Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 3

< Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 86.145.13.11 in topic British sentence screwy phrasing and mebe shouldn't exist.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

China, government misinformation on how the virus spreads

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

So I had this in here and it got removed, by a user who said RW was missing. Does anyone know what that means?

The Chinese government officials initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human. The WHO has cited this information in the following Twitter post from January 14th, 2020: ″Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China″ Berehinia (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Berenhinia, that wasn't a misinformation. Those are preliminary investigations not full investigation. Please don't do original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Your interpretation (that they initially claimed that) is original research and false. They stated that they had "found no clear evidence" at that time, which is in fact correct (they had not found it yet) and does not point to misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Under the definition of misinformation (false or inaccurate information), this entry is absolutely valid. Misinformation Berehinia (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No, SharabSalam and Cold Season are right. It's like me honestly saying I've never seen a woman eat her hat. Doesn't mean certain women can't or won't eat hats when or if it becomes a thing most people know about, and if anyone thinks I imply otherwise, that's on them for misinferring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC
I have to agree with InedibleHat. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The underlying intent, honest or not is irrelevant. A false assertion was made by the government despite Wuhan doctors having known of human to human transmission as far back as December. That's textbook misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As others said, the timeline is important. It was not reliably known yet that transmission also occurred between humans. It's something that whenever was confirmed, also caused China to strongly react in an effort to limit its spread. —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The Chinese officials said that they had "no evidence" at the time, which is a true statement. You make the interpretation that this means that the officials "initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human", which is a false and uncited WP:OR by you. At the moment, you are editing against consensus, so I suggest that you self-revert. --Cold Season (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Aye, not talking about intent, just the statement. Taken at face value, it's true. It's arguably damn true. Important to not conflate a few hushed doctors (or one) with the Chinese authorities. Two totally different jobs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, it was misinformation. It was "preliminary investigation". It was bullshit. Obviously it belongs. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User Cold Season broke it down pretty well helping me understand what folks arguing against it being misinformation meant. However, my point was while "lack of evidence" was a factual statement by Chinese government, the fact that an international organization like WHO has jumped at putting this out there given there already were warnings by doctors on the ground that it is infectious is irresponsible at the very least. They CHOOSE to say this after Taiwan warned them and despite the Chinese government having known for at least 6 days prior about transmission danger. And 5 days after the WHO statement on Jan.20 the Chinese officials had to admit to their citizens that there's, in fact, human to human transmission. And intent matters very much here given that the international authority on health doesn't just randomly broadcast anything. Contrast "there's no evidence on human to human transmission" with something else they could've said like "possibility of human to human transmission is still being investigated" or better yet not say anything! And of course, now there are enough reliable sources, so I'll be adding this in. Berehinia (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Berehinia: You will add no such thing while the RfC is undergoing below. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Berehinia: When/what did Taiwan warn the WHO of? Furthermore, the authorities announced h-2-h transmission on the 20th of January, not the 25th as you state. Additionally, I think you'll find they did say what you wanted them to say. See here. Here are some other links you may find extremely contradictory to your stated points.
Acalycine (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: No need to use threatening tone with me.
@Acalycine:

So WHO knows from Taiwan well in advance and doesn't rule out h-2-h transmission itself as per those handy links from Acalycine, but chooses to publicize a statement on twitter telling people there's no evidence without any qualifying statement. They could've easily chosen to not say something so irresponsible. And of course, Chinese government knows the whole time and intentionally hides this. Therefore it's misinformation. Berehinia (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You've concocted a very odd narrative here. Literally nobody 'ruled out' human-to-human transmission (unless you can find some RS that say otherwise). Scientists in WHO and in China knew it was a possibility, as it is with EVERY emerging infectious disease. You don't appear to be up to date on the news regarding the email - WHO released the email they received from Taiwan. It said nothing about human-to-human transmission and was not a warning, but a request for more information. See here and here. Lastly, regarding but chooses to publicize a statement on twitter telling people there's no evidence without any qualifying statement. - did you read the links/tweets I sent? These are examples of the qualifying statements you seek. Please conduct this discussion based on evidence - not bias. Here's another source, on Jan 14 - the same day as the 3rd link you cite. Here's a counter-question: what's the difference between limited and sustained human-to-human transmission? It's very important to know this if you're going to debate this topic. Acalycine (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pro-trump qualification is irrelevant and should be removed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The lab theory section has this phrase: "Disinformation researcher Nina Jankowicz from Wilson Center indicates the lab leakage claim entered mainstream media in United States during April, propagated by pro-Trump news outlet." [emphasis mine] Why is that a relevant detail? I think we should remove the adjective.--Forich (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is an attempt to impart partisan politics to paint the source as reliable or unreliable. The information therein should speak for itself, not spoken by proxy. IDeagle94 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


[Disclaimer: not trying to politicize or stir up further conflict]: it might be the case that the person who added the pro-trump qualification wanted to hint at "flooding the zone", a political spin/disinformation tactic (depending on your political leanings) often mentioned in association with Russian information warfare...and with Steve Bannon. Link: https://www.eurozine.com/flooding-the-zone/

Link2: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/25/why-trump-is-winning-and-the-press-is-losing/

But it has been used by many different political actors and most of the "flooding" is done for economic gain rather than to promote an agenda.

If it can be proven that it was promoted exclusively by pro-Trump media outlet in a way that indicates intentional coordination, it might be worthwhile to leave the qualification there in order to avoid Wikipedia editors being accused of cherrypicking evidence on the sensitive topic of politically motivated distribution of misinformation. If, instead, it turns out to be indeed a useless detail, then nobody will complain when you delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.229.32 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is "The Science Times" a reliable source?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I ask because elsewhere, someone just cited a Science Times article that claims face masks are dangerous. I see it was cited here as the source of an article suggesting the virus was made in a lab. It's sounding more and more like a fake news site to me. --MopTop (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Might be best to take this to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
RSN is only really necessary when there is a failure to reach a consensus on reliability locally, I see no indications we’re at that point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Its not a reliable source, definitely shouldnt be used in this article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Empty hospital theory

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I guess there's no end to these conspiracies, and I suppose they don't all merit inclusion. But there's a QAnon-inspired one that goes by the hashtag name #FilmYourHospital, the idea being, that parking lots are not overflowing, and peeking into the hospital doors or windows doesn't reveal frenetic activity inside, so it's all a lie and there's no pandemic. I don't currently plan on editing the article, and if someone wants to research it and see if it merits some addition, be my guest. This search turns up sufficient reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

New conspiracy on Wuhan Lab

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Again from US conservatives, National Review: The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs, Jim Geraghty, April 3, 2020 1:20 PM. This time it was a grad student. Coronawirrkopf (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Coronawirrkopf, see also: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Missing_scientist:_H.L._and_details_on_the_index_case_(Patient_0)_conspiracy_theory

Zezen (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is beginning to look more and more to not be such a “conspiracy theory” after all... Accidental releases/exposures of pathogens occur all the time in labs all over the world (especially those that work with animals that are potential reservoirs of novel zoonotic organisms), there’s no reason to believe that this absolutely couldn’t have happened at the WIV. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Fox News claims today (April 16th) that "Sources believe coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US" [1]. Similar claims came very early, and BBC said as early as January 30th that there was no evidence of that. [2] Fox writes that: "Additionally, the sources tell Fox News the World Health Organization (WHO) was complicit from the beginning in helping China cover its tracks." What is going on? Is Fox spreading a consiparcy theory trying to implicate WHO? A virus has to be identified in a lab, so that the virus "originates" from a lab is hard to avoid - but if the virus is designed in a lab everything published about bats and pangolin is wrong. If Fox is spreading misinformation deliberately (which is how it looks) or by accident (their sources misinform them, and they fail to recognize) it should be mentioned. If they are actually right, we need to rewrite multiple articles about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Markuswestermoen (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
They're asserting that the lab in Wuhan was studying a bat-derived coronavirus, and that it escaped from the lab due to lax practices, at least according to one story. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
See sections below. HLHJ (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Experts are ignoring the fact that WIV was using HIV-derived plasmids in their BSL2 lab (easy to leak), transfecting Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells used for SARS-like CoV (SLCoV) experiments. Simple contamination of the HEK cells with SLCoV, recombination with HIV genetic material could produce SARS-CoV2. The Indian paper on HIV inserts was beaten up without even considering this scenario. Details: https://twitter.com/ArumughamVinu/status/1259208074444734464?s=20 See Prof. Petrovsky's description here: www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-in-wuhan ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3766462 ; So this Wikipedia misinformation page itself is a source of misinformation Vinucube (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Government section of Mexico is outdated, and the expressions in the article texto do not correspond to the sources.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the text, the phrase "Mexico's federal government has been slow to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic as of late March 2020, with a great deal of criticism" is not present or refeered to in the article of the reference [412] "Mexican governor prompts outrage with claim poor are immune to coronavirus", which mainly speaks of the controversial comments a governor of one state within Mexico (a federal republic with 32 state-level divisions). The actual mexican federal government response to COVID-19 is a very controversial, partisan discussion, which cannot be assesed with one simple source or phrase.

In that sense, another source, the article [413] "AMLO Goes off the Rails" is written by Leon Krause, a well-known very partisan, anti-government commentator, whose comment should be balanced with other sources and not be reflected like a general consensus.

Also, all this sources are from late March. Well within May, Mexico is in a governement mandated quarantine with similar measures as in other countries. The comment makes the country look like there have been no measures taken yet, which giver a very outdated view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

False statement by Italian doctor in "Accidental leakage" section

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The section ends with a quote from Vincent Racaniello, that the bat virus researched in the Wuhan institution "would not have been able to infect humans – the human Sars-CoV-2 has additional changes that allows it to infect humans". However the Wikipedia article on the Wuhan lab clearly states that back in 2015 "a team including scientists from the Institute published successful research on whether a bat coronavirus could be made to infect HeLa [...] The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells." I don't know if "infecting human cells" is the same as "infecting humans". However, that Dr. Racaniello does not even refer to the ability to "infect human cells" suggests that he maybe is not aware of this 2015 research. It is therefore strange that this section on "misinformation" has only this single non-biased expert who is expressing a countering opinion, with the other denial coming from one of the researchers of the Wuhan institute (who is obviously not non-biased). 46.109.138.188 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I second that. This researcher's opinion is not a WP:RS here.Zezen (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I third this opinion; this single researcher’s opinion is being afforded undue weight, as it is highly unlikely that he could be aware of every strain of bat-derived coronavirus being studied in the WIV labs. In fact, this entire section of accidental release being construed as “misinformation” is looking more tenuous by the day given the recent reporting from media outlets that are not state-sponsored. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I fourth. And this is all speculation. It is plausible that there was a bio containment leak, but no definite proof of this yet.
From memory, my understanding is that the work on the bat viruses deliberately modified with bits from another virus to infect HeLa was published before all this, and that the sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is clearly not this hybrid. Instead, SARS-CoV-2 looks like some known wild bat viruses, but with an additional series of random mutations scattered throughout the whole genome, not the sort of replace-this-bit tinkering you'd do in a lab for will-it-infect-HeLa-cells-type work. This is why the experts who have looked at all these sequences think it's not engineered (like the Lancet and Nature papers: see the "Bioengineered virus" section). Faking such a natural-mutation-produced genome would be a big conspicuous project, and I can't see that the WIV would have had any incentive to undertake it when more standard methods would be quicker and easier. It seems simpler to assume that a virus so closely related to SARS that it's not strictly a separate species just originated in the same way that SARS did, by going from bats to an intermediate host (where the mutational changes allowing it to infect humans occurred) to humans. Certainly asserting the contrary as a fact is unfounded in any data I have seen. HLHJ (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Can this "intermediate host" not be something living in a lab? Maybe even the HeLa tissue itself? Aren't these HeLa basically immortal, and so haven't they been living in that lab with that infection since 2015? But the most obvious question is, how much of a coincidence is it that this unique (globally unique?!?) project was carried out THIRTEEN KILOMETERS from the place where the infection started? 46.109.138.188 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The hybrid virus used to infect the HeLa tissue has a different genetic sequence from SARS-CoV-2. The genetic sequence also shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a descendant of the hybrid virus used to infect the HeLa cells. Living things in level-4 labs are very carefully controlled (humans and viruses and cell cultures included). The infected HeLa cells and the hybrid virus are not immortal if they are carefully autoclaved; just leaving them around and feeding them regularly seems unlikely. The pre-intermediate-host ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 would probably not have been able to infect HeLa cells, even after long exposure (because they are human, and if the bat virus could directly infect human cells, with no mutation in an intermediate host, we would have noticed). This is why I said that accidentally infecting HeLa with additional viruses in a lab seems unlikely.
It certainly is not coincidence. The lab was set up in response to the SARS outbreak, to study similar coronaviruses that might jump the species barrier and become dangerous (SARS is a close cousin to SARS-CoV-2). The Chinese government set up the lab because they knew that China was at high risk from such an event; I don't know if they deliberately set it up in a high-risk city, but it seems plausible. They did set it up somewhere fairly central in China, in a large, dense city which is a major transport hub. COVID-19 spread around transport hubs, and most countries' outbreaks center on international airports. It is perfectly plausible that the infected intermediate host or an early infected human came to Wuhan from some rural area, and the infection was only noticed once it reached Wuhan and began spreading widely; early cases in many countries were mistaken for influenza. See also Prosecutor's fallacy. HLHJ (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The area of China is 10 000 000 square kilometers. The area of a circle of 13 km is ~500 square kilometers. The odds of the only Chinese level-4 SARS research laboratory coincidentally falling in this circle is 1 to 20 000. If this laboratory is unique in the entire world (you did not even seem to contradict this), the odds are correspondingly 500 times smaller. While the disease was always likely to start in a large city, the Chinese government had no obligation whatsoever to set up the lab studying extremely dangerous viruses in the middle of a large city. I can't see what point you are suggesting for them "deliberately" setting up the lab in a high-risk city. Why would they do that? Are there more bats in the middle of the city? Were they planning to harvest viruses from the population? Why does the lab studying the death-virus need to be in a "major transport hub", unless we are literally living in a Fast and Furious movie? You also seem to ignore the fact that the Chinese had SARS viruses previously escape from other laboratories, several times. 46.109.138.188 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
HLHJ Do you have any sources talking about China preparing for a high-risk event by conducting this research? I wanna better understand why the government was caught by surprise when the pandemic broke out and had to lie about it given they always knew this was a risk. Also 46.109.138.188 that's an impressive analysis. Again would love to see some resources in this vein.Berehinia (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Leaving your biased wording aside, I think you'll find pandemic surveillance is quite an expansive topic and does not merely include China's efforts (although these are tied to countries such as the USA and are collaborative in nature). See, for example, PREDICT (USAID), Disease X, COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Preparations, EcoHealth Alliance. Acalycine (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
46.109.138.188, please do read prosecutor's fallacy, which explains some statistical factors which complicate your calculation. The world has more than one level-4 biosafety labs; I think most developed countries have one, some more than one. I don't know what proportion of them were working on coronaviruses like SARS or MERS, but my guess is most of them. I don't know what considerations go into siting level-4 labs, but many are at transport hubs.
Berehinia, any sources on the founding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology should mention it; certainly there is lot on Pubmed about how coronaviruses are a likely source of future epidemics (which they still are; nothing prevents another coronavirus from making the jump to humans). The coronavirus-related academic publications of researchers who had worked at the WIV would also probably mention coronavirus risks in the intros to ~all related papers, though they'd probably skim over it on the assumption that anyone reading it already knows.
I'm not saying that China's behaviour was perfect here; read Ai Fen's firsthand account for a critique of the early reaction. The culture of censorship in China certainly slowed the early response. The WHO also reacted more effectively to this in the case of SARS. Everyone seems to be agreed that all countries need better mechanisms for the early release of incomplete data about the genetic sequences of new diseases; since the development of point-of-care genetic tests and vaccines designed directly from the genome on computers, this has suddenly become a more urgent step.
However, the balance of reliable siource does not say that the virus escaped from a lab. Thi is lkly because there is no evidence that the Wuhan virus was anything other than yet another coronavirus spontaneously jumping from bats to humans via an intermediate host. Unluckily, this one has a lot of asymptomatic transmission, otherwise it might well have gone the way of SARS by now. Zoonosis often involves domesticated and live wild-caught animals. The precautions taken around the animal trade in China (and many other countries) need work; most people know too little about the meat industry in their own countries (zoonotic diseases are not the only risk; there's also new animal diseases, antibiotic resistance, groundwater contamination, and fisheries collapse, for instance).
Summary: we can't include this lab-escape hypothesis, or WP:OR arguments for it, in the article. We can't state that the virus escaped from a lab when the balance of reliable sources fails to support the statement. We can't say that something is not misinformation if the balance of RS say it is. That's how Wikipedia works. Reliable sources may sometimes be wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. I would really like to move on from this discussion; there is a lot more work to do on Wikipedia's coronavirus content, and many more expert people than I have said what I have said, better.
We are all being asked to accept "Nobody knows (yet)" as an answer to important life-or-death questions. Many people quite reasonably feel that such ignorance is scary. I'm even more scared of failing to admit that we don't know: false certainty is more dangerous than ignorance. We have hundreds of people dead after being poisoned by fake COVID-19 treatments, tens of thousands of people probably dead due to underestimating the risk. Most countries have at least a few people trying to blame the whole thing on whoever they hated anyway, and urging actions which won't help and will hurt (like Hindus banning Muslims from Indian villages, or US and Chinese politicians spending funds that could seriously be put to better use on online advertising blaming one another). They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, even if we do not yet have conclusive evidence that they are wrong. There is a great temptation to reassure ourselves with simple, appealing stories that give convenient answers, even if there is no solid evidence to support them. These stories can harm, and even kill, us and the people we spread them to, just as dead as the virus can.
It's difficult to sift out good-quality sources, and read and understand even the academic papers. I urge anyone wanting to improve these scholarly skills to start editing Wikipedia (though starting with medical topics is like starting a videogame on the last level; counterrecommended if you want to do more than quit in frustration). Anyone can benefit from learning more about how to distinguish the reliability of sources and read them critically (very clearly including me; it's not as if I never uncritically accept misinformation). There are also a lot of good online resources for developing information-sifting skills; I'll mention the online course at [3]. There are free online textbooks and university courses on modern genetics, too; with those and Wikipedia, you can acquire a lot of information in few weeks or months. You, reader, may have better suggestions. HLHJ (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Experts are ignoring the fact that WIV was using HIV-derived plasmids in their BSL2 lab (easy to leak), transfecting Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells used for SARS-like CoV (SLCoV) experiments. Simple contamination of the HEK cells with SLCoV, recombination with HIV genetic material could produce SARS-CoV2. The Indian paper on HIV inserts was beaten up without even considering this scenario. Details: https://twitter.com/ArumughamVinu/status/1259208074444734464?s=20 See Prof. Petrovsky's description here: www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-in-wuhan ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3766462 ; So this Wikipedia misinformation page itself is a source of misinformation Vinucube (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Help needed monitoring the misinformation section of COVID-19 pandemic

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We agreed a little while back at COVID-19 pandemic to use the Trump video also found here as the visual for that section. Two editors opposed to the move have been removing it or modifying the caption without attaining consensus at talk. I've reverted but it may not stick and I don't want to edit war, so I'd appreciate if any of you who are inclined could monitor the page. The overall editing rate of that page has slowed, so it's no longer the torrent it once was, but a lot of less-than-ideal edits are still slipping through. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Swiss Policy Research

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per this recent discussion, I would like to add elements from Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org) on the German site to this article. For those who don’t know, the site is a highly linked source for misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. European journalists have debunked it (per the above linked German Wikipedia article), but we have nothing in English. I would hope that including some of this info here would act as a pointer for others when they try to link to it in English. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NewsGuard identifies "super-spreaders" of COVID disinformation

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per Science-Based Medicine [4]: NewsGuard identifies the Typhoid Marys of COVID disinformation on Facebook and Twitter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, there was an indirectly related article in the WSJ today, titled "Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive". It turns out that Facebook’s algorithms promote “super-spreaders”. An internal review of the problem tried to fix it, but they were shut down and prevented from implementing any recommended changes. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tweet from Joe Rogin

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit a tweet is used as a source, but WP:TWITTER says tweets may be used as a source about themselves (i.e. the tweeter) and it does not involve claims about third parties;. This tweet clearly is about third parties and hence breaches WP:TWITTER. Autarch (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Changed -Loned (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be a section at the front of the article devoted to misinformation by the Chinese Government in December 2019 and January 2020?

