Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:28, 31 January 2021 editThucydides411 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,778 edits →More Content Removal Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:38, 14 October 2024 edit undoConsarn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,035 editsm malformed link fixTag: 2017 wikitext editor
(211 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{merged-from\|China COVID-19 cover-up allegations\|24 December 2021}}
			{{afd-merged-from\|China COVID-19 cover-up allegations\|China COVID-19 cover-up allegations\|24 December 2021}}
	{{talk header}}		{{talk header}}
	{{Gs/talk notice\|covid}}		{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|covid\|brief}}
	{{Ds/talk notice\|~~topic=~~ps}}		{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|ps\|brief}}
	{{Old AfD multi\|page=Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China\|date=24 January 2021\|result='''keep'''}}		{{Old AfD multi\|page=Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China\|date=24 January 2021\|result='''keep'''}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	== Contested deletion ==
			{{WikiProject China \|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject COVID-19 \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			{{old move\|date= 8 February 2021\|from= Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China\|destination= COVID-19 misinformation by China\|result=moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1040172989#Requested move 8 February 2021}}
			{{old move\|date=30 August 2021\|destination=COVID-19 disinformation by China\|result=Procedural close\|link=Special:Permalink/1041885247#Requested move 30 August 2021}}

			__TOC__
	This page is not an attack page. Rather, it lists a number of disinformation campaigns launched by the Chinese government, referencing a number of highly reliable sources. This page, which is critical of the Chinese government and several Chinese politicians, is no different to other pages here on Misplaced Pages, such as ] and ]. ] (]) 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	== Multiple origins - Spain ==
			\|archiveprefix=Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China/Archive
			\|format= %%i
			\|age=1440
			\|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|maxarchsize=150000
			\|numberstart=1
			\|minkeepthreads=4
			}}

			{{Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)}}
	Can someone help in the multiple origins section? Other than the finger-pointing to Italy, there was also quite a few Chinese state media reports about Spain, such as . Apparently, its based on a misrepresentation of the findings in . There were no counterstatements from the authors, that I could find. ] (]) 00:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
			{{Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Sources}}

			== Comparisons to similar state propaganda campaigns ==
	== Content Removal ==
			I added but it was reverted entirely with the note that my contribution does not: "discuss Chinese government misinformation campaign and does not seem relevant to this article."

			My contribution is quite relevant and does specifically mention by way of comparison the Chinese government's secrecy and (mis-)handling of the truth with respect to the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic.
	{{u\|Thucydides411}}, you have twice removed the section relating to Chinese government disinformation on case numbers and death count. Please can you explain your reasoning as per ]? Thanks. ] (]) 08:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			The line that accompanies the title of the NY Times article is: "The accident and a subsequent cover-up have renewed relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." The fifth paragraph describes how the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." A few paragraphs after that the NY Times notes "There is also widespread concern that the Chinese government — which, like the Soviet government decades before it, dismisses the possibility of a lab leak — is not providing international investigators with access and data that could shed light on the pandemic’s origins." ] (]) 22:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
			: I have no problem with this being one sentence or in the see also section. I just don't think this page should be a rhetorical device or about the origin of Covid-19. ] (]) 00:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
			::Agree with {{u\|Dushan Jugum}}. We need to be very careful to avoid this becoming a ].--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
			:The problem is that the source does not discuss COVID-19 misinformation by the Chinese government. Of the three sentences you quoted above, the first two are about misinformation by the Soviet government (not the Chinese government), and the third is about speculation that the Chinese government is restricting investigations (which is not the same as misinformation). —] (] '''·''' ]) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
			::] It doesn't use the precise phrase "misinformation by the Chinese government." But the NYT article itself explains its "relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." That is, my contribution discusses how authoritarian governments fabricate yarns when it comes to the origin of pathogens that cause sudden outbreaks of illness, which is precisely our topic. Or to use the language of the NYT itself: the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." It also shows how US scientists can accept the official explanation, even if untrue. So the contribution provides historical context for the Chinese govt misinformation.] (]) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
			:::The source does say that the Soviet incident provides historical context for COVID-19, but it doesn't say anything about Chinese government misinformation. That seems to be an inference you are drawing, not something the source actually says. It does talk vaguely about concerns that data may not be shared the way that some would like, but again, that's not the same as misinformation. —] (] '''·''' ]) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
			::::] "Inference" that I am drawing? In your view, and obviously others are invited to chime in, too, what is the historical context for Covid-19 that the NYT article purports to provide by describing at length the Soviet incident? Other than authoritarian state misinformation about the origin of a pathogen that causes sudden mass illness (and US scientists' acceptance thereof), what parallel could the source be attempting to provide?
			::::Actually, the NYT source is quite explicit: it explicitly mentions the "search for the origins of Covid-19," this is indeed a major theme of the article, and states that the Soviet case "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." ] (]) 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
			:::::Indeed, the source does mention the search for the origins of COVID-19, but it doesn't mention Chinese government misinformation. —] (] '''·''' ]) 15:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
			::::::Please answer my question. ] (]) 21:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't know for sure what parallel the source is hinting at. Maybe they're hinting at a comparison between concerns about lack of data sharing in the Chinese case and lack of data sharing in the Soviet case. Or maybe they're hinting at some other comparison. Either way, we can't add material to the article based on what we infer a source might be hinting at. We can only report what sources actually say. —] (] '''·''' ]) 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
			I agree here with {{u\|NYCJosh}}. {{u\|Mx. Granger}}, we don't need the source to use the word "misinformation" for it to qualify this page. We can use basic reasoning and logic to understand that there is possible misinformation here. If you think it is undue speculation, then we can trim it down. If there are competing claims, then we have a wonderful thing called ]. I just read it now. Have you? ] (]) 23:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
			:The wording of the source is not the problem. The problem is that the source does not actually discuss Chinese government misinformation about COVID-19 – that seems to be something NYCJosh is inferring, not what the source actually says. —] (] '''·''' ]) 05:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

			== Requested move 30 August 2021 ==
	:I removed the section because, as I said in my edit summaries, it is not an example of disinformation. -] (]) 08:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	::{{u\|Thucydides411}}, I saw your edit summaries, but I am asking you to explain here how false data isn't ] and qualifies for removal as per ]. ] (]) 08:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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: '''Procedural close.''' Withdrawn by nominator. <small>(])</small> ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2px 3.5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:80%">]</span> 03:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
	:::What false data are you referring to? -] (]) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|COVID-19 disinformation by China}} – As this article has developed, it is clear China is engaging in deliberate disinformation, rather than merely misinformation. The article title should accurately reflect this.
	:::: The false case numbers and death counts. ] (]) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			<br>

			*] defines ''misinformation'' as {{tq\|incorrect or misleading information}}.
	:::::Which false numbers? -] (]) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			*] defines ''disinformation'' as {{tq\|false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth}}. ––] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 4px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">]</span> 23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

			:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
	::::::As indicated in the Time Magazine source you deleted. ] (]) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)</small>

			*Renaming to "disinformation" would unhelpfully reduce the scope of this. There are plenty of instances of encyclopedia-mention-worthy misinformation which is not necessarily disinformation. This would also make this title inconsistent with the other ones ("COVID-19 misinformation by governments";...) ] (] / ]) 12:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::The Times article describes a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media. There's no evidence there that the case and death numbers are disinformation. -] (]) 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			**I agree w/ RC. ] (]) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

			***Maybe there should be a section dedicated to disinformation then. ––] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 4px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">]</span> 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::] is largely considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, as is credited along with ] for originated the practice of ], and has for many years been famous for the reliability of its content. So again, please don't remove content, especially if it is well-sourced, unless you provide clear reasoning as per ]. This is still a new article, and ], and there are a lot more sources we can still add, such as . If you feel a section doesn't meet ], then you can simply add content from reliable sources, where they are due. ] (]) 11:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			***:Just describe the variety in the prose. ] (]) 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' per RandomCanadian. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u\|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::You're citing a Time magazine article that discusses a social media conspiracy theory, and then saying that that article demonstrates that the Chinese government has faked case and death numbers. The urn conspiracy theory discussed in that article would be much better suited to an article about disinformation targeting China, rather than disinformation by China.
			*'''Comment'''. Right now we distinguish between ] vs ]. For now I weakly agree with RC that mis is a broader concept than dis, hence this article would not be helped by the move, as it would merit splitting some information. However, we could consider renaming it to ]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 06:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::: you've now provided is about some people's (including Trump's) doubts, last Spring, about the decline in case numbers in China. Yet in the following months, it became clear that case numbers had actually decreased dramatically in China, as has been widely acknowledged since last Summer. -] (]) 11:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			*:Those articles seem a bit dubious though. See HQ dictionaries like . I'm not convinced those should even be separate articles, and indeed the second has several cleanup tags. Anyway, I'm not convinced there's a real distinction between the words, at least not to the extent that a wordy title is warranted. ] (]) 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

			*::] is what PR is referring to (if the link refers to the right place), so agree with that, obviously. The difference in meaning is that one is a bit broader, and of course we should use that one, as per my previous comments. ] (] / ]) 02:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::Time Magazine is a reliable source and social media is a good place for Chinese netizens to discuss what is going on around them. The Time Magazine isn't the only source we can find as a reference for this section, and I will add more soon. If you feel a section doesn't meet WP:NPOV, then you can simply add content from reliable sources, where they are due. ] (]) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->

			</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
	:::::::::::Social media is also a good place for people to engage in unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing. The urn conspiracy theory was mentioned in a few news outlets and magazines, but the existence of this conspiracy theory doesn't render the numbers reported by the National Health Commission "disinformation". -] (]) 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			== "China COVID-19 attempts to cover up" listed at ] ==

			]
	By the way, the section "Treatment disinformation" also does not contain any examples of disinformation. How is noting widespread use of traditional medicine in China "disinformation"? -] (]) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it at ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> –] <small>(])</small> 11:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

			== "China COVID-19 cover-up allegations" listed at ] ==
	:I agree we need to build out that section for the benefit of discerning Misplaced Pages readers. The disinformation relating to Chinese Traditional Medicine as a means of treating Covid-19 is quite well covered by a number of reliable sources, such as , , or . It's an essential part of their strategy to promote their containment narrative to domestic and even international audiences, and has served as a means to show that the central government is doing something, while vaccines and therapeutics were under development. ] (]) 08:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			]

			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it at ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	::I didn't say we should build out the section, so we don't agree there. This isn't disinformation, so it doesn't belong in this article. Practitioners of traditional and alternative medicine may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're engaging in disinformation. -] (]) 10:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::The reliable source provided clearly indicates that the Chinese government's portrayal of TCM as being effective against Covid-19 is intended to promote the superiority of their approach while the rest of the world floudners. That is disinformation. ] (]) 11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::The articles state that many Chinese officials believe in TCM, and they quote TCM practitioners who also naturally believe in it. TCM is something that many (probably most) people in China believe in and use to some extent. To be "disinformation", it must be deliberately wrong, not merely incorrect. -] (]) 11:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::::The title of the article, the quote from Mr Huang, as well as the quote from Dr Lao all make the case that this is disinformation in every sense of the word. ] (]) 11:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::::How so? The article doesn't discuss disinformation or use that word. Calling this "disinformation" appears to me to simply be your own (incorrect) interpretation. -] (]) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::::::This article is about disinformation. Our sources don't need to use the word. ] doesn't cite only sources that have the word propaganda in them. ] (]) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::::::Then this appears to be your own ], unsupported by the sources. -] (]) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	{{re\|Atsme}} I don't understand what the information you recently added has to do with "misinformation". You added material about a conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media about the supposed number of urns going to Wuhan, for example. The existence of this conspiracy theory does not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation". You also wrote that it was "revealed" that the death toll was higher than previously reported. The additional deaths were "revealed" by government authorities after they reviewed cases that had not previously been positively identified as CoVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, such as deaths in nursing homes. How is this an example of "misinformation"? Similar upward revisions occurred around the world, including in the US. NY state, for example, announced a large upward revision in May, after looking into nursing home deaths: . I very much doubt we're going to label that "misinformation". -] (]) 11:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Hi, Thucydides411 - do you not consider downplaying the scale of the virus to be misinformation? I added material cited to high quality RS, so it wasn't OR. Besides, it's not up to us to call something we disagree with a conspiracy theory, or to refute a RS based on our own POV. I provided some of the events that not only triggered the belief it was misinformation it supports the claim and is obviously what inspired RS to publish articles about it. If there is published material that refutes the claims, we simply add it, and let our readers make their own decisions. This article is a spinoff from the section at ] but in all likelihood, the material won't be identical, which is not too unlike what happened with ]. It also doesn't appear that consensus is favoring deletion of either article; i.e., the US or China, so we do our best and chug along writing about what RS say. I think that's the best way forward. ] ] ] 12:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	::I don't know what you mean by "downplaying". You're citing an article by Time Magazine that discusses an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the number of urns supposedly shipped to Wuhan. How does that render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation"? Are you saying that the people on Weibo and other social media platforms who speculated about a few pictures of urns have the correct numbers, and the PCR testing results published by the National Health Commission are therefore misinformation? Or are you saying that the social media speculation is misinformation? -] (]) 12:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	:: Here's a link to the Time Magazine article in question: . It literally links to a Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) post, discusses how the urn theory has circulated on social media, and says that "some in China have been skeptical of the accuracy of the official tally". Okay, but how does that establish that the National Health Commission's figures are "misinformation"? Is this Misplaced Pages article supposed to be a clearinghouse for every conspiracy theory that "some in China" believe in, or is it about actual misinformation? -] (]) 14:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::Thucydides411, the urns were a visible concern by witnesses/family members of the deceased who weren't getting answers. They drew attention to what was really happening, but the focus is not the urns themselves, or the validity of the concerns expressed by the grief-torn Chinese families - the urns were simply a switch that brought light to a major problem; i.e., the government's attempt to downplay the virus by not reporting accurate tallies, suppressing information that the virus even existed, and worse, punishing whistleblowers and journalists for exposing it. The information is indisputable because officials have already to admitted to doing it. You can certainly add whatever you believe is DUE, but sources that I've cited and the material that I've added, most recently citing a NYTimes article dated Jan 2021, is DUE and highly relevant. It is encyclopedic information that our readers need to know. We write what RS say - it's that simple. Happy editing! ] ] ] 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::PS: Thucydides411 - give me a little time to reconsider your argument now that I've added the Li material. I'm open to making some changes, so give me a little time to hash it over in my mind. ] ] ] 15:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::There's almost always some true kernel that sparks conspiracy theories, but that doesn't make the theories true. There was indeed a conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media, based on some images of urns. Those theories were never substantiated. Times Magazine ran an article discussing the theories, noting that "some in China" are skeptical of death figures because of them. But that doesn't mean that the figures published by the National Health Commission are false or "misinformation". By including this conspiracy theory on this page, the implication is that the National Health Commission, in publishing case and death numbers each day, was engaging in "misinformation". Time Magazine doesn't even say that, and this inference looks to me like original research.
	::::As for the material about Li Wenlang, I again don't see what that has to do with "misinformation". This page is supposed to be specifically about misinformation, not a list of every criticism of the Chinese government or every conspiracy theory about China and the pandemic. -] (]) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::{{re\|Atsme}} It's disappointing to see that you've added the urn conspiracy theory back in, without first reaching consensus here. The urn theory is much more likely misinformation ''about'' China than ''by'' China. It's simply a social media conspiracy theory that was never substantiated.
	::::Your latest edits also add the following line:
	:::::{{talkquote\|After the increase in the death count was revealed, the Chinese government denied any attempt to cover-up or spread misinformation about the actual numbers.}}
	::::This makes it sound like someone outside the Chinese government "revealed" a higher death count than the government had previously published. In reality, the Chinese government itself revised the death toll upward after investigating deaths that were suspected (but not previously diagnosed) to be due to CoVID-19. Similar upward revisions have happened in many countries, including the US.
	::::Just more broadly, you've added a hodge-podge of criticisms and dubious theories about China, which aren't clearly related to the subject of this article. -] (]) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::::I think the point that you're missing is that it is '''not''' about the urns - it is about the outcry of the people that was triggered by the urns that led to the investigation which is ongoing. Can you provide a RS that unequivocally disputes those numbers? If so, please provide the link. I couldn't find anything in my Google search. ] ] ] 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Find an RS that disputes what numbers? The numbers that some people on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter made up? Why is this material even in this article in the first place? You're acting as if random conspiracy theories from social media are the established truth, and that if the National Health Commission publishes different numbers, then they must be engaging in "misinformation". As far as I can tell, this is entirely your own original research. -] (]) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm '''not''' citing Twitter - I cited The NYTimes, Bloomberg and Time - what are you talking about? Call an RfC if you disagree - it's that simple. I'm not going to argue with you over this because you're not providing a valid source to refute the information you are challenging. ] doesn't carry much weight in a debate where RS are not only imperative, but in this case, they were properly cited. I expect the same in return. ] ] ] 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::They wrote about the existence of the conspiracy theory. They didn't state that the theory is correct. You're confusing these two things, and then making the ] leap to imply that the National Health Commission is engaging in misinformation, because its numbers are lower than those of the Weibo conspiracy theorists. You're saying you have reliable sources, but those sources don't actually support the conclusions you're drawing. -] (]) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::{{u\|Thucydides411}}, there are many more sources to substantiate the allegation that the Chinese government is fudging the numbers of how many cases and deaths there are, such as this , this , and this . I'm not sure why you keep on trying to censor information from Misplaced Pages that portrays the Chinese government in a poor light. ] (]) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	::::Bloomberg and Foreign Policy report that US intelligence agencies ''claim'' China is downplaying its numbers. That gives us zero information on whether or not China is actually downplaying its numbers. For all we know, this could be an example of US government disinformation. The Nature article is about how the National Health Commission in China categorizes people who test positive but show no symptoms. The Nature article notes that experts are divided on whether the way China categorizes them is appropriate. As the Nature article notes, people who test positive are counted and those numbers are reported publicly. They're just not called "cases" unless they show symptoms. You can still see exactly how many such people there are every day. This is very different from the urn conspiracy theory, which posits that many times as many people died in Wuhan. This is a rather technical discussion about how to categorize cases. -] (]) 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Given that the way China counts its cases is very different, as established by the Nature article, among others, how would you advise we broach the issue in an article which is about how China engages in disinformation in the general? You think this method, isn't something can be considered as a means to engage in disinformation, similar to the way China also falsifies unemployment figures? Can you suggest wording for actual content changes? ] (]) 23:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::::It's not misinformation, so it doesn't belong here. China breaks down people who test positive into two categories, symptomatic and asymptomatic, and reports both. The Nature article quotes a number of scientists who say that it's reasonable to break down cases into these different categories. The question isn't how to word it here: the question is why you're calling this "misinformation" in the first place. -] (]) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::::::At the time the Nature article was published, which was February, it wasn't known if asymptomatic patients transmit the virus, and as Jašarević pointed out at the end of the article, it seemed to make sense that China would focus only symptomatic, which were presumed to be transmitting the virus on a sure basis. But the Nature article, though it provides this useful information on China's methods, was not the only source provided, and there are sources that have yet to be provided, such as the BBC documentary from last night, which carries vivid details on how the Chinese National Health Commission put out obviously false case figures and death counts, while other arms of the Chinese government moved to censor any other sources where the information could come out. Even when China did supposedly start revealing figures from asymptomatic patients at the end of March, Fortune magazine published , calling into question China's figures. Are you still sure it was right to delete the entire section rather than fixing the issues?
	::::::::You're engaging in ] here, trying to draw together different sources that don't call the National Health Commission's figures "misinformation" to argue that they are misinformation. Yes, I'm still sure that your original research does not belong on the page. The way to "fix" synthesis is to remove the claims. -] (]) 16:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::Assuming good faith on your part, I'd like to know how you would present the Fortune magazine article, and the numerous other articles from reliable sources provided? Please can you suggest some text for content changes? Or would you rather delete the entire section? ] (]) 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	{{od\|::::::::::}} The sources do not say that the National Health Commission's statistics are "misinformation". In the Nature article you've pointed to several times, a number of scientists state that separating out asymptomatic cases makes sense. The article ends with this statement:
	:{{talkquote\|Mina says that China is probably also prioritizing care for the sick, and maintaining quarantines, rather than measuring the epidemic’s dynamics. From a clinical perspective, the exclusion of asymptomatic patients from case counts is justified, because if a person has no symptoms, they don’t need medical treatment. “If I put on my medical hat for a moment, I can understand the decision not to count these individuals,” he says.}}
	There were legitimate differences of opinion on how best to count cases early on, and these differences do not constitute "misinformation", any more than the near-complete failure to do any testing at all in the US during this same period constituted "misinformation". Another change to the reporting methodology that the Nature article discusses, which occurred in the same period, had the effect of ''increasing'' numbers of reported cases:
	:{{talkquote\|The situation in Heilongjiang has put a spotlight on China’s reporting guidelines. These had already been getting attention after they were updated on 7 February to allow physicians to confirm cases using images from chest scans rather than waiting days for lab tests. The change in diagnostic criteria saw infections in Hubei, the province at the centre of the epidemic, jump by nearly 15,000 cases in a single day last week.}}
	Chest scans would not have been considered sufficient for a CoVID-19 diagnosis anywhere else at the time. Yet because PCR testing capacity could not keep up in Hubei province, the National Health Commission began counting patients with this less certain form of diagnosis, leading to a substantial increase in the number of confirmed cases. Were other countries that did not allow this form of diagnosis engaging in "misinformation"?
	It's quite a bold claim to say that national case statistics are "misinformation", and there should be strong sourcing for any such claim. This article is about "misinformation", not every criticism of cases counting methodology, and it's certainly not about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about urns. -] (]) 18:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	:I see. I can empathize with the problem of having an issue misconstrued as "misinformation". What I would suggest is that we lay out all sources for and against the position that the Chinese government has engaged in disinformation on case figures and death counts, or on any other issues. I can already spot a few sources supporting your position, and , and I am sure there are more. There are already a number of sources referenced in the page for the position, which we should also lay out here, and summarise properly. Besides for the allegation that China is funding their numbers, you will also have to contend with the allegation that the WHO is playing "second fiddle" to China, as reported and , as part of a diplomatic balancing act, so bringing them into this is hardly convincing. ] (]) 19:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Most material here is not about misinformation ==

