From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Disinformation was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 18, 2017 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
February 15, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed
January 22, 2017 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
Current status: Former good article nominee

word "defraud" in lede[edit]

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

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

"Misinformation and Disinformation" Image[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History updated to reflect chronology from 1920s to 2001. Sagecandor (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Added the term became synonymous with propaganda. From source, Cunningham. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 copyedit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi, may I know the reason why? I just wanted to contribute and extend a bit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulaguide (talkcontribs) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I just saw it. If you think so. so be it. Thanks. Formulaguide (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with removals by Chris troutman, thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)