Latest comment: 4 years ago76 comments23 people in discussion

Should there be a section on Chinese statements in December and January of 2019-20 that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission? Example here. [5]. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Please don’t call other editors uninformed etc, you have no way of knowing how informed or knowledgable they are so its best to WP:AGF. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, I'm sorry if it came across this way. I don't know how each editor is informed individually. But I think this RfC might have the effect of inviting to jump prematurely to an uninformed !vote. --MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Include. We need to ask ourselves two questions: is it being characterized by WP:RS as misinformation/disinformation? And is it related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? The answer to both appears to be yes here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The key word here is no evidence of person-to-person transmission at the time, which is an inherently true statement (as discussed earlier [8]) as they did not have evidence for it yet. It does not mean that they claimed that there was no transmission. --Cold Season (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Cold Season, if there was no evidence, what was Li Wenliang arrested for? And why was the possibility of person-to-person transmission acknowledged in the private phone call on January 14? Saying that there was no evidence may technically have been true, but it was very misleading, because they also did not have evidence that it wasn't true. But it doesn't matter anyway because we know that they had evidence thanks Li. A study by Chinese doctors also revealed numerous cases of person-to-person transmission before January 14. One third of all reported cases on December 31 had no contact with the food market. [9] Display name 99 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
A statement by Li Wenliang and actually finding evidence are two wholly different things. Saying that something may be possible also does not point to evidence. Don't conflate things. "Technically true" is just "true". --Cold Season (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It's misleading. They knew that there was a possibility of it and never said so. And if one third of all reported cases had no contact with the food market where the virus supposedly began, than those people must have received it through person-to-person contact. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
And why was the possibility of person-to-person transmission acknowledged in the private phone call on January 14 Because h-2-h transmission is possible in most new infectious diseases. They didn't have evidence of it yet. Saying something is possible does not mean you have evidence of it happening. Counter-question: if they knew about h-2-h transmission, why wouldn't they say so on the private phone call?
They knew that there was a possibility of it and never said so. This is completely false. The WHO warned of h-2-h (acting on a legal mandate of using given information from China) here and here. The authorities in China warned of h-2-h here. Your statements are evidently false, and it's clear you are trying to construct a narrative out of nothing. Acalycine (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No and WP:SNOW close per MarioGom comments below (seriously, citing the National Review?) and Cold Season. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-China said that it had no evidence of person to person contact when we know that it did due to an intercepted phone call between the head of the National Health Commission and provincial officials. [10] China maintained for 6 days afterwards that person-to-person transmission was not possible. Also, that's not forget about arresting a doctor who tried to warn people about the spread of the coronavirus. [11] It's clear that China lied about the risk that the virus posed, and in fact went to extraordinary measures to do so, and this must be included as part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Preliminary and unsubstantiated statements about the "possibility" (as stated in the phone call) of it is not evidence, so your argument falls flat. Nowhere in the source is stated that China obtained evidence for it at the time, however you want to frame it, while characterizing the Chinese statement (about having no evidence for it) as misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Your response makes no sense. For the Chinese government to have said that it had no conclusive evidence of human-to-human transmission while hiding the fact that it was aware that such transmission was possible is extremely misleading. Also, as the article says, the phone call stated that localities should prepare for and respond to the pandemic, but it was not until January 20 that Xi Jinping called for social distancing and an end to travel. The article lists other examples of alleged distortion of facts by Chinese officials. For example, while Wuhan reported 50 cases on January 17, a study found that there were likely 35 times that many, which may also be something that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, either in this article or a sub-article. Finally, can you please explain how arresting doctors for sharing data on the virus does not constitute false information? Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Saying that something is possible does not mean that they had evidence of it. That's is your own faulty conclusion. For the second part, don't raise a red herring to me about unrelated issues. --Cold Season (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, saying that Chinese leaders had no evidence at the time is simply not true. Accoring to this article, they acknowledged the possibility of human-to-human transmission on January 14 but then still maintained that there was no clear evidence for six days. Li Wenliang was arrested after sharing information about the virus on January 3, which shows that China had evidence well before January 14 and chose to suppress it. One third of all reported cases on December 31 had no contact with the food market. [12] Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
They acknowledged the possibility, they are not saying that they had evidence at the time. Li Wenliang's statements and actually having evidence are not the same. --Cold Season (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
"They acknowledged the possibility of human-to-human transmission on January 14 but then still maintained that there was no clear evidence for six days."
So? there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. If you read the source from Vox you will see that it says using its voice and not just attributing to China that there was also “no clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission, meaning the virus wasn’t yet spreading from one person to another.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You didn't read very carefully. It says that that was the case in late December, not January 14. Also, it says that that was one of the things that officials in the country were "clear on," which does not necessarily mean that they were correct or were telling the truth. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Mx. Granger, I'll readily agree that the current version is not very well written and poorly sourced (a whole paragraph without a citation-seriously?) but this does not change the fact that China repeatedly misled people by downplaying the impact of the virus. This went from stating that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission in late December even when 1/3 of all officially reported cases had no contact with the food market where according to the Chinese government the virus began, arresting doctors who tried to blow the whistle, and stating misleadingly on January 14 that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission while privately acknowledging on the very same day that such transmission was possible. All of this information can be found in sources that I have cited above, both in my vote and my response to others, which you may find to be of higher quality than the ones cited in the original version of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Arresting whistleblowers is hardly commendable, but I don't think it quite qualifies as spreading misinformation either—rather, it's a form of suppressing information. Anyway, if anyone puts together a different draft of what the proposed section might look like, I'd be happy to weigh in on that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Mx. Granger I wrote it. The problem is that it was reverted, so others didn't have a chance to improve it. It seemed clear to me that reverting back would lead to WP:EW. I actually agree that it can be improved. But if it is rejected for that reason, then my choice not to WP:EW is effectively punished. Suggestions? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In this situation, one option is to workshop the section here on the talk page. Some users (including me) have their doubts that this material is accurate and/or relevant. If you can put together a draft that's well-sourced, well-written, neutral, and relevant to this article, I think you'll be able to get consensus to add it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No not at the front of the article. Looking at the NEJM source[13] and it does not support "On 20 January, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commision said for the last time that no cases were found among close contacts." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, because while this is false and the Chinese government were saying it, there doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing to say the Chinese government knew it was false when they said it. There's some evidence that they realized it was possible, but I wouldn't say that's really sufficient when the lede of the article describes the topic as "conspiracy theories and disinformation". It's quite possible from the sources we have that this a bad guess, or mere wishful thinking. Loki (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, as per Doc James and Loki. Mistaken actions during a period of uncertainty are not the same as misinformation: we should not damn based on hindsight. However, happy to discuss some specific text, with good sourcing, here if something is presented. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, certainly not the text currently offered. There is a difference between being wrong about a new unknown disease and intentionally lying about it. The sources accusing China of lying are pretty small in number and so partisan as to be a joke. As Doc James says, the NEJM supports very little, if any, of the text which it is supposedly supporting. It does of course support that initial Chinese claims about human-human transmission are now known to be completely wrong. Also AFAI could see, the NEJM did not mention the 'whistleblower' doctor who later died. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No - the article from the National Review [14] is deeply confused and, through sheer epidemiological and scientific ignorance, grossly distorts the record of early disease spread and understanding of COVID19 in Wuhan. As for the Quartz article [15], even though I am upset and disturbed by the way the Wuhan Security Bureau treated doctors on the front lines of the crisis, it remains true that scientists and doctors were still working out the mechanics of transmission in early January. Furthermore the Quartz article gets a number of basic facts wrong in its first two paragraphs: for instance it describes the earliest genetic sequence as available January 12th, when it was actually first discovered on the 26th of December and shared the 27th. Also the Quartz article claims people in China had no idea about the danger of the virus in mid-January, when the South China Morning Post and WHO reported on it on December 31st / January 1st. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - There is clear evidence from reliable sources on the extent that China lied to the world (which includes lying about human to human transmission despite information to the contrary), and the extent that China went to great lengths to cover things up during the initial stages of the outbreak by arresting doctors who were contradicting the misinformation being put out Chinese government. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe I don't find the sources presented to be compelling enough to include the proposal without it being WP:UNDUE. However, I don't in essence disapprove of the suggestion and - if a sufficient body of additional RS were found - would support inclusion. DocumentError (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No No evidence at the time. Stating there was not evidence at the time is different from lying Jcoolbro (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It is indeed lying because there is solid reliable information which proves that China knew, according to the phone call. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The phone call explicitly mentions the possibility of human-to-human transmission, not that they had evidence of it at the time. So don't misrepresent sources. --Cold Season (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Please define China, given that there is plenty of evidence that the *province* hid matters from the central government, then the central government started percolated things up slowly - until shit's creek was found and nobody had a paddle. That you don't comprehend that strongly suggests that you've never worked in any large organization, nor comprehend the Peter Principle. Remember Halon's Razor, never attribute malice to that which mere stupidity would suffice. Edited to properly record my vote.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes because most recent non-political RS, such as this Science commentary emphasize that "Multiple press reports have also provided evidence that China has promoted disinformation campaigns suggesting the virus originated in other places, such as the United States.". A lot of other things on this page, such as the alleged "leak" from the Chinese lab, are not really misinformation (read disinformation), but merely a "controversy" and should be placed elsewhere. Unfortunately, this WP page provides a lot of misinformation that needs to be fixed, for example, presenting a legitimate controversy as misinformation is misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    All of that is not relevant to this RFC, which is about the specific claim, in the early stages of the virus's discovery, that there wasn't evidence of human-to-human transmission. Separate incidents of misinformation have occurred and should be covered in the article, but that's not part of this RFC. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, this is relevant because Chinese government had the evidence of human-to-human transmission, but covered it up. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-ish - A major WEIGHT of reporting on misinformation is *specifically* about what early China information and misinformation was, and there is a lot of misinformation *about* China, and China continues as a major source of *new* misinformation. A separate section early on would be one way to place the early misinformation. I think a LEAD mention of the major sources that highlights major themes including China would also be appropriate as an alternative. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, information coming from sources in China should be demoted on Wikipedia's scale of credibility of RS, or at least, we should have a discussion about it. It deserves a section here.--Forich (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No and WP:SNOW close, it was not misinformation to say there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission at that time, unless somebody can demonstrate that a) there was evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission at the time, and b) that Chinese scientists were aware of this evidence, thought it was notable and then reported it to authorities, who c) declined the evidence and did not publicise it/take actions on it. Unless a, b, c can be proven, this is blatantly false and a concocted narrative. For context, here is the definition of sustained h-2-h vs limited h-2-h:
The WHO’s defines sustained human-to-human transmission as transmitting easily from one person to the next and then further onward — in the way that flu or other established human viruses work. That’s in contrast to limited person-to-person transmission, in which a virus dies out after infecting a person or a few people in clusters of people who are in close contact with each other, such as in a family or a work setting. (from) Acalycine (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: A section at the front of the article? That seems like overkill, even if one assumes that there is consensus to include this in some form. — MarkH21talk 21:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be clear, "no evidence" of contagion between humans was clearly not just untrue, but deliberate misinformation by mid January 2020. Even disregarding the reports of the phone call and the threatening of doctors, it is simply not at all credible. Patient reports would indicate one family member got it from another, and then hospital staff would start to get sick - it is a completely ridiculous claim - the only way it was believed when is was made is if the person making it was either ignorant of the facts and ignorant of medicine. Also, as another editor pointed out, even if someone ignored all the evidence in front of him to claim there was no evidence, the claim was made in a context intended to convey the belief it was not happening, when there clearly was no evidence for that. Editors need to do a bit of homework, not "original research" but basic homework, to understand this.

Sources

Collecting relevant sources here. Others should feel free to expand or to add contrary sources.

Some sources use the term "cover-up": [19][20][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs)

Comment: I don't see the point of this unused source dump, with no further argument given and thus no clarity on what to discuss. Secondly, a lot of the sources do not even mention the issue as covered in the RFC opening, but just put here to make an unrelated point. --Cold Season (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is there are a lot of people, and though I assume good faith, including you who are consistently flat-out denying the misinformation that China has engaged in. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This RFC is not about China engaging in misinformation (of which I've made no comment on), so this is all a red herring. There's no need to say what you assume of others, as it holds little value. It is about whether the statement of no evidence of human-to-human transmission was misinformation, which--as argued in the discussions beyond this dump--the body of sources do not support. --Cold Season (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

A question about what should be done with the article -- typically in this sort of RfC, the section is left in the article while the discussion is ongoing. In this case, it was reverted shortly before I started the RfC. I didn't want to edit war, so I didn't revert it back in. But I'm not sure if that was the correct way to handle this. Could someone clue me in? Adoring nanny (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, stating there is "no evidence of person-to-person transmission" is not the same as claiming there is no person-to-person transmission. The difference about both types of claims is clear in science, but often confused by non-scientific commenters. This topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and I would suggest to other editors reviewing past discussions before jumping to an RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, in responding to Adoring nanny, you may have just proved a point that you were not intending to make. Non-scientific people to tend to think that saying that there is "no evidence of person-to-person transmission" is the same as claiming there is no person-to-person transmission. So by declaring the former, the Chinese government intended for the public to believe the latter. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, do you realize that by the same reasoning, the World Health Organization and the Ministries of Health of many countries are supposedly engaging in misinformation all the time? MarioGom (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, yes, I do. The point is that if the Chinese government was not engaging in misinformation, it would have specifically stated publicly on or before January 14 that there was a possibility of human-to-human contact just as it did in private. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, the possibility was officially on the table (not confirmed, and not ruled out either):

Health officials have revealed that three members of the same family were among the 41 people that contracted the newly identified coronavirus in the central China city of Wuhan, adding that they have neither confirmed nor ruled out the possibility of human-to-human transmission. [...] In an update released early on Wednesday, the officials said also that a husband and wife were among those affected. But while the husband worked at the seafood market as a trader, his wife said she had never even visited it.
— South China Morning Post, 15 January 2020 [22]

The whole debate of "why not on 14", "why not more clear", etc, seems quite pointless IMHO. As if national-level management of the crisis in any country moved in the timescale of hours after new evidence, instead of days or weeks. --MarioGom (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, the key evidence was out there. If declaring human-to-human transmission was so obvious, it could have been done by WHO or other national governments. --MarioGom (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If the key evidence was out there, why didn't China say so? It is still true that saying that there was no evidence for human-to-human transmission is misleading and that stuies state that it was taking place at least close to two weeks before January 14. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
But there was evidence of person to person transmission. See the NR and Quartz articles. Part of my reason for jumping is that the info is right there in the sources, the reverter has discussed it extensively, and does not give any outward sign of taking into account what the sources actually say. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Adoring nanny, early claims are not evidence. In scientific research there are usually early findings that are later examined and reproduced. There is also usually a delay between cutting-edge research and determining scientific consensus by authorities. This is not something particular about COVID-19 or China by the way.
  • Quartz does not seem to be support any claim of misinformation, or at least not the ones that are usually discussing about "Chine lies to the international community". It is a recap of the timeline of public communication, that does not have anything too extraordinary. Assertions like Knowing that Dr. Li had contracted the virus should have indicated to officials that the virus was likely to be transmitted person-to-person, rather than just animal-to-human. are quite interesting when stated in non-WP:MEDRS. They would have a hard time convincing WHO or the scientific evidence that this would be strong evidence. Also after the clickbait headline, it recognizes that China has been praised by the WHO for being transparent and collaborative in taking on the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan. They’ve been sharing information about the disease, now known as Covid-19, with the international community since late December when Wuhan reported the first cluster of patients carrying an unknown pneumonia virus. Chinese scientists figured out the genetic sequence of the new virus on Jan. 12, less than two weeks into the research.
That's a curious interpretation of the sourceThree things the Chinese government tried to hide during the novel coronavirus outbreak. For example, Quartz says that according to China, there were no new infections during a 13-day period . . . and also that Li Wenliang's lungs were found to be infected during that period. Additionally, they said there was "So far no infection found among medical staff". Was Dr. Li not medical staff? There are further examples in the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed alternative version

Here is a proposed revised version of the paragraph in the article:

China has frequently come under allegations of obscuring the seriousness of the outbreak during its initial weeks. Specifically, studies have suggested that human-to-human transmission took place weeks before China first acknowledged that it was taking place, which was on January 20. Vox Chinese efforts to censor people who warned about the virus, particularly in the case of Doctor Li Wenliang, have come under suspicion and heavy criticism. LA Times Chinese officials were faulted once more after it was learned that during a private phone call between Ma Xiaowei, the head of the National Health Commission, and provincial health officials on January 14, it was acknowledged that "human-to-human transmission is possible" and that "all localities must prepare for and respond to a pandemic," while at the same time the Chinese government publicly maintained that there was no evidence for human-to-human transmission and waited until January 20 to tell people in infected areas to practice social distancing and avoid travel. One study released on March 13 by scientists at the University of Southampton, which was not peer-reviewed, concluded that if similar instructions had been given on January 14, the number of cases would have been reduced by 66%. Business Insider

I think that this is better than the original version and would appreciate people's thoughts. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any feedback on this yet, but I'd like to ping Mx. Granger and Bondegezou, who both said that they would be open to looking at revised versions. Please note that while I support including the paragraph as is as a whole, I can accept having certain portions taken out or adjusted. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's better than my original version. I've taken the liberty of fixing a typo. I do wonder about the organization. A single paragraph may tend to get hard for the reader to navigate. I also see a lot of long sentences with "and" and the like. I'd prefer short sentences. I notice that you do use short sentences in the discussion, but not in your proposed article! Adoring nanny (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That can be fixed if this ever makes it into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't think this is any better than the version discussed above. The Vox source raises questions but clearly notes that "there are a few potential explanations" for the issues raised. It does not adequately support the claim that the Chinese government spread misinformation. Censuring people is not the same as spreading misinformation. (Or did you mean "censor"? But that's not the same either.) The claim that "the Chinese government publicly maintained until January 20 that there was no evidence for human-to-human transmission" does not appear to be supported by the source at the end of the paragraph.
Overall, these sources give the impression of uncertainty and confusion early on in the outbreak and some amount of censoring or suppressing information and "spinning". None of those are the same as spreading misinformation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A Chinese epidemiologist told state television on January 20 that the virus was being spread person-to-person, not the government. I misread that part of the article. I meant censor rather than censure. I've fixed both problems, and I apologize. The critical points are these. China said that it had no evidence of cases being spread person-to-person when they had been spreading for weeks. It's true, as others have said here, that saying that there's "no evidence" for person-to-person transmission and saying that person-to-person transmission isn't occurring are two separate things, but the lay audience will read them as the same thing. If the Chinese government had wanted to be truthful, it would have acknowledged publicly, as it did privately, on January 14 (better yet a couple of weeks before that at the latest) that there was a possibility of the virus being spread publicly and imposed social distancing and an end to travel, something that wasn't done until January 20. And if the requirments of misinformation are that they be deliberate falsehoods, that the people who said the things be knowingly lying, that would disqualify much of what is in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Business Insider source suggests a confusing state of affairs with different people saying different things at around the same time, which sadly is not an uncommon situation in the early stages of a complex situation (the "fog of war" as the Vox source puts it). The BI source also gives the impression that Chinese government agencies engaged in censorship and other less-than-commendable actions, but doesn't indicate a program of actually spreading misinformation. I don't think that source is going to be sufficient for including this issue in the article. (It's worth reading the article carefully, by the way, and not focusing on the headline. The headline embellishes a bit, as headlines sometimes do.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The source literally opens with "For six days in mid-January, China knew the novel coronavirus could become a deadly pandemic while it told the world there was nothing to fear, according to an Associated Press report published Wednesday." I just read the entire article, nothing supports your contention that BI believes your "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" theory. Also, "a program of actually spreading misinformation" is too high a bar, the topic is whether WP:RS categorize China as spreading misinformation, not whether they categorize China as having a systematic program to spread misinformation. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"For six days in mid-January, China knew the novel coronavirus could become a deadly pandemic while it told the world there was nothing to fear" is a vague summary. Instead of relying solely on that one imprecise sentence, I encourage you to read the entire source carefully and learn exactly what was and wasn't said at different points in time. The Associate Press report doesn't seem to say the Chinese government spread misinformation either. Rather, it says that they failed to warn people when they should have: it refers to "almost a week of public silence". Many would say that's worthy of criticism, but failing to provide information is not the same as spreading misinformation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I strongly, strongly encourage Rfc closer to read the articles him/herself if necessary, rather than take Mx. Granger's word on the summary. I'm taking this talk page off my watchlist, but please ping me if my additional input is requested. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There is important content here that should be covered on Wikipedia, but I feel it is covered at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and that that article remains a better place to go into these issues. This article is about deliberate misinformation and the examples here of confused, suboptimal, early, Chinese action aren't quite the same as deliberate misinformation, as Display name 99 and Mx. Granger say. Bondegezou (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't changed my opinions, but I'm not going to waste my time or others' by continuing to argue about it here if others see differently. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good version. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I like this version. I also think whether it's included or not, there should be consistent criteria over what is required for inclusion in the page. Most of the content on this page would have to be removed if we require multiple sources that specifically use the exact word "disinformation", or if we ignore headlines we don't like and say "it's just embellishing". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We should always read sources carefully instead of relying on headlines. That is not specific to this article but rather applies to all articles.
By the way, if you want to add more claims about the Chinese government to the article, I suggest using this source, which actually does discuss an alleged incident of spreading misinformation (though unrelated to the censorship issues being discussed in this RFC). —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The latter half is nothing more than a repeat of the original, in which the "no evidence" part (which was a true claim) is associated to the WP:OR that it is misinformation. Saying that human-to-human transmission is "possible" does not disprove that. Lastly, the last sentence has nothing to do with misinformation, as it is a hindsight conclusion from March on the early handling while officials had limited information and not a comment on misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation sections

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I see that this article has a lot of interesting content about the misinformation of the COVID-19 pandemic, but I am not quite understanding the way that sections and subsections are constructed, specifically: Conspiracy theories, Statistics, Medical misinformation, and Miscellaneous - where there is cross-over with other sections, or may be unique to a specific country.

I do like the separate sections for

  • Types and origin and effect
  • Efforts to combat misinformation (but perhaps this could go towards the end of the article
  • Government (with subsections of countries below)

Perhaps information could be grouped based upon the nature of the misinformation:

  • Accidental inception — where there was not an attempt to do harm
  • Deliberate inception theories — Biological weapon, Population control, where the intention was to do harm to others
  • Misreporting — of morbidity and mortality statistics
  • Treatment — unsupported treatment theories
  • Theories against people based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin
  • < unnamed sections at this time, perhaps media reporting, disinformation campaigns, how the illness is spread, etc. >

Perhaps put information unique to a given country, and not fitting one of the other misinformation categories, like the Decline in cellphone subscriptions could go in the China section, Hospital ship attack could go in the United States section for instance. Or, put this same information into a behavioral section — how people's reactions are affected by the nature of having a world-wide pandemic.

I would be happy to start a draft and reorganize the sections to show you what it looks like. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this would be helpful?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The structure of the article definitely needs some re-jigging. It covers the entire spread from "A specific country lied" to "some people misunderstood the design of a British banknote" and such a wide area needs discipline. I would certainly like to help if we can find some agreement on structure, if not necessarily content. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
How about if I start a draft to restructure the article to start?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Doktorbuk I started a page at Draft:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic - restructure. I will rough out a new section structure. Feel free to make modifications or comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have finished reorganizing the sections and I have not seen any concern with the changes. So, I would like to:

  • Copy over the reorganized sections
  Done with this edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Replicate the edits made since when I took the snapshot of the article
  Done I changed all the manual edits.
  Half done - There was a script run to fix the date formats. I have asked the user who ran the script to run it again. Then, the edits will be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done now, thanks to Kreggon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Are there any concerns about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it's a bit quick, but I haven't seen anyone object to this...and I would like to reduce the number of edits to make. So, I am going to copy over the reorganized sections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
As an FYI, there was a lot of content supporting the theory in the Origin in Wuhan virology laboratory section, so I put a lot of the content in notes so it's a bit easier to read... and the detail is in the notes for the people that want to get more in-depth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Content

The article is quite huge and I tried to pare down a couple of sections regarding biological weapons, but keeping high level information in the section and putting detail in notes, but I am not sure that is the right route to take. It may be better to create sub-articles.

There are also some sections, like treatment methods, etc. where the subsections are pretty thin.

Are there any thoughts about how to ensure that the article adequately covers the various forms of misinformation without getting into so much detail that it's a bit overwhelming to read? And, should tangential content be covered in the article (scams, Hospital ship attack, etc.)? –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is much improved. Thank you. If the detail is overwhelming. put it in a separate article. On a related topic, I'm proud of what I did for Fauci: [23] deisenbe (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this be included: Article clarifying misleading claim of plandemic

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/legislative-history-of-cares-act-doesnt-prove-covid-19-conspiracy/

From the article: "Social media posts falsely claim that the CARES Act was introduced Jan. 24, 2019 to perpetuate the falsehood that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned or known about in advance. The CARES Act was introduced March 25 as a substitute amendment, replacing the title and language of an older, unrelated bill."

Is the source reliable? Should this be added?

Fearless lede'r (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes--ENTRalIs (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

McConnell later apologized for saying they didnt leave behind a playbook

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/mcconnell-obama-playbook-pandemic-259969

This could be added

Unsure, as we all make mistakes, and he did own up to it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Italian autopsy reveals covid-19 is caused by 5G

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

:) I got a nice new one: "ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH-UPDATE

Italy has become the first Country in the world to conduct an "AUTOPSY" on a Covid-19 dead body, & after carrying out a comprehensive Scientific investigation they found out that Covid-19 as a VIRUS doesn't Exist, it's all just a Global Scam.. People are actually dying as a result of "Amplified Global 5G Electromagnetic Radiation Poisoning..If they get to contract the Covid-19 .. which is not a Virus as they have made us believe, but a bacterium .. amplified with 5G electromagnetic radiation that also produces inflammation and hypoxia." as per https://news-af.feednews.com/news/detail/22cb399074fb9f89a7abbb72f851e3bc?client=news - good night, SvenAERTS (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I read the article and the only 5G that came to mind were these words: "Good Goddanm Great Gibberish Gawk" ;) Forich (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is entertaining, but is it notable enough? --mfb (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's see if this one spreads. Bondegezou (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The number of people stupid enough to believe that until now, nobody had the idea to do an autopsy on people dead from COVID-19, should be pretty low. I can think of only one, but lots of people follow him on Twitter... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see it dates from May 25. eg eg
Rebutted AAP FactCheck June 3, 2020. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling: You misunderstand, the World Health Law (sic) banned autopsies! Brave Italian doctors risked unspecified punishment by the World Health Law to reveal the truth! It will stay unclear how all the different tests for a virus can reliably detect a disease that is not caused by a virus. That's certainly some conspiracy, too. --mfb (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Odd how the source is not sanita.it (the Italian ministry of heath website) but italiarevelacurardelcovid19 (which is not even a full domain name), which is not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
As to a ban on autopsy [[24]], does not seem to worry the Germans. Or [[25]] the Americans, so stop this misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If that was meant as reply to me: I thought it was obvious that my comment was not serious. --mfb (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New Chinese Disinformation Campaign

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This would appear to be significant and at the least necessitates an expansion of our current coverage of Chinese misinformation (and disinformation, the malicious subcategory of misinformation). NYT:"Twitter Removes Chinese Disinformation Campaign"[26] DW:"Twitter slammed in China, Turkey, Russia after culling 'manipulative’ accounts" [27] The Guardian:"Twitter deletes 170,000 accounts linked to China influence campaign”[28] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion
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: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic → COVID-19 misinformation – The misinformation we have are not just about the 2020 pandemic that caused by COVID-19, they are about the disease itself as well. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your rationale doesn’t make sense, COVID-19 is the disease. COVID-19, short for “Coronavirus disease 2019”, is the disease, which is distinct from the associated pandemic, and which is also distinct from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes it.
I suggest closing this RM as ill-prepared. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Please don’t start RMs with two competing suggestions. Think about it longer, and decide on exactly one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
      Thank you. Correcting the RM. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: wouldn't Misinformation related to COVID-19 be more precise?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is misinformation about the pandemic, not just the disease, so I'd have concerns about the proposed title. I think we might be able to find a more concise title than the current one, but I'd prefer it retain "pandemic". (I've also just reverted the short description change for this reason.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not the best title and can cause confusion. Starzoner (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the current title is not a great example of WP:Concise, it is not so long, is easily read, and is very easily understood. Note that "COVID-19" is jargon, a neologism and acronym, and these usually benefit a lot from just another word or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. The current title appears more comprehensive. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 02:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the article covers misinformation about the virus, the disease, and the pandemic, they are closely linked (for now) so it makes sense to cover them together. "Related to" covers everything - misinformation about the virus is related to the pandemic caused by the virus. I think it's fine to have just one of the three explicitly in the title. "Misinformation related to COVID-19" would be more concise. If there is another pandemic by SARS-CoV-2 in the future then we have to reconsider the scope of the article. --mfb (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, it's much more concise and easier for readers to find. Félix An (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Shorter is the opposite of easier to find. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Not for everyone. Félix An (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Can you give an example, because I think that is nonsense. In this case, the word at issue is “pandemic”. How can someone looking for an article on COVID misinformation not find it because of the presence of the word “pandemic” in the title? I think “pandemic” is important because “COVID” is not a normal word, with some still using “coronavirus”, and all familiar with the topic being associated with a “pandemic”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposed title is not "simpler", as it has a completely different meaning from the current title. "COVID-19 misinformation" implies misinfo related specifically to the disease (symptoms, etc.); the content of the article relates to the pandemic broadly. — Goszei (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The misinformation in the article is about the current pandemic, as well as COVID-19 in generally. The proposed title isn't better. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (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.

British sentence screwy phrasing and mebe shouldn't exist.

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The phrasing of the 'British' section of the government misinformation is incredibly poorly phrased, poorly sourced and of dubious inclusion. Would COBR considering the lab, but thinking it unlikely compared to the mainstream scientific working theory, actually qualify as misinformation? Even assuming the story is true, it wasn't ever actually released...it's a report of something that was said about something that was considered during a private/secret meeting? I'm sceptical it meets either the 'mis' or the 'information' part of the article. The in article sentence currently starts 

"The member of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's emergency committee of senior officials, Cobra,..."

This is unwieldy, and surely could be better wrt MOS. At the very least, the first word is wrong...it'd be "a member", not "the member".

Above all else, the section is sourced to the DailyMail (it's disguised, but read the sources), which shouldn't be used at all, and quotes an anonymous 'member' of COBR...who's allegedly breaking security to talk to the daily mail of all people? 81.140.215.189 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that an entire room is not a cabinet member, nor are all of the individuals one person, so "A member..." is correct and I've edited that. However, the sciencetimes page has only one singular link to the DailyFail, confirming the virus is zoonotic and that is correct. The VanityFair article mentioned a fringe theory, providing a link to the depreciated Mail, again, being entirely accurate about an existing fringe theory and disinformation as to the origin of the virus. As this article is on misinformation related to the pandemic, not including such information would result in a completely inaccurate and blank article! The editors here are not referencing the depreciated Mail, that two citation articles do and are clear about the disinformation provided by that publication isn't relevant at all.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you’re going to need to cite both respected fact-checking and expert (but WRONG!) and poorly-checked misunderstandings in tabloid sources (other kind of Wrong) if you’re reporting on misinformation. Daily Mail *is* a major publication, so citing it seems reasonable as a WEIGHT item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I explained myself clearly: the section in question is under 'government', when it is supposedly about misinformation from the dailymail...it appears strangely phrased to use the name Boris Johnson. I suggest that the position & phrasing of the paragraph is intended to present the British government as having spread misinformation, which is not true. Mostly I contend that the actual statement sourced does not qualify as misinformation at all. The story is that (allegedly, with dubious quotes (no-one in cobr briefs the dailymail)) the lab was considered by cobr: that simply is not misinformation.
To be very clear my main objections are
A - The unwieldy construction of the sentence appears dedicated to including Boris Johnsons name for, presumably, POV reasons.
B - The paragraph does not belong in the 'government' section, it is quoting the dailymail, not the government. In fact the government directly rejected the story.
C - What is written is not misinformation.
86.145.13.11 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_misinformation/Archive_3&oldid=1225076870"