	The "early beginnings" section does not appear to be about misinformation at all. It's about the local government chastising Li Wenliang for sharing information about pneumonia cases in WeChat, and about the government's missteps in the initial weeks.

	This article should narrowly focus on actual misinformation. Instead, it's becoming a compilation of criticisms of the Chinese government's handling of the pandemic, with some conspiracy theories about China (such as the urn conspiracy theory that originated in ]) thrown in for good measure.

	The material that is actually misinformation is quite limited, and includes: the claims about Fort Detrick, the claims about Italy, and the claims about the Biontech/Fosun/Pfizer vaccine. -] (]) 22:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

	:I've removed most of the information that's not relevant to the article. The treatment of Li Wenliang or early missteps in responding to the pandemic should and are covered in other articles, such as ], but they're not examples of "misinformation". Similarly, unverified claims by Macron or the CIA that China is downplaying case numbers or the death toll don't render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation". I've left the examples that are arguably misinformation (with the exception of the Chinese Traditional Medicine subsection, which isn't "misinformation" - the claim that most patients in China used some sort of traditional preparation in addition to scientific medicine is not obviously false, even if the traditional remedies are useless). -] (]) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	{{re\|ScrupulousScribe}} You have to seek consensus before adding back in material that has been challenged. Simply adding it back in is ]. -] (]) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	== This is not what NPOV looks like ==

	I don't think any comment is needed beyond just quoting the opening sentences here:
	:{{talkquote\|The Chinese government, utilizing its state media outlets, has engaged in disinformation to downplay its failure to contain the emergence of COVID-19 in China, and subsequent spread around the world. The Chinese government failed to contain the virus at the onset, and lacked coordination between its central and provincial disease control agencies as the disease spread across mainland China, and became a worldwide epidemic.}}
	This is not what a ] looks like. The opening sentence accuses an entire country of failing to prevent the emergence of a novel disease, for crying out loud. This xenophobic attack page really needs to be cut down to its ostensible subject matter - examples of misinformation by the Chinese government. -] (]) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:It accuses the central government of China, for the way it utilizes its own communications bodies (like spokespeople), as well as its state media outlets (like CHTN). It does not accuse the "entire" country, as most Chinese are in fact good people, and this article should not in any way detract from that. ] (]) 23:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	::The lede is making sweeping accusations about how the virus should/could have been contained. These statements assume that a highly contagious respiratory virus could have been contained, and that its spread to the rest of the world is somehow the fault of China. The irony is that this page is supposed to be about misinformation ''by the Chinese government'', but the lede looks a lot like nationalistic misinformation to me. -] (]) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::You are making false conclusions on what the lede does and does not say. As it is, there are a multitude of reliable sources telling of how Chinese government failed to acknowledge, let alone contain the virus, and even lied about its transmissibility, to their own people, and the world. There was an , which should find its way into this page soon enough. ] (]) 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	::::The lede can't stay like this. You can write this sort of stuff on your own personal blog, but not on a neutral encyclopedia. In addition, at the moment, most of the content on this page has nothing to do with misinformation, and should be removed. -] (]) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Article was recently moved ==

	Hi {{u\|ScrupulousScribe}}. I notice you boldly moved the article to a new title. First, I think it may have been a good idea to hold a discussion on the move first. There is a template you can place in the article to let people know a move is being discussed. Please see ] for more info. Second, we should always use ] for article and section names. So a better title for this would have been "Chinese government disinformation on COVID-19". Finally, I think we're supposed to capitalize all letters of "COVID-19", because it's an acronym. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Thanks. –] <small>(])</small> 02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Yes it was a little bold, but it was also discussed in the AFD. I moved it back to the original title of the article I created, as I want to distinguish the Chinese government from the Chinese people. I will correct the other two points you made as per sentence case and capitalisation. ] (]) 02:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	{{admin note}}: too many bold moves are a problem. Please do it right by launching a proper ], then the consensus (or lack thereof) will be made clear, and that will be that. ] 05:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Admin, does this apply also for a page I created under a different name that was moved to another name without any explanation? ] (]) 05:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	::] that I closed a few hours ago had that title, so I'm inclined to leave it at that. ] 05:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	== More Content Removal ==

	{{u\|Thucydides411}}, removing content without consensus is highly disruptive and an editor with your level of experience should know better. If you're unwilling to discuss the issues here, or if you feel that other editors are biased, then ] or ] would be the right avenues for you.

	In the ] section above, I provided a Nature Magazine source explaining how China counts its cases differently to other countries, constituting misinformation. Other countries, particularly Russia have been doing the same thing, which they have even admitted to (), and no one would claim they're not engaging in disinformation. There are numerous sources attesting to the disinformation put out by China's ] in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in China; most recently the "54 days" documentary that the BBC just put out (). You did not even reply in that discussion before removing the associated content, as you've done numerous times before.

	I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Misplaced Pages is ], and if the Government of China is engaging in disinformation, then it is due for coverage here (and it shouldn't reflect badly on the good people of China and Chinese people around the world). We must assure that it is covered from a neutral point of view, so if for instance there is a reliable source indicating that the Chinese government methods of counting cases and deaths '''aren't''' out of whack, then, by all means, bring that source to this discussion, or put it in the article yourself. However, removing well-sourced content supported by reliable sources that clearly indicate that the Chinese government's figures are off (), or questioning whether it constitutes disinformation, should not be done without consensus.

