Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Misinformation or disinformation

Boud: Should the article title be using "misinformation" or "disinformation", though? --Mindaur (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A better title would be "Information war", mirroring the existing Information war during the Russo-Georgian War article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Disinformation would clearly be better, since the sources generally describe the misinformation as deliberate. Information war redirects to Information warfare, which currently "deal[s] primarily with the United States and do[es] not represent a worldwide view of the subject." This is an article in the context of a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, not a conflict directly involving the US (even though Putin sees it as Putin/Russia versus the US). Also, adding the word "war" to a title that is already in the context of a crisis which will quite likely soon be called a war doesn't help the reader understand what is going on. The extra word "war" is an analogy with "boys with toys/military-industrial complex" hot wars, while disinformation itself does not directly physically injure or kill anyone (though indirectly it may be a major factor in injuries and killings).
Any objections to a name change to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis? Boud (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Since disinformation seems to have consensus as being better than misinformation, I'll do that move. Consensus for/against information war may take longer. Boud (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)  Done Boud (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this, they are different terms whose main distinction is intentionality . Care should be taken with original research. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Impression of one-sidedness

I notice that there is very little about disinformation by the Ukrainians or the West – are there no known cases? I imagine the Russian side is worse, but that the other side is not totally innocent. PJTraill (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently one disinformation incident apparently by Ukrainian authorities in the article. Find some reliable sources that document notable disinformation by Ukrainians or the West on this particular issue and integrate it. (US disinformation for the wars on Iraq is extremely well-known, but has no direct relation to this context.) Boud (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
US disinformation regarding the war in Iraq is well known NOW, but it certainly WASN'T until months to years after the war started..I suppose the philosophical question would be, if "reliable sources" in the US typically feed misinformation at the start of various wars (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq), why do we continue to consider them "reliable" during these particular times? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:50F6:C1D6:31E7:5B10 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost all the fake news that’s gone viral, has been pro-Ukrainian.

The tank that accidentally ran over the old man in his car (he survived), was a Ukrainian AA tank in Kyiv. Yet the media pushed it was a “Russian tank”.

https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220301-video-debunked-russian-tank-crush-civilian-car-kyiv

The “Ghost of Kyiv” Ukrainian ace-pilot shooting down multiple Russian jets in an old Mig was a fake story started by someone sharing images from a video game. Even the official Ukraine gov Twitter page and former president was promoting that fake news.

https://www.bbc.com/news/60528276 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/facebook-posts/ghost-kyiv-clip-video-game-not-video-fighting-ukra/


The image of the father crying as he says farewell to his daughter (in pink jumper) is also fake news. Our media said the brave man was staying to fight against the Russians while his family flee the country. They were actually fleeing to Russia, and he’s pro-Russian separatist fighting AGAINST the Ukrainian government.

https://www.techarp.com/internet/ukrainian-dad-fight-russians/?amp=1

The media claiming 13 soldiers on Snake Island were slaughtered by Russians after telling a Russian warship to F-off. They actually just lost radio contact when Russians took over, so the media claimed they must have all valiantly fought to the death without a shred of evidence. They instead surrendered and were arrested unharmed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10563487/Snake-Island-border-guards-initially-presumed-dead-captured-Russians-Ukrainian-Navy-says.html

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/02/28/snake-island-ukrainians-found-alive-taken-as-russian-prisoners/

These are fairly big ones. I have seen even Western Media heavily promote the above disinformation. Despite they're all really just honestly propaganda, yet none of them are mentioned in article so far at this time of writing. 49.186.96.78 (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but please keep in mindWP:DAILYMAIL. As for the Ghost of Kyiv those articles refer to the video footage (which were uploaded in response to reports about the pilot; he didn't make the story up), and not the actual person. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you though for pointing that out. I'll keep that in mind. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, then just take out the Daily Mail source. Occasionally that media gets it right but there's plenty of otsources saying the snake island border guards surrendered and were not killed, including the Ukrainian government themselves. Also there's no evidence that ghost of Kyiv exists. All we do have is undeniable proof that people lied dishonestly by using old photos or a video game footage and claiming it's real.
There was just one problem: The Ghost of Kyiv may be a myth.

While there are reports of some Russian planes that were destroyed in combat, there is no information linking them to a single Ukrainian pilot. One of the first videos that went viral, which was included in the montage shared by the official Ukraine Twitter account, was a computer rendering from a combat flight simulator originally uploaded by a YouTube user with just 3,000 subscribers. And a photo supposedly confirming the fighter’s existence, shared by a former president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was from a 2019 Twitter post by the Ukrainian defense ministry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Above source also says Snake island border guards weren't dead but taken prisoner by Russian forces.

And is there reason why none of my above information is in the article? Or do I need to create an account to add it in? I cannot Edit the article currently as it appears to be locked, so why I am now mentioning it here. There does seem to be One-sidedness when exactly zero Pro Ukrainian disinformation is being added to the article, despite there is many. My above NYT source even double confirms that is a legit reality. 49.180.174.106 (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What would you suggest we write about Snake Island? There's a fine line being walked here between whether information was misreported (due to not all the facts being present) or it was reported with the intent to decieve. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
And do you have problem with the other examples of disinformation?. The fact is there has been abundant cases of people jumping the shark and making an overly rosy view of Ukraine. Claiming soldier died after refusing to surrender (untrue). Social media posts deliberately using fake or old footages that are designed to decieve people onto believing in the ghost of Kyiv without any proof. Any information hastily pushed without need to verify or don't really care about verifying. They're not truths but propaganda all the same. And those are just the ones that can at least be verified as False and not get away with it. If they don't know the truth yet push a lie because they don't care about the truth at all. Then it is fooling the public with a motive to raise morale. That's technically disinformation that professional objective media shouldn't be publishing.49.180.174.106 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think all the Russians examples of disinformation is sourced with western media?
Because this wikipedia article IS propaganda itself. That's why they won't take any of your examples (or have russian media as source for missinformation from the west and Ukraine). 2A02:AA1:1028:E76C:431:1AF0:E706:1311 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Genocide in Donbas?

It's not 'misinformation' to say that there is a genocide in Donbass, this is a heavily debated issue. This page needs to stop only mirroring the western view. I could provide plenty of sources providing evidence for the UN definition of genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespearthrower (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please search through the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (OSCE SMM) reports and show us which report(s) document genocide. There were ceasefire violations by both sides that could quite likely qualify as war crimes, because they didn't distinguish between civilian and military targets. But these don't count as genocide. You could check in the Journal of Genocide Research or Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports to see if there is any documentation of genocide in Donbas since 2014.
The OSCE SMM has reduced its presence in Donbas, but currently is remaining there, so they're quite likely to speak up publicly and officially on war crimes, especially if the crimes scale up to genocide.
Evidence-free debates about facts are not relevant to encyclopedic knowledge. Boud (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence, I don't have to use the source you pick. No matter how you try to go around it, there are now mass graves of civilians in Donbass. (Sources: https://tass.com/world/1401797 https://greekcitytimes.com/2021/11/23/remains-taken-from-mass-grave/) Are mass graves of Russian civilians killed by Ukraine not evidence to you? With this level of evidence, Wikipedia editors are actively engaging in disinformation to claim the genocide is disinformation. Thespearthrower

