Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 2

Treatment not yet approved by FDA promoted by Trump
Referring to this tweet by Trump which claims that a drug (or a combination of two drugs) could potentially treat people infected by the virus. It was later claimed by various sources that it's a dangerous tweet, not exactly false but falsely stated. Should it be mentioned in this article? Flycatchr 14:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As a blog, this is probably not quotable in the article, but there is other information linked from there: --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This link seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

include NYT article on Russia & China?
X1\ (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Julian E. Barnes, Matthew Rosenberg and Edward Wong As Virus Spreads, China and Russia See Openings for Disinformation; The two powers amplify discredited conspiracy theories and sow division as they look to undermine the United States. March 28, 2020 NYT

See #Russian government & #Chinese government. X1\ (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Trish Regan fired from Fox for disinformation propagation, include?
Fox Business fires its primetime host Trish Regan after she claimed the coronavirus is a Democratic Party ploy to impeach President Donald Trump. (CNN)

from Portal:Current events/2020 March 27. X1\ (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, no, I actually don't know the scope of this article. The article is about coronavirus-related misinformation. I assume that means this article is more medical centric than it is political centric.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, "fired after" is not the same as "fired for". That is post hoc ergo propter hoc. (and I don't see why Fox would fire anyone for spreading misinformation. They probably had another reason.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, much of the misinformation is related to politics, and that applies to Xi Jinping, Putin, Bolsonaro, and Trump. They all lie to their populace every day about everything, and they also do it about the nature of this pandemic, also for political reasons. Authoritarian leaders do that. That's their modus operandi. -- Valjean (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-authoritarian leaders lie, too, theirs just don't command the same attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

False claims in Africa
TGCP (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WHO warned about 'infodemic' on 13 February (BBC)
 * 6 false items about Africa (BBC)

Person to person contact
According to WHO, which has published numerous statements against this, Covid-19 is not spread through the air but through close contact and fomites (things you touch). https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations The only time the virus can scatter through the air and remain there for an extended period of time is when this effect is mechanically created, such as when a ventilator causes it. To say that someone who stated Covid-19 is not airborne is spreading misinformation is to spread misinformation that goes against all the research WHO has collected on the matter. With all of the people watching this page and with the notice that WHO is providing direct information to people who contact them, one would think that every item would be double-checked by them. Someone has to be the authority and since nations seem to be spreading their own misinformation, WHO, a multi-national organization, seems like it should be the one from whom a multinational website like Wikipedia should find their ultimate sources of information.73.209.56.78 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese underreporting, add?
A classified United States Intelligence Community report concluded that the Chinese government deliberately underreported the total number of coronavirus cases and deaths in the country. Presumably into the under the "Government" supersection.
 * Nick Wadhams and Jennifer Jacobs China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says April 1, 2020 Bloomberg.com

X1\ (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation versus interpretation
I would suggest that we must distinguish between misinformation and interpretation of facts. The spread of the virus from China can be seen, with many respect, as a negligence from its origin, it is not a misinformation, it is fact. It is a interpretation of facts then, not misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which section are you talking about? I could not find "negligence" in the article. Without knowing this, nobody can judge whether your reasoning is right or wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This also applies to desinfectants - trucks and drones are used to spray desinfectants in cities, but helicopters are not (yet?). TGCP (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Engineer intentionally derails train near USNS Mercy
https://www.cruisemapper.com/news/6915-video-engineer-intentionally-derails-train-near-usns-mercy A train engineer from Los Angeles was arrested on Wednesday, April 1, for allegedly derailing a locomotive at high speed close to the docked hospital ship USNS Mercy, believing a conspiracy theory the US Government is covering up the ship’s true purpose, federal authorities announced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_KxsLZiMQk

Zezen (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cuba
The final sentence, "In reality..." is uncited. We should not be including Cuba and Interferon alfa-2b in this article, unless there are reliable sources stating that it is misinformation. Edwardx (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pancho507, for adding the source. The AFP article does appear to make it clear that Interferon alfa-2b may be helpful in symptomatic relief, but is neither a vaccine nor a cure. For the record, I have no medical background and am not fluent in Spanish. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a medical background either. The reference was always there, but in another place. I am fluent in Spanish. Pancho507 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The AFP article does not say that Interferon is not used and the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University Novel Coronavirus Management and Research Team gives Interferon as a treatment option. As such it is clear that it can and would be used. Neither Miguel Díaz-Canel or Granma claimed that Interferon was a cure or a vaccin. I think the whole section should thus be scrapped. JVLebbink (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That page is in need of some outside eyes, it's on the way to a POV-fork. Safrolic (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2020

