Talk:Disinformation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links edited

I removed three of the links, one to a satirical news service, one to a PR firm, and one to a stubpage. None seem at all relevant. Ogdred 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A case: Chernobyl Forum

Sept. 2005: the Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, in fact), during a press conference, publishes an abstract of its draft report stating that 4000 people have and will die. But the name of the authors abstract and report was not known, it did not state that those 4000 people are from a small subset of the human beings concerned, the report did not contain the key sentence of the abstract, the report was presented as an UN report albeit it was not (it is published by agencies, and not published by UN), it was only a draft...

The abstract (4,000 people will die from the effects of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl) was largely propagated (see for example this BBC's account). It was not definitive nor adopted by the UN, albeit presented as such.

April 2006; the very same Chernobyl Forum discreetly publishes the definitive version of the report, where this 4000 figure was replaced (see page 106) by 9000, which was stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers (numerous other illnesses are radiation-induced). It was then accepted by the UN. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/440982a.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4922508.stm

Therefore those guys induced the whole media into spreading (during 7 months) Chernobyl: 4000 people will die globally, albeit their worst acceptable minimization is 9000 people will die from from solids cancers amongst the approx 7 million who were in the vicinity. Here is a short account Natmaka 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis- vs. mis-

In my strategy classes, I draw a somewhat different distinction than in the article. Misinformation is false information provided to another with the intention of having the other believe it. It might be unintentionally false, or a direct lie (what Howard Raiffa would refer to as "strategic misrepresentation"). Disinformation is false information placed in such a way that, when others discover it, they are inclined to believe it. It's "indirect misinformation."

The Allies didn't tell Germany they were invading at Calais (and had they, they wouldn't have been believed). They made information available (e.g., by letting known German spies "stumble upon" this information) which led the German command to conclude that Calais was the target, since the Germans were inclined to trust what they believed were the information sources.

Dictionary definitions are different to your definitions. Wikipedia should stick to the commonly held usage of the words. Alan Liefting 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Mikkalai! I understand you have removed this source Disinformation - from Encyclopedia of Intelligence as unreliable. I thought the reference to another Encyclopedia is O'K. To be honest, some research is needed to find the original source. Otherwise, I do not have objections to your edits. It was actually John Barron who said "Disinformation operations differ from conventional propaganda in that their true origins are concealed, and they usually involve some form of clandestine action" in one of his books. I think this makes sense.Biophys 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim by a single KGB member does not merit lengthy paragraph

There is a long paragraph on the claim by Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer) that the Soviets invented the idea nuclear winter as propaganda, but the only evidence for this claim is Tretyakov's word, and the author of the book which reported it notes that whether this is true is "impossible to discern". With no evidence given that historians or members of the intelligence community find this claim likely to be true, devoting so much space to it seems to violate Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight. I suggest either removing the paragraph entirely, or replacing it with the following brief mention:

• Senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov made the claim to writer Pete Earley that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter" as disinformation (see Sergei Tretyakov for details), although Earley said that the accuracy of this claim "is impossible to discern".

Also see the existing discussion on an attempt to add a similar section to the nuclear winter article at Talk:Nuclear winter#Edit Conflicts on this page. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a at least a couple of phrases to explain what the claim was about and put it in proper context. What others think?Biophys (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are details needed here, when anyone interested can just click the link to Tretyakov's own article as suggested? I copied all the same information you had written here into that article. Again, putting lots of info here is giving "undue weight" to a completely unsubstantiated claim. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because this is article about disinformation. So, everything about disinformation belongs here. Everything about Tretiakov belongs to article about Tretiakov. If this is about disinformation by Tretiakov, it may belong to both articles. Biophys (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that "everything about disinformation belongs here"--the idea is to define the ideas surrounding disinformation, and then give a number of notable or interesting examples. Putting a disproportionately large paragraph on one totally unsubstantiated claim just because you have the information is not the way to build a good, encyclopedic article. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for more opinions rather than conduct RR warring.Biophys (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from NW... I'm amazed that there is so little material on disinfo that one minor and unverified claim merits so much space. I too think that everything about disinformation belongs here is simply wrong. If that really is your justification, then the text should go William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course this article should be improved. But this should be done by adding more sourced materials on the subject, rather than selectively deleting everything one does not like.Biophys (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

None of these claims deserve inclusion

The list of claims made by Mitrokhin includes numerous defamatory allegations denied by the subjects (violating WP:BLP), conspiracy theories on AIDS and JFK that clearly owe little to the KGB, and the absurd description of the well-established homosexuality of J Edgar Hoover as the product of KGB disinformation. This source is clearly worthless and none of Mitrokhin's specific claims should be included. I've deleted the lot. Perhaps some better source is available on KGB disinformation.JQ (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These are not claims by Mitrokhin. These are materials from several books by a notable intelligence historian Christopher Andrew and Mitrokhin, who is notable too but only a second author. These assertions are not based on the Mitrokhin Archive. This archive is only used as one of many hundreds primary and secondary sources cited in the books. Hence the books qualify as reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability. If you want to dispute assertions of the books, please provide alternative sources per WP:NPOV rather than removing texts which refer to reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Perhaps some better source is available on KGB disinformation". Great! This book by Christopher Andrew is one of the best, scholarly, and most authorative sources on the KGB disinformation. If you know any better and readily available secondary scholarly sources, please tell, and let's use them.Biophys (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is obvious trash and violates WP:BLP at several points. It might be better included in Conspiracy theory. I've annotated the alleged claims

Disinformation by the KGB

Alleged xamples of Soviet disinformation against the United States included the following :

• Promotion of false John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane. This defamatory claim is denied by Lane, and is implausible in view of the vast number of such theories generated from a wide range of sources
• Discreditation of the CIA, using historian Philip Agee (codenamed PONT). This claim seems at least as likely to be disinformation on the part of the CIA, aimed at discrediting a critic.
• Spreading rumors that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual. Such rumors were rife by the 1940s, at a time when the US and USSR were allies, and the evidence supporting them (Hoover's *exceptionally* close relationship with his male deputy) was not invented by the KGB
• Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an "Uncle Tom" who was secretly receiving government subsidies. Why on earth would the KGB want to discredit a radical critic of the government, one who was the subject of intense hostile attention, including disinformation, from the FBI
• Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, placing an exposive package in "the Negro section of New York" (operation PANDORA), and spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination had been planned by the US government. The KGB did not need to invent the KKK
• Fabrication of the story that AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at Fort Detrick; the story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal. Again, conspiracy theories of domestic origin on this topic have been rife, and need no KGB explanation
• An alleged disinformation by the KGB was promotion of the theory of nuclear winter. According to senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov, the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter." He asserted that during the 1970s the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying Pershing II cruise missiles in Western Europe. The plan, under KGB Director Yuri Andropov, aimed at fostering popular opposition to the deployment included a massive disinformation campaign requiring false scientific reports from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and funding to European anti-nuclear and peace groups opposed to arms proliferation. The Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, spearheaded the effort by funding and organizing demonstrations in Europe against the US bases. The Soviet propaganda was then distributed to sources within environmental, peace, anti-nuclear, and disarmament groups including the publication Ambio. The concept hit mainstream from there and propelled into popular culture with the help of Carl Sagan.. As pointed out by others this is garbage

