Talk:Psychological warfare: Difference between revisions

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Psychology B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Could we merge Psychological operations with psychological warfare ?

Yes, that may be better. - Patrick 12:11 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Redirect and merge. Same concepts --Cs california (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been merged. All we need now is to link to previous talk:Psychological operations. And clean up this talk page. --CyclePat (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a REALLY shaky rough draft of the article so far. More of a learning experience for me than anything else. Any contributions would be helpful! Salva31 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be shocked if nobody contributed anything related to The Art of War. I'd do it but I'm afraid I can't do justice to this article.

If your opponent is of choleric temper, irritate him.

Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

--Beth C. 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a garbage article. It reads like a bad essay. I don't know anything about PSYWAR and I don't have the time to learn, but I'm going to search for how to flag this article for cleanup or whatever it is.

• • I tagged it for you. — MichaelLinnear 02:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't it been mentioned? It seems the most obvious form of this in recent events. --Uberisaac 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is mainly about the application of psychological warfare by traditional military forces. MichaelLinnear 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the 1990s, these techniques have been used in the news media, especially in the USA." Is there a source for this/is it verifiable in any way? It reads like an opinion to me. It's already tagged citation needed, if no one can source it I think it should be deleted.Fysidiko 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's garbage and it's gone.

coffeetable

I have finally merged infowars with this article. I believe that the intro is at the moment too short and biased, the definition is from the US Department of Defence. There should be a more general definition of Psychological warfare. --Francisco Valverde 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from that the definition from the US department of defence has no citation. Francisco Valverde 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble getting this citation to number properly at the bottom in Notes and then Refs - can someone let me know what I'm doing wrong: I'm trying to add the following citation - {{ref|LeedsPsyOps}} for the citation and {{note|LeedsPsyOps}}{{cite web |url=http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=64&paper=665 |title=Glossary of Relevant Terms & Acronyms PROPAGANDA AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE STUDIES University of Leeds UK |accessdate=2008-04-19 |author=Phil Taylor |date=1987 |work= |publisher=University of Leeds UK}} in the references section. Shamanchill (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nix that, I RTFM and figured it out. Also cleaned up the reference to a democracynow.org link that was just linked, no ref tags. Both are listing properly now.Shamanchill (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that somebody wrote that Alexander didn't want to mix greek and other's blood. the opposite is correct! he wanted his soldiers to marry persian and other women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.78.95 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to add information from that of The Most Dangerous Game, which offers quite a lot.

Ex:

The concept of psychological warfare came from a German word called Weltanshauungskrieg(WEALTH-AN-SHAWN-KREIG), or World View Warfare, which stemmed from the Nazi ideology to impose the Nazi belief on the countries that the Nazis themselves conquered. The Americans picked up this idea and created their own version called Psychological Warfare.

Mind sciences are the study of human behavior in relation to the mind and it is the relatively newest of all the arts due to the fact that it is less than 100 years old, and it is by far the most cloaked in secrecy. Psychological warfare was put into this category and formed the basis of what the Mind sciences really focused on: the study of the mind and what affects it.

Project Paperclip was a CIA operation for the importation of Nazi and fascist scientist into the United States. After World War II, U.S. military officials lobbied Congress to sanction the top secret NAZI transport operation. U.S. officials believed that if they did not bring them into this country and contain them, then their enemy, the Soviet Union, would confiscate them. In 1946, President Truman approved Project Paperclip, bringing Hitler's top scientists into the country. The first wave was to bring in 700 propulsion scientists and then some 600 or so mind scientists. The CIA was put in charge of taking these individuals out of Project Paperclip and putting them into the the Military Complex, which comprised of U.S. colleges and universities. While the propulsion scientists went on to lead the U.S. space program, the mind scientists experimented with mind control techniques. Mind control was a psychological warfare weapon that Adolf Hitler regarded as the means of controlling the entire world. Learning from the Nazis American scientists began developing their own application for mind control.

