Talk:Cognitive warfare

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

This article contains a translation of 认知战 from zh.wikipedia.

Merger with Psychological warfare

I struggle to see the difference between these, and to the extent there is a difference, it seems this article could be a section of the other article rather than a separate one, as it is now, because they cover very similar concepts, with a lot of overlapping information. Yet, for how similar the two articles are, there is very little cross-linking between them. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

searching cw in open-and-closed inverted commas on google scholar yields 3000+ results.
Does the superiority of merging into a section to leaving as two separate articles hinge on the absence of defined, distinctive use of the term "CW"?

eg https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/14/assessing-cognitive-warfare/ "For du Cluzel, psychological warfare attempts to change what the target audience thinks,

but Cognitive Warfare aims at shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior."

eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/48873423 "Psychological warfare focuses on the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of human agents

… Cognitive warfare is a concept that has evolved a step beyond psychological warfare, …"

Eg the study, 'A Comparative Study on the Development of the CCP's "Psychological Warfare" and "Cognitive Domain Warfare."', in the wikipedia article.

Even if there's overlapping information, they needn't be merged: CW and PW are not equivalent. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Overlaps can be removed without merger FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not merge - however, the article could mention - if there are any wiki-notable pundits that have claimed that "Cognitive warfare is not a thing", or "Cognitive warfare is hardly anything else than another name for Psycological warfare", or similar claims. ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge - i have now changed my view.--The buzzword can be merged into "Psychological warfare" (wiki-article).--I am not convinced that all the foreign-language sources are helpful (and someone else can say if they found any of those, helpful). ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge It's fundamentally the same concept, and should be merged; this is just another think-tank buzzword variation on the exact same concept. The definitions are not actually different. "shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior" is literally the same thing as the lead sentence definition for psychological operations ("Psychological operations (PSYOPs) are military operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and large foreign powers.") It's the exact same thing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

In that case, anyone should consider changing "Psychological warfare" article immediately, so that it says something like

"A similar concept, Cognitive warfare has been defined as shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior ... influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior", blah blah.

Be sure to add wiki-notable reference.

When that largely is done (as outlined in this post), then i will most definitely consider changing my "vote" (from "Not merge" to "Merge"). ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That would be done post-merge. There's no need to do it ahead of the merge discussion closing. And, as a reminder this is not a vote, it's a discussion. It sounds like you're in favor of a merge with the post-merge content in place. Great. The closer should take that into account. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad we're finally getting some people in here to discuss. To be clear, when I said "could be a section of the other article", this is indeed exactly what I meant. I don't want to delete this page or the info on it; just deduplicate to the extent that is appropriate and add what is missing, but ultimately consolidate the pages. Obviously I'm in favor of merging but I don't think we should go ahead until we get more discussion on the subject here, ideally from some more folks. To that end, if anyone wants to tag people who've contributed to these articles in the past (if that is appropriate by Wikipedia guidelines), go ahead. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

yeah? do i accept? Alty of Steel (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose merge; these are clearly distinct topics; readers are best served by having these discussed separately, and each of the articles is sufficiently well-developed that a merge isn't warranted for 'short text'. Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

in my proposal, i wrote that i struggle to see the difference between them; that is, they are not "clearly distinct topics". could you explain please? also, even if they are meaningfully distinct, it's possible that "they cover very similar concepts", as i wrote. (edited to add this underlined section.) Blippy1998 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

you're talking to me or klbrain? I read often ut it might get too problematic anyways Alty of Steel (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

i was responding to klbrain Blippy1998 (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

ahh okay okay got confused, new to here (wikipedians) Alty of Steel (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Annoying Anonymous8999 np; welcome! Blippy1998 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Blippy1998: Regardless of what we might think here, reliable sources make a distinction between Cognitive warfare and Psychological warfare. Some of them on the basis of time (that is 'psychology' is the older concept; 'cognitive is its modern descendant'), but perhaps more argue for a distinct scope. For example, The three central effects of psychological warfare are: influencing the enemy’s cognitive processes, influencing the enemy’s behavior, and influencing friendly cognitive processes and behaviors. Schmidle, 2026. The two articles are sufficiently well-developed that readers are best served by keeping them separate, rather than having one large page. If the pages were shorter or less-well-developed I would have been more likely to support a merge, as I can certainly see the overlap. Klbrain (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

" 'cognitive [warfare] is its modern descendant'", you wrote 19:14, 24 July.

I am not trying to be rude, but did you use AI to create that post?

Now, it may not be helpful in this case to have two articles about essentially the same thing. I am not at all convinced, by your claim that "The two articles are sufficiently well-developed that readers are best served by keeping them separate, rather than having one large page." ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Schmidle;2026 - the link to that paper says that "Schmidle ... This paper is the result of a new research project funded by the ... the U.S. Department of War".--Non-independent research about a buzzword - is that a reasonable claim? ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think to really convince me that they shouldn't be merged, one would have to make a clear, well-cited distinction between the two in the article and in the lead, showing how "cognitive warfare" is a well-defined term of art used in a manner distinct from "psychological warfare", AND demonstrate that the study of "cognitive warfare" as distinct from psychological warfare is a sufficiently large domain in its own right to warrant the risks of overlap and stale information that come with having separate articles. Blippy1998 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is best to bite the bullet. Anyone should consider starting Article-for-Deletion process; you have my support.

Anyone might want to find out if there have been (civilian) college courses or university courses in the U.S. regarding "psychological warfare". Thereafter compare that info with colleges/universities that have courses in "Cognitive warfare".

(I am guessing that "Cognitive warfare" is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for "Phsychological warfare" - however, I probably will not be looking for more sources about related warfare.)

Another thing, the community has had more than a year to land this article. So far the article seems to have crashed & burned.--Time for the stuff to be nuked. ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. There's too much differentiation between the two (hence the different terminology), and the two articles differ too much, and a merge would just make a bigger mess and bigger problem of what are already two subjects which are already difficult to encapsulate encyclopedically. RipplingRiver (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

No mention on wikipedia, in regard to "Cognitive informational warfare".--The topic seems to have an article today, on this linked media outlet.

(I have not linked the news article, eventhough it might not be an outright book review, in regard to a book from this year.) ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

July 2026, that same media outlet has a video titled "The New Battle Space: How Russia Uses Cognitive Warfare Against NATO & Ukraine".--If anyone checks out the video, please inform if the journalist (from Texas, but living in Ukraine long-term, according to media), uses the phrase "cognitive warfare". (The interviewee has a B.S. in psychology and a "cognitive warfare expert" according to the psychologist's self-reporting at LinkedIn.)--Note: a cursory online search makes me think that the journalist does not use the phrase "cognitive warfare", when writing newspaper articles.--I am guessing that "cognitive warfare" completely overlaps "psychological warfare", but might also include one or more obscure sub-fields of whatever. ~2026-40166-38 (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why this article should specially elevate the opinion of Jorge Majfud over other scholars, but a brand new editor is edit warring to do just that. Does anyone else support this? MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also i, have removed the stuff, including "... have defined this cognitive struggle as an invisible war among various social actors over the meanings of social values, discourses, and narrative instruments such as language".--In this context, it seems like nothing more than junk, or misplaced junk.--That professor is most definitely not an expert about "cognitive warfare". ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, It isn't clear that Majfud was actually discussing the topic of this particular article. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply