Talk:Disinformation

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


 * First, thanks for splitting the article on post-soviet disinformation
 * I do not think that a merge between disinformation attack and disinformation is correct. Disinformation, according to the Harvard Shorenstein Center means two things: (1) one is a research stream to understand media manipulation (which includes the use of fake news, astroturfing, and propaganda), and (2) it is a type of covert activity usually led by intelligence agencies (but not only). Therefore, I think that keeping the disinformation article separate can help people understand that disinformation is a general set of actions, as well as a concrete activity. See for instance, the 2018 report by the European Commission, defining disinformation at a more broader level that can include private firms seeking profit, not only state-level actors.
 * I do agree that the disinformation article should make a better job at defining disinformation (orchestrated campaign aiming for media/social media manipulation) differently from an disinformation as a targeted attack. MexFin (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the article should be renamed to State-sponsored disinformation, because simply "Disinformation" doesn't convey the subtly. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a case for distinguishing between multiple types of disinformation, yes. However, It is probably better if it can be in the same article. I agree that the start of the current version of the article is all about military intelligence and the box is about warfare. As a result, the beginning is mostly about state-sponsored disinformation. However, there is also a discussion within the article about disinformation on social media, which may emerge from multiple actors, including states and private individuals. As per the European Commission and Harvard U. references above, disinformation can be for both harm or profit.
 * The limitation of your suggestion is that disinformation is always covert, which means that determining its origin is not always possible. In other words, it is not always possible to determine if it is state-sponsored or not. My suggestion: Keep the article on disinformation, but re-section it so that it starts with its history anchored on state-sponsored disinformation. Then, it can have a large section on social media disinformation. Perhaps if both sections are large enough, they can have their own pages. MexFin (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am listening to Dark Arts: Disinformation talk in Wikipedia North America conference. The original article helped understand how disinformation attacks worked and now the article cites 240 works. This article focuses on attacks rather than the broader field of disinformation. This puts a practical spin on disinformation (how to inoculate against disinformation, handle disinformation, how attacks work, and avoid triggering biases and preconceived views and provides examples of these talks. So I think this article should focus on practical ways to recognize and handle intentional disinformation attacks that benefit bad actors. This education is important and is separate from disinformation in general, which may be inadvertent and not an attack. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also want to thank you for working on the Disinformation article and helping to reorganize it. This is a great improvement.
 * I think that keeping the current articles for disinformation attack and disinformation separate is a better choice than merging them. Disinformation attack is already a lengthy article. It uses examples of multiple types of disinformation, making the point that this is a broader issue that affects science, politics, and society generally as well as warfare. That's important to understanding how disinformation works in the age of social media.  The same "players" can be using multiple tactics in all those areas, and in some cases working for multiple sides.
 * @MaryMO (AR) If the two articles are not merged, the difference between the two concepts should be made more explicit; currently, "disinformation attack" covers a lot of "disinformation" beyond just attacks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easy to dicifer "DISINFORMATION" page by definition is main topic we're as "Attack" is a use of said subject so completely separate. MrHugepiles (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * @Beland hello! you are right that further reading can be simply more information. However, further reading usually is reserved for classical works or really important ones. This book is from last year. There are some works on the disinformation topic that are becoming really seminal, but only time will say if this specific book will do so.
 * I am no against citing the book as such. I am simply recommending adding it in context so that the reader can understand where it fits in. MexFin (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am referring specifically to this section of Further reading:
 * "Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers." MexFin (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this book is any less seminal or important than the Pacepa book from 2013. It certainly seems a lot more comprehensive than the short articles currently listed. The author is an academic and keeps getting interviewed in the press as an expert on the topic, so it seems like a good source of up-to-date facts and policy proposals. I don't understand what "context" you think would be helpful; do you have a specific suggestion? -- Beland (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Change Series?
Does this article really belong under the "War" series? Disinformation does not necessarily involve "warfare" imo. Dingus1233 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * agree: I think that disinformation is not really part of the war series. Part of disinformation certainly could be classified as hybrid warfare, but most of it is media manipulation and internet manipulation can can be done for harm and profit, according the its definition by the EU code of practice on disinformation MexFin (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Vaccine diplomacy
@Mathglot The section on US disinformation has a section about a disinformation campaign against China, which is a fact reported by Reuters https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/

The issue is that part of the paragraph describes the situation as "payback" against China. However, the source cannot be corroborated. The uncorroborated statement by @Amigao is the following.