MK-Ultra, which was led by Ewen Cameron, was the first major research of mind control. Those who were involved in the experiment were treated with drugs, electroshock, Insulin, and other techniques. The first subjects were U.S. military personnel, who were given doses of LSD and PCP without their consent. The program supplied U.S. officials with the overall concepts of mind control, as well as the Nazi's who first developed the concept of psychological warfare.

--- The NAZI's did not first developed the concept of psychological warfare. Such concepts go back to the earliest time of human history. Remember the sounding of the trumpets at Jericho. Or how about Sun Tzu on the Art of War, "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting". Danny331911 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Danny331911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny331911 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links: www.guerrillanews.com

I believe this information will give a greater understanding of psychological warfare. Philosopho 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's "disconcering"? Honestly, this article has many gramar erors and tpyos. ALSO: What about George Bush's supposed WMDs that were never found, and evidence never brought up? Does that count as a psychological weapon (to control the masses)? -Signed Maxaxle

NO! You are wrong about Saddam's weapon programs as they were real. There is considerable evidence including testimony by one of Saddam’s leading Generals that most of Saddam's weapons were transported to Syria just before our invasion in 2003. Also, it is a fact that he had the weapons as he used them several times against the Iranians in the 1980s and even his own people going back to at least 1987. The evidence and mass graves are irrefutable. Also you failed to realize that we found over 500 tons of yellow-cake uranium at Saddam's Nuclear test facility in 2003. Why that news was down played by main-stream news is obvious. Danny331911 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Danny331911[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny331911 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article needs some help. 1st, there is no such thing as PSYOPS, it is called PSYOP, period. I would change that now but I can't edit the 1st paragraph for some reason. Next, this article is about Psychological Operations. Psychological Warfare is an older term and if used at all it is referring to a much broader Strategic Influence between nations. I will work on this article once I get a little more free time. I am fully qualified to comment on this as I was a Senior PSYOP NCO for about 20 out of the 25 years I was in the Army, most of it in 4th POG (ABN). I served in combat as a PSYOP NCO in Panama, Iraq (Desert Shield/Storm, Provide Comfort, Iraqi Freedom) Afghanistan (Operations Enduring Freedom (Anaconda)) and many others including some time as a Military Information Support Team (MIST) Chief in various countries. Danny331911 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Danny331911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny331911 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please examine the recently removed link to a document about state-to-person psychological warfare tactics and re-add it if they determine it meets the WP:EL standards - my opinion is that it does, but I'm currently being edit-sniped (revenge editing, WP:WL) by someone who's taken offense to my edits elsewhere? Jeremystalked (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reported you to an admin for the continued false accusations. Wikipedia does not exist for your to spam your own website[1], which clearly fails WP:EL. Take your delusions[2] and personal blog postings elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my external link fails WP:ELNO #11 ("no personal sites") then there are other links on this page[3] which also fail it; if you have the time to peruse my website, which you've just demonstrated you do[4], you also have the time to check out other links on the page. You've demonstrated that you're selectively enforcing the rules because of a grudge against me. You're also WP:HOUNDing.Jeremystalked (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed spam added by an editor. That does not mean I must check all the other links on every article he, i.e. YOU, spammed it on. I did notice this article suffers from a glut of ELs, but I was looking at only at the recent spam, not the whole list. It has nothing to do with a grudge, despite your paranoid delusions of persecution for some made up "revenge" case that has no basis in the real world, but your self-admitted additions of your unreliable, inappropriate personal site to multiple articles. You continued spamming it even after another editor warned you against it and you claimed you understand. I see an admin how now also warned you so perhaps you will finally cease. If you want to continue your claims of hounding, take it to [{WP:ANI]], where I suspect an admin will end up just blocking you for the spamming and continued inappropriate remarks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect to mention that your edit cited my site as the basis for a personal attack on me, demonstrating that you are, in fact, Wiki-hounding. You also neglect to mention that an administrator's visit to my page was a direct result of your creating a section about me on an administrators page[5], trying to represent your vendetta against me as impartial enforcement of the rules.Jeremystalked (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]