Talk:propaganda war

RFD discussion: August–October 2016
SOP. See sense #3 at (any conflict). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Entry created at 19.37, RFD applied at 19.41. This seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. DonnanZ (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance, I managed to read the entry in a few seconds so if anything why did it take Metaknowledge so long? It's clear a delete, it is a war of propaganda and all the discussion in world isn't going to change that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My internet was being slow. And DonnanZ, you don't seem to know what a knee-jerk reaction is. It's not about it being fast, it's about it being without thought or reasoning — like your knee-jerk vote for your own entry without considering that it's clear SOP. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. DonnanZ (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it say "as opposed to war propaganda"? The two phrases evidently have different grammatical heads. Equinox ◑ 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously that should go as not part of the definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the wording, by all means change it (like you normally do). DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ;) Equinox ◑ 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: given that one can also speak of a "propaganda battle", "propaganda campaign", etc, and given that one could just as well speak of other things that use sense 3 of war, like "social media war", this is SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted too early. Seems like a rush job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion was open for more than a full thirty days. bd2412 T 13:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)