	] (]) 15:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:You've got it exactly the wrong way around. If someone ] adds content, and another person objects and removes it, then the third step is discussion. Instead, you've just added the same content back in without first seeking consensus. That's simply edit warring, and if you continue, I will report it.
	:The Nature article does not call China's statistics "misinformation", and in fact quotes a number of scientists who say that the way that China breaks positive results into different categories (symptomatic and asymptomatic) makes sense. But you're asserting that it is misinformation, apparently based on nothing more than your personal opinion, and then demanding that I find reliable sources that refute your opinion. That's not how this works. -] (]) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:Your put-down about me being sensitive because I'm supposedly Chinese escaped my attention at first, but that's just way over the line. I shouldn't have to tell you what nationality I am, and it shouldn't matter. Attacking people based on their nationality is not okay here on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	::I already countered your point about the Nature article above, so let me move straight past that to counter your ad hominem about me personally attacking you.
	::Your conversation with {{u\|Normchou}} on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Misplaced Pages editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case given that you display French and German on your user page, and that it runs to what you've told other editors in the past (like {{u\|Horse Eye's Back}}). Your account history shows that you have mainly engaged in Talkspace, only recently getting more involved in Mainspace, where you are currently engaged in a number of China-related pages on EN:WP, removing content that is unflattering to the Chinese Communist Party. There is also a behavioural pattern emerging that is consistent with ].
	::I won't presume to know your motives, but if you continue along this path of disruptive editing, I will not be inclined to engage in any further good-faith discussions with you.
	::] (]) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::I don't have to "disclose" my language abilities to you, any more than I have to disclose my nationality. What implication are you trying to get at? You said I was "sensitive" about this issue because I'm supposedly (according to you) Chinese. That's way over the line. -] (]) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::Further disruptive editing on China-related pages will only invite more scrutiny. ] (]) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::::Into what? My nationality? -] (]) 18:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::::Not that. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us? ] (]) 19:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:::::::So far, you've told me that I'm "sensitive" because I'm supposedly Chinese and that it's suspicious that I have Mandarin proficiency, and now you're vaguely intoning something - I'm not sure what. This is all completely inappropriate. -] (]) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	{{od}}Your removal of all of my content that I worked so hard to include was disruptive. You were in opposition to keeping this article, and the AfD was very clear that it should be kept. I expanded it citing high quality RS and have started a discussion below. If you or anyone else wants to remove material, can we please discuss it first, and at least provide a viable reason for its removal which you did not do when you removed all of my work. ] ] ] 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:If the material you add in is unrelated to the subject of the article, or if the "high quality RS" don't actually support the claims you're adding to the article (e.g., calling the National Health Commission's statistics "misinformation"), then just saying that you included sources doesn't mean the material should remain. I've explained my edits in quite some detail, but you've immediately reverted to reinstate the same material. -] (]) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	== You can't simply cannot remove large blocks of well-sourced text ==

	I spent 8 hours researching and gathering the material I added to this artice, and everything I added is sourced to high quality RS. Much of the material was quoted. If you believe something needs to be changed, let's discuss it here first, instead of reverting big blocks of text. I am open to suggestions and work well when others are willing to collaborate to help build this encyclopedia and get the article right. Let the discussions begin. ] ] ] 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	:COVID-19 topics are subject to general sanctions, and per the application note: "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." More generally, ] is an accepted way of proceeding, not BRR. ] (]) 20:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

	:{{re\|Atsme}} I've explained why I removed the text in question - it's unrelated to the topic of this article. For example, the statement that Traditional Chinese Medicine is widely used in China is not misinformation. It's a fact (even if the "Medicine" is unscientific and probably ineffective). So what is that material doing in this article? To take another example, there was a conspiracy theory on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter that claimed that many times as many people had died as reported in Wuhan, based on pictures of urns. There was never any solid evidence for this theory, and it goes against everything that's been subsequently learned about the infection fatality rate of the virus and the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population in Wuhan. Yet this conspiracy theory is being used in the material you added to imply that the death figures published by the National Health Commission are misinformation. It's an incredible leap to go from the existence of a conspiracy theory on social media to claiming that health statistics are faked.
	:As {{u\|Alexbrn}} points out above, the general pattern is supposed to be BRD, not BRRRR. By immediately reinserting the same material over objections of other editors, you're engaging in edit warring. -] (]) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:38, 14 October 2024

The contents of the China COVID-19 cover-up allegations page were merged into COVID-19 misinformation by China on 24 December 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 December 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into COVID-19 misinformation by China. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 misinformation by China article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Top‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 8 February 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China to COVID-19 misinformation by China. The result of the discussion was moved.

On 30 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to COVID-19 disinformation by China. The result of the discussion was Procedural close.

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources () which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi 's emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Which pages use this template?
Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

· Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
Chen, Xin; Kalyar, Fatema; Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad; MacIntyre, Chandini Raina (2024-03-15). "Use of a risk assessment tool to determine the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.14291. Redfield, Robert (2023-03-08). "COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak". House Oversight Comittee. House Oversight Comitee. Retrieved 16 January 2023. Berche, Patrick (2023-06-02). "Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19". Presse Medicale. 52 (1): 104167. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104167. ISSN 2213-0276. PMC 10234839. PMID 37269978. Domingo, Jose L. (2022-12-01). "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 215: 114131. Bibcode:2022ER....215k4131D. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9420317. PMID 36037920. Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; de Ribera, Francisco A. (2022-11-01). "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market". Environmental Research. 214: 113702. Bibcode:2022ER....214k3702C. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113702. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9220909. PMID 35752330. Keusch, Gerald T.; Amuasi, John H.; Anderson, Danielle E.; Daszak, Peter; Eckerle, Isabella; Field, Hume; Koopmans, Marion; Lam, Sai Kit; Das Neves, Carlos G.; Peiris, Malik; Perlman, Stanley; Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn; Yadana, Su; Saif, Linda (2022-10-18). "Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (42): e2202871119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11902871K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202871119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9586299. PMID 36215506. Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Karim, Salim S. Abdool; Aknin, Lara; Allen, Joseph; Brosbøl, Kirsten; Colombo, Francesca; Barron, Gabriela Cuevas; Espinosa, María Fernanda; Gaspar, Vitor; Gaviria, Alejandro; Haines, Andy; Hotez, Peter J.; Koundouri, Phoebe; Bascuñán, Felipe Larraín; Lee, Jong-Koo (2022-10-08). "The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic". The Lancet. 400 (10359): 1224–1280. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 36115368. Thakur, Nagendra; Das, Sayak; Kumar, Swatantra; Maurya, Vimal K.; Dhama, Kuldeep; Paweska, Janusz T.; Abdel‐Moneim, Ahmed S.; Jain, Amita; Tripathi, Anil K.; Puri, Bipin; Saxena, Shailendra K. (2022-09-08). "Tracing the origin of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2): A systematic review and narrative synthesis". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (12): 5766–5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060. ISSN 0146-6615. PMC 9538017. PMID 35945190. Worobey, Michael; Levy, Joshua I.; Serrano, Lorena M. Malpica; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Pekar, Jonathan E.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Kraemer, Moritz U. G.; Newman, Chris; Koopmans, Marion P. G.; Suchard, Marc A. (2022-07-26). "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic". Science. 377 (6609): 951–959. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..951W. doi:10.1126/science.abp8715. PMC 9348750. PMID 35881010. Pekar, Jonathan E.; Magee, Andrew; Parker, Edyth; Moshiri, Niema; Izhikevich, Katherine; Havens, Jennifer L.; Gangavarapu, Karthik; Malpica Serrano, Lorena Mariana; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Matteson, Nathaniel L.; Zeller, Mark (2022-07-26). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..960P. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005. Isonne, Claudia; De Blasiis, Maria Roberta; Turatto, Federica; Mazzalai, Elena; Marzuillo, Carolina; De Vito, Corrado; Villari, Paolo; Baccolini, Valentina (June 2022). "What Went Wrong with the IMMUNI Contact-Tracing App in Italy? A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Attitudes and Experiences among Healthcare University Students". Life. 12 (6): 871. Bibcode:2022Life...12..871I. doi:10.3390/life12060871. ISSN 2075-1729. PMC 9225335. PMID 35743902. Zhao, Shilei; Hou, Yali; Zhang, Xiaolong; Hughes, Alice; Liu, Na; Peng, Minsheng; Wang, Qihui; Xue, Yongbiao; Chen, Hua (2022-05-24). "Pinpointing the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2: a genomic approach". Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 49 (9): 900–902. doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2022.05.002. ISSN 1673-8527. PMC 9128337. PMID 35623453. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. Bibcode:2022ER....207k2173F. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592. Borsetti, Alessandra; Scarpa, Fabio; Maruotti, Antonello; Divino, Fabio; Ceccarelli, Giancarlo; Giovanetti, Marta; Ciccozzi, Massimo (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID‐19 virus origin: The three cards game?". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. ISSN 0146-6615. PMID 34897750. S2CID 245171943. Temmam, Sarah; Vongphayloth, Khamsing; Baquero, Eduard; Munier, Sandie; Bonomi, Massimiliano; Regnault, Béatrice; Douangboubpha, Bounsavane; Karami, Yasaman; Chrétien, Delphine; Sanamxay, Daosavanh; Xayaphet, Vilakhan (April 2022). "Bat coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 and infectious for human cells". Nature. 604 (7905): 330–336. Bibcode:2022Natur.604..330T. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04532-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 35172323. Barker, Hannah; Chen, Chen (March 2022). "Pandemic Outbreaks and the Language of Violence: Discussing the Origins of the Black Death and COVID-19". Chest: S0012369222004433. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.010. PMC 8925085. PMID 35305972. Zhai, Yida; Yan, Zheng (2022-03-24). "Political Ideology, Ingroup Favoritism, and Conspiratorial Thinking: Patriotism, Nationalism, and COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories". Psychological Reports. 126 (4): 1784–1802. doi:10.1177/00332941221079727. ISSN 0033-2941. PMC 8958302. PMID 35324351. Voskarides, Konstantinos (2022-03-18). "SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution". BMC Medical Genomics. 15 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w. ISSN 1755-8794. PMC 8931788. PMID 35303887. DiEuliis, Diane; Giordano, James (2022-02-28). "The Need for Modernization of Biosecurity in the Post-COVID World". mSphere. 7 (2): e00025–22. doi:10.1128/msphere.00025-22. ISSN 2379-5042. PMC 9044947. PMID 35224977. Liu, William (2023-04-05). "Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market". Nature: 1–3. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06043-2. PMID 37019149. Retrieved 19 July 2023. Lawler, Odette K; Allan, Hannah L; Baxter, Peter W J; Castagnino, Romi; Tor, Marina Corella; Dann, Leah E; Hungerford, Joshua; Karmacharya, Dibesh; Lloyd, Thomas J; López-Jara, María José; Massie, Gloeta N; Novera, Junior; Rogers, Andrew M; Kark, Salit (November 2021). "The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health". The Lancet. Planetary Health. 5 (11): e840–e850. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00258-8. PMC 8580505. PMID 34774124. Primary: Chan, Yujia Alina; Zhan, Shing Hei (November 2021). "The emergence of the spike furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2". Molecular Biology and Evolution. PMID 34788836. Rozado, David (September 2021). "Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins". Social Sciences. 10 (9): 320. doi:10.3390/socsci10090320. ISSN 2076-0760. Holmes, Edward C.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Robertson, David L.; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Wertheim, Joel O.; Anthony, Simon J.; Barclay, Wendy S.; Boni, Maciej F.; Doherty, Peter C.; Farrar, Jeremy; Geoghegan, Jemma L.; Jiang, Xiaowei; Leibowitz, Julian L.; Neil, Stuart J.D.; Skern, Tim; Weiss, Susan R.; Worobey, Michael; Andersen, Kristian G.; Garry, Robert F.; Rambaut, Andrew (August 2021). "The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review". Cell. 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMID 34480864. Lytras, Spyros; Xia, Wei; Hughes, Joseph; Jiang, Xiaowei; Robertson, David L. (17 August 2021). "The animal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 373 (6558): 968–970. Bibcode:2021Sci...373..968L. doi:10.1126/science.abh0117. PMID 34404734. Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. PMC 8050477. PMID 33864026. Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401. Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Decroly, Etienne; Van Helden, Jacques (February 2021). "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 19 (2): 769–785. Bibcode:2021EnvCL..19..769S. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1. PMID 33558807. Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1052-9276. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302. Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (1 September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565. Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464. Zhang, Yong-Zhen; Holmes, Edward C. (April 2020). "A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2". Cell. 181 (2): 223–227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035. PMID 32220310. Primary: Andersen, Kristian G.; Rambaut, Andrew; Lipkin, W. Ian; Holmes, Edward C.; Garry, Robert F. (March 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. ISSN 1546-170X. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.