It's external sources that claim that the genocide claim is disinformation, not Wikipedia itself. Nevertheless, whether the genocide claim is credible can be briefly discussed. Your two sources:
  • TASS: the reliability of TASS is unclear.
  • Greek City Times doesn't seem to be notable. The author, apparently a researcher, Lucas Leiroz of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, or maybe Lucas Leiroz of a different university: Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro according to [1]. Leiroz makes many factual type statements in this second article that overwhelmingly disagree with most sources, e.g. Russia has respected Ukrainian sovereignty throughout this time – this is false: see WP:FRINGE – see the references in Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas#August 2014 invasion by Russian forces; With that, Russia started a peacekeeping mission in order to protect the people of Donbass. Considering that Ukraine is the aggressor state in this war, – this contradicts all the facts; see WP:FRINGE. Regarding the claim that Ukraine was threatening the Russia-occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, you really should read the OSCE SMM reports. The OSCE SMM is a neutral party and is a very real, existing part of the broader European security and arms control structures.
As for the claims by Leiroz in [2] = [3], it is credible information to know that (a) bodies were exhumed and (b) "Russia has initiated against Ukraine in the European Court of Human Rights". Given that Azov Battalion "is a right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" and the OHCHR (which I referred to above as a reliable source) has documented Azov Battalion responsibility for human rights violations and war crimes, this is useful info. However, a more reliable source would be needed to know how many civilians died unavoidably versus how many died from war crimes. Moreover, evidence for genocide would need to be much stronger. A non-WP-notable researcher publishing on non-WP-notable websites, making claims of factual findings by an investigative team in a part of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces, is very unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedians for genocide in Donbas. Boud (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TASS, TASS is only considered a reliable source on the official positions of the Russian government. Anything beyond is not treated as reliable by the RSP noticeboard. Greek City Times seems to b a more reliable source, but it doesn't look like Mr. Feroz is one. He is a columnist for the WP:FRINGE Russian Insider and the WP:PARTISAN antiwar.com. His article for the Greek City Times is also an opinion piece, not journalistic reporting. I agree that Ukraine and Pro-Ukrainian sources have definitely spread propaganda, but I don't think that we have enough reliable evidence so far that a genocide is taking place. With all due respects, Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result:
Not moved per consensus garnered below. Please keep in mind when making and participating in this type of renaming that a hyphen between such as "Russo" and "Ukrainian" is incorrect and should be an endash (–) instead per MOS:ENDASH. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis → Propaganda and disinformation in the Russo-Ukrainian War – Expand to be about the wider conflict.--47.33.186.77 (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There's already a page, see Russian-Ukrainian information War Freedumbz (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation in a war and an information war are two entirely different things. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:50F6:C1D6:31E7:5B10 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
As per Category:Information_operations_and_warfare, there's another page using "information war". Also, this page seems WP:REDUNDANT as Russia and Ukraine have been in a state perpetual war --Freedumbz (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose but Support rename to Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the scope is considered to include the roughly 1-year leadup to the 24 Feb 2022 further invasion, as well as the invasion itself up until whenever it's considered to end. This is because although disinformation in the leadup is important, continued disinformation during the "fully-fledged" phase of the invasion is just as notable. The crisis article looks very likely to be renamed to Prelude ... , so keeping that name here will have a weaker justification. Adding propaganda or advertising into the name wouldn't add useful scope or clarify the scope. Boud (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete the article - The majority of the sources under Disinformation themes do not refer to the content as disinformation at all. It would be better if sources could be found that actually discuss how each theme is considered disinformation, otherwise this whole article violates WP:OR. There is no coherency to this article, rather random talking points. If such sources can not be found, this article should be deleted and content reworded and added to another page. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible. I did think about such a potential article some days ago. It is clear we shouldn't have separate pages for the crisis, the invasion and the Donbas war. So it's better to expand the scope and cover all of these in a single article. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename. The current title meets WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, and covers a short period (a few months at present), whereas the proposed title covers an eight-year period. One might ask: 1) whether the current title is WP:Notable, and 2) if there is sufficient content to meet WP:PAGEDECIDE and have a stand-alone article, or if there's a lack of information and it should be merged into a larger topic. As to #1, the topic is unquestionably notable, there are numerous sources. Number 2 is a little less clear, but there may already be enough material for a stand-alone article. However, if not, I still oppose the RM as proposed, because per WP:DUE it would represent only a tiny mention in that 8-year spanning topic, and the content available is much more voluminous than that already. If merged, it should be to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where per WP:DUE it would still merit significant coverage, and not moved to the proposed title where it wouldnn't. Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose but Support rename to Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. "Crisis" is a silly euphemism. It is war, and war it is. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (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.

Request to semi protect article

I have had to undo seemingly malicious vandalism. I believe the page needs semi-protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespearthrower (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, I think you can request that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda

Various propaganda is being spread on this page. It should be locked until reliable editors come forth. 138.51.71.148 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What propaganda? Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Moscow Times

I am not entirely certain whether Moscow Times is a reliable source and can be convinced either way. In any event I do not consider it sufficient to prove the faked demonstration. Surely there are additional sources if so Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Moscow Times is generally reliable, but this report originates from news agency Agence France-Presse. I will remove the source tag. —Michael Z. 14:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The Moscow Times is a reliable source. As Mzajac pointed out, they are also quoting Agence France-Presse, which seems trustworthy enough. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
ok. It was a question Elinruby (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims of Ukraine being governed by Neo-nazi's

This claim needs context. For balance, reference to the US and Ukraine's rejection of UN resolution A/76/460 [4][dead link] on the Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance should be made. The US's reasons for doing so are listed here [5]. As is usefully summed up in this article from raskrikavanje [6], the resolution serves to present the US and Ukraine as 'pro-Nazi'. It would be useful to have this context articulated. Ljgua124 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible coordinated, paid TikTok campaign

This report[1] looks like it makes new claims about disinformation. Full disclosure: Vice news is listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSPSS and I haven't read the discussion behind that lack of consensus. It may or may not be appropriate use to cite this here. For interested editors however, there are several "jumping off points" to other sources so this might be a good place to start reading for possible contributions to this article. --N8 04:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: see section #TikTok below. It's not clear to me whether that report is linked to any campaign such as you report here, and may be the result of TikTok's algorithmic results outside of any given campaign. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gilbert, David (11 March 2022). "Russian TikTok Influencers Are Being Paid to Spread Kremlin Propaganda". Contributions from Greg Walters. Vice News.

Misleading subsection heading

Under §3 Disinformation themes, the heading Fake CNN reporting is misleading. The subsection does not substantiate that CNN reported fake news, but rather that unspecified parties have spoofed CNN content. I urge editors to come up with a clearer heading to avoid any suggestion that CNN is at fault. Repszeus (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Resolved by another editor. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (Not moved) The proposed basis for this move is that the article represents a subtopic of another article but there is no consensus on which other article serves as the appropriate super-topic to this one thus leading to no consensus on the proposed move. (non-admin closure) --N8wilson 05:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis → Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – per suggestions in the previous move request Loew Galitz (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

I see two possible issues that would need clarification before I could vote confidently on this: one is about scope, the other has to do with subtopic relationships. Regarding scope: per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." It seems to me that the proposed title would imply a change of scope to an uncertain time period, mainly because of the change from the word crisis to invasion. When does an invasion end, and an occupation begin? For example, is there an invasion going on in the Donbas, or was the invasion in August 2014, and since then it's an occupation? Or maybe this is the second invasion? Crisis is a broader term that would cover the entire period if the 2022 invasion of all of Ukraine turns into a years-long affair. The other issue is subtopic relationships. The claim is that the article is "a sub-topic of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", but I view it more as a subtopic of Russian information war against Ukraine. If that's the case and we want to keep similar titles, then maybe this one should be called Russian information war in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis; but that's longer than the current title, and is not more WP:PRECISE, and per WP:CONCISE it's not an improvement. Or maybe it's a subtopic of Russian disinformation since 2000, but then the current title matches the style of that one so is okay as is. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Close request

Can someone close, please? Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2022 (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.

Hyphen vs. en dash

  • Comment. Just fyi, this title has been added to WP:RMT to replace the hyphen between "Russo" and "Ukrainian" with an endash per MOS:ENDASH. So when that rename is granted, this RM's current name will have to be altered. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • you mean when rename not granted :-) Oherwise why would one bother with the redirect? Loew Galitz (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you're asking, editor Loew Galitz. The rename I've requested should be granted under MOS:ENBETWEEN, and other related titles should also be changed to the endash. When your current title in this RM becomes a redirect, it will no longer be a movable title, so it will have to be altered to the title with the endash between "Russo" and "Ukrainian". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Not sure what you are talking about. Why and how on Earth the title of a redirect can be altered? Is there a technical possibility to alter the title of a page without actually moving it? Loew Galitz (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
          • So sorry, I wasn't clear. The redirect will no longer be eligible as a current title in this move request, so the current title will have to be altered to one that has an endash, as in Russo–Ukrainian, rather than a hyphen, which is incorrect per the community consensus at MOS:ENBETWEEN. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Mr Ellsworth, you are completely incorrect. 'Russo-' is a combining form, which takes a hyphen, not a dash, per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
And again this is a misinterpretation of our MOS. "Russo-" is incorrectly used. It's probably based upon the fact that somebody screwed the pooch and there are now a lot of article and category titles like this. So it's a rationalization taken beyond reason. This is not about "combining" Russian with Ukrainian; this is not about being like Japanese-Americans or Franco-Ethiopians. This is about a major conflict in the world BETWEEN Russia and Ukraine; this is about Russia VS. Ukraine. MOS:ENBETWEEN is very clear that endashes must be used in this type of situation. It is hoped that all will come to see it this way, because there is a lot of work needed to fix this, and the sooner the work is started, the better off and more neutral Wikipedia will be. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Mr Ellsworth, this is getting ridiculous. You go on about 'combining Russian with Ukrainian', implying that the hyphen somehow compromises the neutrality of the encyclopaedia, but you don't take ten seconds to stop and do your own research on this matter. I have provided links elsewhere. This has nothing to do with neutrality, nothing to do with 'combining Russian with Ukrainian'. It's a simple linguistic fact of the English language, which is very easy to confirm. 'Russo-' is a classically-derived combining form. The 'combining' is a linguistic combining, and nothing to do with what is actually happening. 'Russo-' cannot stand on its own as an independent word, as 'Russian' or 'Ukrainian' can, hence why it takes a hyphen, and not a dash. 'Russo-Ukrainian', like 'Anglo-French' or 'Sino-Japanese', is a singular compound word, not a matching of two equal LINGUISTIC entities, like 'Russian–Ukrainian' would be. Combining forms are used to create these new compound words, and infinite possible permutations exist. I presume you have never heard of the Russo-Turkish Wars, the Sino-Japanese Wars, the Franco-Prussian War? Please cease arguing in such a vigorous manner before bothering to confirm the actual facts of thing you are arguing about. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you've turned me on the usage of Russo-; it's all very confusing; so how is it decided which nationality comes before, that in this case Russia comes first – that is, why is it not "Ukrainian–Russian" or "Ukraine–Russia"? Seems alphabetical except where "Sino-Japanese" is concerned (maybe because Sino = Chinese, with a "C"?) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reading what I wrote, I appreciate it. I understand it is all very confusing. The English language is very well known for being a source of confusion! As for why it is not 'Ukrainian–Russian' (or with the combining form 'Ukraino-Russian'), there is no convention that I am aware of that dictates which entity comes first. Some seem to be in alphabetical order, some are not. We use common names on Wikipedia, hence why we have 'Russo-Japanese War' and 'Franco-Prussian War', which seem inconsistent. Likewise, 'Russo-Ukrainian War' was attested in sources when the relevant discussion was had, but 'Ukrainian–Russian War' was not. Sometimes, it's better not to ask why these things are as they are. They just are. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
They are (not just 'seem') inconsistent, but other factors are in play which may trump consistency, and I believe that is the case here. Consider the alternatives, which are sufficiently infelicitous, that the combining forms either don't exist, or are rare: *Japano-Russian War and *Prusso-French War. My native competence tells me these are both wrong, although I might need an assist from Pinker or some other skilled interpreter of such things to figure out precisely why. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Was going to chime in with support for Paine's comment based on use of en dash as a connector for separate entities vs hyphen only for single entities (e.g., Italian-Americans are one group, hence hyphen, but Spanish–American War is between two countries, it is not the war of "Spanish-Americans", hence en dash in my view), but RGloucester is correct in the interpretation of what MOS calls for, thus contrary to my preference, and contrary to what I believe is general usage outside Wikipedia; per MOS this must be a hyphen. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from WP:RM/TR

  • @Paine Ellsworth: Russo-Ukrainian War uses a hyphen-minus, as do other related titles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Tamzin – as our MOS states, "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between", the endash should be used. And as it expresses, "Russo" does not modify "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian". The hyphen implies that the first modifies the last, which is not the case; therefore, the hyphen should be changed to an endash in all cases. Wikipedia's style guideline, the result of community consensus, clearly leads us to use the endash in these cases, not the hyphen. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Paine Ellsworth: Assuming arguendo that that applies here, should there not be an RM for Russo-Ukrainian War before anythng is decided aboug subsidiary topics? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    There was an RM for that article that was closed just a few days ago. During that discussion, I suggested to use an en dash rather than a hyphen, and everyone who responded agreed about that. But the question got lost in discussion of the selection of the words rather than the punctuation. I suggest that the punctuation aspect is obvious and uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    To editor Tamzin: there is no argument here that isn't POV. Wikipedia is either neutral or it is not. And in every case where there should be no partiality shown, to include any and all Russo–Ukrainian articles, categories and such, hyphens should be replaced by endashes. No RMs are needed, because no matter what local consensuses would be, any closer worth their salt would know that the Wikipedia community has already addressed this issue and guides us to use endashes, not hyphens. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with POV. This is about consistency. It would be inconsistent to move this page without also moving related pages. Russo-Ukrainian War is a consensus title, and so moving it requires a new RM; thus the same extends to pages that mirror its title. And I'm not sure where you're getting "no matter what local consensus would be": MOS can be overridden by local consensus; the only real question is whether this is a deliberate local override or an accidental one. I don't have a strong opinion on the correct title here, but this clearly isn't a noncontroversial technical request. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is addressed at MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES: "for people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when applied as an adjective...". Russo-Ukrainian is analogous to the example given, Franco-British, which uses a hyphen because "Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word". The hyphen is thus correct. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is not a dual-nationality war; it is a war between two countries, and MOS:ENBETWEEN applies. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Forgive me, but it sounds as if you are suggesting that Russo- is a combining form with Ukrainian? That is just not NPOV, Extraordinary Writ. The MOS:ENBETWEEN is crystal clear. The hyphen is not used when neutrality and equality is required. Again, Russo does not in any way, shape, nor form modify Ukrainian. Neutrality would mean usage of the endash in each and every case. It's the difference between an individual being "cross-eyed" and someone having good "hand–eye" coordination. In the first, "cross" modifies "eyed", and in the second, "hand" does not modify "eye". All of these, categories, articles, all should be endash separations according to Wikipedia community consensus in the style guideline. We're either NPOV or we're not. So sorry, but no amount of rationalizing can change it. Whoever started this fiasco really screwed up, and we are now required by consensus to clean up the mess. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    The dictionary definition of "Russo-" is "a combining form of Russia or Russian", so I am indeed suggesting that it is a combining form. This is not a novel argument: we use hyphens for Sino-Indian War, myriad Anglo-French Wars, Russo-Japanese War, and Russo-Georgian War. Indeed, attempts to insert endashes into the latter two titles both experienced heavy precipitation: see Talk:Russo-Japanese War#Requested move 6 February 2021 and Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35#Requested move 28 January 2017. In both cases, participants agreed that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES – the same provision I'm citing here – required use of a hyphen. We would use an endash if the article were titled "Russia–Ukraine conflict" or "Russian–Ukrainian conflict", but consensus (both in the MOS and in practice) is clear that this sort of title needs a hyphen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    This argument is absurd. 'Russo-' is a classical combining form, like 'Franco-', 'Anglo-', or 'Sino-'. Because these forms cannot stand on their own, i.e. as an independent word in a sentence, and can only exist in compounds, they take a hyphen, not a dash, per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Mr Ellsworth and BarrelProof, your arguments completely miss the mark. This is not a place for WP:OR about how hyphens function. Look at any style guide, and you will find a confirmation of this point. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed my comment in the related other RM was about "Russia-Ukraine", not "Russo-Ukrainian", and the examples provided by Extraordinary Writ have left me scratching my head. At least it seems clear that this would not be an uncontroversial technical request, in light of the above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Then I submit that usage of "Russo" is incorrect and should be changed to "Russian" as in "Russian–Ukrainian". This is a conflict BETWEEN two nations, not a story about Russo-Ukrainians. This is about Russia VS. Ukraine and has nothing to do with dual nationalities. I'm at a loss that you don't see the crystal clear (to me) application of MOS:ENBETWEEN. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Mr Ellsworth, it strikes me that problem here is a lack of knowledge on your part of 1) the formation of these classical compounds and 2) world history. Conflicts between two nations have always been named this way in English, hence why we have the Sino-Japanese Wars, the Russo-Turkish Wars, the Sino-Vietnamese War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Italo-Ethiopian Wars. I could go on and on and on. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples, throughout history. This is the normal way names of wars BETWEEN countries are formed, at least when a combining form is used. Sometimes, there either is no combining form for relevant entity, or it is obscure/not used by some happenstance, hence why we have Polish–Soviet War, as 'Polish' doesn't have a common combining form. Never mind, though. Please stop disrupting this page with linguistic WP:OR. If you'd like to propose a change to the MoS, this is not the place to do it. If you'd like to reform the English language, I can assure you, this is not the place to do it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to promote discussion to its own section