 * 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. There's consensus to not move to the proposed target and no consensus for the any of the alternative titles either. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Misinformation and conspiracy theories related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – The article includes misinformation and conspiracy theories so the word "conspiracy theories" should be included in the title. Another suggestion is 2019–20 coronavirus infodemic.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Both "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" in page titles fail WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as they are impressing on the reader a final judgement as determined by Wikipedia editors. Not opposed to the 2019–20 coronavirus infodemic alternative, but open to other suggestions as well which are neutral. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you (see ). Do you have any other suggestion?. Most editors in the "POV title" discussion didn't agree with me. Conspiracy theory doesn't mean something is misinformation but it means it is simply a conspiracy theory that is not verified.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree that there's any NPOV issue with the current title; that misinformation is spreading is a verifiable factual assertion. what would you think of Information dissemination related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? This would appropriately broaden the scope of the article, in my view, allowing us to also discuss other parts of the information ecosystem related to the pandemic, such as newspapers lowering paywalls. Sdkb (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. We have plenty of articles starting with the words "Conspiracy theories about.....", which is the title I sought before I found a redirection here. Keeping the word "Misinformation" is OK, but words like "infodemic" are meaningless to most people and should be avoided - and "information dissemination" gives a false and misleading view of the article content.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Weak) support: I would be fine with both the current and the proposed titles; it doesn't seem absolutely necessary to mention "conspiracy theories", but there's some precedent and no harm in doing so. I also think that there isn't any POV in stating the presence of misinformation, as evidenced by many other examples of similar pages (9/11, JFK, Moon landings, etc.), so the proposal isn't a problem per se. Additionally, I would also oppose a move to any title involving "infodemic" – this is a very niche and colloquial neologism, which is not in common usage and is not encyclopedic language, especially when we have other alternatives that are more conventional and widely used. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  · talk · 11:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the current title is accurate, and adding "conspiracy theories" is unnecessary as conspiracy theories are a type of misinformation. Axedel (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the proposal overly complicates the title. As per, conspiracy theories are a type of misinformation. Bondegezou (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many conspiracy theories are informative, factual and result in convictions. These are not the sort the average newsreader expects here. Only the sort already considered synonymous in headlines with "kooky", "bullshit" or "misinformation". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as Axedel said, adding "conspiracy theories" would be redundant. Miasma Eternal TALK 02:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SuggestionThere are people interested in COVID-19 general theories. COVID-19 theories will open the door for research help.  Conspiracy theory means it is a bio-weapon subject. Miss or Dis information creates negative approach in the bud.  So I think it is better to keep both the pages separate, however, Conspiracy theories should be renamed such as “General theories relating to COVID-19 or COVID-19 Reported theories – published or shared in mainstream media.  Merging will boost the infodemic. Nannadeem (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Conspiracy theories" is OR, and is only a part of the article.  "Infodemic" is a largely unknown term and unlikely to be used as a search keyword by our readers.  "Misinformation" has the least OR and it probably the most obvious search term for the topic. Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 4 April 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.

Pets
The "Pets" section in this article is now containing false information. And I would suggest separating it to another independent article given the recent development on the subject. C933103 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fix the first part, but don't do the second. It's bad enough we have one article like this to keep track of. It's much better if everything of this nature is kept in one place, even if the page gets long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
Change the reference for the last para under 'Scams' (currently #283) to: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hackers-are-using-coronavirus-concerns-to-trick-you-cybersecurity-pros-warn-2020-03-12

This article more accurately describes the hacker activity. Chromehackle (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation to this, but not replaced the original (absent some clear demonstration that it is faulty). Given the almost month-old age of the added source, I'm not sure either of them is really ideal for this. There's probably something more current and in-depth, since crackers and script-kiddies and such exploiting public fears about COVID-19 is going to be a moving target and a multi-pronged problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Political lead
I have always said that this article is more medical centric than it is political centric. The U.S. officials have accused China of using a biological weapons and China's officials have accused the U.S. of biological weapons. Iran has also accused the U.S. of biological weapons. These details that were added by Hzh should be in the body not in the lead per WP:LEAD.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article needs to be expanded, typically for an article of this size it should be at least around three paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. The reason I'm doing it is so that it can be transcluding to the main article to make the main article less bulking. If anyone does not like what's in the lead, then it can be adjusted. Discuss what you like to include in the lead, but it does need to be expanded. At the moment it is inadequate. I see nothing wrong with adding the conspiracy theory proposed by a country's leader, that in itself is notable. If there is something Trump said that you think is worth adding, then suggest it here.  Hzh (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have highlighted Iran in the lede. That makes the lead POV.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those additions (revert link) seemed okay overall to me. The only UNDUE thing was the methanol poisoning. I would add general self medication as an issue and include methanol in Iran aquarium cleaner in US, etc. Highlighting Iran is not POV as it was one of the early countries with a large number of cases. If we have similar from Italy and Spain, then include those too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the methanol poisoning issue is an interesting case because it is a clear example showing that misinformation can have serious consequences. I have no objection to replacing it with something else, unless you think that examples should not be given there. Hzh (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am talking about adding that Iran's religious leader (not president) said that the coronavirus is a U.S. biological weapon. Should this be in the lead? Here is the revert.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion that he is just a religious leader is inaccurate. He is the head of state and has considerable power. Hzh (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is the spiritual leader of Iran. The president of Iran has almost all the power.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is he the head of state of Iran and the commander-in-chief of its armed forces or not? Are you arguing that the article Supreme Leader of Iran is wrong to say that ? Hzh (talk)


 * Here is a more neutral paragraph.: Politicians from countries like Iran, China, and Russia have alleged without evidences that coronavirus is a U.S. biological weapon. While politicians from the U.S. have alleged that China mishandled the crisis and suggested that coronavirus may have been produced in a Chinese biological weapon lab.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So your point is to make it more about US accusation? How does any US politician who made such accusation compare in status to Khamenei? Hzh (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am trying to make an appropriate neutral summary of the body of the article.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with adding what's you wrote there, but it cannot replace what Khamenei said completely. Are the people who made conspiracy theories in the US comparable in status to Khamenei? Trying to give greater prominence to less important people is not balance, nor can it be neutral to give a false balance. Hzh (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your notability argument is fallacious. The notability is established by the amount of coverage in the media not by the position. Trump's misinformation coverage is way more covered in the media than any other politicians from other countries. You are using an editorial judgment to decide who deserves to be in the lead and who doesnt. This decision should be based on the amount of coverage in the media.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing that what Khamenei said did not receive enough press attention you are wrong - . And as I have said, if you have anything you want to add about what Trump said, then do suggest it here. I have considered adding Trump and Brazil's Bolsonaro downplaying the threat of the coronavirus, and that is certainly possible as a paragraph. What Trump said however is not relevant to the discussion about Khamenei. Hzh (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relevant. The U.S. leadership has spread way more amount of stupider misinformation regarding the coronavirus than any leadership in the entire world. At least Khomeini didn't say it's a hoax. Look, my solution to this is instead of providing details, names, etc and only highlighting one example of misinformation let's make it neutral, more broader and also less political centric as this article is supposed to be medical centric.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you have Trump saying China created the virus, then it is not relevant. Anything else you want to add about what Trump said you can suggest them here. I'm still not sure why you are not giving any suggestion to add on Trump since you keep mentioning him.  I'm also not sure why you feel that it has to be medical centric, this article is not titled "Medical misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Hzh (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'll expand the lead a bit first without adding anything that is under dispute here, you are welcome to expand the lead. Hzh (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unless you have Trump saying China created the virus, then it is not relevant." This is a false choice argument. This article is about all misinformation not just bioweapons conspiracy theories.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant with regards to the conspiracy theory said by Iran's Supreme Leader. There is no false choice, since I'm not saying you can't add anything about Trump, just that it is not an argument for removing Khamenei statement. I'm still puzzled with your refusal to say what needs to be added on Trump. Yes, you can suggest adding any stupid thing he has ever said about the virus, and please do. Hzh (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument was about what's due and what's undue weight in the lead. The Iranian misinformation is shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. The amount of coverage in the news media is way less than the Russian, Chinese or U.S. allegations. Also, you have added the disputed text back to the lead, you should subscribe to WP:BRD instead of reinstating your edit, I still believe that the lead should be a summary of the article and details like biological weapons accusation should be subordinated. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should give general information not details.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bit I put back is disputed. Do you mean the state involvement part? It is just a general statement, you can remove it if you want, but I don't see it being disputed. A large part of the article involves the bioweapon accusation (it appears to be the biggest part of the article), so of course it should be mentioned, that is what summary does. It needs at least one or two sentences that deals with it alone. Hzh (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay! I see no problem with your last expansion to the lead. Thank you for your work on the lead section. I think it is now appropriate. It doesn't not give undue weight to one example of misinformation and doesn't engage in details.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is, it is still too short. There are nearly 30 paragraphs on the bioweapons claims in the article, but at the moment it's just one passing mention together with other things that are only mentioned in one paragraph, therefore it fails the due weight policy MOS:LEADREL as well as failing to properly summarise the article. I find it extraordinary that you consider what's said by the head of state (and widely reported) to be the equivalent of something said by a minor politician or government official. Hzh (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be based on the coverage of the media. Adding Khomeini comments to the lead is going to make it undue weight.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are just making random claims about media coverage, given that you simply ignore coverage that contradicts you. That is in addition to the fact that English publications will concentrate more about what happens in the West, and that they give greater prominence to minor things that happened in the West. Do yo have any evidence that non-English sources don't cover Iran's claims, or can offer any idea as to what the scale of coverage is in Iranian and Chinese media on the various conspiracy theories? Hzh (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I will adding the issue with Iran to the lead since there is support here apart from the methanol poisoning issue. I don't see other people objecting to it here apart from SharabSalam. Unless others want to chime in in the meantime, it will be added. I will be adding other issues perhaps those involving Trump and the US as well as China, so it is not about any specific person or country.  Hzh (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020
Change the last para under Scams to: Links that purportedly direct to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus map, but instead send a phishing email, with a link to a website to download malicious code that the user expects will install a JHU dashboard.

Change reference 267 to: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hackers-are-using-coronavirus-concerns-to-trick-you-cybersecurity-pros-warn-2020-03-12 Chromehackle (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Source added, but not replaced. I see no justification for replacing. Also, if you make such a request, please don't name the references by numbers, but by the name. Otherwise, we would have to go back to the last revision before this edit request was made. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's  (talk) page 02:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Academic review on how to respond to misinformation
I am currently in a webinar that highlights this review paper (by a group of a couple dozen experts): https://psyarxiv.com/y38m9. If someone is looking for a source, that might be useful, Sadads (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating content on open access deleted from 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
I've been working to keep 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic at a reasonable length, and as part of that, I have to remove a bunch from the "information dissemination" section on open access to keep it from getting bloated. Since information dissemination is closely related to misinformation, I hope some of you here may be able to make use of it, perhaps starting to expand the scope of this article more toward something like Information dissemination related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Here's the content I removed most of:

 Information dissemination  Many newspapers with paywalls have lowered them for some or all of their coronavirus coverage.

Open-access papers

Owing to the urgency of the epidemic, many scientific publishers made scientific papers related to the outbreak available with open access. Some scientists chose to share their results quickly on preprint servers such as bioRxiv, while archivists created an open access database of more than five thousand papers about coronaviruses, which they downloaded from Sci-Hub. In addition, the platform Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview was launched to perform rapid open peer review of preprints related to emerging outbreaks.

Medical care providers, including intensivists and pulmonologists, involved in the Free Open Access Medicine movement rapidly compiled both disease information and treatment procedures in the Internet Book of Critical Care which was quickly circulated by institutions including Princeton and UPenn.

Open research database

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Allen Institute for AI has partnered with leading research groups to prepare and distribute a machine readable dataset named COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) a free resource of more than 29,000 scholarly articles, including more than 13,000 with full text, about COVID-19 and the coronavirus family of viruses for use by the global research community.

Citizen science

Interactive computing games have also been used to help with "designing and identifying proteins that may be able to bind to and neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that it uses to invade host cells. The scientists hope that players' creations will yield insights that will allow them to create an effective antiviral therapy for COVID-19." Foldit is an online video game that challenges players to fold various proteins into shapes where they are stable: "Players—who can work alone or in teams—are using the game's puzzle system to develop new protein structures that can be tested by biochemists in the lab for use in antiviral drugs." Folding@home, currently based at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, asked people to donate their CPU time for computational drug design and other types of molecular dynamics involving SARS-CoV-2.

The references have been moved, so you'll need to review the permalink to fetch them. Regards, Sdkb (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not be in favor of expanding the scope of the article to include this because it would dilute the overall seriousness of the subject. Perhaps a separate article could be created. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see misinformation as very intertwined with the concept of information ecosystems; it's just one side of the coin of such systems. Also, this page already has a "fighting misinformation" section. Splitting off information from misinformation seems like an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Sdkb (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tend to go for separate articles. Open-access science refers mainly to research papers by professional scientists, most who (the scientists) have quite rich online profiles (ORCID and so on) that can easily be checked to distinguish them from conspiracy theorists, Russian trolls, and random viral amplification of nonsense. At a broader level, sure, the topics overlap; but in terms of specific events in the recent/present context, I would see separating these as justified (with overlap to some degree, of course). In a way, the open-access science contributions during this pandemic are something like a scientists' collective response to WP:MEDRS: can the research process itself become more open while insisting on the uncertainties in the procedures of seeking "knowledge", with the aim of battling the easiness effect through educating the public about the complexity and statistical nature of much of scientific knowledge? To avoid misinterpretations: I don't promise to contribute here, but if I hypothetically planned to contribute, then I would go for separate articles. Either separately or together, this is useful knowledge about knowledge, and it would be a pity for it not to be rescued. Boud (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think you can find enough sources for an overview article - misinformation + open-access information - go ahead! But for it to work, it would need a bunch of more in-depth contributors than those willing to add 'On 5 April the Ministry announced 173 more SARS-CoV-2 infections.[ref]'... Boud (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Definition of main-stream
" the British tabloid The Daily Mail, and right-wing media in the United States" are included in main-stream media in our article. Is that accurate, especially considering that the latter is not specified?Kdammers (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Right-wing media" is too vague to be accurate or not. Runs from 24/7 cable TV down to message board. The Daily Mail is very mainstream. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fish tank cleaner
Some news outlets incorrectly reported that fish tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate, a compound similar to one President Trump has recommended, can treat coronavirus. One man in Arizona died from ingesting such a substance. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * People actually take medical advice from Donald Trump?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Worse, some take it from incorrect news outlets. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Millions of deactivated cell phones in China
This was interesting. Popped up over at WT:NOR, too. I'm skeptical this means what someone thinks it means, but I'm even more skeptical that others haven't noticed this and been adding into various conspiracy theories, out in the wild, so it's worth looking into and covering with additional sourcing, as to what is really going on versus what some people are assuming. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Added in the scope of misinformation. Irony being that the content (properly removed in the edit that you linked) is the misinformation itself, so you're correct in your skepticism. --Cold Season (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about photo to use for main pandemic article misinformation section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As there, I think this article is extremely focused on humans, photowise, particularly political people. These make up 80% (100%, discounting the standard infobox virus) of the images here, and are all bunched together after several pages of complete and utter nothing. Where are the cell phone towers, drugs and bats? Maybe a facemask, ambulance or drone? Wake up, illustrators, or at least dream big! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Common misconceptions
Are there any common misconceptions? If so, they might belong in List of common misconceptions too. Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Too early I think. We'll see which misconception stays around. This article is listed as "see also" for misconceptions about "disease", that should cover it for now. --mfb (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Reuters Institute
Reuters Institute has done a detailed report on the topic. Should be used to expand this article. Cedix (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! I have created a new section: . It is currently sourced from the Reuters Institute study, but there are other reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, with more studies about the topic. I think it is very good material to introduce the topic before going into the list of every possible conspiracy theory and misinformation example. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea to give an introduction/summary before going into the list of examples. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MarioGom and Granger, I am glad that link I added was helpful. These suggestions are indeed very good. --Cedix (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Herd immunity in California

 * Probably not a good source for quoting, since it is a blog.
 * Better, but does not mention the Victor Davis Hanson/Hoover Institute angle - where the misinformation is coming from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's already in there. Sorry, I only searched the article for "immunity". --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Age" a misinformation on its own?
What is the message of that section: Young people with no premorbidities have exactly zero chance to die? If that's the message then it should be backed by a reference. A reference that two self-selected cases were not examples isn't enough. This Italian study had three Italian deaths under 50 with "no major pathologies". I suggest to remove that section completely. Its main claim is completely unreferenced and the Italian study says the opposite. --mfb (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed it now. Here is another source saying the opposite. --mfb (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, without a WP:MEDRS for the implied claim that seems appropriate. HLHJ (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove the section "Respirators are ineffective" as misinformation
The current article (as of March 31 22:00 UTC) labels as medical misinformation the statements made by the Surgeon General of the United States and Alanna Shaikh about face masks not having demonstrated effectiveness. Trials have indeed been published suggesting that many kinds of face masks lack proven efficacy in stopping various types of viral infection in both observational or randomized-control studies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/). The Surgeon General himself referred to these studies (https://www.foxnews.com/media/surgeon-general-explains-masks-public-coronavirus).

Aside from that compelling evidence for a reasonable debate existing on the issue of mask efficacy, the only citations in the article to back up this claim do not form a logical argument, since the first sentence states that calling face masks are ineffective is misinformation, and the second sentence says that face masks have been commonly recommended in disease outbreaks. To say that a measure has been recommended by some medical professionals has no direct connection to whether that measure has been scientifically evaluated to be effective, or whether no prior study has ever found that measure to be ineffective.

Although one can personally disagree with the interpretation of available scientific evidence as to whether masks in general are effective as a public health measure in a viral pandemic, to label this as strongly as "misinformation" in an article section next to claims of snorting cocaine, drinking bleach, or running hair dryers seems very extreme and a violation of NPOV. There is indeed evidence supporting the claims made by the Surgeon General and others, and although conflicting viewpoints on the issue exist, that does not make their statements in the same category as a baseless conspiracy theory.

92.207.252.217 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree, here (in Europe)its' an endless debate IF facial masks are or not effective. The best argument is 'better than nothing' but the issue is not fixed at all. Wikipedia editors shameless starts a sort of debunking vs Covid-19 theories, and this is not really comparable with wikipedia scope at all. All this article should be simply deleted from wikipedia, too bias to be taken seriously.62.11.3.98 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Miasma Eternal TALK 02:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Respirators ar e not surgical face masks. The title should be changed to Face masks are ineffective; and the content should include a distinction to focus on Respirators that filter air, not ventilators with a separate air supply. Imersion (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the section as there is a genuine debate on face mask efficacy in public setting. In clinical settings face masks have a demonstrated efficacy. In public settings, the efficacy is debated and overuse by public leads to shortage in supplies for practitioners.--Muddymuck (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Finally. Zezen (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Debate on this have moved to the currently-bottommost section, Talk:Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. 92.207.252.217, Muddymuck, Zezen, feel free to comment there. HLHJ (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Prof Luc Montagnier Nobel Prize winner claims that covid19 has been made in a Wuhan lab
Found this about Prof Montagnier: "The 87-year-old virologist, Luc Montagnier, claims that the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19 is a creation from a Chinese laboratory. Because it has similarities to the AIDS virus. On paper, this man is not just anyone. In 2008, he received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for isolating HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS, with his collaborators Jean-Claude Chermann and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, in 1983. But for more than 10 years, he has also been one of the most controversial and most discredited French scientists. The blame for a series of massive controversies, theories and publications produced without foundation according to his peers." Anybody knows if he showed to fellow scientists what sequences he referred to, so they could check his claims? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can check . As the stated source mention, Montagnier's claims were not peer-reviewed. The theory about relation to HIV is currently discredited by WP:MEDRS. --MarioGom (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thy, you taught me that WP:MEDRS existed :) SvenAERTS (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * this is already covered in Luc_Montagnier; shouldn't the misinformation be covered in the present article as well? fgnievinski (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

more on Chinese intelligence operatives against Trump and the U.S., add?
Chinese intelligence operatives pushed fake text messages and Facebook posts in March 2020 claiming the Trump administration was planning to lock down the entire country in order to prevent looting and rioting related to the coronavirus. One of the messages warned that the Trump administration planned to announce the lockdown “as soon as they have troops in place to help prevent looters and rioters.” The fake messages cited a United States Department of Homeland Security source who said he “got the call last night” and was told to “pack and be prepared for the call today with his dispatch orders.”  The messages became so widespread in mid-March that the White House National Security Council had to make an announcement to clarify that they were “FAKE.” The exact origin of the messages is unclear, but six U.S. officials said American intelligence agencies have assessed that Chinese operatives helped push the messages and texts across the country. X1\ (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/coronavirus-china-disinformation.html
 * Yes, 100%. I'm surprised this hasn't already been added. Is the above the text you'd like to use? It looks pretty good to me. Just be bold and put it in. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , : just don't forget that these are allegations by United States officials and needs in-text attribution. MarioGom (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree,, attribution is appropriate. X1\ (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

More from Orac
I could not find anything about those in the article: --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, epidemiology does not work like that.
 * Remdesivir does not seem to work.

Bioengineered Virus subsection
The section contains the sentence: "The overall molecular structure of the virus was found to be distinct from the known coronaviruses and most closely resembles that of viruses of bats and pangolins that were little studied and never known to harm humans.[61]" (emphasis added)

This sentence in misleading as phrased. The supporting reference in footnote 61 states that pangolin viruses were little studied. It does not state that bat viruses were little studied. The current phrasing allows (and I believe implies) that bat viruses were also little studied, which is not supported by the reference cited. (I think it's pretty clear that bat viruses have received lots of study.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.25.50 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For consideration of the authors: DR. FAUCI BACKED CONTROVERSIAL WUHAN LAB WITH MILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS FOR RISKY CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.219 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Does misinformation have to be intentional to be included here?
By now you’ve almost certainly read about Trump’s recent comments about treating the virus by “injecting disinfectant”, Rashid Buttar-style.

