Talk:Ministry of propaganda

September 2006

I don't think this article should exist. It is not clear enough to me that there is such a thing as a "ministry of propaganda" in a general sense. The historical government entities that can be described as such don't amount to a thing in general, like a legislature or whatever - they have been too different. It's a made-up concept without a literature to back it up. Articles about specific gov't agencies that have done this are sufficient.Rlitwin 15:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other reason I'm against this is the terminology. Not all governments call their agencies "ministries." In the US they are called "agencies." So, why Ministry of Propaganda? Rlitwin 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To get a soapbox for the Roberts quote? Weregerbil 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should exist. Ministries of propaganda did exist, as in Nazi Germany. They haven't been around post-WW2, just as the article states. It is not a made-up concept, in other words.

I think I shall change the article slightly, however. It asserts that governments have a right to distribute information, which, while not a very objectionable "right", is rather disturbing because it assumes the premise that a government can have rights at all. This is generally not held to be true, so I'd ask that it not be put back in the article without a supporting reference. 67.161.33.200 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Those of you editors who pwn this article should explain why this article is not Ministry of information since the article itself says that is the current term and Ministry of propaganda has fallen out of favor. This seems to be another MOI attack that has degraded Wikipedia for several years. You use the anachronistic term to conceal the article. By the way the article should do more than mention the obvious reference to "1984" and its Ministry of truth which purpose was to destroy information as is being done on Wikipedia. The pwners on the wiki now are just cutting obvious chunks from articles. No subterfuge to even conceal their attacks anymore. The article on fleas, and the one on warts to name a couple others besides this one. I blame the pwners because they attack any editor harassing for the most persnickety thing "citation required" but whole obvious chunks missing with not a whisper. 98.164.81.169 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]