Talk:Disinformation/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a long paragraph on the claim by

• Senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov made the claim to writer Pete Earley that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter" as disinformation (see Sergei Tretyakov for details), although Earley said that the accuracy of this claim "is impossible to discern".^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list of claims made by Mitrokhin includes numerous defamatory allegations denied by the subjects (violating

These are not claims by Mitrokhin. These are materials from several books by a notable intelligence historian

WP:NPOV rather than removing texts which refer to reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk

) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This is obvious trash and violates

WP:BLP at several points. It might be better included in Conspiracy theory

. I've annotated the alleged claims

Alleged xamples of Soviet disinformation against the United States included the following ^[2]:

• Promotion of false
  John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane
  . This defamatory claim is denied by Lane, and is implausible in view of the vast number of such theories generated from a wide range of sources
• Discreditation of the
  CIA, using historian Philip Agee
  (codenamed PONT). This claim seems at least as likely to be disinformation on the part of the CIA, aimed at discrediting a critic.
• Spreading rumors that
  FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
  was a homosexual. Such rumors were rife by the 1940s, at a time when the US and USSR were allies, and the evidence supporting them (Hoover's *exceptionally* close relationship with his male deputy) was not invented by the KGB
• Attempts to discredit
  Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an "Uncle Tom
  " who was secretly receiving government subsidies. Why on earth would the KGB want to discredit a radical critic of the government, one who was the subject of intense hostile attention, including disinformation, from the FBI
• Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the
  Martin Luther King, Jr.
  's assassination had been planned by the US government. The KGB did not need to invent the KKK
• Fabrication of the story that
  AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at Fort Detrick; the story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal
  . Again, conspiracy theories of domestic origin on this topic have been rife, and need no KGB explanation
• An alleged disinformation by the
  cruise missiles in Western Europe. The plan, under KGB Director Yuri Andropov, aimed at fostering popular opposition to the deployment included a massive disinformation campaign requiring false scientific reports from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and funding to European anti-nuclear and peace groups opposed to arms proliferation. The Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, spearheaded the effort by funding and organizing demonstrations in Europe against the US bases.^{[1] [3] [4]} The Soviet propaganda was then distributed to sources within environmental, peace, anti-nuclear, and disarmament groups including the publication Ambio.^[1] The concept hit mainstream from there and propelled into popular culture with the help of Carl Sagan.^[5]
  . As pointed out by others this is garbage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example I'm aware of is

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

I just found a name for this propaganda technique:

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

"Everything you see on the internet is true"

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

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

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

No source is infallible. —Casey J. Morris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it is uncited it has no place in an article, do not call me a vandal again, please read

WP:VAND Tentontunic (talk

) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Please read

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

MMFA and FAIR are problematic in terms of

Soxwon (talk

) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

They are problematic according to

No problems, here, nothing contentious.

A subsidiary of News Corporation,

Another popular method of disinformation is known as anchor doping, which is a method of constructing an opinion panel containing conservative commentators who outnumber a pseudo-liberal commentator that intentionally takes a weak stance so as to smear any liberal viewpoints.[8]^[9]

You have FAIR and an Iranian gov't mouthpiece station, hardly academic sources, again, not

A 2003 University of Maryland study found that people who primarily watched Fox News Channel were more likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq War.^[10]

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

FNC has also promoted private schooling, and portrayed school vouchers as panaceas, while numerous studies show that charters and vouchers do very little to actually improve educational quality.^[11] Blogs are not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins

Like

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

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

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

Those are both

No Original Research. Sagecandor (talk

) 14:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A much bigger sin than your anti-

WP:PRIMARY agenda is the woeful Soviet over emphasis in this article that bears almost no relation to the use of the word "disinformation" if you do a simple Google search.--Penbat (talk

) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not yet even added any content to the article, just copy editing so far. And I don't quite understand the pejorative you invented, "anti-

WP:PRIMARY ? Do you understand what it says? Sagecandor (talk

) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Please read

WP:SECONDARY. Sagecandor (talk

) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

"Google search" - not equal to -

No Original Research violation. Sagecandor (talk

) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes problem, that is more violations of

No Original Research. Sagecandor (talk

) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Er are you going to dismiss all books as

No Original Research as well. I don't think there is anything else left. https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b&biw=747&bih=352&tbm=bks&q=disinformation&oq=disinformation&gs_l=serp.1.0.0.5887.10962.0.13286.14.7.0.7.7.0.109.681.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.14.698.bVZk_aJbRes --Penbat (talk

) 18:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to expand the article with individual specific sources that are

WP:SECONDARY sources, not just give out hyperlinks to random Google searches. Sagecandor (talk

) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predated by 1923, again in Russia: Usage of the term related to a Russian tactical weapon started in 1923, when the Deputy Chairman of the KGB-precursor the State Political Directorate (GPU), I. S. Unshlikht, called for the foundation of: "a special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations".^[12] Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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