· Scholarship

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID

Chen, Xin; Kalyar, Fatema; Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad; MacIntyre, Chandini Raina (2024-03-15). "Use of a risk assessment tool to determine the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.14291.
Redfield, Robert (2023-03-08). "COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak". House Oversight Comittee. House Oversight Comitee. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
Berche, Patrick (2023-06-02). "Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19". Presse Medicale. 52 (1): 104167. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104167. ISSN 2213-0276. PMC 10234839. PMID 37269978.
Domingo, Jose L. (2022-12-01). "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 215: 114131. Bibcode:2022ER....215k4131D. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9420317. PMID 36037920.
Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; de Ribera, Francisco A. (2022-11-01). "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market". Environmental Research. 214: 113702. Bibcode:2022ER....214k3702C. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113702. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9220909. PMID 35752330.
Keusch, Gerald T.; Amuasi, John H.; Anderson, Danielle E.; Daszak, Peter; Eckerle, Isabella; Field, Hume; Koopmans, Marion; Lam, Sai Kit; Das Neves, Carlos G.; Peiris, Malik; Perlman, Stanley; Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn; Yadana, Su; Saif, Linda (2022-10-18). "Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (42): e2202871119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11902871K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202871119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9586299. PMID 36215506.
Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Karim, Salim S. Abdool; Aknin, Lara; Allen, Joseph; Brosbøl, Kirsten; Colombo, Francesca; Barron, Gabriela Cuevas; Espinosa, María Fernanda; Gaspar, Vitor; Gaviria, Alejandro; Haines, Andy; Hotez, Peter J.; Koundouri, Phoebe; Bascuñán, Felipe Larraín; Lee, Jong-Koo (2022-10-08). "The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic". The Lancet. 400 (10359): 1224–1280. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 36115368.
Thakur, Nagendra; Das, Sayak; Kumar, Swatantra; Maurya, Vimal K.; Dhama, Kuldeep; Paweska, Janusz T.; Abdel‐Moneim, Ahmed S.; Jain, Amita; Tripathi, Anil K.; Puri, Bipin; Saxena, Shailendra K. (2022-09-08). "Tracing the origin of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2): A systematic review and narrative synthesis". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (12): 5766–5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060. ISSN 0146-6615. PMC 9538017. PMID 35945190.
Worobey, Michael; Levy, Joshua I.; Serrano, Lorena M. Malpica; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Pekar, Jonathan E.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Kraemer, Moritz U. G.; Newman, Chris; Koopmans, Marion P. G.; Suchard, Marc A. (2022-07-26). "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic". Science. 377 (6609): 951–959. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..951W. doi:10.1126/science.abp8715. PMC 9348750. PMID 35881010.
Pekar, Jonathan E.; Magee, Andrew; Parker, Edyth; Moshiri, Niema; Izhikevich, Katherine; Havens, Jennifer L.; Gangavarapu, Karthik; Malpica Serrano, Lorena Mariana; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Matteson, Nathaniel L.; Zeller, Mark (2022-07-26). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..960P. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005.
Isonne, Claudia; De Blasiis, Maria Roberta; Turatto, Federica; Mazzalai, Elena; Marzuillo, Carolina; De Vito, Corrado; Villari, Paolo; Baccolini, Valentina (June 2022). "What Went Wrong with the IMMUNI Contact-Tracing App in Italy? A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Attitudes and Experiences among Healthcare University Students". Life. 12 (6): 871. Bibcode:2022Life...12..871I. doi:10.3390/life12060871. ISSN 2075-1729. PMC 9225335. PMID 35743902.
Zhao, Shilei; Hou, Yali; Zhang, Xiaolong; Hughes, Alice; Liu, Na; Peng, Minsheng; Wang, Qihui; Xue, Yongbiao; Chen, Hua (2022-05-24). "Pinpointing the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2: a genomic approach". Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 49 (9): 900–902. doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2022.05.002. ISSN 1673-8527. PMC 9128337. PMID 35623453.
Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. Bibcode:2022ER....207k2173F. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592.
Borsetti, Alessandra; Scarpa, Fabio; Maruotti, Antonello; Divino, Fabio; Ceccarelli, Giancarlo; Giovanetti, Marta; Ciccozzi, Massimo (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID‐19 virus origin: The three cards game?". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. ISSN 0146-6615. PMID 34897750. S2CID 245171943.
Temmam, Sarah; Vongphayloth, Khamsing; Baquero, Eduard; Munier, Sandie; Bonomi, Massimiliano; Regnault, Béatrice; Douangboubpha, Bounsavane; Karami, Yasaman; Chrétien, Delphine; Sanamxay, Daosavanh; Xayaphet, Vilakhan (April 2022). "Bat coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 and infectious for human cells". Nature. 604 (7905): 330–336. Bibcode:2022Natur.604..330T. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04532-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 35172323.
Barker, Hannah; Chen, Chen (March 2022). "Pandemic Outbreaks and the Language of Violence: Discussing the Origins of the Black Death and COVID-19". Chest: S0012369222004433. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.010. PMC 8925085. PMID 35305972.
Zhai, Yida; Yan, Zheng (2022-03-24). "Political Ideology, Ingroup Favoritism, and Conspiratorial Thinking: Patriotism, Nationalism, and COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories". Psychological Reports. 126 (4): 1784–1802. doi:10.1177/00332941221079727. ISSN 0033-2941. PMC 8958302. PMID 35324351.
Voskarides, Konstantinos (2022-03-18). "SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution". BMC Medical Genomics. 15 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w. ISSN 1755-8794. PMC 8931788. PMID 35303887.
DiEuliis, Diane; Giordano, James (2022-02-28). "The Need for Modernization of Biosecurity in the Post-COVID World". mSphere. 7 (2): e00025–22. doi:10.1128/msphere.00025-22. ISSN 2379-5042. PMC 9044947. PMID 35224977.
Liu, William (2023-04-05). "Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market". Nature: 1–3. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06043-2. PMID 37019149. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
Lawler, Odette K; Allan, Hannah L; Baxter, Peter W J; Castagnino, Romi; Tor, Marina Corella; Dann, Leah E; Hungerford, Joshua; Karmacharya, Dibesh; Lloyd, Thomas J; López-Jara, María José; Massie, Gloeta N; Novera, Junior; Rogers, Andrew M; Kark, Salit (November 2021). "The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health". The Lancet. Planetary Health. 5 (11): e840–e850. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00258-8. PMC 8580505. PMID 34774124.
Primary: Chan, Yujia Alina; Zhan, Shing Hei (November 2021). "The emergence of the spike furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2". Molecular Biology and Evolution. PMID 34788836.
Rozado, David (September 2021). "Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins". Social Sciences. 10 (9): 320. doi:10.3390/socsci10090320. ISSN 2076-0760.
Holmes, Edward C.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Robertson, David L.; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Wertheim, Joel O.; Anthony, Simon J.; Barclay, Wendy S.; Boni, Maciej F.; Doherty, Peter C.; Farrar, Jeremy; Geoghegan, Jemma L.; Jiang, Xiaowei; Leibowitz, Julian L.; Neil, Stuart J.D.; Skern, Tim; Weiss, Susan R.; Worobey, Michael; Andersen, Kristian G.; Garry, Robert F.; Rambaut, Andrew (August 2021). "The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review". Cell. 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMID 34480864.
Lytras, Spyros; Xia, Wei; Hughes, Joseph; Jiang, Xiaowei; Robertson, David L. (17 August 2021). "The animal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 373 (6558): 968–970. Bibcode:2021Sci...373..968L. doi:10.1126/science.abh0117. PMID 34404734.
Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. PMC 8050477. PMID 33864026.
Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.
Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Decroly, Etienne; Van Helden, Jacques (February 2021). "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 19 (2): 769–785. Bibcode:2021EnvCL..19..769S. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1. PMID 33558807.
Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1052-9276. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (1 September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565.
Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
Zhang, Yong-Zhen; Holmes, Edward C. (April 2020). "A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2". Cell. 181 (2): 223–227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035. PMID 32220310.
Primary: Andersen, Kristian G.; Rambaut, Andrew; Lipkin, W. Ian; Holmes, Edward C.; Garry, Robert F. (March 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. ISSN 1546-170X. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.

· Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel (20 June 2023). "U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 June 2023. Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott (10 June 2023). "What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted". Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023. Mara Hvistendahl and Benjamin Mueller (23 April 2023). "Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story". Archived from the original on 24 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023. Sasha Pezenik, Josh Margolin, Kaitlyn Morris, and Terry Moran (18 April 2023). "New report from Senate Republicans doubles down on COVID lab leak theory". ABC news. Retrieved 20 April 2023.`{{cite news}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Paun, Carmen; Zeller, Shawn; Reader, Ruth; Leonard, Ben; Scullion, Grace. "Cross-examining the lab-leak theorists". POLITICO. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Max, Tani. "ProPublica scrambles to check translation in COVID origin story". Semafor. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Chan, Alina (3 June 2024). "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2024. Kao, Katherine; Eban, Jeff. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". ProPublica. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Grim, Ryan. "NIH Awards New Grant to U.S. Organization at Center of Covid-19 Lab Leak Controversy". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "Republican Senate staff tout lab-leak theory of the pandemic's origin". Science. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "From 'open-minded' to 'underwhelming,' mixed reactions greet latest COVID-19 origin report". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-12. "China calls COVID 'lab leak' theory a lie after WHO report". AP NEWS. 2022-06-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Schulson, Michael (2022-06-01). "The Challenges of Calculating a Lab Leak Risk". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Piper, Kelsey (2022-04-05). "Why experts are terrified of a human-made pandemic — and what we can do to stop it". Vox. Retrieved 2022-04-05. Eban, Katherine (2022-03-31). ""This Shouldn't Happen": Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Law, Tara (2022-03-29). "Lab Leaks Are a Small But Real Risk in Ukraine. Russian Disinformation Is The True Threat". Time. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Zimmer, Carl (2022-03-21). "'He Goes Where the Fire Is': A Virus Hunter in the Wuhan Market". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Maxmen, Amy (2022-03-17). "Scientists struggle to probe COVID's origins amid sparse data from China". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00732-0. Gallagher, Evangeline (2022-03-09). "This Is How Covid Started. And Here's How We Stop the Next One". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Thacker, Paul (2022-03-08). "Is the media still stifling the lab-leak theory?". UnHerd. Retrieved 2022-03-17. Jon, Cohen (2022-02-28). "Do three new studies add up to proof of COVID-19's origin in a Wuhan animal market?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adb1727. Maxmen, Amy (2022-02-27). "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic's start, studies suggest". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00584-8. ISSN 0028-0836. Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (26 February 2022). "New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 April 2022. Knapton, Sarah (2022-02-22). "Wuhan lab leak theory 'accepted as likely behind closed doors at No 10'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-23. Lerner, Sharon (2022-02-20). "NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Qiu, Jane (2022-02-09). "Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Pinkstone, Joe (2022-02-03). "Covid lab leak theories 'have put world at risk of a new pandemic'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Knapton, Sarah (2022-01-11). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Achenbach, Joel (18 November 2021). "Prominent scientist who said lab-leak theory of covid-19 origin should be probed now believes evidence points to Wuhan market". The Washington Post. Honigsbaum, Mark (15 November 2021). "Viral by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley review – was Covid-19 really made in China?". the Guardian. Rindsberg, Ashley (15 November 2021). "The Lab Leak Fiasco". Tablet. Blakely, Rhys (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Kormann, Carolyn (12 October 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Federman, Daniel Engber, Adam (25 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 September 2021.`{{cite news}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cohen, Jon (2021-09-02). "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-11. Oreskes, Naomi (September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory of COVID's Origin Is Not Totally Irrational". Scientific American. Dyer, Owen (27 July 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. n1890. Doucleff, Michaeleen (2021-07-19). "New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began". WBUR. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline. Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. ISSN 1756-1833. Jacobsen, Rowan (29 June 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review. McKelvey, Tara (27 June 2021). "Wuhan lab-leak theory fuels Trump comeback rally". BBC News. Fay Cortez, Michelle (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Regalado, Antonio (25 June 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review. Hvistendahl, Mara (19 June 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19's Origins". The Intercept. Evans, Anna Muldoon, Nicholas G. (18 June 2021). "There Is No Good Way to Even Investigate the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Folmer, Kaitlyn (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News. Wallace-Wells, David (12 June 2021). "The Implications of the Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Larson, Christina; Merchant, Nomaan (9 June 2021). "EXPLAINER: The US investigation into COVID-19 origins". AP NEWS. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. Irfan, Umair (7 June 2021). "The lab leak hypothesis, explained". Vox. Jacobsen, Rowan (6 June 2021). "How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan Lab story and embarrassed the media". Newsweek.`{{cite news}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (The reliability of Newsweek post-2013 is debated and context-specific. One rationale for why this particular source is probably not unreliable is presented here.) "How the 'Wuhan lab leak' went from conspiracy theory to top presidential priority". The Week UK. 4 June 2021. Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine. Palus, Shannon (29 May 2021). "Just Because We're Talking About the Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Mean It's Come True". Slate Magazine. Brumfiel, Geoff (28 May 2021). "Many Scientists Still Think The Coronavirus Came From Nature". NPR.org. Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian. Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times. Hinshaw, Drew; Page, Jeremy (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Maxmen, Amy (27 May 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3. Whipple, Tom (27 May 2021). "Could a Wuhan lab leak really be to blame for Covid?". The Times. Kessler, Glenn (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "WSJ News Exclusive Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Kannan, Saikiran (2021-05-18). "Bat out of hell? Covid is global but questions over Wuhan lab leak won't go away". India Today. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Jacobsen, Rowan (May 13, 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review. Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (26 March 2021). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times. Rogin, Josh (8 March 2021). "In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened". Politico Magazine. Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Jacobsen, Rowan (9 September 2020). "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?". Boston Magazine. Jacobsen, Rowan (14 May 2020). "The non-paranoid person's guide to viruses escaping from labs". Mother Jones.

· Journalism

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.

Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel (20 June 2023). "U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 June 2023.

Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott (10 June 2023). "What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted". Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

Mara Hvistendahl and Benjamin Mueller (23 April 2023). "Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story". Archived from the original on 24 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023.

Sasha Pezenik, Josh Margolin, Kaitlyn Morris, and Terry Moran (18 April 2023). "New report from Senate Republicans doubles down on COVID lab leak theory". ABC news. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Paun, Carmen; Zeller, Shawn; Reader, Ruth; Leonard, Ben; Scullion, Grace. "Cross-examining the lab-leak theorists". POLITICO. Retrieved 6 December 2022.

Max, Tani. "ProPublica scrambles to check translation in COVID origin story". Semafor. Retrieved 2022-11-03.

Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022.

Chan, Alina (3 June 2024). "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2024.

Kao, Katherine; Eban, Jeff. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". ProPublica. Retrieved 2022-11-03.

Grim, Ryan. "NIH Awards New Grant to U.S. Organization at Center of Covid-19 Lab Leak Controversy". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-03.
Cohen, Jon. "Republican Senate staff tout lab-leak theory of the pandemic's origin". Science. Retrieved 2022-11-03.
Cohen, Jon. "From 'open-minded' to 'underwhelming,' mixed reactions greet latest COVID-19 origin report". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
"China calls COVID 'lab leak' theory a lie after WHO report". AP NEWS. 2022-06-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14.
Schulson, Michael (2022-06-01). "The Challenges of Calculating a Lab Leak Risk". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-14.
Piper, Kelsey (2022-04-05). "Why experts are terrified of a human-made pandemic — and what we can do to stop it". Vox. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
Eban, Katherine (2022-03-31). ""This Shouldn't Happen": Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
Law, Tara (2022-03-29). "Lab Leaks Are a Small But Real Risk in Ukraine. Russian Disinformation Is The True Threat". Time. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
Zimmer, Carl (2022-03-21). "'He Goes Where the Fire Is': A Virus Hunter in the Wuhan Market". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
Maxmen, Amy (2022-03-17). "Scientists struggle to probe COVID's origins amid sparse data from China". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00732-0.
Gallagher, Evangeline (2022-03-09). "This Is How Covid Started. And Here's How We Stop the Next One". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
Thacker, Paul (2022-03-08). "Is the media still stifling the lab-leak theory?". UnHerd. Retrieved 2022-03-17.
Jon, Cohen (2022-02-28). "Do three new studies add up to proof of COVID-19's origin in a Wuhan animal market?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adb1727.
Maxmen, Amy (2022-02-27). "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic's start, studies suggest". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00584-8. ISSN 0028-0836.
Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (26 February 2022). "New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 April 2022.
Knapton, Sarah (2022-02-22). "Wuhan lab leak theory 'accepted as likely behind closed doors at No 10'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-23.
Lerner, Sharon (2022-02-20). "NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Qiu, Jane (2022-02-09). "Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Pinkstone, Joe (2022-02-03). "Covid lab leak theories 'have put world at risk of a new pandemic'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Knapton, Sarah (2022-01-11). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Achenbach, Joel (18 November 2021). "Prominent scientist who said lab-leak theory of covid-19 origin should be probed now believes evidence points to Wuhan market". The Washington Post.
Honigsbaum, Mark (15 November 2021). "Viral by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley review – was Covid-19 really made in China?". the Guardian.
Rindsberg, Ashley (15 November 2021). "The Lab Leak Fiasco". Tablet.
Blakely, Rhys (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times.
Kormann, Carolyn (12 October 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker.
Federman, Daniel Engber, Adam (25 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 September 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Cohen, Jon (2021-09-02). "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-11.
Oreskes, Naomi (September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory of COVID's Origin Is Not Totally Irrational". Scientific American.
Dyer, Owen (27 July 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. n1890.
Doucleff, Michaeleen (2021-07-19). "New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began". WBUR. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline.
Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. ISSN 1756-1833.
Jacobsen, Rowan (29 June 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review.
McKelvey, Tara (27 June 2021). "Wuhan lab-leak theory fuels Trump comeback rally". BBC News.
Fay Cortez, Michelle (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
Regalado, Antonio (25 June 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review.
Hvistendahl, Mara (19 June 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19's Origins". The Intercept.
Evans, Anna Muldoon, Nicholas G. (18 June 2021). "There Is No Good Way to Even Investigate the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy.
Folmer, Kaitlyn (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News.
Wallace-Wells, David (12 June 2021). "The Implications of the Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer.
Larson, Christina; Merchant, Nomaan (9 June 2021). "EXPLAINER: The US investigation into COVID-19 origins". AP NEWS. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3.
Irfan, Umair (7 June 2021). "The lab leak hypothesis, explained". Vox.
Jacobsen, Rowan (6 June 2021). "How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan Lab story and embarrassed the media". Newsweek.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (The reliability of Newsweek post-2013 is debated and context-specific. One rationale for why this particular source is probably not unreliable is presented here.)
"How the 'Wuhan lab leak' went from conspiracy theory to top presidential priority". The Week UK. 4 June 2021.
Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair.
Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.
Palus, Shannon (29 May 2021). "Just Because We're Talking About the Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Mean It's Come True". Slate Magazine.
Brumfiel, Geoff (28 May 2021). "Many Scientists Still Think The Coronavirus Came From Nature". NPR.org.
Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian.
Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times.
Hinshaw, Drew; Page, Jeremy (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker.
Maxmen, Amy (27 May 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.
Whipple, Tom (27 May 2021). "Could a Wuhan lab leak really be to blame for Covid?". The Times.
Kessler, Glenn (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post.
Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "WSJ News Exclusive Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Kannan, Saikiran (2021-05-18). "Bat out of hell? Covid is global but questions over Wuhan lab leak won't go away". India Today. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Jacobsen, Rowan (May 13, 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review.
Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (26 March 2021). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times.
Rogin, Josh (8 March 2021). "In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened". Politico Magazine.
Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer.
Jacobsen, Rowan (9 September 2020). "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?". Boston Magazine.
Jacobsen, Rowan (14 May 2020). "The non-paranoid person's guide to viruses escaping from labs". Mother Jones.

· Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Garry, Robert F. (2022-11-22). "The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (47): e2214427119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2214427119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9704731. PMID 36355862.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Worobey, Michael; Rasmussen, Angela. "Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Help Nobody". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Gorski, David (2022-08-01). "The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-08-12. Harrison, Neil L.; Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2022-05-24). "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (21): e2202769119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202769119. ISSN 0027-8424. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Holmes, Edward C. (2022-03-11). "COVID-19—lessons for zoonotic disease". Science. 375 (6585): 1114–1115. doi:10.1126/science.abn2222. ISSN 0036-8075. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Jacobs, Peter; Neil, Stuart (2022-03-01). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". Scientific American. Graner, François; Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; Decroly, Etienne; Ebright, Richard H.; Btler, Colin D; Fabien, Colombo; Kaina, Bernd; Rahalkar, Monali C.; Halloy, José; Bahulikar, Rahul A.; Theißen, Günter,; Leitenberg, Milton; Morand, Serge; Kakeya, Hideki; Jean-Michel, Claverie; van Helden, Jacques (December 2021). "Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" (PDF). doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Orent, Wendy (28 October 2021). "Why I Still Believe Covid-19 Could Not Have Originated in a Lab". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2021. Wain-Hobson, Simon. "Virology: Dangerous gain of function research has gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ISSN 0174-4909. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Muller, Richard; Quay, Steven (5 October 2021). "Science Closes In on Covid's Origins - Four studies—including two from WHO—provide powerful evidence favoring the lab-leak theory". The Wall Street Journal. Redfield, Robert; Sigel, Marc (15 August 2021). "The World Needs to Know What Happened at the Wuhan Lab". Wall Street Journal. Godlee, Fiona (8 July 2021). "Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins". The BMJ: n1721. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1721. Baltimore, David (2021-06-22). "The Debate over Origins of SARS-CoV-2". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (22 June 2021). "Finding the Origins of COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics". Project Syndicate. Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation. Rodrigo, Allen (14 June 2021). "The COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis is plausible because accidents happen. I should know". The Conversation. Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (2021-06-14). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Balaram, P. (10 June 2021). "The murky origins of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic" (PDF). Current Science. 120 (11): 1663–1666. Seyran, Murat; Pizzol, Damiano; Adadi, Parise; El‐Aziz, Tarek M. A.; Hassan, Sk. Sarif; Soares, Antonio; Kandimalla, Ramesh; Lundstrom, Kenneth; Tambuwala, Murtaza; Aljabali, Alaa A. A.; Lal, Amos; Azad, Gajendra K.; Choudhury, Pabitra P.; Uversky, Vladimir N.; Sherchan, Samendra P.; Uhal, Bruce D.; Rezaei, Nima; Brufsky, Adam M. (March 2021). "Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (3): 1204–1206. doi:10.1002/jmv.26478. Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Hayes, Polly (13 July 2020). "Here's how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn't made in a lab". The Conversation. Talaat, Khaled (6 May 2020). "Wuhan Denialism". Tablet. Wade, Nicholas (28 February 2024). "Where Did Covid Come From?". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 November 2024. New documents bolster the theory that it not only escaped from a laboratory but was developed in one.

· Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.

Garry, Robert F. (2022-11-22). "The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (47): e2214427119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2214427119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9704731. PMID 36355862.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
Worobey, Michael; Rasmussen, Angela. "Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Help Nobody". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2022-11-03.
Gorski, David (2022-08-01). "The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-08-12.
Harrison, Neil L.; Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2022-05-24). "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (21): e2202769119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202769119. ISSN 0027-8424.
Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
Holmes, Edward C. (2022-03-11). "COVID-19—lessons for zoonotic disease". Science. 375 (6585): 1114–1115. doi:10.1126/science.abn2222. ISSN 0036-8075.
Lewandowsky, Stephan; Jacobs, Peter; Neil, Stuart (2022-03-01). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". Scientific American.
Graner, François; Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; Decroly, Etienne; Ebright, Richard H.; Btler, Colin D; Fabien, Colombo; Kaina, Bernd; Rahalkar, Monali C.; Halloy, José; Bahulikar, Rahul A.; Theißen, Günter,; Leitenberg, Milton; Morand, Serge; Kakeya, Hideki; Jean-Michel, Claverie; van Helden, Jacques (December 2021). "Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" (PDF). doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Orent, Wendy (28 October 2021). "Why I Still Believe Covid-19 Could Not Have Originated in a Lab". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2021.
Wain-Hobson, Simon. "Virology: Dangerous gain of function research has gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ISSN 0174-4909. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Muller, Richard; Quay, Steven (5 October 2021). "Science Closes In on Covid's Origins - Four studies—including two from WHO—provide powerful evidence favoring the lab-leak theory". The Wall Street Journal.
Redfield, Robert; Sigel, Marc (15 August 2021). "The World Needs to Know What Happened at the Wuhan Lab". Wall Street Journal.
Godlee, Fiona (8 July 2021). "Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins". The BMJ: n1721. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1721.
Baltimore, David (2021-06-22). "The Debate over Origins of SARS-CoV-2". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. (22 June 2021). "Finding the Origins of COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics". Project Syndicate.
Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation.
Rodrigo, Allen (14 June 2021). "The COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis is plausible because accidents happen. I should know". The Conversation.
Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (2021-06-14). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
Balaram, P. (10 June 2021). "The murky origins of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic" (PDF). Current Science. 120 (11): 1663–1666.
Seyran, Murat; Pizzol, Damiano; Adadi, Parise; El‐Aziz, Tarek M. A.; Hassan, Sk. Sarif; Soares, Antonio; Kandimalla, Ramesh; Lundstrom, Kenneth; Tambuwala, Murtaza; Aljabali, Alaa A. A.; Lal, Amos; Azad, Gajendra K.; Choudhury, Pabitra P.; Uversky, Vladimir N.; Sherchan, Samendra P.; Uhal, Bruce D.; Rezaei, Nima; Brufsky, Adam M. (March 2021). "Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (3): 1204–1206. doi:10.1002/jmv.26478.
Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
Hayes, Polly (13 July 2020). "Here's how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn't made in a lab". The Conversation.
Talaat, Khaled (6 May 2020). "Wuhan Denialism". Tablet.
Wade, Nicholas (28 February 2024). "Where Did Covid Come From?". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 November 2024. New documents bolster the theory that it not only escaped from a laboratory but was developed in one.

· Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Wade, Nicholas (2022-12-04). "Proximal Orchestrations". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-12-06. Yglesias, Matthew (3 November 2022). "The ProPublica-Vanity Fair report on Covid's origins is explosive. Is it reliable?". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Hiltzik, Michael (1 November 2022). "Column: ProPublica and Vanity Fair are pushing the COVID lab-leak theory, but their exposé is a train wreck". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Wade, Nicholas (2022-03-20). "Why Science Writers Don't Report Objectively on Covid's Origins". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-12-10). "This Terrible Book Shows Why the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Won't Die". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Engber, Daniel (2021-11-24). "The Lab-Leak Theory Meets Its Perfect Match". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Ridley, Matt (20 November 2021). "The Covid lab leak theory just got even stronger". The Spectator. Weissmueller, Zach (18 November 2021). "Was It a Lab Leak? The Mysterious Origin of COVID-19". Reason. Zinberg, Joel (1 November 2021). "The Evidence Mounts". City Journal. Grant, Bob (July 1, 2021). "Labs, Leaks, and Liability". The Scientist. (editorial on how media covers the hypothesis) Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-06-29). "The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Young, Alison (June 17, 2021). "'I remember it very well': Dr. Fauci describes a secret 2020 meeting to talk about COVID origins". USA Today. Bio Soave, Robby (4 June 2021). "The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea". Reason. Wade, Nicholas (5 May 2021). "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina (April 10, 2021). "Bats, pangolins, wet market, lab? The mystery deepens". The Weekend Australian Magazine. Young, Alison (March 22, 2021). "Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn't be dismissed". USA Today.

