Talk:Misinformation during the 2026 Iran war

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

On "Statements by Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth"

@AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste I don't think that misstating (not proven intentionally) that it was the first submarine sunk via torpedo since WW2 counts as "misinformation". Either way, there are far more notable instances of this -- there are constant fact-checks being done, largely of social media "facts" shared by random users. Those are just my views. Wondering what you think. Avishai11 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, misinformation is, as it says on Wikipedia's own article, "incorrect or misleading information" that "can exist with or without specific malicious intent" whereas "disinformation is deliberately deceptive and intentionally propagated. Misinformation is typically spread unintentionally, mostly caused by a lack of knowledge, an error, or simply a misunderstanding". So by that logic, misspeak is a type of misinformation, isn't it? However if it is, perhaps it's quite minor compared to other types of misinformation and disinformation, for example Hegseth misspeaking is maybe not up there with the likes of unsubstantiated social media posts regarding the death of Alireza Arafi. In addition, to just note my viewing and opinion of Hegseth's press conference, he talked a lot about the US's strength, so it's probably WP:NOR , but the way I interupted Hegseth's statement about the US submarine being the first since WWII ties into that, ie. the US is the only nation who has the strengh to do this post-WWII, but as this is kind of WP:NOR, and you can't really assume what Hegseth's internal intentions, ie. whether he meant to say it was the only instance since WWII, or whether he misspoke and was planning to say it the only 'US instance since WWII. I think it's perhaps worth noting, but maybe adding a sentence touching on the fact that we don't really know whether Hegseth intended to say it was the first instance, or whether he just misspoke.

AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he said "ever" or "globally", and since he is the SecDef (or SecWar), he is likely speaking ONLY about the United States. @AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste Avishai11 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

On "The Hill ceasefire clickbait headline"

@EditorShane3456 Your description for this one claims that the archived version of the linked Hill article "in fact had no mention of Iran's rejection," but the first paragraph of the archived version of said article is: "The U.S. sent a 15-point ceasefire proposal to Iran through intermediaries, Pakistani officials unveiled Wednesday, though the Islamic Republic seemingly dismissed the terms, according to The Associated Press." This would seem to be a clear mention of Iran's rejection (not a particularly detailed mention, granted, but a mention nonetheless). Am I missing something, or should we remove this section? EdityMcEdit (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Seemingly does not always equate to actually doing it, granted this was before the official announcement, and Iran has publicly stated that they aren't in negotiations with the United States. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I removed the section without seeing this discussion. The section can't be included because there needs to be a secondary source which describes that article as "clickbait", otherwise it constitutes WP:OR. Lovelyfurball (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The archive literally shows it :/ shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The internet archive is not a secondary source, nor does it describe the article as "clickbait". In order to add a section about that article, you must find reliable sources about that article. WP:Original Research cannot be used on Wikipedia. Lovelyfurball (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

look at the current version and the archived version youll see a measurable difference shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether it was or wasn't clickbait isn't the issue here. The issue is that there must be a reliable source that uses the word "clickbait" to describe that specific article. That characterization can't come from a Wikipedia editor. Lovelyfurball (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

AI

Are there any AI generated videos or images that can be added as examples for the "Fake and AI-generated visual content" section, to demonstrate the sort of content being shared on social media?

AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 17 April 2026

Description of suggested change: Netanyahu is misspelled in the section "Online speculation that Benjamin Netanyahu has died or fled Israel".

Diff:

−

but there was no proof that Netanhayu was there ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT

+

but there was no proof that Netanyahu was there CHANGED_WIKITEXT

Lemurik the Historian (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)