Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

The last sentence of the lead section:

Descriptions of Ukraine-sponsored propaganda and misinformation have focused on over-optimistic reports about the war and promotion of patriotic stories.

needs to be attributed to reliable sources. The preceding paragraph contains references to several sources, so I assume RS are needed here as well. MilaKuliž (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi MilaKuliž, quite right! I put a cn-tag.Lova Falk (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw the article Misinformation in the Gaza war so I was a bit confused as to why this article is named differently. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

We follow the sources. When the sources say disinformation, we say disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Do "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" have different meaning? Or is it just so happen to be the choice of word in sources¿🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 06:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Disinformation is used more often based on ngrams. Searching for '"Russian disinformation" "Ukraine"' in Google Scholar returns 5,720 hits and for '"Russian misinformation" "Ukraine"' returns 400. The words have different meanings, disinformation implies intentionality, which is obviously present in this case. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"Do "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" have different meaning?" Per the main articles, yes. Disinformation "is content deliberately spread to deceive people, or to secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm. Disinformation is an orchestrated adversarial activity in which actors employ strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to advance political, military, or commercial goals. Disinformation is implemented through coordinated campaigns that "weaponize multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value judgements—to exploit and amplify culture wars and other identity-driven controversies." Misinformation is "incorrect or misleading information" and "can exist with or without specific malicious intent". ... "Susceptibility to misinformation can be influenced by several factors, including cognitive biases, emotional responses, social dynamics, and media literacy levels." With misinformation, there is also an implication that nobody in particular is orchestrating the spread of the misleading information. It may simply be spreading through the usual way for rumors. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The words differ in terms of intent: dis is intentional; mis may be either unintentional or intentional (so dis is a subset of mis).

For the record: following suggestions on another talk page to start off this article, I created this page as Misinformation ...; there was a question posted on this article's talk page asking which term was better (mis vs dis); my summary of the sources favoured dis (intentional rather than unintentional) and I asked if there were objections; and that was on 24 Feb 2022, when two hours was a sufficiently long delay to check for passive consensus in this context of extremely heavy editing and worldwide interest, so I did the move following the lack of objections. Since then, the Dis consensus for this article doesn't seem to have been contested.

For the Gaza case, the top of Talk:Misinformation in the Gaza war points you to an RM discussion in October/November 2023 favouring a change from Dis to Mis. If you think that that article has changed enough since November 2023 that it's worth reopening a discussion to change back to Dis, then check the sources and ask over there if others think it's worth considering a change back to Dis. Boud (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

https://telegram-network.openminds.ltd/

OpenMinds explored a network of more than 3,600 political and news-related Telegram channels from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, connected by 24,500 links based on audience overlap. It exposes a hidden architecture of influence: pseudo-Ukrainian channels that in reality serve Russian propaganda and primarily target Russian audiences; media from occupied territories systematically folded into a Kremlin-controlled network; or opposition hubs in Russia and Belarus, standing apart from pro-government clusters. Daseyn (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please change the Vanguard link: "Russia has falsely asserted several times that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, but its government is controlled by foreign powers whose companies, banks and investment funds like BlackRock or Vanguard control a large portion of Ukrainian soil and forbid to bury Ukrainian corpses below it."

Vanguard links to the attack formation rather than the Vanguard group it appears to be referencing: The Vanguard Group JordyGrey _talk 23:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! LordCollaboration (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

A couple editors went on a whole spree moving articles like this to titles including the Russo-Ukrainian war following the move that took place on what is currently Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) but seem to have missed this one.

Obviously the article covers more than what the Wikipedia consensus determined to be the "invasion phase", so should we move it for the sake of consistency?

"Disinformation in the Russo-Ukrainian war" for example. TylerBurden (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems an uncontroversial move to me. Lova Falk (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Mindaur (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input both, it seems like only an administrator can move it. TylerBurden (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have posted a move request on WP:RMTR. TylerBurden (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

An article published by the Institute for the Study of War concluded: "Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".

Per WP:QUOTE, lengthy quotations from analysis pieces should be used sparingly and only where the exact wording is necessary. In this case, the point can be conveyed through a concise attributed paraphrase, which also avoids giving undue weight to a single commentator's wording under WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE.