@RGloucester and Paine Ellsworth:, if you both have no objection, I'd like to refactor this hyphen/en dash issue into its own top level (H2) discussion on this Talk page. It's seriously bludgeoning this RM which should be decided on its own merits, and can be resolved completely independently of the hypen/en dash question. I fear that having it here will squelch future feedback on the RM itself, which deserves a fair hearing. If there's no objection within a reasonable time (I'll watch your activity as a guide, and add an hour or two to make sure you've had a chance to get the pings and respond) then I plan to extract this conversation and add it as a separate section. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To editors Mathglot and RGloucester: so very sorry; it is done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 Resolved – thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment "2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis" article was renamed. It doesn't matter anymore. By the way the use of the hyphen was correct and if it wasn't this discussion shouldn't have been here but at the respective parent article but whatever. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • To editor Super Ψ Dro: yes, the discussion was here because I had incorrectly asked at WP:RMT for this title to be moved to "Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo–Ukrainian crisis" (with endash after "Russo"), and I had informed the RM above of my request. Conversation ensued and my argument was soundly trounced. That's why the talk was here and not somewhere else. Stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

TikTok

According to NewsGuard Technologies, experiments run on TikTok (new users, multiple countries, no follows, no searches, just watching the feed) show that disinformation about the war shows up in the first 40 minutes of signing up for a new TikTok account, and much of it matches the narratives being promoted by Russian governmental sources, including the disinformation being shown on RT, Sputnik, and other government-controlled sources. Some of the themes noted:

  • Ukrainian leaders are Nazis
  • There is genocide going on against Russian people in Ukraine
  • Ukraine and the United States are creating bioweapons labs on the Russian border

Matt Skibinski (@mskibinski) is a contact at Newsguard and was interviewed about the TikTok experiments. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian media involved

According to a report aired on the CNN media watchdog program Reliable Sources, the following Russian media are part of the disinformation campaign controlled by the Russian government: RT, Radio Rossii, Channel One Russia, Vesti FM, Russia-1, and Radio Mayak. Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Correcting false balance

The organization of the sections, and to some extent the introductory content in sections like the lead, and section #Aims and attribution, tend to obscure the fact that the overwhelming amount of disinformation is coming from the Russian side. The former "#Disinformation themes" section had twelve subsections, of which eleven are of Russian origin. This obscurantism tends to promote a false balance, or an impression that it is happening equally on both sides, which is wildly off-base.

Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we must avoid this impression, and ensure both that the amount of content in the article about disinformation originating from each side corresponds roughly to the preponderance of reliable sources per WP:DUEWEIGHT (which I think it does a good job of, currently, except in the introductory paragraphs), but also that the structure and the intro paragraphs reflect it as well. To state the obvious, there is overwhelmingly more information about Russian disinformation, and therefore the article must reflect that.

I've made a start, by converting the single, "#Themes" subsection into two subsections, #Russian themes and #Ukrainian themes, to separate them out by origin or who they benefit. This now makes the false balance of the lead (and to some extent, some of the body intro summaries) more starkly obvious, and that must be corrected next. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Another theme—birds

Here’s one I hadn’t heard before. Only mentioned in passing in this article, but there must be more elsewhere about these pathogen-carrying birds (NYT 3/20). Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Prerecording of "urgent" call to evacuate

Boud, thanks for creating this article. In your original version, you included section ‎#Prerecording of "urgent" call to evacuate. Although the article has evolved since then, that section remains unchanged. Can I ask what motivated its inclusion in the first place, because I'm not sure I get it. Is it the fact that an evacuation message was falsely timestamped "18 February", when it should've been "16 February"? I don't see how this is disinformation; it seems like it could be a typo, but even it was intentional, what difference does it make? If the evacuation call was faked, that would be different, but your text doesn't seem to be making that case, so where is the locus of the disinformation here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The Moscow Times says It exposed that a seemingly urgent call last Friday by Ukraine's separatist leaders for locals to evacuate to Russia had actually been recorded two days in advance. ... "
Therefore today, on February 18, we are organizing a large-scale evacuation of the civilian population into Russia," he says. So it's not that the message was falsely timestamped 18 Feb, it's rather that the message was presented as being "today 18 Feb", presenting the evacuation as a reaction to events, whereas two timestamps from Telegram (the details are not given) are apparently from 16 Feb for this and one related video. The Telegraph says Researchers at Belllingcat also used metadata to discover that footage of Donetsk's leader declaring the evacuation of citizens to Russia was actually recorded two days before the events he claimed caused the move. If you agree that these two sources consider this to be disinformation, then you can probably improve the text. I agree that what I put doesn't quite explain why The Moscow Times and The Telegraph consider the video to be disinformation rather than just a minor error. Hope this helps. Boud (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Boud:, thanks. Still struggling with this; let me see if I've got it right:
  • Feb 16: a video urging evacuation of Donetsk civilians to Russia is made by Donetsk separatist leaders, kept secret, and stuck on a shelf.
  • Feb 18: some event(s) happened (what?) that were scary enough that residents of Donetsk might worry about their personal safety if they remained at home.
  • Later on the 18th, the shelved video is released, and portrayed as if it were in response to the prior scary event(s), implying that it was just made in order to urge locals to evacuate *because* of the scary event(s).
Do I have it right, so far? If so, what is/are the scary event(s) in question? I'm still missing the import of it.
I looked at the Telegraph article and I don't see anything in that article about such a video. It does mention an 18 Feb. video involving Polish saboteurs and chlorine tanks, but that doesn't sound anything like this section. So at this point, I'd say that the Telegraph source doesn't verify the content in that section, and should be removed. But given my poor understanding of this whole incident or whatever it is, I could easily be missing something. As for the Moscow Times/AFP article, it does refer directly to a video held back for a couple of days. But the article makes some confused points about predictions of Ukrainian attacks (that as we know later, turned out never to have happened). The central point seems to be, that a video warning urging local Donetsk residents to flee to Russia in advance of an impending Ukrainian attack was indeed made:

"The president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, will soon issue an order for his forces to go on the attack," Donetsk rebel chief Denis Pushilin says in his video message.

"Therefore today, on February 18, we are organizing a large-scale evacuation of the civilian population into Russia," he says.

There followed notes about the video being held back two days, the importance of which I don't really see. After that, the article quotes various members of the press or politicians, saying that the Russians are scaring Donetsk civilians into evacuating, so they can bring in their own (Russian) tanks into the region. For example:

"Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtedly staged," investigative journalist Mark Krutov tweeted as worries spread that the rebels were moving people out so that Russian tanks could move in.

(I don't get why they couldn't just bring the tanks in anyway without evacuating the locals, but the article doesn't address that point.) So, what have we learned, here?
  1. That the Russians lied to their friendly, Russian-speaking civilians in Donetsk about an impending Ukrainian attack that never happened (well, it was a prediction that didn't turn out, maybe that's not quite a lie, but a misdirection), and
  2. they released their video to get the civilians to go to Russia instead of staying home, based on that lie/prediction (but why? So the locals wouldn't see the tanks? To enlist them in the Russian army? The article doesn't say.)
  3. And then, they held the video back two days, and released the lying prediction of a Ukrainian attack on the 18th, instead of releasing the lying prediction on the 16th.
It's hard trying to tease out what is going on here, and where exactly the "meat" of the misdirection is. I think it's about getting people to flee so they can get tanks to come in, although I still don't see why they needed to evacuate, nor the importance of the two-day delay in releasing the video. Can you help me make more sense of this? If the only thing they lied about worth mentioning in the article, is a two-day delay in a lying predictive video, I don't see that as being sufficiently major to include in the article, and then I'd drop the whole section. But I still get the feeling that I'm missing something important in this story. Can you help out? Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: My feeling is that the intended implication, in between the lines, from The Daily Telegraph, is that recording the video on 16 Feb was done in the knowledge that the other fake news, such as the "sabotage and chlorine attacks", would be released by early 18 Feb, so that an evacuation would by mid 18 Feb sound urgently justified. I agree that pre-recording a video by two days, in isolation, does not sound like a very significant disinformation event. I personally don't have a strong preference for either keeping or removing the section, but removing it would seem reasonable, to minimise OR risks. My main aim in creating the article was to start a sufficiently reasonable base for people to develop further: if some parts turn out to be poorly sourced or confusing or non-notable, then removing them would be best. The dates of the discussion here on the talk page and the comments we've made so far should be enough for someone to come along and restore the section if s/he finds clearer sources and can explain things better. Boud (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Boud, that makes perfect sense to me, especially in light of your creating the article in the first place, which is the hardest part, and searching for reliable sources. I agree with your conclusions, so let's drop that section for now, and if more sources or a better interpretation of them arise, someone can always resurrect it from the history. Thanks again for creating the article, and your efforts here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Information from 2014-2016

@Volunteer Marek: Can you tell where any of the sources from 2014 - 2018 on this revert of yours are relevant to this article called Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis?

They make no mention of a "fake news", "disinformation", or any other equivalent.

You should self-revert. Segaton (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Boud and Buidhe: Can you guys comment as well? Segaton (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek's revert seems (update: seemed) valid to me. The current version (including a minor copyedit by me) has:
  • paragraph 1 - Putin's claim and some uncontroversial facts which are relevant and give the reader some relevant information for him/her to judge if Putin's claim is disinformation or not;
  • para 2 - mainly sources that give opinions on why Putin's claim is either realistic or dubious or disinformation;
  • para 3 - more context about neo-nazi groups in both Ukraine and Russia.
The reader is not only interested in who says that the information is disinformation, but will want to know why the different sources make their claims. S/he will have difficulty coming to his/her own conclusions if there is no context about RS'd knowledge about neo-nazi groups in the two countries. Para 3 does not make any OR about what the reader should conclude from this knowledge. It's the third out of three paragraphs, so it's available for the reader wanting a bit more depth. Boud (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Boud: But it is more about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If the sources say nothing about any "disinformation" in the "2021–2022" conflict then that should be removed. Aside the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, I have issues with this whole paragraph which mostly depend on IFRI.org written in 2016 and they make no mention of any "disinformation", and talk only about what happened in the early months of 2014 but at p.28 under the heading "Conclusion" they conclude that: "The fact that right-wing radicals, including self-confessed neo-Nazis, took part in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has attracted much attention from the media and in society. But although they did play their part in the first few months of the conflict, in the spring and summer of 2014, their importance has often been exaggerated." It also says that "The conflict developed in such a way, moreover, that the importance of far- right groups on both sides has declined over time. The direction in which politics is moving in Ukraine and in the unrecognised, pro-Russian and “separatist” DNR and LNR has also helped to push far-right groups from the mainstream into the margins." If anything, it is saying almost opposite to what is being presented.
This is why the 3rd paragraph (except the last sentence) should be removed because it has nothing to do with any "disinformation" during "2021-2022" conflict. Segaton (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with @Segaton:. Except for the last sentence sourced to the March 2022 article by "Dissent", nothing in the paragraph has anything to do directly with the general events of 2021-2022, let alone disinformation during the recent crisis. Further, the wording presented in the paragraph is misleading. It sounds as if the neo-Nazi RNU is still active even today (2022), as well as at the start of the war (2014), despite the fact the RNU has not existed for the past 22 years (banned in 1999 and defunct since 2000). As for the other group mentioned, Interbrigades, it was active at the start of the war (2014), but no sources confirm that it actually exists today, last time they were mentioned was back in 2015. So again, nothing related to today's events. So almost the whole paragraph raises the question of WP:SYNTH and should be either mostly removed or majorly restructured to reflect current events (and not events and defunct groups from 7-8 years or more than 20 years ago). EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't check the info to much depth; it looks like my opinion above is overridden by Ekograf's analysis. I replaced seems by seemed in my above comment. Boud (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide claims

While the Russian claims of genocide by Ukrainian forces has been already covered, it also seems that Zelensky has been frequently claiming that Russian are committing a genocide.

See this Washington Post article, written by a capable historian who debunks this claim by Zelensky.

I support covering that on this article. Shashank5988 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's from March 15 makes it kind of irrelevant by this point. Volunteer Marek 05:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Still dated and concerns same repetitive claims. It's not irrelevant unless Russians are now being accused conducting 'genocide' against a different linguistic, racial or ethnic group. A historian is not going publish same article every time Zelensky repeats the same claim unless his claims involve completely new elements. Shashank5988 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that imply that Russian war crimes can be qualified as an act of genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.131.2 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are currently considered a viable topic, not disinformation. See the sources there, though there is not yet consensus among scholars that the definition of genocide is satisfied. Boud (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ria article: What Russia should do with Ukraine

I propose to include What Russia should do with Ukraine as an example of a brazen disinformation piece called to equate Ukrainian govt, military and people with some "nazi". AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinfo example in English

For those who may not have seen actual examples of bald-faced disinformation coming out of this war before, perhaps because most of it is in Russian or Ukrainian, check out this article at Grayzone about supposed "deceptions" and "media malpractice" concerning the Mariupol hospital bombing. According to Grayzone, the Associated Press, NPR, and the Washington Post are all in on a western conspiracy inventing the story that the hospital was bombed. Grayzone has already been examined multiple times at RSN, and the closure at this Rfc noted that Grayzone "Publishes false or fabricated information". A lot of disinformation is much more subtle than this, interweaving bits of truth with the fabrications, but this one doesn't even bother. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this article only about Russian and Ukrainian disinformation?

Does this article's scope include U.S. and European disinformation? I think it should do so. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am asking below why this article is separated from a similar one.
Russia prepared the war starting before 2014. The West slept.
Russian propaganda is centralized. The West includes tens of states and thousands of media houses and projects. Name coordinated Western actions against Russia. Western media quote Putin and his cronies, even if the Russian leaders present genocidal ideas, lie, have no idea about history.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Jojalozzo: Yes, there is no restriction to disinformation by Russian authorities alone. See the section immediately below - this is one part of the scope that distinguishes it from Russian information war against Ukraine. For both articles, we need sources that are reliable in documenting disinformation. This in itself is tricky, because there can be disinformation about disinformation, and multiple meta-layers of confusion. In any case, it's up to editors to find good sources and achieve consensus in editing. Boud (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian information war against Ukraine

Why are the two pages separate, if they describe similar subjects?
There is no 'crisis' but an invasion. If this page finishes somewhere in March, why? What did happen in March? Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Russian information war against Ukraine (1) starts from 2013 and (2) by its title, is mainly about Russian disinformation, not about the "responses" or disinformation campaigns by other governments. The scope of Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis is meant to be complementary: (1) starts from around Feb 2022 and (2) includes disinformation by any governments, not just the Russian government.
It does actually look like there's some duplication, with people adding to Russian information war instead of here to Disinformation. I tend to prefer modular articles rather than monolithic ones, so I would recommend possibly shifting some of the material over there to here and leaving summaries and cross-links there. I'm not active in these two articles though, so better that people likely to be active in doing useful editing work give their comments. Boud (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeat reversions by Kleinpecan to delete references to Azov as a neo-nazi group

I have suggested that @Kleinpecan make this topic himself in light of their repeat reversions, but I am also willing to create the heading here so we can talk about their views.