Other editors have objected to this stuff, and it should not be included without consensus.JQ (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious trash" is not an argument. I asked you to proide alternative sources (for example sources claiming this to be "trash"), and you provided NONE. All these claims are perfectly sourced. Please follow official WP:Verifiability policy as I do. If you have reliable sources that support your "point by point" assertions above, you are welcome to include them in the article. Biophys (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is the nature of any good disinformation. First, there are sources that promote disinformation (so many people believe this is true). Then, there are studies proving something to be disinformation. Then, there were rebuttals. In such cases one should only use reliable secondary sources written by good experts on the subject which tells: "yes, this is proven disinformation". Perhaps one might dispute reliability of the book by Early (this is "alleged disinformation"), by the books by Christopher Andrews (one of the world's best intelligence historians) certainly qualify as best sources for that purpose.Biophys (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in the nature of these claims that they are allegations, that can't easily be proved or disproved (the main article quotes Jack Straw as saying that the material has "no evidentiary value" though it was useful as intelligence). Andrews is very close to MI6, which is, like other intelligence agencies, in the business of disinformation. Given the implausible nature of some of the claims (as I noted, Hoover's homosexuality has been rumored since at least the 1940s, and there appears to be no independent verification of "Operation PANDORA" "allegations "is the appropriate description. As regards the criticism, the critics suggest that Mitroshkin is making stuff up, which renders his other information similarly dubious. You asked for verifiable sources on this point, and when I provided them, you deleted them. JQ (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim about Hoover; so this is not an issue. What I am citing here are textbook examples of disinformation. If you do not like the book by Andrew, please suggest any other book on the Soviet disinformation written by a professional historian, and we can use it. These textbok examples were NOT based on the notes smuggled by Mitrokhin; they are also (or exclusively) based on a variety of other primary and secondary sources cited in the book by Andrew. So far you only provided a couple of articles that are irrelevant since they were not about the Soviet disinformation.Biophys (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"9/11 truth movement"

From the beginning I've felt that the rantings about explosives hidden in the World Trade Center were merely a distraction (disinformation) from any real conspiracy discussion concerning who might have paid or bargained with Osama bin Laden, much as the JFK "second gunman" is a distraction from who paid or influenced Lee Harvey Oswald. So the evidence of Australian government edits on this topic is most intriguing. I hope someone will explain further about the pattern or objective of these edits. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as this post is merely a distraction from any real discussion of how it is possible for concrete and steel to provide equivalent resistive force to air! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.67.226 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

Edited to include the fact Agee has denied KGB involvement. Please stop reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.148.36 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please stop deleting my edits to the discussion page. Are you the political commissar around here, deleting ideologically dissenting opinions?

P.S. I'm not this dude Roobit you and your commissar buddies seem to think I am.

CIA - Mayak accident

I'm challenging the CIA handling of the Mayak accident being an example of disinformation. 202.239.242.75 reverted the challenge insertion several times with the only justification given being that "source is there and the only one who thinks the info is disputed is you". The only source for that information is A Readiness to Harm: The Health Effects of Nuclear Weapons Complexes. Do not remove my challenge without citing where this source presents the CIA handling of the Mayak accident as an example of disinformation. --Chealer (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving this a title

The redirection of the public seeking information regarding Zetatalk(Media:http://www.zetatalk.com/) or Nancy Lieder, to Niburu Collision is a popular example of Disinformation even used here at Wikipedia. How can this best be corrected?

Perhaps the redirection could be accompanied by an oooo-weeeee-ooooo sound? 24.27.31.170 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

Disinformation tactic: drown out the legitimate stuff with the crazy talk (right here on Wikipedia)

An example I'm aware of is Masonic conspiracy theories and its talk page, as well as what links to it. The disinformational strategy is to give undue weight to the wildest conspiracy theories so as to paint critics of Freemasonry as mentally unhinged. The contributors even boast about the nonsense they've dug up, on the talk page. A real-world example is the Taxil hoax; the person perpetrating the hoax was an (allegedly former) Mason who spread outrageous stories about Masonry and then punked its critics in the Church. Those stories also had repercussions for the Masons, not necessarily all bad.

I would like to see acknowledgement of this tactic in any discussion of disinformation. Jeremystalked _{T C} 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just found a name for this propaganda technique: card stacking.Jeremystalked _{T C} 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that the article on disinformation is accused of being disinformation. In fact, that's mostly what I see on this discussion page. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

AN EXAMPLE of DISINFORMATION.

"Everything you see on the internet is true"

Take this "Free Encyclopedia", for instance. One can go into Wikipedia and CHANGE the information, vandalize it, and thus make the information, disinformation -- information that is not true -- either partially or fully. Students might use this "free encyclopedia" are therefore gathering "misinformation".

Teachers should be wary of this search engine, though it is a good example of how important it is to encourage students to see there is MORE than one truth behind information posted online. They should also know that information can be stretched, twisted, shuffled, dismembered, convoluted, etc. Disinformation is another word for "lies". Today, this word is often ignored by the belief that they "know-it-all". Even claims to "disinformation" can be untrue. They still present an "interpretation" and not the whole truth.

The reality of "disinformation", i.e., is that today's method's of compiling information are often half-baked and poorly researched. "Reference" sources like these are problematic because of their potential for DISINFORMATION: they claim to gather a lot of information, but encourage disinformation to broaden on the net. The disclaimer for WIKIPEDIA should be the first thing all visitors read and should remember as they search for 'information' in this web of potential disinformation.

No source is infallible. —Casey J. Morris

Whoever wrote the above commentary is right on target. Wikipedia is not reliable and should be heavily monitored or even avoided by teachers. Some articles are excellent: sincere efforts on the part of knowledgable people to get the information across. Other articles are rife with agenda-ladened disinformation: whichever side has the most watchful editors wins.

