Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 31 January 2021 (→You can't simply cannot remove large blocks of well-sourced text: WP:1RR now in effect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Contested deletion

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 Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple origins - Spain

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 this one. Apparently, its based on a misrepresentation of the findings in this paper. There were no counterstatements from the authors, that I could find. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Content Removal

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 WP:RVREASONS? Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the section because, as I said in my edit summaries, it is not an example of disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I saw your edit summaries, but I am asking you to explain here how false data isn't disinformation and qualifies for removal as per WP:RVREASONS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What false data are you referring to? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The false case numbers and death counts. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Which false numbers? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As indicated in the Time Magazine source you deleted. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:02, 28 January 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Time Magazine is largely considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, as is credited along with The New Yorker for originated the practice of fact checking, 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 WP:RVREASONS. This is still a new article, and WP:NOTPERFECT, and there are a lot more sources we can still add, such as this one. If you feel a section doesn't meet WP:NPOV, then you can simply add content from reliable sources, where they are due. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:07, 28 January 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.

The other source 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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". -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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 this piece from NBC, this piece from the Guardian, or this one from DW. 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:47, 28 January 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Then this appears to be your own original research, unsupported by the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@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". -Thucydides411 (talk) 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 Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic but in all likelihood, the material won't be identical, which is not too unlike what happened with Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States. 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. Atsme 💬 📧 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? -Thucydides411 (talk) 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? -Thucydides411 (talk) 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! Atsme 💬 📧 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. Atsme 💬 📧 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@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:

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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. Atsme 💬 📧 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. WP:IDONTLIKEIT 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. Atsme 💬 📧 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 WP:OR 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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 Bloomberg article, this Nature article, and this Foreign Policy article. I'm not sure why you keep on trying to censor information from Misplaced Pages that portrays the Chinese government in a poor light. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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 this piece, 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 synthesis 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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:

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:

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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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, here and here, 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 here, as part of a diplomatic balancing act, so bringing them into this is hardly convincing. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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 Weibo) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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 COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, 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). -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: You have to seek consensus before adding back in material that has been challenged. Simply adding it back in is edit warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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:

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 neutral point of view 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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 interesting report on AP about that, which should find its way into this page soon enough. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article was recently moved

Hi 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 Template:Requested_move for more info. Second, we should always use sentence case 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. –Novem Linguae (talk) 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. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: too many bold moves are a problem. Please do it right by launching a proper move request, then the consensus (or lack thereof) will be made clear, and that will be that. El_C 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? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China that I closed a few hours ago had that title, so I'm inclined to leave it at that. El_C 05:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

More Content Removal

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 WP:DR or WP:RFC would be the right avenues for you.

In the Content Removal 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 (source), and no one would claim they're not engaging in disinformation. There are numerous sources attesting to the disinformation put out by China's National Health Commission in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in China; most recently the "54 days" documentary that the BBC just put out (here). 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 not censored, 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 (here), or questioning whether it constitutes disinformation, should not be done without consensus.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got it exactly the wrong way around. If someone boldly 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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 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 contrary to what you've told other editors in the past (like 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 WP:HOUND.

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.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Into what? My nationality? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not that. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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. Atsme 💬 📧 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 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. Atsme 💬 📧 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, WP:BRD is an accepted way of proceeding, not BRR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@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 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in effect

Once the week-long full protection expires, participants are informed of Template:Editnotices/Page/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China being in effect (though somewhat of a preemptive action, I still thought it was worthwhile to impose at this time). El_C 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions