Talk:Subversion (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What this term means, should be clearly stated in the first sentence!!--P-Chan 10:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems POV to me that "Modern Uses" of subversion consists exclusively of anti-corporate, anti-advertising subversion - though that's really a request for expansion, I guess. However, phrases like "the all-powerful corporation" are clearly POV, unless attributable, so that section needs to be re-written a bit. Eikimart 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of the term Subversion
While categorising pages I found myself working on Angkatan Gaya Baru, which is described as "a subversive movement". Now, I know nothing about this particular movement, but my instinctive thought was to wonder whether this was POV. Looking at this page (subversion, that is), perhaps it's not - but - well, I'm a bit worried. Can any subversion experts help me? Is it NPOV to describe a movement as subversive? It sounds a bit weaselly, somehow. --JennyRad 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to answer you, but you're asking about something closely related to what I wanted to raise here, which is the need to add a discussion of the use of "subversive" as a power word. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the governments of Argentina and El Salvador both used the term to disparage and demonize popular opposition movements. I think this ABSOLUTELY belongs in the article as fast as we can find sources to reference; I have taught college Spanish classes, for example, in which students who encountered the word "subversive" in different media tended to take it at face value and not recognize that it can be a label to undermine opposition. Explaining these kinds of things is part of Wikipedia's mission. Lawikitejana 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
In the present definition "advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence" seems wrong : subversion is using other means that force and violence? A classic propaganda trick from governments is to picture any organization with alternative views as "violent and subversive" since it creates an amalgam between people that want to change a government and those willing to use violence to do so...the next step is to brand them as "terrorists". In my views this should be amended in wikipedia's text?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.234 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Anon "quote"
I removed this from the article:
- "Subversion is the idea that an altered state or mutation of the status quo is a healthy solution to the mass conformity of any society".
It was added 20 Nov 2007:
It's in quotes, yet no one is cited as being quoted. Further, googling this phrase just returns Wikipedia mirrors. 70.20.211.100 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
