Talk:Disinformation (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Overhaul June 8 2008[edit]

Regarding Bigplans' timely point about the point of view, language, and organization of this article, I have overhauled it using template:corp to bring it up closer to Wiki standards.

There is little about this company out there to use as objective 3rd-party sourcing and still questioning the notability criteria has been met. This article especially needs cites and external quotes about the assertions in this article and about its activities (not just footnotes from other articles)Elizabeth BY (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


STUB & CIA Connection[edit]

This article fails to mention the Disinfo.com - CIA connection.

In fact Disinfo.com received funding to the tune of 4 million dollars and actively promotes CIA moles such as Robert Anton Wilson and white supremacist Howard Bloom.

Actually, that exact info is embedded within this article but you have to put on your infrared, sonar bat spectacles (found anywhere on eBay) to see it. I apologize for this necessary inconvenience. Cowicide (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proof? References?

STUB & CIA Connection mentioned above[edit]

It makes little sense for Disinfo to "promote" the CIA; it would seem entire opposite of this; that the CIA would more likely want to shut down a site like Disinfo rather than support or have good relations with it.

Also, the article used to be very lengthy -- it's now been turned into a stub. What happened?


Re: STUB & CIA[edit]

Are you sure?, nothing in the history is longer than the current version.

Also, re: CIA, if anything, that seems like a CIA tactic to recoop something that they dont have any control over in the first place. Exactly like that meme that got out there about LSD being manufactured by the CIA so it could break the minds of subversives, which we all know to be far from the actual situation.

Sometimes, to discredit someone, the CIA will let that individual be "exposed" as "CIA". Of course, a good way to hide your CIA membership is to be "exposed" as "CIA". - It doesn't stick. (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like ad[edit]

This page seems to hav ejust been copied from the website in question. It reads like an ad, does not have a NPOV and doesn't follow encycolpedia style.--Bigplans 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the boosterism is sickly-sweet and obviously inappropriate. This is the second time I've reverted the puff-piece version preferred by user Raymonium.76.17.171.199 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Criticism[edit]

Why is there no criticism section in this article, no mentions of its support for 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy junk being one of the things that ticks me off about them. All they seem to do is blame the "establishment" for every problem in the world and chirp the viewpoints of other "non-conformists" yet ignore there own ties with the "establishment" like a Hottopic of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.74.67 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend adding a Criticism stub section.76.17.171.199 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

want criticism? check this out: there is the book "why do you kill?" by a guy named todenhoefer published by disinfo. The original title was "why are you killing, Zaid?" but the arab name was dropped to push sales figures presumably. Then, Todenhoefer is clearly an establishment figure. While he claims on radio from Switzerland that he got death threats by the soviets while investigating "Charlie Wilson's [Afghanistan] war" in real time (being a conservative member of parliament of Germany back then), this makes it somewhat plausible, that he was one in very few not-embedded reporters from the fighting in Irak. He stated, he never became a big friend of Zaid, but then he was there to deliver an independent report for once. maybe he wanted to follow the footsteps of Peter Scholl-Latour, who returned alive and well from vietcong captivity of 8 days during 1970 vietnam war with nice colour filming you can still watch on youtube. Matter of fact, even the name Zaid is fake and was chosen for "sexiness". The only thing to not criticize is that this establishment figure appearently got into trouble with even more established figures and had to flee to a different constituency to get reelected. also there is an obscene but obvious pun on his name in german, that is not mentioned in the book. --217.187.192.61 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 13, 2010: Minor Corrections and Additions.[edit]

I have made some additions to the documentary films list on this article, as well as correcting or adding the release year and internal links for the ones already listed. I'd like to keep adding content to this page, though I have had some of my previous edits removed. I've read into the posting guidelines quite a bit since then, and understand why my edits were removed. I'm going to take it slow, and hopefully I can stay within the editors guidelines. -Raymonium

Removal of books[edit]

This edit[1] looked suspiciously close to vandalism. Pinging Doug Weller. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding the user's intentions so he can explain why the list was removed here. Curro2 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have gotten back to the article sooner, or at least here, but obviously I'm not a vandal. Why the list of books and films at all? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? You might make an argument that listing those with linked articles is appropriate, but even then I'm confused as to why Rethink Afghanistan, produced by Brave New Films, belongs in the list (note the film's article doesn't mention this company). The films and the books were added by an IP[2][3] and given that the first film I clicked on was wrong the lists are questionable. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine - I had no idea why you put 'no longer' as the edit summary which made it look suspicious. Curro2 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this was justified per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Curro2 turned out to also be a sockpuppet of Zeke1999. —PaleoNeonate – 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I can't find many sources calling this company "Disinfo". Even its own website doesn't.[4] Doug Weller talk 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disinformation (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disinformation_(company)&oldid=1206714737"