The thing is, Trump’s defenders could easily claim this wasn’t intentionally encouraging this practice and the remark was simply a verbal gaffe that he made by accident. What is Wikipedia’s policy in such cases? Do any false claims qualify as misinformation, or only if the person making the claim unambiguously intended to do so? 2600:1014:B016:A312:593B:9F98:4F32:AC49 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What we need is reliable sources that support the claim that some information is a hoax, conspiracy theory or misinformation. I think we are currently including mostly intentional misinformation (AKA disinformation), and we should be catious and avoid including every single misleading/inaccurate statement here. MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was some media reporting on NYC poison control center calls from citizens exposing themselves to disinfectants (bleach and Lysol being specifically mentioned), but I'm dubious of entering that here, as that isn't misinformation, it's the results of individuals making dubious decisions based upon misinformation. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you are referring to this story about Maryland, it does not claim that citizens exposed themselves to disinfectants, but that they called a hotline to ask about the topic. Some less reliable sources took this original story and twisted it to say that "100 took disinfectants against COVID-19". Anyway, Trump statements, while patent non-sense, were clearly speculation about lines of research, rather than health advice or clear misinformation. MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the Maryland story came in much later than the NYC and now other states have had people exposing themselves to disinfectants and even detergent. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-to-poison-centers-spike--after-the-presidents-comments-about-using-disinfectants-to-treat-coronavirus/#628676761157 Wzrd1 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another URL, granted Slate, but they have inline citations to the news articles. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Rq7wetz27TgJ:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/calls-poison-control-centers-increase-trump-remarks.html+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (the main site seems offline or unavailable from here currently).Wzrd1 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Inadvertent misinformation is misinformation, even if it in not part of a disinformation campaign. There were focused efforts to making sure the misinformation was quashed. The bit about the spike in calls to poison control centers was based on January to March data well before the April 25 briefing. The HHS increasing funding the same day, and probably not after 5:00. (I haven't verified timing). Discussing the increase (which correlates with the increased use of disinfectant products) in a position to imply causation is WP:SYNTH and not appropriate. BiologicalMe (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The city’s Poison Control Center said it managed 30 cases of possible exposure to disinfectants in less than 24 hours after Trump’s remarks." isn't since January, unless we have some new kind of calendar that goes backward in time. That's in the New York Daily News article https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-new-yorkers-household-cleaners-trump-20200425-rnaqio5dyfeaxmthxx2vktqa5m-story.html . Wzrd1 (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ingestion is not 30 cases with no hospitalizations. The article fails to assert any causality; the best is suggests is "worthy of a double-take". The HHS grant cited the increase in the previous months. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From the dictionary definitions, "disinformation" is intentional and deliberately deceptive, misinformation is broader, including any information that is wrong. On unproven treatments, there have been bits of un intentional misinformation, like the banana-cure video fake, but most seem to have been well-intentioned people distorting and amplifying messages in transmission until they became unfounded claims, then becoming convinced of them and adding accreditation to some authority, perhaps to convince people to pay attention (see Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic). Malice seems rare in unproven-treatment rumours (as opposed to "blame our enemies"-type rumours). While I'd agree that Donald Trump did not sound as though he was trying to misinform anyone, if people start saying "Donald Trump said...", followed by some silly claim, we should cover it at List of unproven methods against COVID-19 (regardless of whether Trump said any such thing; everyone in any position of authority is getting false COVID-19-cure statements attributed to them at the moment, and documenting notable misinformation of that type is in-scope, too). The Spy operation section also seems to be misunderstanding, not malice; I could go on. I think most COVID-19 misinformation is unintentional. HLHJ (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems misinformation about causation. No one is trying or really can tell causation here, how much or whether to attribute a number as due to normal variations, to Trump speculating, to the media for various rephrasings said many times, or to just there is a much increased presence and use of disinfectants so more exposures are occurring.  Perhaps a brand new section needs to be made for misinformation re blame - misinformation about Chinese or WHO or Trump or whoever.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Urns story as first reported by Caixin
I will not repeat verbatim the numeric arguments that the urns story should not be included, as the story has already been dismissed at the main pandemic article. The material does not belong, at any rate, under the 6th LV 2 section "Government", as it is not comparable to the other incidents described in the China (LV 2) section, such as: This is in contrast to Bloomberg's own reporting on the urns story manner, which acknowledged
 * 1) Xi Jinping's (arguably knowingly) false claim that he had been aware of the epidemic since 7 January 2020, and issued an order to contain the spread of the disease during a meeting on that day. However, a record of that same meeting released beforehand shows there was zero mention of the epidemic throughout.
 * 2) That PRC MoFA spokesperson Zhao Lijian, in such a public fashion (his Twitter account), postulated as to the U.S. military having introduced SARS-Cov-2, or the allegations that PRC launched coordinated dis-information to sow doubt about the origins of SARS-Cov-2.

Our own UK epidemic article notes in the lede It has been feared that there have been several thousand further deaths in the community, and especially in care homes, which until 29 April were not included in the official government figures.] On this level, claiming the urns story represents an episode of "misinformation" unique to mainland China is thus WP:UNDUE. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * CaradhrasAiguo has recently been blanking the entire "Statistics on Fatalities" section over and over, and has a history of doing so concerning information that makes China look bad. I just want to echo comments from the previous discussion concerning the urns story: There are now reports in multiple, respected U.S. newspapers, and Kyodo News in Japan, which describe the number of urns being returned to family members, the numbers and hours of crematoria in Wuhan, and efforts to stop identifying infected persons or treating them. There is also a report of U.S. government intelligence information. All that is more than enough to present this information emerging about significantly higher numbers than the Chinese government has published. Additionally, the table should be edited to include a footnote on the 3,000 person death toll, which notes this figure may not be reliable." Here is the most recent talk page discussion on this matter, where there was also no consensus to delete the section entirely as he has done. Cheers. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop cherry-picking and mis-representing discussions. The second discussion makes zero mention of the urns story. Whereas, in the first section, there is no reasonable interpretation other than to conclude the urns story was a factory-load of nonsense. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, the table should be edited to include a footnote on the 3,000 person death toll, which notes this figure may not be reliable." This arguably applies to almost all data from almost all countries. Check out the revisions of death tolls in France, the United Kingdom, New York, etc. after they discovered cases that 'slipped through the gaps'. The urn hypothesis appears to entirely discount the fact that urns are also used for deaths not from coronavirus. If 10,000 urns (for example) are delivered to a cremation facility, it does not follow that 'China has hid 10,000 coronavirus deaths' - these urns could be a) stockpiled and/or b) used for 'regular' deaths. Although not related to this article: assuming this proposal has not already reached consensus, the suggestion that the table should be edited to include a footnote is irrelevant considering the already-existing footnote [b] explaining the degree of accuracy of statistics in general, on that page. I think the urn story is bogus, and claims that it is evidence of a cover-up is misinformation itself. Acalycine (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

India
Why should the section on India only be about the Indian government?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that it should also focus on state governments, etc.? What are you requesting? Acalycine (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am asking why it keeps getting removed on the grounds of "this section should be only about government supported misinformation", I am not the one removing it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobic blaming - section's relevance
The section titled "COVID-19 xenophobic blaming by ethnicity" doesn't provide significantly relevant information about COVID related misinformation WP:IRRELEVANT Additionally it's placement in the article's taxonomy seems rather arbitrary as a "Medical" sub-section. There's already a massive article List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the subject we can just link to from somewhere in the article. Berehinia (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given black people in the PRC being discriminated against for alleged immunity and violence directed against people of oriental appearance in the US *and* the US FBI warning of such xenophobia induced violence being monitored and potentially prosecuted, no article could be encyclopedic if it didn't mention xenophobic blaming and I've not even mentioned the US President's "Wuhan virus" nonsense.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Given black people in the PRC being discriminated against for alleged immunity Is there a reliable source for that? MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Check https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52309414 and even Wikipedia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#China fourth paragraph down, with plenty of citations. Does that help?Wzrd1 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think mentioning xenophobia were relevant to an instance of misinformation may be useful. Having a separate section, isn't. Everything Wzrd1 mentioned will make more sense on the aforementioned xenophobia specific page. Berehinia (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - the section content is inappropriate for this article. What's there is focused about attacks and discrimination, and it's winding up not describing misinformation and misinformation related to the disease.  To fit this article it would have to be actualy decribing what are the *virus* misinformation things like only outsiders are bringing it, (though recognize that there was naturally flight from heavily infected areas like Wuhan or from Northern Italy or from New York City), or that some races are immune, or the self-reassuring belief that what your area/race is doing is the 'safer' thing.  For example, the article mentions white supremacist groups "advocated deliberately infecting minorities they dislike, such as Jews" -- instead it should have been saying VDARE made race-based claims that Africans and Whites are more resistant, so that COVID-19 like SARS is Oriental-specific; or that people speculated the greater density of Asian cities and New York are cause of the outbreaks there, etcetera.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Plandemic
Someone should probably add something about this Plandemic nonsense. Several of my Facebook friends have shared it and I spent part of today doing some research on it and, I can't even... Maybe I'll come back to this later, but probably not. If someone wants a starting point, here are some potential sources. My husband was also able to locate the website for the Plandemic movie, although I haven't been able to access it (I read the site keeps crashing because of too much traffic) and apparently it has something to do with John D. Rockefeller and vaccines. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) (Note: This is a Forbes Contributor post, thus not generally considered reliable.  That said, it is cited by the Syracuse.com article above, and it is recognized as an "Editor's Pick".)
 * 1) (Note: This is a Forbes Contributor post, thus not generally considered reliable.  That said, it is cited by the Syracuse.com article above, and it is recognized as an "Editor's Pick".)
 * I agree that we should cover "Plandemic". Here's more reporting on it: . Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a Plandemic article, but we should still cover it here too, linking to that article for more detail. Bondegezou (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yesterday Plandemic was a redirect to Judy Mikovits. Stuff moves fast. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 01:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I woulds rather it was a see also, we gain noting by over eggying it. At worst one line and a link.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Split the public use of face masks section
I'm not the originator of the request but am opening this discussion since tags were placed but its links didn't point at any discussion. The proposal is to split the section into the Face masks during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see an obvious reason or a way to merge these. The section in this article pays too much attention for the confusion around the masks, which might be appropriate for this topic ("misinformation"). As for the other article, I don't see a reason to list all these experts saying basically the same thing in different words. The other article already has "Rationale" section, which delivers this point clearer, in my opinion. --Amakuha (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I originated it. It seems to me that if we don't yet know the answers, we can't reasonably condemn one side of the debate or the other for "misinformation". We could describe both as misinforming by overstating the facts, but most aren't even doing that. So I'm not sure this section belongs in this article. If any content can be used in another article, that would be good. HLHJ (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would keep it as misinformation here, but handle these voices short and sweet. Simplifying it and WP:OR here, a guidebook from the 1930s invented division into aerosols and droplets, few experts bothered to check it by testing, so they kept misinforming all and sundry that "masks do not save population from Covid, just wash your hands and stop smoking", with deadly consequences.

Yes, the WHO guys and experts, I am talking about yous, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h1phwKjJ8g

