Talk:Disinformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Indonesia

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

[edit] Misinformation or disinformation?

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.

[edit] Soviet Union

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.


[edit] AN EXAMPLE of DISINFORMATION.

"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)

[edit] Links edited

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)

[edit] Dis- vs. mis-

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)

[edit] A case: Chernobyl Forum

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)

[edit] Sources

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)

[edit] "9/11 truth movement"

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)

[edit] Unsubstantiated claim by a single KGB member does not merit lengthy paragraph

There is a long paragraph on the claim by Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer) that the Soviets invented the idea nuclear winter as propaganda, but the only evidence for this claim is Tretyakov's word, and the author of the book which reported it notes that whether this is true is "impossible to discern". With no evidence given that historians or members of the intelligence community find this claim likely to be true, devoting so much space to it seems to violate Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight. I suggest either removing the paragraph entirely, or replacing it with the following brief mention:

  • 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)

[edit] None of these claims deserve inclusion

The list of claims made by Mitrokhin includes numerous defamatory allegations denied by the subjects (violating WP:BLP), conspiracy theories on AIDS and JFK that clearly owe little to the KGB, and the absurd description of the well-established homosexuality of J Edgar Hoover as the product of KGB disinformation. This source is clearly worthless and none of Mitrokhin's specific claims should be included. I've deleted the lot. Perhaps some better source is available on KGB disinformation.JQ (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These are not claims by Mitrokhin. These are materials from several books by a notable intelligence historian Christopher Andrew and Mitrokhin, who is notable too but only a second author. These assertions are not based on the Mitrokhin Archive. This archive is only used as one of many hundreds primary and secondary sources cited in the books. Hence the books qualify as reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability. If you want to dispute assertions of the books, please provide alternative sources per 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

[edit] Disinformation by the KGB

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 Ku Klux Klan, placing an exposive package in "the Negro section of New York" (operation PANDORA), and spreading conspiracy theories that 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 KGB was promotion of the theory of nuclear winter. According to senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov, the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter." He asserted that during the 1970s the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying Pershing II 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)