Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Consarn (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 14 October 2024 (malformed link fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 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 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.

• v
• t
• e

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. 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)
3. 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, ...)
4. 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))
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)

• v
• e

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)

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)

"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)

• C-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class COVID-19 articles
• Top-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles