Talk:Psychological warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Additional Sources[edit]

I edited this page and added several more sentences to the beginning paragraph to help further clarify the definition and idea of psychological warfare. I also added a paragraph under the section of "Today" that also describes another use of psychological warfare outside of just the military. In total, I used four new sources to add this additional information and while I did not fully utilize every possible addition that these sources could offer, I welcome others to look through the sources themselves and add anything else they see in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmoor57 (talkcontribs) 02:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


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)
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)

Rough Draft[edit]

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)

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.


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

  • This article is mainly about the application of psychological warfare by traditional military forces. MichaelLinnear 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Painting one side as "traditional" is in itself a psych tactic. But that's alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


"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)

It's garbage and it's gone.



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)

  • Apart from that the definition from the US department of defence has no citation. Francisco Valverde 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
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= |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)
Nix that, I RTFM and figured it out. Also cleaned up the reference to a link that was just linked, no ref tags. Both are listing properly now.Shamanchill (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


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


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 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

External links:

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny331911 (talkcontribs) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

State-to-person psychological warfare tactics[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Movie: Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind by Metanoia films[edit]

I added this info:

However, I noticed that there is no actual page about this film in Wikipedia. I just wanted to point that out if anyone cares to create one for it.

Wisepiglet (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus The Great[edit]

I put Cyrus The Great in the History section.

If you see any misspellings please correct them, because my english is not the best. :)

Arsaces (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WW2 Section[edit]

Regarding psychological warfare in the conquering of Normandy, I didn't see anything that could classify as psychological warfare. There was something about strategy regarding tricking the Germans, but nothing psychological at all. There needs to be some research on this, or maybe it should just be deleted altogether for being misleading. Greenbluewhales (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The China section[edit]

The whole China section reads like it was written by some overly patriotic american. It needs to be either rewritten or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in perspective of Jacques Ellul's work[edit]

The section of the article highlighting Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" seems to convey the idea that he was writing about one nation using propaganda on a foreign nation. This is inaccurate. The focus of this book is on methods used by a political ruling class on its' own society through media. Ellul details methods used by a propagandist that has full access to what a man is reading, listening to, or watching on television. Though some of these techniques could easily fall under psyops used on foreign countries, it's pretty clear he is referring primarily to domestic propaganda.

These are the sentences in question and should be changed. They are very misleading.

"...discusses psychological warfare as a common peace policy practice between nations as a form of indirect aggression in place of military aggression. This type of propaganda drains the public opinion of an opposing regime by stripping away its power on public opinion." (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Defining 'black' and 'white' propaganda categories before they are used?[edit]

Should the 'black' and 'white' propaganda categories be defined before they are first used in the WWII section? Otherwise their meaning is unclear. Perhaps the 'Categories of psychological warfare' section should be moved towards the top of the article? My edit is just a stop-gap solution to this. Leigh Heydon (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


This a good article but the severe lack of specific citations is worrisome. This has been flagged as such since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralphrasing (talkcontribs) 02:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Psychological warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Union =/= Russia[edit]

Should there be a separate Russia section under the By country subheading, considering the collapse of the USSR didn't end psychological operations in Russia? There are quite a few contemporary examples to include (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

section: early[edit]

"Since prehistoric times, warlords and chiefs have recognised the importance of inducing psychological terror in opponents. Facing armies would shout, hurl insults at each other and beat weapons together or on shields prior to an engagement, all designed to intimidate the enemy. Massacres and other atrocities were certainly first employed at this time to subdue enemy or rebellious populations or induce an enemy to abandon their struggle.[citation needed]"

im afraid its not just needing a citation, but worse, its a bogus retrospective speculation (probably from a cheap textbook kind of source, and knowing the source would help, but not much, since the qualiy of this paragraph just doesnt cut it.) 1, i dont think theres other terror than "psychological terror". so "psychological" is weasel word, or nonsense, or call it any name. delete it. 2, "Since prehistoric times": too broad and vague. 3, "Facing armies would shout, hurl insults at each other and beat weapons together or on shields prior to an engagement" thats display of aggression, well known among animals as well, this has nothing with "have recognised the importance" also "importance" is too broad, vague to be spoken of as a kind of early psychology use, unless of course the article tried to argue that everything and anything that evokes any effect in its audience's psyche should be called a deliberate psyops activity. 4, "Massacres and other atrocities were certainly first employed at this time": this time is not even grammatically reasonable (see: it refers to the aforementioned "Since prehistoric times"), and of course too broad to actually be useful information.

It would be useful to start with an explanation, why influencing instead (or in addition to) plain old killing became a field of study in its own right and then elaborate on the methods availible in different ages. (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC).

Hey CIA contractors editing this page I have a question for you gentlemen[edit]

*Sigh* plausible deniability, right guys. ;-)

PSYOP - what is the Russian term for the word? Moscowdreams (talk)

Would you be able to create a page titled "List of Psychological warfare forces" like the List of cyber warfare forces page that you created? (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)