Talk:Russian disinformation

Origins

This article began as a copy paste from part of Disinformation, as proposed on its talk page. I intend to trim some material that does not directly relate to "Russian disinformation"; the original material is still available where I found it. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent large edit

The recent large edit nearly tripled the body of the article. This makes it look even more than before like a WP:TIMELINE article, which is a type of List article. If that's where we're heading with this, it should probably be made explicit and moved to Timeline of Russian disinformation since 2000. That's a supportable approach, as we already have, for example, Timeline of the war in Donbas and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Alternatively, the article could be recast as a parent article in summary style, with summary sections on Georgia (Information war during the Russo-Georgian War), Donbas, Syria, the 2022 invasion (Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis); and possibly other issues (maybe Chechnya, ended 2000), with {{Main}} or {{Further}} links at the top of the section linking to expanded articles about the subtopic, where articles for them exist. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The recent large edit, although well-intended, is counterproductive. Wikipedia already has several timelines, starting a new one here creates not only a fork but a TLDR.

I like your idea of a parent article, with very short sections each one pointing to the more detailed coverage elsewhere. Can you suggest an outline? You clearly know more of these topics than I do. I am a new recruit to Russian disinformation, having set out merely to write short useful articles about individual disinformation outlets, e.g. News Front and SouthFront. I created this article because a talk page requested that it be created--it deserves more attention than I have given it. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to this, but am feeling oversubscribed; hopefully others will jump in. I'll try, if there's no other input, but can't promise when. Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Trimming

I've trimmed a lot of material that didn't seem germane to the topic, but it's probably less than half of what needs to be removed. On the other hand, the whole article is a copy of Disinformation#Russian disinformation since 2000 and the content shouldn't be in two places at once, so either it should be trimmed back in the Disinformation article to represent just a parent-article style summary of this one, or this article should be deleted as a WP:CONTENTFORK.

I think the article title represents a good topic that we ought to have an article about, but if there's nobody to work on it, then it should be removed, or stubbed due to the WP:CONTENTFORK problem. @HouseOfChange:, this was your creation; are you planning to work on this, and bring the parent article section into a summary of this one, so they aren't duplicates? If not, I'll probably recommend this for deletion. Adding Curbon7 who may have some thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not have time or expertise, and I agree that if it is not going to be curated and improved it should be deleted. It will be good if any good additions can go back into the source article. As I explained to Mathglot on his talk page, I am currently working more at Wikiquote, where a build-up of POV-pushing "quotations" from fringe sources including many from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources requires urgent work. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was initially going to AfD it, as I came across the article naturally as it seemed like a CFORK/POVFORK, but then I saw that it was part of a split discussion and opted not to. I think an article on Russian disinformation would be valuable, but this may be WP:TNT-worthy, as there are a lot of issues with the current state (ex. 2000 is a very arbitrary year; why not 1999, which was Putin's first year in power, or 1992, the first year of the Russian Federation?), and it certainly does not adhere to NPOV, as can be seen with the "Conserative media" section. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:TNT would be fine (as '92 or 99, even better); second choice Afd; third choice stubify. But then, why stub a topic that is already developed, somewhat at least, with a long section already at Disinformation? So really just TNT or Afd, I think. The "Conserative media" was where I started to prune, thinking maybe a little bit of effort might fix it; but after a few edits, I realized it needs a whole lot more than what I first imagined, and I'm not willing to spend that much time on it.