See Reliability of Wikipedia for a discussion about it. As mentioned above Wikipedia is not infallible but it is on par with other encyclopedias. Alan Liefting 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would trust wikipedia over our conservative main stream media or the far right disinformation think tank cato,heritage, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "on par with other encyclopedias" in at least several areas. (One should also recognize that "other encyclopedias" have become worse over time--Britannica long ago stopped assigning entries to be written by experts in the respective fields.) I'd once attempted, over the course of 9 months or so a year or two ago, to improve Wikipedia articles in my area of expertise (in which I hold a doctoral degree). Eventually I gave up, because individuals who were clearly interested in the subject, but who for non-critical reasons objected to the established conclusions of research during the 20th century and the resultant scholarly concensus, would immediately engage in an "edit war" to bring the accuracy of the information in the entry back to a naïve presentation of a 19th- or early-20th-century understanding. This really worries me when I then consult other entries in fields with which I am unfamiliar. Unfortunately, it's a systemmic problem built in to Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone--the last thing you want if you're trying to get accurate information. So, while there are undoubtedly many good--even excellent--entries in Wikipedia, as a *concept* Wikipedia's a joke.134.2.243.23 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting News corp

The information is written in neutral language and the citations are all of the highest quality, ie. sourced academic/institutional studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 17:53, 18 January 2011

No it isn't and no they aren't. You got Media Matters complaining about a poorly organized infographic that may or may not have been intended to decieve; not exactly Operation Fortitude here. The FAIR source just counts heads and doesn't use the term "anchor doping" or assert that the "pseudo-liberal commentator intentionally takes a weak stance so as to smear any liberal viewpoints" as stated in the article. The Worldpublicopinion study seems credible and says what is claimed, merely that Fox viewers hold certain misconceptions more often than NPR listeners. And finally "while numerous studies show that charters and vouchers do very little to actually improve educational quality" is cited to some guy's blog that doesn't mention any of those numerous studies.

But hey, at least you got the page protected against right-wing vandals like me who think examples should be relevant and that inline sources should confirm the statements they're attached to and would otherwise remove your partisan drivel. Sorry to break up your anti-FOX circlejerk, but that section just makes you guys look like partisan hacks, not FOX. 76.211.5.175 (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So even though the article was cited with University of Maryland studies somehow that isn't enough? The studies have been peer reviewed, who are you to say it is biased? Anchor doping has been exposed time and time again on Fox News, the source could have been changed. The phenomenon is well documented. Why is the burden of proof placed on proving vouchers are ineffective, there have been ZERO studies to say they are effective, the burden should be placed on those saying they are effective. We can't delete articles just because they offend the sensibilities of those too scared to accept the truth.McGlockin (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The new source that you added today [1] is dated Dec 18. It copies (without attribution) poorly sourced content that was in the Wikipedia article several days earlier. As such, it is a circular reference and not a reliable source for anything. The University of Maryland study is reliable and neutral, but doesn't establish disinformation. In the other examples, the objective was specifically deception, namely that opposing troops would be defending the wrong beaches on the day of the invasion. They were willing to waste a lot of resources to get that message across. That's a different concept from a media outlet (whose motive is presumably profit, not deception) willing to entertain its viewer's silly misconceptions in order to maximize viewership and ad revenue. None of the sources, not even the unreliable ones, make that claim. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this section as to heavily biased and full of synth as to be salvageable. I have also removed the unsourced sections. Tentontunic (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing this article. Small changes are more likely to be incorporated rather then deletion of entire articles.McGlockin (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is uncited it has no place in an article, do not call me a vandal again, please read WP:VAND Tentontunic (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The content is sourced, you seem to have a history of vandalism. I will have to add a vandalism tag to your page now. This is your second warningMcGlockin (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDAL: content disputes cannot be vandalism. The material you have added is indeed highly contentious, you have been reverted. Per WP:BRD you should now discuss the edits in question and try to gain concensus. Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The studies all have academic sources. So no it is not contentious, please discuss edits here before deletion of entire article.McGlockin (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MMFA and FAIR are problematic in terms of WP:WEIGHT, and as the person who wishes to include the information in the article the WP:BURDEN lies with you. Soxwon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to who? Regardless, the study was done by The University of Maryland. They are not contentious. Fox makes the claim that vouchers are effective, despite their being no evidence to support the claim, in fact their is evidence to support the claim that they are not effective.McGlockin (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They are problematic according to WP:RS/N and are good for their own opinion and are generally used when other sources are there to corroborate what they state. Now then, let's dissect the material:

News Corporation is a worldwide mass media conglomerate with major assets.

No problems, here, nothing contentious.

A subsidiary of News Corporation, Fox News Channel (FNC) is a major international satellite television network, employees of which have been seen using creative editing as a form of distortion propaganda.

No UoM study here, if anything, at LEAST an alleged is needed but IMO, a single MMFA article about one employee isn't enough to make such a sweeping statment about the entire channel.

Another popular method of disinformation is known as anchor doping, which is a method of constructing an opinion panel containing conservative commentators who outnumber a pseudo-liberal commentator that intentionally takes a weak stance so as to smear any liberal viewpoints.

You have FAIR and an Iranian gov't mouthpiece station, hardly academic sources, again, not weighty sources and you need to include the word alleged at minimum.

A 2003 University of Maryland study found that people who primarily watched Fox News Channel were more likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq War.

Be a little more specific here and prove that it was intentional and I would be ok with this, it's an accurate(ish) statement, though the UoM did NOT prove that NewsCorp intentionally misled viewers.

FNC has also promoted private schooling, and portrayed school vouchers as panaceas, while numerous studies show that charters and vouchers do very little to actually improve educational quality. Blogs are not WP:RS, this statement should be taken out.

In short, you have one statement that would fit misinformation (possibly) but fails disinformation as it claims intent when the study mentions no such thing. Therefore, I conclude that this section should be removed from the article. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the content sourced to a Blog. I believe the sections World War II and Cold War and Examples of disinformation Need to be removed as unsourced. Tentontunic (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also fully agree that the Fox news section ought be removed. Tentontunic (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the people objecting to the inclusion of the Newscorp section are not from the United States and have never seen FOX "News". It's a bit like debating whether John Adams should be mentioned in the article on "United States Presidents".134.2.243.23 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation or disinformation?

It would seem to me that "misinformation" is a more common term than "disinformation" (Which I have never heard someone actually say). A Google search supports this: 2,200,000 hits for "misinformation," 910,000 for "disinformation." Thoughts? —Casey J. Morris 22:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Misinformation is simply false information. One is misinformed when one's facts are wrong. Disinformation is the strategic use of falsehood to conceal the truth, or to muddy the waters around it, and tends to imply an espionage/intelligence/military/propaganda context. It is a specific term with limited scope, which explains why there are fewer hits for it.

Yeah, I started thinking about that. But then why does "misinformation" redirect here? —Casey J. Morris 19:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be changed. --Atsquish 22:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Many wiki articles often have links to other sources that show that either the source or the article are disinformation -ie global warming, holocaust, any war, any famine, etc etc. Makes for interesting browsing.

Beloved brethren, I consider myself to be extremely well-read with many decades of immersion within a bounty of non-fiction books. Over the decades I have encountered the "disinformation" term frequently along with the term "black ops" but I can not recall ever reading the term "black information." If any changes are ever made my liver would quiver with unadulterated delight if at least a reference to the "disinformation" term was present with a link to whatever page covers that topic with whatever eventually-used term is present that leads to the topic covered in the article referenced here. I beseech thee brethren to assist those seeking information about a topic affecting humanity constantly as the world's ruling-elite class does whatever needed to preserve their lofty positions far above us masses of mere commoners; including the use of disinformation to befuddle us as our ruling masters do all they can to maintain a status quo so beneficial to a small minority of the planet's populace. Obbop (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

to do, to make or to... what?

I would like to understand which is the correct way to use thie term: to do disinformation, to make disinformation, to supply with disinformation, to disinform, or what? Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Social media

The Hoax Slayer site has one page that is FB related. Recently, I saw the old email hoax of the two-striped jumper (spider) make the rounds on Zuck's baby. Now, whoever originated this thing did the disinformation. Unsuspecting folks forwarded misinformation. Again, the one who started the FB chain was doing disinformation (albeit more mischief than not, perhaps). But, I saw many reasonable folks take it at face value. There may be several reasons for this: trust of the sender, spider phobia, not taking the time to check out the message before forwarding (Share or Comment in the FB milieu). It was nice to find the Wikipedia page's section on the Hoax. Ought we have a category for hoaxes (motivated by continuing examples which necessitate discussion of this topic)? My little example is probably one of many that were active today where some of these might have been downright malevolent. BTW, this is the status of the page when I last edited (2007). Has the content really progressed from that earlier context? All this verbiage, for six years. It's simple. "Dis" involves a conscious effort to alter (etc.); "mis" is an error (albeit willful in some cases). jmswtlk (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia

The remark about Indonesia is inflammatory when provided without context. It may have been that the Suharto government conducted a disinformation campaign, but no reference to such an allegation is provided. It also contains a spelling mistake ("preception"). looks like the reference has been removed

Soviet Union

The Cold War is over now, and the USSR is gone. I see no need to impute disinformation tactics to the USSR in particular when most world governments use this tactic at least now and then. I might point out that the UK used some masterful disinformation during WW2, actually leading the Germans to believe that the D-Day invasion would come in the Calais area, rather than Normandy, where it actually happened. The British also used the ol' carrots-are-good-for-plane-spotters'-eyes one to throw Gerry off the trail of the true reason they were losing so many planes: radar.

Etymology

If it is true that the word (not the tactic) "disinformation" was coined by the Soviets, more prominent note of that fact should be made. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fox News

The majority of the two sources includes two highly partisan sources, hardly reliable. And if one is going to include Fox News, one would have to include The New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, the BBC, ad infinitum. Fox News should be removed, because its listing is clearly of a partisan nature, and if it is not removed, to maintain NPOV the article would have to include an encyclopedic dissertation on the reliability of the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.175 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved unreferenced material to the talk page

Origins

Like propaganda, disinformation is designed to manipulate audiences at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions, and/or at the emotional level. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).

Widening definitions

The understanding has broadened further to include military deception and political dirty tricks. The term is also applied to techniques used in commerce and government to try to undermine the position of a competitor. Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control but is not disinformation in the original sense. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.

---

Above was unreferenced material from the article body text. Moved here to the talk page. Anyone feel free to do further research to back it up with sources. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term 'disinformation' predates the Great Soviet Encyclopedia

I would like to bring to the attention of fellow editors the fact that this term was published in American newspapers long before the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was published. How might this be best expressed, without infringing the Wikipedia policy regarding original research? In addition to the link shared by Sagecandor directly above, here's another: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7729235/professor_young_on_mars_and/ --Danimations (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Another example here: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7729323/pure_nonsense_early_use_of_the_word/ --Danimations (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are both WP:PRIMARY sources, and therefore editing to put in that information to the article fails No Original Research. Sagecandor (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A much bigger sin than your anti-WP:PRIMARY agenda is the woeful Soviet over emphasis in this article that bears almost no relation to the use of the word "disinformation" if you do a simple Google search.--Penbat (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not yet even added any content to the article, just copy editing so far. And I don't quite understand the pejorative you invented, "anti-WP:PRIMARY agenda" ? Have you even read WP:PRIMARY ? Do you understand what it says? Sagecandor (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add Original research violations to the article, as was done at [2].

Need to stick to WP:SECONDARY sources.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are unconsciously discounting anything not do with the Soviet Union. It may not have been the strongest of cites but it helps a lot with the glaring inbalance in this article.--Penbat (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SECONDARY. Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Psychopathy in the workplace

Passing mention of this topic, violates WP:SYNTH. Please do not add back until consensus obtained on the talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Disproportionate coverage of Soviet Union in this article

If you just do a simple Google search on "disinformation" only a small proportion of the entries refer to the Soviet Union.--Penbat (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Google search" - not equal to - reliable sources. Rather, that is No Original Research violation. Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all - lets graduate to the more robust material on Google Scholar - https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=disinformation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 --Penbat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes problem, that is more violations of No Original Research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Er are you going to dismiss all books as No Original Research as well. I don't think there is anything else left. https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b&biw=747&bih=352&tbm=bks&q=disinformation&oq=disinformation&gs_l=serp.1.0.0.5887.10962.0.13286.14.7.0.7.7.0.109.681.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.14.698.bVZk_aJbRes --Penbat (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to expand the article with individual specific sources that are WP:SECONDARY sources, not just give out hyperlinks to random Google searches. Sagecandor (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing origins from the intro

Removing origins from the intro is biased and POV attempt to hide the origins of the word in a Russian word. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merrian-Webster does not agree with you https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation and ngram suggests it goes back as far as the 1960s at least as an English word. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Disinformation&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CDisinformation%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdisinformation%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDisinformation%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDISINFORMATION%3B%2Cc0 --Penbat (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact the slight kink that can be seen a few years around around 1940 probably fits with the Nazi reference here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries aren't the best sources for an encyclopedia article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries are good sources for etymology and usage. The OED says "dis- prefix 2d; perhaps < Russian dezinformacija (1949, in S. I. Ožegov Slovar′ russkogo jazyka, allegedly < French, although French désinformation is not recorded until 1954 (Quemada, Matériaux (1971) II. 53); " GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

'Disinformation' first appeared in OED in 1972, OED also notes appearance in written form in 1955 (The Times).GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, GraemeLeggett, good point. I changed the section name to "Etymology and early usage". Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of references to "German Disinformation Service"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b&biw=747&bih=352&tbm=bks&q=%22German+%27Disinformation+Service%27%22&oq=%22German+%27Disinformation+Service%27%22&gs_l=serp.12...49359.53533.0.58334.2.2.0.0.0.0.111.200.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.0.0.AAF6ijIUNzQ

Fowlers dictionary definition of "disinformation" says "First recorded in 1939 (applied to a German 'Disinformation Service')". https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AvmzBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=%22German+%27Disinformation+Service%27%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPw4_DreXQAhVrBMAKHdVvAjcQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=%22German%20%27Disinformation%20Service%27%22&f=false

--Penbat (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific source ! I added it to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Predated by 1923, again in Russia: Usage of the term related to a Russian tactical weapon started in 1923, when the Deputy Chairman of the KGB-precursor the State Political Directorate (GPU), I. S. Unshlikht, called for the foundation of: "a special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations". Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Misuse of source oxforddictionaries.com

These edits [3] are inappropriate and misuse what the source actually says.

