animosity between certain groups of wikipedians. However, do not blame this template of creating any divisions. This is all about people, not about templates. The promise to report something secretly to ArbCom seems to be especially telling about the present state of affairs in the Russian/EE sector.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not just applicable to territories directly affected by the demise of the USSR. And personally I'm too old to waste energy on animosity (or the hatred, Russophibia, et al. I've been accused of). But to that topic, it's both unfortunate and telling that a cadre of editors sees an invitation to look at a topic through fresh eyes (and there have been times where the facts have caused me to refute "my"--not personally--own nationalist propaganda) as "horrible," "inflammatory," "ugly," "harrassing," "divisive," "poisoning," "ridiculous," telling editors to "fuck off," ad nauseum. The invective being heaped upon the template here would be funny if it weren't so endemic. Where do editors get to put the words "fuck off" in other editors' mouths and not even be reprimanded for being uncivil? Apparently WP:ANYWHERE any editor decides it's open season to lambaste Baltic and other Eastern European editors with WP:IMMUNITY. PetersV TALK 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree with your last statement.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is only one thing this template does on Wikipedia: as I said above, this is nothing but a blatant personal attack at any possible editors who have a different POV from whoever put up the dumb template in the first place. WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia: it's not a guideline, it's a mandantory policy. Personal attacks against people (as is done by this template) hurt the community element of the wiki. Critisising other people's POV prevents people from working together to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. That should be enough to clarify that this template does not belong on this wiki. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]