· Opinion-based editorials written by journalists

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.

Wade, Nicholas (2022-12-04). "Proximal Orchestrations". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-12-06.
Yglesias, Matthew (3 November 2022). "The ProPublica-Vanity Fair report on Covid's origins is explosive. Is it reliable?". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
Hiltzik, Michael (1 November 2022). "Column: ProPublica and Vanity Fair are pushing the COVID lab-leak theory, but their exposé is a train wreck". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
Wade, Nicholas (2022-03-20). "Why Science Writers Don't Report Objectively on Covid's Origins". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-12-10). "This Terrible Book Shows Why the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Won't Die". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Engber, Daniel (2021-11-24). "The Lab-Leak Theory Meets Its Perfect Match". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Ridley, Matt (20 November 2021). "The Covid lab leak theory just got even stronger". The Spectator.
Weissmueller, Zach (18 November 2021). "Was It a Lab Leak? The Mysterious Origin of COVID-19". Reason.
Zinberg, Joel (1 November 2021). "The Evidence Mounts". City Journal.
Grant, Bob (July 1, 2021). "Labs, Leaks, and Liability". The Scientist. (editorial on how media covers the hypothesis)
Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-06-29). "The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
Young, Alison (June 17, 2021). "'I remember it very well': Dr. Fauci describes a secret 2020 meeting to talk about COVID origins". USA Today. Bio
Soave, Robby (4 June 2021). "The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea". Reason.
Wade, Nicholas (5 May 2021). "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina (April 10, 2021). "Bats, pangolins, wet market, lab? The mystery deepens". The Weekend Australian Magazine.
Young, Alison (March 22, 2021). "Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn't be dismissed". USA Today.

· Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!
"An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interim Report" (PDF). US Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff. October 2022. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Preliminary. "Preliminary Report for the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)". www.who.int. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-12. Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 27 August 2021. p. 17. Retrieved 29 October 2021. (Executive summary of the report) The Origins of COVID-19: an investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (PDF). US House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff. August 2021. p. 84. Retrieved 7 September 2021. Brief: Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 11 June 2021. p. 3. Retrieved 7 September 2021. "WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint Report" (PDF). World Health Organization. 30 March 2021.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean (February 2021). Weaponized: how rumors about Covid-19's origins led to a narrative arms race (PDF). Atlantic Council. OCLC 1239728647. USA House Oversight Committee (July 2023). "Interim Staff Report – The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Did the "Bethesda Boys" Downplay a Lab Leak?". Retrieved 18 July 2023. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (June 2023). "Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic" (PDF). Retrieved 19 July 2023. Testimony of John Radcliffe, US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19, Transcript: ; C-Span, 18 April 2024, 16.37mins "FINAL REPORT: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation, Issues 500+ Page Final Report on Lessons Learned and the Path Forward". United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. 2024-12-01. Retrieved 2024-12-03.

· Government and policy

Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

"An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interim Report" (PDF). US Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff. October 2022. Retrieved 2022-11-03.
Preliminary. "Preliminary Report for the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)". www.who.int. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 27 August 2021. p. 17. Retrieved 29 October 2021. (Executive summary of the report)
The Origins of COVID-19: an investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (PDF). US House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff. August 2021. p. 84. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
Brief: Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 11 June 2021. p. 3. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
"WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint Report" (PDF). World Health Organization. 30 March 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean (February 2021). Weaponized: how rumors about Covid-19's origins led to a narrative arms race (PDF). Atlantic Council. OCLC 1239728647.
USA House Oversight Committee (July 2023). "Interim Staff Report – The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Did the "Bethesda Boys" Downplay a Lab Leak?". Retrieved 18 July 2023.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (June 2023). "Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic" (PDF). Retrieved 19 July 2023.
Testimony of John Radcliffe, US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19, Transcript: ; C-Span, 18 April 2024, 16.37mins
"FINAL REPORT: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation, Issues 500+ Page Final Report on Lessons Learned and the Path Forward". United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. 2024-12-01. Retrieved 2024-12-03.

References

Comparisons to similar state propaganda campaigns

I added this section but it was reverted entirely with the note that my contribution does not: "discuss Chinese government misinformation campaign and does not seem relevant to this article."

My contribution is quite relevant and does specifically mention by way of comparison the Chinese government's secrecy and (mis-)handling of the truth with respect to the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic. The line that accompanies the title of the NY Times article is: "The accident and a subsequent cover-up have renewed relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." The fifth paragraph describes how the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." A few paragraphs after that the NY Times notes "There is also widespread concern that the Chinese government — which, like the Soviet government decades before it, dismisses the possibility of a lab leak — is not providing international investigators with access and data that could shed light on the pandemic’s origins." NYCJosh (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with this being one sentence or in the see also section. I just don't think this page should be a rhetorical device or about the origin of Covid-19. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Dushan Jugum. We need to be very careful to avoid this becoming a WP:POVFORK.--Shibbolethink 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the source does not discuss COVID-19 misinformation by the Chinese government. Of the three sentences you quoted above, the first two are about misinformation by the Soviet government (not the Chinese government), and the third is about speculation that the Chinese government is restricting investigations (which is not the same as misinformation). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mx. Granger It doesn't use the precise phrase "misinformation by the Chinese government." But the NYT article itself explains its "relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." That is, my contribution discusses how authoritarian governments fabricate yarns when it comes to the origin of pathogens that cause sudden outbreaks of illness, which is precisely our topic. Or to use the language of the NYT itself: the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." It also shows how US scientists can accept the official explanation, even if untrue. So the contribution provides historical context for the Chinese govt misinformation.NYCJosh (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The source does say that the Soviet incident provides historical context for COVID-19, but it doesn't say anything about Chinese government misinformation. That seems to be an inference you are drawing, not something the source actually says. It does talk vaguely about concerns that data may not be shared the way that some would like, but again, that's not the same as misinformation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Mx. Granger "Inference" that I am drawing? In your view, and obviously others are invited to chime in, too, what is the historical context for Covid-19 that the NYT article purports to provide by describing at length the Soviet incident? Other than authoritarian state misinformation about the origin of a pathogen that causes sudden mass illness (and US scientists' acceptance thereof), what parallel could the source be attempting to provide?

Actually, the NYT source is quite explicit: it explicitly mentions the "search for the origins of Covid-19," this is indeed a major theme of the article, and states that the Soviet case "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." NYCJosh (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the source does mention the search for the origins of COVID-19, but it doesn't mention Chinese government misinformation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please answer my question. NYCJosh (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know for sure what parallel the source is hinting at. Maybe they're hinting at a comparison between concerns about lack of data sharing in the Chinese case and lack of data sharing in the Soviet case. Or maybe they're hinting at some other comparison. Either way, we can't add material to the article based on what we infer a source might be hinting at. We can only report what sources actually say. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree here with NYCJosh. Mx. Granger, we don't need the source to use the word "misinformation" for it to qualify this page. We can use basic reasoning and logic to understand that there is possible misinformation here. If you think it is undue speculation, then we can trim it down. If there are competing claims, then we have a wonderful thing called WP:NPOVS. I just read it now. Have you? Francesco espo (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the source is not the problem. The problem is that the source does not actually discuss Chinese government misinformation about COVID-19 – that seems to be something NYCJosh is inferring, not what the source actually says. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2021

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: Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation by China → COVID-19 disinformation by China – As this article has developed, it is clear China is engaging in deliberate disinformation, rather than merely misinformation. The article title should accurately reflect this.

Merriam-Webster defines misinformation as incorrect or misleading information.
Merriam-Webster defines disinformation as false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. ––FormalDude talk 23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Renaming to "disinformation" would unhelpfully reduce the scope of this. There are plenty of instances of encyclopedia-mention-worthy misinformation which is not necessarily disinformation. This would also make this title inconsistent with the other ones ("COVID-19 misinformation by governments";...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree w/ RC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  - Maybe there should be a section dedicated to disinformation then. ––FormalDude talk 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    Just describe the variety in the prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per RandomCanadian. {{u|Sdkb}}  02:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Right now we distinguish between misinformation vs disinformation. For now I weakly agree with RC that mis is a broader concept than dis, hence this article would not be helped by the move, as it would merit splitting some information. However, we could consider renaming it to COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation by China. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Those articles seem a bit dubious though. See HQ dictionaries like Cambridge. I'm not convinced those should even be separate articles, and indeed the second has several cleanup tags. Anyway, I'm not convinced there's a real distinction between the words, at least not to the extent that a wordy title is warranted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:CONCISE is what PR is referring to (if the link refers to the right place), so agree with that, obviously. The difference in meaning is that one is a bit broader, and of course we should use that one, as per my previous comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 2 September 2021 (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.

"China COVID-19 attempts to cover up" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect China COVID-19 attempts to cover up and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#China COVID-19 attempts to cover up until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"China COVID-19 cover-up allegations" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect China COVID-19 cover-up allegations and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#China COVID-19 cover-up allegations until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: