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 Wikipedia? 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: 60 days

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.

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Unassessed

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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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.

I think the title of this article cuts out a lot of relevant information. The problem is that a lot of what China has done is to hide information.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] That's almost on-topic for this article, but not quite. I'm not sure whether to start another article for that kind of information, or change the title of this one. Suggestions? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, things like that are known as information blockade, see here, for example, and reminiscent of Great Firewall. But it probably belongs to other pages, and perhaps a couple of phrases in "background" of this page. I do not think renaming would work. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, this article presently contains misinformation about the death toll in Wuhan. I've tried to remove the misinformation, but have been reverted. The misinformation is based on old (more than 1 year) news articles, which contained speculation that the death toll in Wuhan might be many times higher than the tally reported by China's National Health Commission (NHC). This speculation was based on social media posts about the number of urns supposedly delivered to Wuhan. There was never any solid evidence for the speculation.

Subsequently, a number of high-quality peer-reviewed papers have come out, which study both the death toll and the seroprevalence (i.e., the percentage of people who were infected at all) in Wuhan and Hubei province:

• Excess pneumonia mortality study in The BMJ. The University of Oxford put out a press release summarizing this study, as Oxford researchers were involved.
• Seroprevalence study in Nature Medicine
• Seroprevalence study in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

These studies come to similar conclusions: the number of excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan during the outbreak was approximately 4500 (i.e., similar to the NHC's tally of 3869 documented deaths), and overall seroprevalence in Wuhan and Hubei province was low (approximately 3-4% in Wuhan, which is again in line with the NHC's tally of deaths). In the face of recent, high-quality scientific studies, we should not continue to include outdated, poorly grounded speculation. Ironically, given that this article is supposed to be about Chinese misinformation, the speculation we presently include is itself highly likely to be misinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your assessment and appreciate the RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. will revert when I get a chance on desktop--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with Dushan Jugum. We need to be very careful to avoid this becoming a WP:POVFORK.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that COVID-19 misinformation by China be renamed and moved to COVID-19 disinformation by China. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • I agree w/ RC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be a section dedicated to disinformation then. ––FormalDude talk 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Just describe the variety in the prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per RandomCanadian. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]