The source was to a bare link to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disinformation.

The source says "Origin 1950s: formed on the pattern of Russian dezinformatsiya."

It says nothing about first time anything appeared in publication in any dictionaries.

Please don't misrepresent what sources actually say. Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment on scope

I looked into doing the GAR for this article but decided against it because I have some concerns about scope. A lot of content is included about the cold war and military aspects of this term. However, a quick check for online book sources suggests there are a number of other notable areas that get a lot less (or no) coverage. Modern disinformation, for example, is a general note that it has become more widespread without detail. My searches also turned up information about disinformation in cults, religious organisations, oppressive regimes, etc. Part of me wonders if it's simply the case of needing a rename (e.g. Disinformation (Soviet era) or something) or if the article needs to grow properly in scope. Not sure; hence drive by comment to stoke debate :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of source oxforddictionaries.com

These edits [4] are inappropriate and misuse what the source actually says.

The source was to a bare link to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disinformation.

The source says "Origin 1950s: formed on the pattern of Russian dezinformatsiya."

It says nothing about first time anything appeared in publication in any dictionaries.

Please don't misrepresent what sources actually say. Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of "disinformation" printed in a US newspaper, 1941

For the benefit of article editors, here's an early explanation of "disinformation" published in a US newspaper in 1941. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7818973/disinformation_1941/ --Danimations (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Danimations:Wow that is incredible, thank you! Any more info on who the author was ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, appears to be a Letter to the editor. Sagecandor (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It does say on the full page view of the page with the clip that the article the clip appears in is continued from "Page One", so my guess it is from a bigger article—unless the letter to the editor started on the front page, which would seem odd. But I failed to get access to the front page to confirm. --Jhertel (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Psychopathy in the workplace

Absent discussion in WP:SECONDARY sources, creating an entire subsection based on this one primary source violates:

1. No Original Research
2. Synthesis
3. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT

Do secondary sources discuss this book specifically about this topic?

I notice that the article on the book itself also appears to be a spam advertisement for the book itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. The source used is a highly reputable source. Google Scholar says it is cited by 828 other books and journal articles. Thirty two entries are listed in Highbeam. How can it possibly be WP:SYNTH when the text is directly derived from the book ? How can a single sentence paragraph possibly be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT ? In fact, the disinformation article as a whole is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT as it gives the mistaken impression that disinformation can only be at the country level and has to involve state level secret services. The word "disinformation" is often used in wider contexts and can be applied to any organisation presenting a body of false information. The "psychopathy in the workplace" text is extremely useful as at least that bit of text illustrates that disinformation can occur in a wider context than described in the rest of the article. My point echoes that previously made by ErrantX at Talk:Disinformation#Drive-by comment on scope.--Penbat (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment on scope

I looked into doing the GAR for this article but decided against it because I have some concerns about scope. A lot of content is included about the cold war and military aspects of this term. However, a quick check for online book sources suggests there are a number of other notable areas that get a lot less (or no) coverage. Modern disinformation, for example, is a general note that it has become more widespread without detail. My searches also turned up information about disinformation in cults, religious organisations, oppressive regimes, etc. Part of me wonders if it's simply the case of needing a rename (e.g. Disinformation (Soviet era) or something) or if the article needs to grow properly in scope. Not sure; hence drive by comment to stoke debate :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bump.--Penbat (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede section should function as summary of entire article

WP:LEAD says:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.

Lede section should not be just few sentences.

Lede section should be able to stand on its own.

Added some brief history info to lede as chronology. Sagecandor (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The pope belongs in ethics section

The pope belongs in ethics section.

Not english language section.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Misinformation and Disinformation" Image

Are we serious with this graphic? An assortment of headlines about the president used as the category image for "Disinformation"? At this point, I think one of two things should happen: 1) find a neutral image that doesn't further the American left's obsession with the national tally of votes and frantic conspiracy theories of how the president got elected (preferred) 2) register a new domain name "leftipedia" or "wikipedia.dnc.gov" and transfer all data from Wikipedia to the new domain name. This stuff is getting worse and worse. It was bad before the election, but now, nobody's even trying to hide the cloud of liberalism over this once-relatively balanced project. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Centralized discussion about this image in this template, at Template talk:Misinformation. Sagecandor (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why it is not taken down yet?! This is clearly political message and not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.59.93 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion not here but at Template talk:Misinformation for the template. Sagecandor (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

word "defraud" in lede

wouldn't it be better to say "deceive"? Defraud implies a financial loss, which is not always the case. Normally I would just make the change, but it's the lede and I know from adjoining articles (and this page) that there is discussion about scope Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I rewrote the definition in etymology. I believe it's a clarification and amplification which does not change the meaning of the sentence, but this is also a fairly important part of the article so I am notifying interested editors. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, "deceive" works better. Sagecandor (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 copyedit

I think this is a great article, a very interesting read, and an enormous improvement from the mess this was back around 2005–2007. My changes were fairly minor and I don't mind if any of them are reverted. Some notes:

• I tended to put dezinformatsia in italics as a foreign word not common in non-specialized English per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
• When referring to words themselves, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Words as words recommends to use either italics or double quotes (consistently through an article). For an example of where it might be confusing: Disinformation did not appear in English dictionaries until the late-1980s. The reader might take that to mean that in the late 1980s actual disinformation was placed in English dictionaries. So I rephrased slightly and used italics as: The word disinformation did not appear in English dictionaries until the late-1980s.
• According to the 2003 encyclopedia Propaganda and Mass Persuasion, disinformation came from dezinformatsia. Again, I used italics and rephrased slightly to put a little space between the italic title and the italic term: The 2003 encyclopedia Propaganda and Mass Persuasion states that disinformation came from dezinformatsia.
• U.S. President Jimmy Carter representative Jody Powell acknowledged That's a long string of compound modifiers. Powell's bio says he was WH press secretary at the time, so I rephrased as: "White House Press Secretary Jody Powell acknowledged" and then mentioned Jimmy Carter by full name afterwards. Feel free to change.
• kept watch on disinformation campaigns through three yearly publications by the Department of State then goes on to mention three reports with publication dates. I'm wondering, if these are annual publications examined each year, why specify the dates?
• There was a little bit of WP:OVERLINKING, such as KGB.
• After much consideration, I decided to put all the dates in dmy format for consistency. It was 50-50 in the article, but the refs were almost entirely dmy format.

I briefly went over the February GA review and I believe the writing points have been addressed. A couple notes:

• The reviewer had a problem with the capitalized "The" in described the official definition as different from the practice: "The. I would argue that it's correct as-is. When a colon introduces multiple sentences, it's acceptable to capitalize after the colon (MOS:COLON). The more important issue in my opinion is the veracity of the quote, whether the quote started with a capital-T "The". I don't have access to the source so I'll assume it's correct. (On a side note, that multiple-sentence quote is 31 words long. At about 40 words MOS would recommend using a block quote, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. I think it's fine as-is.)
• The reviewer said there were excessive hyphens. I assume that's been fixed, because it looks good to me. You don't need the hyphen in "late-1980s" but I believe that's a valid style choice. The only time you'd have to hyphenate "late-1980s" is when it's used as a compound modifier (eg: late-1980s action films, where it modifies "action films"). "Mid-1980s" would always be hyphenated because "mid-" is a prefix and not a complete word. (I do a lot of decade-related typo fixing when I'm not copyediting.)

What's here in the article is great. Some of the repetitive parts might be condensed a bit. And I tend to agree that the article could be expanded. (I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of corporate/consumer or corporate/stockholder disinformation, though perhaps that's simply corporate fraud.) Let me know if you have any questions about the copyedit. I'll try to get at the Disinformation book next. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:I did indeed look over the old GA Review and tried to address all the issues there. Thank you very very much for your helpful copyediting !!! Sagecandor (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Formulaguide

To editor Formulaguide: I reverted your edits. Discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, may I know the reason why? I just wanted to contribute and extend a bit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulaguide (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw it. If you think so. so be it. Thanks. Formulaguide (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removals by Chris troutman, thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Operation Infektion

Editors active here may be interested in reading and building out Operation Infektion. This was a 1980s Soviet disinformation campaign that was uncovered by the U.S. State Department. It was recently featured in a series of New York Times videos as a precursor to Russia's modern disinformation practices and its interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The main problem with our article on the subject is that it relies almost exclusively on a single State Department report. However there's no shortage of independent news articles, peer-reviewed journal entries, and reputably published books on the subject. The article could be expanded on and made more robust by using such independent sources. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede gives long history summary but does not mention modern usage of the word "disinformation"

The lede gives a long summary of the history of disinformation (Including cites) but the info is repeated in more detail further on. I am tempted to do some serious trimming. The lede says nothing about the broader current day usage of the word mentioned in disinformation#English language spread. Also disinformation#English language spread is tucked away close to the end of the article. Most people would probably want to know about the current usage of the word rather than get bogged down in its history. Disinformation (history) could be a separate article with just a short summary of history in disinformation. --Penbat (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just another thought, IMO the history stuff in the article is just too detailed and long winded for many. But as indicated at talk:Disinformation#GA_Review some history including more recent US history is not covered at all.--Penbat (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your link Penbat leads to this page but I don't see the discussion here. Mcljlm (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I came to the article hoping to find something about the use of disinformation in previous centuries but there's only the sentence "The tactic was used during the long Roman-Persian Wars, examples being the Battle of Mount Gindarus, Battle of Telephis–Ollaria, and Heraclius assault on Persia." without a single source and there's no separate article on the pre-20th century use of disinformation. Mcljlm (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In recent times "dsinformation" may basically approximate to a preferred synonym for "propoganda". Disinformation is an intentional body of false information tailored to deceive a particular audience in any context. --Penbat (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

History updated to reflect chronology from 1920s to 2001. Sagecandor (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Added the term became synonymous with propaganda. From source, Cunningham. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Non Russian cases and another definition

Alternative definition

Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. 

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php

Let us add.

Also, in line with the current definition, []German Corpse Factory]] seems like disinformation to me, because:

Any fact which had a propaganda value was seized upon, not always with strict regard for truth. For example, worldwide publicity was given to the statement that the Germans boiled down human corpses...

Let us either add this case here or delineate these differences.

Zezen (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that this article almost exclusively deals with the United States and Russia/the Soviet Union. is this intentional? Are we sticking to recognized governments, or can we include disinformation campaigns by corporations? I assume we don't want to devolve into every little conspiracy theory, even though I am sure a few of them can be labeled disinformation. I mean, a conspiracy theorist thinks his theory is true. Disinformation is known to be untrue by its architects. I am specifically thinking of Edison electrocuting elephants to scare the US public away from DC electric standard, although I am sure there are other examples.PoorMuttski (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)PoorMuttski

Academic article on Russian disinformation and race in the US

I found:

• Aceves, William J. (2019). "Virtual Hatred: How Russia Tried to Start a Race War in the United States States". Michigan Journal of Race and Law.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PoorMuttski. Peer reviewers: Drgolds.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ApprehensiveAlpaca, Dqdolphin, Gvkvmg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is disinformation according to CNN

Fox News is listed in the heading as being a source of disinformation by “experts”. The source is a CNN article that sources a single person. Not what wiki would consider an unbiased source Kapn Krunch338 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian disinformation redirects here?

It's a bit strange that there is no dedicated subarticle on this, and the redirects targers here. I think a split into a subarticle is warranted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree and think this is a good idea. A broad historical summation with links to other more exhaustive articles on specific time periods seems the most intuitive to me. I did think it was strange there was no dedicated article. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A new article Russian disinformation "forked" from Disinformation?

@Piotrus: I agree with your suggestion on the Disinformation talk page. It would be even more useful now as mainstream media are including increased content on "Russian disinformation".

There are some concerns however with the existing sections related to Russian disinformation in this article on Disinformation. A considerable amount of content—47% of the entire [[Disinformation" article which was added on c. December 9, 2016 by User:Sagecandor, is that the user was identified and blocked indefinitely on October 1, 2018 as a sock puppet of Cirt.

For editors who would like to create and/or contribute to a new article Russian disinformation, I would suggest revisiting all content added by Sagecandor.

With your vast experience and the number of edits you have contributed already I know you are aware of the useful guidelines for copying within Wikipedia. Other users might find it helpful to review them before creating a forked article. Users cannot copy and paste directly from the existing Disinformation article to a new Russian disinformation because of Wikipedia's content license requires that any text reproduced from Wikipedia must be attributed to the original contributors, including when it is reproduced elsewhere on Wikipedia. These guidelines help editors working on both articles. The easiest way to accomplish attribution is to say so in your edit summary. The most useful one that was suggested to me was "This revision as of 2 February 2022 10:22 PM.‎, used content from the Wikipedia page Disinformation; See its history for attribution. User:UsersName added this on 18 February 2022 12:55 PM."

I can help with modest contributions. I have just created other new articles that require a lot of my attention.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC) adding RSOceanflynn (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We really should have this. I have been working to create a related article in my sandbox but I can switch over and try to start this one instead. The examples given below concern Ukraine-related disinformation. There is, however, already an article Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis as well as a proposal to merge that article with Russian–Ukrainian information war. So a new article in that particular space isn't needed, better to add material to one or the other of those articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied the "Russian disinformation since 2000" section and created a page Russian disinformation since 2000. I think there should be a separate article about this, and I will be working to re-organize it and add more information, collaborations welcome. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Wordsmithing

When the phrase "unsubstantiated claim, allegation, assertion..." is used in the media, it is a redundancy that is designed to provoke a sceptical reaction. Claims, allegations, and assertions are just that: unsubstantiated. The subtle shifting in the meaning of words is a form of disinformation GuitarTesseract (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops! ...didn't finish. Redefining the meaning of words may be organic or it may be intentional. An intentional example is the word empathy. The definition of an intimate understanding of the thoughts, feelings, and motives of another does not mean that one sympathizes with that person. Sadists are empathetic or else why would they be sadists? This word is one of many coopted from their proper meaning that are used for their emotional response. This is disinformation by my understanding. GuitarTesseract (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@GuitarTesseract: Article talk page are for discussing improvements to an article. Text at the top of the page makes this clear, also "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you will find many productive ways to contribute here. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

My motive is to solicit feedback about adding the topic to the mail page and to define it's limits and cite historical examples. GuitarTesseract (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic. So if reliable sources talk about this and connect it to "disinformation," then those sources can be cited for adding it. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Would "reliable sources" include the wikipedia pages on Social engineering (Political Science), Media manipulation, and Loaded language? GuitarTesseract (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not considered RS, but some of those pages might include references with information relevant here. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but this still an open solicitation for content before editing the main page. GuitarTesseract (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Smart Libraries

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2022 and 14 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karnold-coffey (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kelseycronin (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: True Crime and Misinformation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanielleDiUlio (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sr10721.

— Assignment last updated by Gmp76 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Disinformation attack into Disinformation [archived]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wide overlap between two articles apparently not even inter-linked fgnievinski (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No. 208.94.42.5 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fgnievinski; not sure if a merge is the right answer or a reorganisation into a couple of articles. This article is much more wide ranging whereas Disinformation Attack feels like it covers a much more specific and recent situation. I agree there is a lot of crossover. Both articles have a heavily Russian slant - which is not unexpected given the history it is focusing on, but it's always made me a bit uncomfortable. I also feel like there is a distinction between military/political use of disinformation and wider cultural use which is growing (e.g. around COVID, for example). There are probably a broader swathe of articles to consider, then (indeed the box at the bottom of the article shows a wide array). We need a wider and deeper set of articles which are better organised around these topics. Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Disinformation is itself such a massive topic, I'm surprised there isn't already a sidebar/infobox for the subject, with obvious links to related stories. "This article is part of a series on ..." kinda thing. Especially with all of the conspiracy theories disseminated via social media just from the past few years, there should be a lot of contemporary content, as well as historical examples as well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support – It does not matter if the content is more wide-ranging or not, because it could be that editors haven't sufficiently expanded the other article. What defines the two articles, and what they are about, is not the content, but the title. As it says at the top of Wikipedia:Article title policy page:

The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.

One way to think about this, is to imagine that both articles were one-sentence stubs, containing nothing but a definition. Here's the current definitions, minus the bolded title, which I've substituted:

• [This article] is the intentional dissemination of false information, with an end goal of misleading, confusing, or manipulating an audience.
• [This article] is a subset of propaganda and is false information that is spread deliberately to deceive.

Even if you're familiar enough with both articles that you know which is which, what is actually the difference, here? Not much. The only way I can see two articles coming out of this, is if the content of "Attack" is merged to "Disinformation", and then the former is renamed and refactored as List of disinformation attacks, with separate sections on individual cases. That could be a valid topic, which could become a viable, distinct, list article. Otherwise, the two topics as currently named, are the same thing; the fact that the content is different currently, is just an artefact of the fact that we are a volunteer project. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

On the surface, my 'support' vote for a merge might appear to oppose ErrantX's position, but actually I agree with them. My vote is based on the narrowest interpretation of the proposal, that is, if we restrict the question exclusively to whether or not they should be two separate articles given their current titles, then I believe they should not be separate. However, I believe Errant is correct that there should be a broader swathe or perhaps a pyramid of articles in WP:Summary style, with Disinformation sitting at the top, and a number of child articles underneath, with brief explanatory sections in the main article, and {{Main}} links pointing to the child articles (of which the "List" article I proposed would be one). So, I support both a merge, and ErrantX's view. Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all points. Merging will be time-consuming due to the significant overlap, but would result in a better Disinformation article. DFlhb (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I did a very quick skim of the Disinformation article. Its heavy emphasis on Russian and cold-war events, and its almost complete lack of any discussion of scientific disinformation campaigns (of which there is a long and depressing history) makes me think that the best solution here might be to rename and rewrite this as an article about Soviet-based disinformation, linked to by a new and more encyclopedic "Disinformation" article. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation attack has been substantially rewritten since this proposal was made, so any discussion here should be revisited. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not an improvement. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:7552:11BC:FE4E:D8DE (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed split of ‘etymology and early usage’ (to become two sections)

For clarity of the etymology of disinformation, and to create space for editors to offer readers a better understanding on the matter, this section should be separated – so that ‘etymology’ and ‘early usage’ each have their own sections.

Etymology is the study of the history of the form of words and, by extension, the origin and evolution of their semantic meaning across time. It… draws upon comparative semantics, morphology, semiotics, and phonetics. Much of this is not present in the current etymology and early usage section with the focus seemingly to be the origin and evolution of the semantic meaning. The etymology of disinformation is important, not currently properly addressed and is entwined with ‘early usage’.

As an example, the first paragraph of the current section (on ‘etymology and early usage’) contains a sentence on misinformation, and the second paragraph solely discusses tactics and techniques. Both are unhelpful in the section, but could be included in the ‘early usage’ section to help the reader understand the subject. The third paragraph, and subsequent sentence, discusses the historical basis of the term which, on the whole, is a worthwhile supporting contribution to the early usage of disinformation.

Summary: in its current form this section is suboptimal and enhancement is required. The importance of the etymology of disinformation is not sufficiently addressed in this article. The association with ‘early usage’ and associated subjects (such as misinformation) is unhelpful to the reader. The solution is the separation of the two topics and for etymology to be properly addressed. AlphaFIMI2022 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've implemented the section split. fgnievinski (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Disinformation campaign" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Disinformation campaign has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § Disinformation campaign until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Accusing that a news source is disinformation should require a strong reference

Recently, I removed an image claiming that certain news organizations are sources of disinformation. However, my edit got reverted by @HouseOfChange I am opening this topic on the talk page because I think that, especially on Wikipedia's page on disinformation, it is essential to prevent potential slander unless the label has strong merit. For example, if the organization is included in some official list by multiple countries. If it is, then the claim must be well referenced.