Kleinpecan objects to the identifying Azov brigade as a neo-nazi group, although they are identified as such in reasonable sources. Kleinpecan, why don't you develop your points a little more here so anyone who is interested can talk about it? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Once again: the onus is on you to explain why this text should be in the article, not on me to explain why it should not be.
I think this edit summary explains it well enough: because calling the Azov Regiment a neo-Nazi group the way it was done in this edit is synthesis. Let's take the second example of synthesis in that guideline:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

and change some words in it:

Russia's stated objective is to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, and the neo-Nazi unit Azov Battalion is among the Ukranian forces fighting against Russia.

Kleinpecan (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Kleinpecan, this looks like a sneaky attempt at POV and SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 19:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. It is not a "sneaky attempt at POV and SYNTH"
On the focused point:
The article currently says, "Putin has repeatedly described Ukraine, which has a Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as being governed by neo-Nazis and "Banderites". Putin has said he wants denazification of Ukraine. Zelenskyy has stated that his grandfather served in the Soviet army fighting against the Nazis; three of his family members died in the Holocaust.
While Ukraine, like all countries, has a far-right fringe, analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate."
This is true, but its a partial truth because it avoids the fact of the neo-Nazi unit Azov Brigade. In this state, the article gives the impression that the claim is totally baseless, instead of an exaggerated claim built around the fact that a neo-nazi regiment does exist.
What do you think would be a better way of addressing that fact, instead of what I wrote? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The claim IS totally baseless. You just kind of gave the game away here buddy. Go start your next account (current one was started in June 2022). Volunteer Marek 20:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
You're responding like I don't agree the Russian claims of de-nazification and the like are misinformation. I agree with you to that extent, so I should make that clear. I would argue that taken as a whole Russia is a far more right wing country than Ukraine. But the fact remains Russian claims are built around a nugget of truth - Ukraine has a neo-nazi regiment in its armed forces. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not think that "the article gives the impression that the claim is totally baseless"—the second cited paragraph seems to contradict that impression. But if you want to expand that paragraph (e.g., "While Ukraine, like all countries, has a far-right fringe, such as the Azov Regiment ..."), I wouldn't mind that. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's do that. For those purposes, why don't we go back to the Al-Jazeera article? I think that has a good canvassing of the issues. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the Al Jazeera article would be redundant because it is primarily a description of the Azov Regiment and only dedicates a single sentence to Russia's claims about it, whereas the two articles that are already referenced in our article ("The Facts on 'De-Nazifying' Ukraine" by FactCheck.org and "Putin says he is fighting a resurgence of Nazism. That's not true" by NBC News) are specifically about how the presence of the regiment in the National Guard has been (ab)used by the Russian government as justification for the invasion. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I had already put in the AJ article, but I wouldn't have any issue to switching it out for one of those either JArthur1984 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

They are two possible options here: Azov is indisputably undeniably a neoNazi group, thus this should not be in the article about disinformation. Because it is a fact. The other option is that it is disputed fact, which depends on your perspective, thus one side or the other might see calling them neoNazis as "misinformation", in which case this thus 100% should belong here in the article! Clearly so. Thus the question I have for the editors here, which is it? Is Azov indisputably undeniably a neoNazi group, or not? Mathmo Talk 05:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Mathmo, this is the third fourth article you followed me to in just a few hours. This is pretty clearly gone over into WP:STALKing behavior. Volunteer Marek 05:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Please don't throw out baseless accusations like that, as it is hardly shocking that I've got an interest in wikipedia articles to do with the current crisis which is going on right now when my own family history comes from Ukraine, so d'oh it's no surprise that I'm browsing and editing such topics!
And you didn't answer the question your replying to, which are they? Is Azov an indisputably undeniably neoNazi group or not? Mathmo Talk 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Price hikes & Weapons of Mass Destruction

Both sections have just recently been removed in the most recent version, why? Is it claimed they're 100% true? That would be a worthy justification for them to then not be in this article. Otherwise, if these claims are disputed/controversial, then surely they should be included? As they're some of the biggest topics related to this crisis! Mathmo Talk 04:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Support the WMD removal, there are two well-sourced claims from officials about plans/possibility of exiting non-proliferation treaty.
On the fence about the Putin's price hike: I think it should be in the article as war-related disinformation (FT states the economists' consensus is no single major reason for inflation exist, not to mention calling the war a price hike is bad as it is), but it really depends on the scope of the article - is it about war-related disinformation, or is it about disinformation about the war. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are either of these pieces “disinformation”? Volunteer Marek 17:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The only relevant part in the WMD piece is the nonsense about a dirty bomb. I guess I would be ok with putting that back in though the sourcing is thin. Volunteer Marek 17:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, i've made a discussion below to re-add the "dirty bomb" paragraph part, you can check it out. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

restore this part of the "weapons of mass destruction" part

"On 6 March 2022, Russian media agencies TASS, RIA and Interfax made unsubstantiated claims that Ukraine is making a nuclear dirty bomb.[1] According to experts, creating nuclear arms would pose a challenge to Ukraine and there were no signs of it happening.[2]"

while i agreed with removing the first parts of the section, these ones actually make sense to be included because.... well, theyre actual disinformation. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the sourcing for the first statement is poor: news agencies published a rumour while attributing it as a rumour - definitely propaganda, hardly disinformation.
I found a much more thorough overview of Russian claims in this area, which might be a better source if information about a dirty bomb should be included: https://nonproliferation.org/russian-misinformation-about-ukrainian-radiological-weapons-capabilities-and-intentions/ (also note differences between nuclear and radiological explained)
A very odd recent development is that Russian press started to extensively cover the old story about UN atomic agency claiming that large amounts of plutonium and enriched uranium were stored on Zaporizhzia plant before it was taken by Russian army - denied by Ukraine:
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-25/card/u-n-atomic-agency-chief-presses-for-access-to-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-g7vHkGVBMtlvYgYQPakd
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-grossi-at-davos-nuclear-power-climate-change-and-ukraine
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/79575/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-nuclear-inspectorate-accuses-iaea-falling-russian-propaganda-2022-05-27/
It all looks very murky, and IMO would be better if more information surfaces before its included. At this point I think there's sufficient coverage to state that there are extensive unconfirmed Russian propaganda claims about dirty bomb, as well as bizarre IAEA claims disputed by Ukraine that seemingly would give some ground to the theory (according to Ukraine nuclear inspectorate). PaulT2022 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
if you have sources about these Russian disinformation campaigns, go ahead and add them. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Russia, without evidence, says Ukraine making nuclear "dirty bomb"". Reuters. 6 March 2022. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Ukraine War: Putin's Victory Day speech fact-checked". BBC. 9 May 2022.

Clarify scope and/or split

As the history of this article shows, it was created on 23 February 2022, when the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was still a hypothetical event, following a suggestion on the talk page of what is now called Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It now looks ridiculous to have the name Crisis, when the main event is the Russian military invasion and massive war crimes by Russian armed forces. Strictly speaking, we could change the name to Disinformation in the prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and during the invasion itself, but that would be much too cumbersome. It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

  • clarify scope as prelude+invasion: change the title to Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for conciseness, where the lead will clarify that the article also includes the prelude period; update and improve the WP:LEAD, which no longer accurately describes the content, to cover both the prelude and the invasion; where it makes sense, divide the "prelude" and "invasion" components within the article, and where it doesn't make sense thematically to split, keep the prelude and invasion parts within their thematic sections;
  • split into prelude+invasion: separate into two articles on disinformation in the prelude versus disinformation during the invasion, with matching titles.