I have rewritten the quote with the necessary attribution, and then @LordCollaboration made corrections (thank you for that). However, @TylerBurden, with weak arguments that once again turned personal, reverted both changes. I consider these actions improper and in need of correction (i.e., moving away from the quote in favor of a paraphrased summary with attribution). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, first you chose to "paraphrase" the content, which was already correctly attributed, with your own WP:SYNTH, which had to be corrected by LC, and I don't see how linking to an essay is going to change the fact that this is a perfectly reasonable summary by one of the most reliable sources on the war. As for "personal", no, this is about your editing, if you are going to add full Putin quotes to some other articles but remove full quotes from actual WP:RS, that is a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue that needs to be dealt with, because the English Wikipedia should not be affected by WP:FRINGE Russian narratives, if repeatedly pointing this out is not enough to make you address the issue, it will need to be taken to WP:AE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this discussion focused on the wording in this article rather than on broader comments about other editors' motives or editing history. If there are conduct concerns, those can be raised in the appropriate venue, but they do not resolve the content question here.

On the content issue: my concern is not that ISW is unreliable. The question is whether this passage needs to be presented as a direct quotation. The current wording, "An article published by the Institute for the Study of War concluded", followed by a long quotation, gives substantial prominence to ISW's exact phrasing. Even with attribution, this can make the passage read as a definitive conclusion rather than as ISW's analysis.

Per WP:QUOTE, long quotations should be used sparingly and only where the precise wording is necessary. In this case, the substantive point can be conveyed without quoting the full passage. A concise attributed paraphrase would also reduce the risk of giving undue weight to one source's wording under WP:DUE.

I suggest the following wording (edited by LordCollaboration):

"According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Putin's decision to launch a full-scale invasion in 2022 reflected a belief that NATO was weak and that other efforts to restore Russian control over Ukraine had failed, rather than a defensive response to a NATO threat. ISW argued that Russia's objectives included expanding its influence, undermining Ukrainian statehood, and weakening NATO".

This preserves ISW's analysis, keeps clear attribution, and avoids presenting the source's more polemical wording as article voice. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlexeyKhrulev: WP:QUOTE is an essay rather than a policy. There is already an entire subsection discussing the issue, so the use of this quotation at the end is not excessive. More importantly: it is not just ISW's viewpoint (though we attribute that), it actually serves as a good summary of the dominant views. Please stop attempting to change something that is not a problem. The risk of such re-wordings is that they may create WP:FALSEBALANCE, accommodating the Russian narratives or suggesting that the topic is more controversial than it actually is. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think WP:FALSEBALANCE applies here. The proposed wording does not add, validate, or give weight to any Russian narrative. It says the opposite: that ISW rejected the NATO-defence explanation and interpreted the invasion as part of Russia's broader effort to restore control over Ukraine and weaken NATO.

The only issue is presentation. A direct quotation is not necessary to preserve ISW's point, since the same analysis can be summarized accurately in attributed article prose. This is not a change in substance, only a change from a long quotation to a concise paraphrase. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlexeyKhrulev: At this point you have two editors telling you that your edits are not constructive. If you want to change it, you'll need a greater support. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've created an RfC for that. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, you cannot say that someone has "weak arguments" and then proceed to link to essays that anyone is free to write, the actual policy that was cited here was WP:WEIGHT, and unless you subscribe to the aforementioned Russian fringe narratives, there is no weight issue here. Like Mindaur said, this ISW summary reflects not only the ISW, but other WP:RS as well, so including it as a quote should be a non-issue for any editor who actually follows and understands WP:NPOV.

TylerBurden (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is used sparingly. There is nothing wrong with that particular quotation. It is not excessive, it provides a very good summary and it's WP:RS. -- Mindaur (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the subsection use a direct quotation from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), or should the same point be presented as a concise attributed paraphrase? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The current version includes the following wording:

An article published by the Institute for the Study of War concluded:

"Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".

One proposed alternative is:

According to the Institute for the Study of War, Putin's decision to launch a full-scale invasion in 2022 reflected a belief that NATO was weak and that other efforts to restore Russian control over Ukraine had failed, rather than a defensive response to a NATO threat. ISW argued that Russia's objectives included expanding its influence, undermining Ukrainian statehood, and weakening NATO.

The issue is not whether ISW is a reliable source. The question is whether this specific passage is better handled as a direct quotation, preserving ISW's exact wording, or as an attributed paraphrase in article prose, preserving the substance of the source while avoiding an extended quotation.

Comments from uninvolved editors would be appreciated.

Options:

AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)