"The campaign was described as "payback" for COVID-19 disinformation by China directed against the U.S." using the following reference https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/pentagon-stands-secret-anti-vaccination-disinformation-campaign-philippines-after-reuters-report.html

The problem is that I cannot find confirmation that any spokesperson from the US actually corroborates this statement. Therefore, I cannot see how military.com is anything else than an opinion.

Therefore, I rewrote the statement keeping the original Reuters source, but characterising it as "vaccine diplomacy" according to the source from The Conversation, which does precisely what it says: Explain how the fact (that the US did conduct a disinformation campaign against Chinese Vaccines) can be explained as part of a known tactic (vaccine diplomacy)

"The campaign, which ran from 2020 to mid-2021, has been described as part of a vaccine diplomacy campaign aiming to foster client-state relationships with the Phillipines." citing a reference from The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/us-military-launched-a-secret-anti-vax-campaign-in-the-philippines-heres-why-im-not-surprised-232639

I think my statement is closer to encyclopedic knowledge, because the US did not acknowledge that the campaign is payback MexFin (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MexFin, First, The military.com report is news reporting, thus presumably peer-reviewed, and TheConversation is one person's opinion, and may sometimes be used because many of their guest writers are domain experts, but under other terms (WP:RSOPINION) than a peer-reviewed source. (If you disagree about the reliability of Military.com, the place to start is at WP:RSN.) Second, the military.com article is quoting the Reuters article as the source for that expression, and they are considered about as reliable as you can get. Even one source would have been sufficient, but you have two, one quoting the other. Therefore, there is no problem using it in our article. There is no requirement, by the way, that the subject of a report (the U.S., in this case) acknowledge anything regarding reports made about it in order for them to be usable in an article. Mathglot (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot Thank you for your opinions, but I just want to clarify that I believe we are having two separate discussions. The first one is about sources and the second is about content. I Think you focus on the references, while I am focusing on the content. I will start with sources first.
 * (1) References: I am not questioning the reliability of the news references. Both are used for different purposes. One builds a statement of the disinformation campaign (Reuters and others), and the other contextualizes it as part of vaccine diplomacy (the conversation).
 * (2) Content: The characterization of this campaign as "payback" is pretty important and, in my view it is wrong to use it in the Wikipedia article. The one committing the disinformation campaign is the US, which a source within the article characterizes as "indefensible." However, the text "payback" justifies it as something that arguably China deserves. The only time the word payback is used in the Reuters article is in the lead. It is not attributed and does not appear anywhere else. Now, as you mention, the military.com article is essentially referencing the reuters article, and citing the lead about payback as if it was from an original source, when it is not. I do not mind citing the military.com source, but not as a direct quote because it (the quote) is just referencing the lead in the Reuters article, not a quote from a source. For instance, the aljazeera article does not use the word payback and just reports what happened: a disinformation campaign against the vaccines, explaining it has been criticized as it puts lives in danger for geopolitical gain. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/pentagon-ran-secret-anti-vax-campaign-to-undermine-china-during-pandemic
 * I hope this brings a bit of clarity. MexFin (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You use the word "source" in an interesting way, as if it would be better to get the actual quoted words of someone involved in the affair as somehow the real or legitimate "source" (which however would be both primary, and opinion) rather than the words of the news report (secondary, peer-reviewed, and independent). I rather think you are viewing this whole thing backwards. Reuters is the source—the secondary source: it can hardly be exceeded in terms of reliability, and if we decide to echo one of terms they use it could hardly come from a more impeccable source. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good conversation, @Mathglot that actually goes back to WP:RS, and more precisely to WP:RSHEADLINES (I will copy it below). Reuters is a reliable news organization, absolutely. However, not every word in the Reuters article is a factual statement, especially not its headline or subheadline. This crucial distinction is the key point in WP:RSHEADLINES. I quote (my emphasis):
 * " News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source . If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
 * The payback section I am arguing is from a reliable source, Reuters, but it is problematic as per WP:RSHEADLINES. The military.com article wrongly quotes the sub headline as if it were a news fact, which is not. It comes from the editorialization of the Reuters article, precisely the distinction that  WP:RSHEADLINES warns about and the point I am making here.  MexFin (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Leon Uris' novel "Topaz"
The term disinformation occurs in Leon Uris' novel of 1967, with the exact meaning in this article. rudra (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)