Proposal to merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that propaganda is not necessarily disinformation; weak consensus to improve existing articles. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I think the content of these articles would be better served merged together. Propaganda and disinformation are tightly connected (I would hate to use the coin metaphor). 1, 2. Since they play off of each other, this dimension would also be better connected in one article. Basically, the concepts overlap considerably, and the contents would be best served in one, well-sourced and solid article. I would propose a joint article dealing both with domestic Russian propaganda and disinformation, as well as the large international disinformation campaigns. Consider that many of the same institutions (government and Kremlin-linked) do both domestic and international efforts, it would also make sense in that sense. Thoughts?--Euor (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A joint article showing the connections of propaganda with disinformation is a good idea, but need not result in the disappearance/merge of this article. In the older type of propaganda, one's goal was to promote some point of view. Disinformation warriors use multiple claims to create confusion and dissension. Even the topic of disinformation alone is a huge one. See also "Reasons not to merge" # 3: "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You make good points. My thought-process was like this: this topic is very important, and the larger and more solid the article, the better. Much material in such an article I envisioned is covered here, meaning I can't really do more than copy it over to the other, which would make the first one redundant (unless more subsequently added here, that are more on-the-nose about disinformation and not general Russian shenanigans) or the pieces in the larger article redundant (since they're covered here). Perhaps I can consider closely what material here is relevant to the other, while having it covered more fully and with details here. EDIT: I should perhaps make it clear that a merge would also mean changing the title of the other article a bit, to reflect both disinformation and propaganda and how it is pushed by the state. Something like "Disinformation and propaganda in Russia".--Euor (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Its been going on since at least world war 2, so I don't know how that would colour it. It is assumed here that its a recent thing, but it was well established even in ww2. Its needs to be Merge and expanded. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest having an article for Disinformation and propaganda in Russia (i.e. post 1991 Russian federation); then a separate article for Propaganda and disinformation in the Soviet Union.--Euor (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This has attracted little attention. I am planning to expand and work on Propaganda in Russia article, and would incorporate content from here and make sections on disinformation effort. Thoughts? @Scope creep:.--Euor (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Euor: To be honest, I'm not sure. Since there has not been much response, you have complete control. I would be careful combining them until your sure they are the same. I would like to see a definition that states one is a facet of the other, or they somehow are related in the Russian context, before you start linking stuff up. Certainly you would think that disinformation and propaganda are related but I'm not sure how, perhaps a subfield, e.g. a specialism. I don't know. It will be be interesting to see how it develops, looking forward to it. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure. I thought that in general those are related, but different concepts. To put it simple, a lot of propaganda is not disinformation, just presenting things in a desirable light, pretty much like an advertisement. However, the all modern-day Russian state propaganda is pretty much a disinformation. Hence I can see the point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If we agree with Merriam Webster that propaganda is "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" then Russian disinformation is a kind of Russian propaganda. It can also be said that propaganda itself is one kind of Russian active measures. If Euor or anyone else wants to create a blended article that uses information from this article as well as more general content about propaganda, that is fine. What I object to is the disappearance of this article via a Merge to an article that so far as I know does not exist yet. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. I am also OK with your revert of my edit. This is excellent quote, and more important, this is exactly what they do. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I made the discussion partly because so many of the sources I see use propaganda and disinformation interchangeably. But I will update the Russian propaganda site, incorporate what is here, and then we can see if there is a point in having both. In one way, I agree its a sensible distinction, but in another I find it hard to pin down what is what.--Euor (talk) 23:50, 20 August 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.

Requested move 5 April 2023

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: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Russian disinformation in the post-Soviet era → Russian disinformation – For WP:conciseness, because the phrase “in the post-Soviet era” is redundant as Russian (the Russian Federation’s) statehood already defines this period (not vice versa). Compare the titles of other subjects relating to the modern Russian state which wouldn’t benefit from this disambiguation text: “Propaganda in Russia in the post-Soviet era,” “Elections in Russia in the post-Soviet era,” “Russian Armed Forces in the post-Soviet era,” or “Russian military presence in Transnistria in the post-Soviet era,” etcetera.  —Michael Z. 18:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support @Mzajac: This sounds like a good improvement over the current name, which I chose when creating the article from a section of Disinformation. Thanks for suggesting it. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Support—it’s consistent with other Russia articles as noted, redundant, no less concise or precise, and so on. Docentation (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (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.

News orgs as sources of disinformation should require strong support

I recently removed an image that declared russian news organizations as sources of misinformation. The reason is that I think that the page should aim to be as objective as possible, given that there is an ongoing conflict. Therefore, it seems like a bad idea to declare any news organization a source of disinformation without strong support (e.g., from multiple countries). This is especially difficult when there is a conflict of interest, for instance, when two rival countries like if US and Russia declare that each other news is propaganda. MexFin (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Very biased article according to the West

If Russia did disinformation, we've to create a disinformation about Western politics to be fair. The Russian disinfo also included in the recent unrest in the UK without any evidence. So, this is very bias and lacks NPOV. 196.188.225.81 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)