My point is that it is a bad idea to declare any news organization a source of disinformation without strong support. This is especially difficult when there is a conflict of interest, for instance, when two rival countries like if US and Russia declare that each other news is propaganda. MexFin (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@MexFin: The material you removed and I restored was not an image. It was an excerpt from the en-wiki article generated by the template {{excerpt|Russian disinformation}} and reading in full:

Russian disinformation campaigns have occurred in many countries.[33][34] For example, in Africa, disinformation campaigns led by Yevgeny Prigozhin have been reported in several countries.[35][36] Russia, however, denies that it uses disinformation to influence public opinion.[37]

You are correct that claims about disinformation should be based on RS and cited to their source, but the passage in question includes 5 citations of sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I inadvertently removed text when editing in my phone, when I meant to remove just the image. I apologise. MexFin (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving discussion of template to its talk page

See: Template talk:Misinformation#Organizing template:Misinformation where the discussion is more appropriate. Many thanks, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Disinformation expert

I have created a draft for Disinformation expert. This is the common name for people who have expertise in identifying and studying disinformation. Thriley (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Hello, I'm a new editor (but not a new user of Wikipedia).

Disinformation is similar to propaganda, so linking to the Propaganda article makes sense conceptually and for usability.

There are significant journalistic efforts to combat disinformation, so it makes sense conceptually to link to some existing articles about such efforts.

Discuss? Saganbond (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Saganbond: The article already links to, and compares disinformation with, propaganda. -- Beland (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

McIntyre book

@MexFin: Greetings! In this revert, you removed the McIntyre book from the "Further reading" section with the edit summary "Reverting decontextualized citation. Please use the reference within if if its relevant". I don't think any of the entries in the "Further reading" section are referred to by citations in the article, because that is what "Further reading" sections are for - works that are just recommended for readers who want to know more, whether generally or on a specific subtopic. (Though Wikipedia:Further reading explains that for clarity, recommended reading can have duplicate citations if the article has lots of footnotes.) -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Beland hello! you are right that further reading can be simply more information. However, further reading usually is reserved for classical works or really important ones. This book is from last year. There are some works on the disinformation topic that are becoming really seminal, but only time will say if this specific book will do so.

I am no against citing the book as such. I am simply recommending adding it in context so that the reader can understand where it fits in. MexFin (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to this section of Wikipedia:Further reading:

"Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers." MexFin (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this book is any less seminal or important than the Pacepa book from 2013. It certainly seems a lot more comprehensive than the short articles currently listed. The author is an academic and keeps getting interviewed in the press as an expert on the topic, so it seems like a good source of up-to-date facts and policy proposals. I don't understand what "context" you think would be helpful; do you have a specific suggestion? -- Beland (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Disinformation attack into Disinformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that a combined article would be WP:TOOBIG and that it is possible to distinguish the content; the current versions warrant some restructuring to differentiate them. Klbrain (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

---

The main objections to the previous merger nomination have been fixed; now, the large sections about Soviet and Russian misinformation have been split off into separate articles. Currently, some of the same images are used in both articles. Some of the defense measures against disinformation attacks, such as education and awareness, are actually applicable to non-coordinated disinformation in general. fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for splitting the article on post-soviet disinformation

I do not think that a merge between disinformation attack and disinformation is correct. Disinformation, according to the Harvard Shorenstein Center means two things: (1) one is a research stream to understand media manipulation (which includes the use of fake news, astroturfing, and propaganda), and (2) it is a type of covert activity usually led by intelligence agencies (but not only). Therefore, I think that keeping the disinformation article separate can help people understand that disinformation is a general set of actions, as well as a concrete activity. See for instance, the 2018 report by the European Commission, defining disinformation at a more broader level that can include private firms seeking profit, not only state-level actors.

I do agree that the disinformation article should make a better job at defining disinformation (orchestrated campaign aiming for media/social media manipulation) differently from an disinformation as a targeted attack. MexFin (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Then the article should be renamed to State-sponsored disinformation, because simply "Disinformation" doesn't convey the subtly. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is a case for distinguishing between multiple types of disinformation, yes. However, It is probably better if it can be in the same article. I agree that the start of the current version of the article is all about military intelligence and the box is about warfare. As a result, the beginning is mostly about state-sponsored disinformation. However, there is also a discussion within the article about disinformation on social media, which may emerge from multiple actors, including states and private individuals. As per the European Commission and Harvard U. references above, disinformation can be for both harm or profit.

The limitation of your suggestion is that disinformation is always covert, which means that determining its origin is not always possible. In other words, it is not always possible to determine if it is state-sponsored or not. My suggestion: Keep the article on disinformation, but re-section it so that it starts with its history anchored on state-sponsored disinformation. Then, it can have a large section on social media disinformation. Perhaps if both sections are large enough, they can have their own pages. MexFin (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I am listening to Dark Arts: Disinformation talk in Wikipedia North America conference. The original article helped understand how disinformation attacks worked and now the article cites 240 works. This article focuses on attacks rather than the broader field of disinformation. This puts a practical spin on disinformation (how to inoculate against disinformation, handle disinformation, how attacks work, and avoid triggering biases and preconceived views and provides examples of these talks. So I think this article should focus on practical ways to recognize and handle intentional disinformation attacks that benefit bad actors. This education is important and is separate from disinformation in general, which may be inadvertent and not an attack. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for working on the Disinformation article and helping to reorganize it. This is a great improvement.

I think that keeping the current articles for disinformation attack and disinformation separate is a better choice than merging them. Disinformation attack is already a lengthy article. It uses examples of multiple types of disinformation, making the point that this is a broader issue that affects science, politics, and society generally as well as warfare. That's important to understanding how disinformation works in the age of social media. The same "players" can be using multiple tactics in all those areas, and in some cases working for multiple sides.

@MaryMO (AR) If the two articles are not merged, the difference between the two concepts should be made more explicit; currently, "disinformation attack" covers a lot of "disinformation" beyond just attacks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to dicifer "DISINFORMATION" page by definition is main topic we're as "Attack" is a use of said subject so completely separate. MrHugepiles (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Disinformation attack article might need some trimming to keep it on topic, but both the topic and the article appear to have enough substance to warrant a separate article.– Primium (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - anyone who "opposes" or "supports" the movement, be sure to make it clear and bold in your comment, as I've demonstrated above.– Primium (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The articles may cover similar topics, but the disinformation attack article has more than enough content, and is notable enough, to constitute an article of its own. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. In fact, we may need several articles, as it is clear in this one that disinformation in military terms means something very different than disinformation on social media, and it is different from media manipulation. I think disinformation attack is an article on its own, but we probably would need a different organization of this article, as it is not always a military attack. --MexFin (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.