I think that either option would be valid, but only if people are willing to do the editing work. I would suggest that people willing to do that first start on clarifying the current lead and structure, since prelude+invasion is a natural division, to a fair degree, per numerous sources, in parallel to seeing what rough consensus here emerges on a title change. That would not prevent a split, which could be done later if/when the content is too much for a single article. Boud (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Izolyatsia prison fake videos

Izolyatsia prison (propaganda section), videos circulated claimed to show ISIL fighters alongside Ukrainian Azov detachment members in the Izolyatsia prison, BBC and Wikimapia refuted the claims as fake, showing the actual location of the video. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Those videos were made years before the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. How are they relevant to this article? Kleinpecan (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
My bad, i checked the wrong article (the recent one debunking some fake news on the war and in the article they included this one). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Coverage by Western media

Roman Kubanskiy added some contents on criticism of Western media [7], that My very best wishes first removed [8] because The lead suppose to summarize content of the page. This content does not appear in the body. Improper summary. As the contents were well-sourced and relevant, I restored them [9] and placed them in the section "Western themes" (which was called, perhaps too narrowly, "US themes"). However, MVBW removed them again [10], this time because Most or all these sources do not even use wording like "disinformation". "Bias", "evoking sympathy" and "propaganda" - yes, maybe, but this is not the same as disinformation. This way of "adjusting" the reasoning based on the circumstances verges on a strategic use of argumentation, which is discouraging... Anyway, the sources DO USE "bias" ([11] and [12] even "racism"), and "propaganda" ([13] [14] [15]). MVBW apparently noticed this while writing the edit summary (yes, maybe) and yet he believes that this is not the same as disinformation. Could you please tell us, MVBW, what's the difference between "propaganda" and "disinformation"? And why do not allegations of propaganda belong to this article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted per WP:BRD this edit [16] made just a day ago. Yes, I did not explain all reasons in the first edit summary. There were several reasons. One of them: the included content is simply not about disinformation (the subject of this page), but about something else, such as the alleged pro-Ukrainian bias, propaganda or racism by "Western media". I do not know if there is such bias or racism, but in any case the bias or racism is simply not on the subject of this page. Second reason, I doubt that some of the cited sources qualify as strong RS on this subject, for example [17] or [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, some other content just re-inserted by Gitz [19] misrepresents a release of declassified USA intelligence information, some of which was not "rock solid" (sure, it is usually not "rock solid") as a disinformation. Here is the source [20], and it does NOT call this "disinformation". Let's cite it: But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.. OK, the US officials had a reason to believe that Russia could in fact use the chemical weapons [based on the intelligence which is not "rock solid", and that the release of such intentions was needed as a deterrence. Yes, this source does mention "disinformation", but from the side of Moscow, which is an entirely different thing ("In 2020, nine of 11 U.S. military combatant commanders signed a memo urging the U.S. intelligence community to declassify more information to counter disinformation and propaganda from Moscow and Beijing."). This is not how it is written in the suggested text. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
First of all, stop edit warring. There's nothing so absolutely urgent compelling you to remove these materials without first building a consensus on the talk page. Secondly, bulk removals prevent meaningful discussion. When reverted, you should open separate sections. This is the section I opened to discuss "Coverage by Western media". If you start talking about NBC on "The new strategy the U.S. is using in the info war against Russia", the discussion becomes messy. THis way of editing is disruptive and not conductive to consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with MVBW that the text added by Roman Kubanskiy does not belong to this article, as it does not actually talk about disinformation, and some of the sources seem biased or unreliable to me. Modern Diplomacy, for example, publishes articles about how the Euromaidan was a "coup" planned by the US State Department and Google with the goal of replacing Ukraine's government with "nazis (or racist-fascists)" ([21]), and has a podcast episode about "Vaccine Passports Mandated in the New World Order" ([22]). The Monthly Review article about "Western media run[ning] blatant atrocity propaganda for the Ukrainian government" is a republication of a Substack blog post written by Caitlin Johnstone, a self-described "rogue journalist" who writes for outlets such as Consortium News ([23]), Russia Insider ([24]), Dollar Collapse ([25]) and RT ([26]), none of which are reliable. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Those sources are dubious, at the very least. -- Mindaur (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. If the journalist is really published in the media, which are banned in the English Wikipedia, then no. What do you think about this? [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
As I've said, none of those sources talk about disinformation. This text belongs in Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, or maybe some other article, but not here. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course they do not talk about disinformation. Same with sources in the section on the alleged Ukrainian censorship [32]. Yes, censorship may be connected with disinformation, but such connection must be made explicitly in the cited sources. They do not make such connection and do not say anything about disinformation in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
It's funny that you removed the sections related only to Ukraine and the USA. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think we might remove subsections on all countries in "Censorship". I did not do it only because sources in sections about Russia and China did mention disinformation and one of participants objected to removals. I made an edit to clarify the relevance for China (none of my two last edits was a revert). My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Now Apply- 1RR is in Effect

All editors are advised that I have placed this article under indefinite WP:ACDS editing restrictions. Specifically, no editor may make more than one revert in any 24hr period. See WP:1RR. Additionally, I have extended the semi-protection indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

discussion regarding recent edits

I appreciate the decision to apply the 1RR on this article. However, the article was placed under that rule after that User:My very best wishes had made a few changes that I believe make the article worse. After being reverted multiple times, MVBW did not open a discussion on the talk page but insisted on the following changes:

  1. He removed a source on disinformation about Russian military losses explaining this is good source, and on the subject of the page, but it tells nothing about Russian military losses [33]. However, the source says

    Like the Russians, the Ukrainian side has contributed to the information war with its own propaganda campaign. Officials have claimed, for instance, that the number of fatalities among Russian soldiers is much higher than United States intelligence estimates.

  2. He removed the subsection on Ukrainian disinformation about Russian military losses [34]. In the edit summary he explained Not a proper summary of two cited sources. They (...) do not define this as disinformation by Ukrainian side. However, Fortune says

    According to Davies, Ukraine’s government is engaged in a misinformation campaign that aims to boost morale, and Western media is generally happy to accept its claims. That makes it likely that Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree.

    El Pais speaks of propaganda and says

    Ukraine, which claims to have killed 11,000 Russian soldiers while barely mentioning casualties in its own ranks, is encouraging the population with its tale of successful resistance.

  3. He removed a subsection about censorship in Ukraine because these sources say nothing about disinformation. The underlying assumption is that censorship is different from disinformation. However, MVBW did not remove the analogous subsections about censorship in Russia and China [35]. This is NPOV: if censorship is different from disinformation, that is the case also for China and Russia's propaganda. The subsection on Russia in particular says nothing about disinformation as deliberate circulation of fake news. Based on that rationale, we could remove it. But do we want to remove it?
  4. He removed from the lead section any mention of Ukrainian disinformation and, with the same edit, he shortened the text and modified it so as to make it less informative and less close to the source [36]. We used to have a lead saying that Russia and the separatists engaged in disinformation, and that also Ukraine engaged in disinformation, although to a lesser extent, according to the NYT. Now we have a lead saying Russia and the separatists engaged in disinformation - stop. Is that OK? Does that reflect the contents of the article?

I believe that these four edits need to be discussed in the talk page and gather consensus, so I would like to bring the article back to the "wrong version", this one: [37]. That can easily be done with one single revert, but I'd like to know from @Ad Orientem if that would comply with 1RR and could be done without fear of sanctions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not really a question to me - as framed. But I will reply. #1 and #2. Yes, these sources do cast doubt in reliability of data provided by Ukrainian military. Everyone, including me, totally agree that their data are not reliable, just as data provided by Western intelligence and of course by Russian military. However, unreliable data and propaganda is not the same as intentional disinformation. Even misinformation is not the same as disinformation. Hence does not belong to this page, sorry. Other pages - yes, possibly. #3. I have reply to this already on this talk in previous thread and made a correction on the page [38]. I kept these subsections precisely because you objected to such removals. I am fine with removing or keeping these subsections. I was saying that cited sources in this section make the connection with disinformation, not the text currently used on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
And no, a revert just for the sake of revert, i.e. without providing a proper explanation of why the older version was better in terms of content (I think you did not provide it) would be disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
(As a note of order, Gitz6666 now changed their comment I responded to). #4 - No, because the lead must fairly summarize content of the page. We now have only one small section about this because. Hence we can not dedicate 50% of the lead to summarizing this section. In addition, sources used in this section (e.g. [39]) do not call the story with the "Ghost of Kiev" an intentional "disinformation". Note that something like a fairy tale or a myth and disinformation are different. Hence, even this section arguably does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I provided an explanation of why I believe the article was better before you edited as described here above.
Just one remark: you say that propaganda is different from disinformation, so we shouldn't deal with Ukrainian propaganda in this article (and you're fine with removing the subsections on Russian and Chinese censorship). To support the reasoning you add a wikilink to Disinformation. However, as you know, you edited Disinformation two days ago and you removed from the lead the sentence [disinformation] ... by 2001 referred generally to lying and propaganda [40]; you also removed the sentence Disinformation is a subset of propaganda. So basically you removed all references to propaganda in disinformation after I asked you (here above at 22:30, 17 August 2022) Could you please tell us, MVBW, what's the difference between "propaganda" and "disinformation"? (I had asked you this because in an edit summary you claimed that propaganda is not the same as disinformation [41]).
I didn't look into the sources but I'm confident we can safely assume that Ukrainian/Russian/Chinese/etc. propaganda and censorship fall within the scope of this article: in order to effectively spread false news ("disinformation") one needs to manipulate the public and impose an official truth ("propaganda") and one needs to silence dissent ("censorship"). But if there's no agreement on this, then I'm afraid that NPOV dictates that we drop the (rather good and useful IMHO) subsection on Russian censorship. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I would not comment on another page here. Yes, I agree that propaganda and censorship may fall within the scope of this article, but only if the connection of propaganda and censorship with disinformation was explicitly made in cited sources. I do not see such connection made in sources used in Ukrainian section. If I am missing something, please cite some text where such connection was made. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Given no response here, I fixed it. Same is here [42]. Perhaps one can find sources saying this is a disinformation by Russian side, but not Ukrainian side. Also keep in mind that misinformation is not the same as disinformation, and that a view by a single not named person hardly deserves inclusion anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gitz6666@My very best wishes A discussion regarding recent edits is fine. But this should be done in separate section. I suggest this be moved accordingly. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sure. I see this is done already. Well, this is just one of many pages I tried to fix. The fixes were very much obvious in my opinion. I usually avoid editing pages under 1RR restriction, but this subject is interesting, so I might continue. My very best wishes (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Grandmother with red flag

I randomly read one section from this article, the one about the grandmother with the red flag (actual version), and it spiked my interest so I decided to Google more info. And found this interview from the BBC, and to my surprise I see that the section doesn't correspond at all with reality, to the point that I worry actual misinformation is being included here. Specially this part: she wanted to "placate" them with a red Bolshevik flag so they would not destroy the village. She now regrets it and feels like a "traitor". Reading the article though, what we see is the following:

The soldiers say they have arrived to help and offer her a bag of food. Then they take the flag off her, throw it on the ground and stamp on it. So the woman, feeling insulted, gives the food back to them. "My parents died for that flag in World War Two," she says, indignantly.

"I was just happy that Russians would come and not fight with us. I was happy that we would unite again."

The red flag, she says, is not the flag of the Soviet Union, not of Russia, but "the banner of love and happiness in every family, in every city, in every republic. Not of bloodshed. And whoever says otherwise, is wrong."

"Putin is a president. A tsar, a king, an emperor."

"I'm not happy they've made me famous. Because in Ukraine, now they consider me a traitor."
— BBC

She does go to say that she is against war and that she considers that Putin has made a mistake because he is causing suffering and that now she thinks that the Russians only care about conquering Ukrainian lands, but she doesn't say that she feels like a traitor or that she was using the flag so that the Russians didn't destroy the village. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase? I am not sure what you suggest here. You contradict yourself. You say: "she doesn't say that she feels like a traitor", but you quote her as saying "I'm not happy they've made me famous. Because in Ukraine, now they consider me a traitor." And she did say the following "If I could speak to Vladimir Putin I would say, you've made a mistake. Us Ukrainian workers, what have we ever done to deserve this? We are the ones who are suffering the most.". Clearly, the incident and the "babushka" were misused by Russian propaganda according to all sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes, one thing is feeling like a traitor, and another one is not being happy that you are considered a traitor. And sure, it can be propaganda, but clearly she didn't wave the flag of the Soviet Union only to "placate" the Russians. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
What do you suggest? Remove whole thing from this page? Or rephrase? How? My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I'm leaning remove. I mean, it is clear that she has become an icon of propaganda, but was it disinformation? I have tagged on the article the part that I believe to be problematic. If that part is removed, is the whole thing disinformation? The grandma clearly was pro-Russian when the Russians got there and that is what the Russians used. I appreciate any input on this subject — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian military losses + Ukrainian censorship

@My very best wishes: With regard to this edit [43] (removal of the section "Russian military losses") the problem is that the quoted sources do not speak only of discrepancies in numbers, that is, possible mistakes: they speak of deliberate mistakes, that is, intentional disinformation. I've already provided verbatim quotations from the three quoted sources here above at 09:48, 20 August 2022. Therefore I'm now reverting your removal.

The problem with that text, however, is that disinformation with regard to military losses does not belong to the Ukrainian party alone, but also to the Russian party. We need to find a way of saying this - e.g. creating a similar section under "Russian themes" or, perhaps better, making it clear in this very section. The solution, however, is not the complete removal of a section which is relevant and supported by sources.

With regard to this edit [44], the argument can be made that censorship and disinformation are closely related (see the quoted Guardian itself: some see the unified TV coverage as propagandistic and point to the fact that airtime is now almost exclusively given to people close to the president ... "The telemarathon does not reflect reality, it forms a picture that the authorities would like to see). If, however, we think that they are substantially different and we want to remove censorship from the article, then we need to remove also the sections on Russia and China's censorship, and in the case of Russia we need to move some contents and sources from here to Media freedom in Russia. I doubt the quality of the article would improve, so perhaps we need to discuss about this, whether it's worth or not - so I'm reverting that removal as well. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead

The lead is right now not balanced. It has one sentence about Russian efforts, and then one about the Ukrainian. While the latter is qualified with " even though such stories were not comparable to the Russia's disinformation campaign", it is still problematic. First, the cited source calls the Ukrainian efforts "propaganda or morale boosters", not "disinformation". Second, majority of sources agree most of the disinformation comes from the Russian side. Our article needs to make it clear. Russian side has engaged in numerous misnformation, disnformation and fake news, while the Ukrainians at worst have slightly exaggerated the Russian military losses. Lastly, the lead should summarize the article's contents, and it doesn't do so: the body has a dozen+ themes of Russian disinformation, and only two of Ukrainian (Ghost of Kiev, Russian military losses). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the lack of balance in the lead is very much obvious. Things like that would be quickly fixed on most pages, and no one would object. I can see you fixed this already. Good work except that one should not include things like the Ghost of Kiev as not belonging to this page. One can possibly find a couple of sources calling this "misinformation" (which is not disinformation), but in general this story is regarded as a myth or mystery. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Grandmother with red flag"

I suggest rewriting this into a broader topic, "Fake claims of local populace support for Russian 'liberators'" or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Add a hatnote linking to Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine to "Claims Wikipedia is publishing false information". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_1&oldid=1175553158"