Zezen (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be kept (in some form). There is a clear effort to push a certain stance in absence of evidence, going as far as saying that masks plainly do not work (which is beyond overstating the facts, as it is making unsubstantiated claims), with people saying that this was due to efforts to manage mask shortages rather than informed decision. There have also been a lot of hard assertions that contradict each other, which is misinformation and goes beyond assessment of available evidence. --Cold Season (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Few of the sources identify the face-mask debate as "misinformation," so this is obvious WP:SYNTH/WP:OR here. A few commentary pieces use the phrase in reference to early (erroneous) statements from public health officials, but this term is not really used in the straight-news pieces or medical references. Note that since this is challenged content, WP:ONUS applies and it must stay out unless and until a consensus emerges for inclusion. Neutralitytalk 13:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neutrality. There is clear disinformation, like injecting disinfectant. The efficacy of face masks was matter of public debate. Some medical experts thought general public shouldn't use. Not in same ballpark as hardcore misinformation. There is so much horrible misinformation being spread, why insert something that is at best borderline?--Muddymuck (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. We need to resolve this. HLHJ (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material in view of the obvious lack of consensus here. If someone wants to make a specific proposal to add something to this article, we can have that discussion. Neutralitytalk 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it in some form. Advice given in absence of actual knowledge and portraying it as knowledgable is definitely just making stuff up intentional misinformation.  When (not if) past medical advice was occasionally wrong or changed over time is good-faith best-available-knowledge but afterwards known as misinformation.  The advice on masks and other measures to take -- just like beliefs that COVID-19 was not human-to-human -- was still misinformation.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Accidental leakage is not a conspiracy theory
Whether it is true or not, accidental leakage is not a conspiracy theory and should not be put under that section. A conspiracy is by its nature something done deliberately, something that is accidental therefore cannot be a conspiracy. It may be considered as a piece of misinformation (well, probably), but it should be move into its own section outside conspiracy theory. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting and valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia: A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Acalycine (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and something accidental would not involve with political motivation. If it involves a conspiracy, it would be deliberate and not accidental. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Covering such an incident up and denying it, thus 'allowing it to spread', would make it an intentional conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups. The initial event does not have to be deliberate. The conspiracy theory here also involves the so-called 'cover up'. Plenty of conspiracy theories are like this. See Roswell UFO incident for example. Acalycine (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would suppose that the "sinister and powerful groups" exist to cover it up. No such allegation is made in the article, which in fact says that The lab authority has denied it, and I don't think those who run a lab can be considered a "sinister and powerful group". Hzh (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they exist in the real world. I'm saying the conspiracy theory presupposes that the Chinese government are said groups. Let's drop the adjectives - 'groups'. Let's say you're a conspiracy theorist who believes this conspiracy: who is covering this up? The Chinese government. They are denying it now, and so is the WIV. These are the groups you are looking for. The lab authority has denied it - this contradicts your argument here... I don't understand as to how this could be anything but a conspiracy theory. Acalycine (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely denying it is trying to say it did not happen? Is that not what happens in a cover up?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my point, I think we agree. The groups denying the theory matches what would happen in a cover-up, and so this version of events thus constitutes a conspiracy theory. Acalycine (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that g is OR, do RS say it is a conspiracy theory?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , . Acalycine (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK plenty of RS call it a conspiracy theory. No Reason why we cant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming it is a conspiracy can be considered OR. You need valid sources that claim the Chinese government covered up the supposed lab leak, and say it as such in the article.  Maybe show that Trump or Pompeo have claimed that it is a cover-up.  As I said, those running a lab cannot be considered a "sinister and powerful group", it would be a big stretch to say their denial can be considered a conspiracy theory. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No we would need RES saying its is a conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RES? I'm not sure what the argument is. Hzh (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry typo, wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny how you fail to include my mention of the Chinese government. The WIV is not the only one denying these allegations. For example, see here and here. A denial by WIV is sufficient enough, though. They are the main subject of the claim. This is turning into a pointless semantics argument without many original points. See extensive discussion here. Acalycine (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The two sources don't show that there is any claim of cover-up by the Chinese government. one is a piece in a news agency trying to refute various claims, the other is one where they asked for proof, which is not the same as a cover-up. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, if you don't equate 'denying and refuting' as synonymous with 'covering-up', that's fine. Let's agree to disagree. We shouldn't get into OR. However, as detailed above, many reliable sources describe this as a conspiracy theory. What more do you need? Acalycine (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph 8.4 "Hospital conditions"
I've just read through this paragraph in the Miscellaneous section and I don't quite know what to do with it. The tone seems at odds with the rest of that part of the page, with a rushed and blog-style feel in the second part, with the citation flags. The sentence structure appears less professional, more gossip-y, and I wonder if this part could either be ditched completely, or redrawn to avoid it coming across so "different" to the other sections around it. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 'Chinese biological weapon -> China' section
Regarding these two sentences:

''"The Xinhua News Agency is among the news outlets that have published false information about COVID-19's origins."

"Global Times and Xinhua News Agency have similarly been implicated in propagating disinformation related to COVID-19's origins."''

In my judgement, the source cited (here) does not show evidence of these news agencies propagating disinformation about the origins of COVID-19. I would be happy to discuss this point regarding the source. It does state that

"The ads, seen millions of times, extolled China’s efforts against Covid-19, downplayed its domestic outbreak, depicted Mr Trump as misguided and racist, and suggested that the virus might have originated in the US.".

Yet it does not specify which combination of accusations apply to which news outlets - did all three mentioned do all of these three things? Did Xinhau discuss the origins, Mr Trump, the domestic outbreak, or all three?

For context, the evidence provided in the source consists of ads for:
 * an OpEd criticising U.S. domestic policy in relation to the virus (Global Times)
 * a public statement by General Secretary Xi Jinping (CCTV)
 * a video detailing China's response in relation to the intl. community (CCTV)
 * a video detailing China's response in relation to Western claims (Global Times)
 * a 'syndicated' WaPo story about a crossed-out 'corona' virus replaced with 'Chinese' virus (Xinhau)
 * a video with a 'Pakistani expert' criticising perceived U.S. stigmatisation of the virus (Xinhau)

I would therefore seek consensus on whether to

a) remove "origins" from both of the aforementioned sentences, as the source does not provide evidence as to which/whether news outlets promoted misinformation about specifically the origins

b) remove both of these sentences altogether, as the source does not demonstrate that news outlets engaged in misinformation to a verifiable extent (i.e. an extent required to satisfy WP:NPOV)

c) rephrase the sentences so that they include in-text attribution, for example: "Several news stories by Global Times, CCTV and Xinhua News Agency have been labelled as 'misinformation' by The Telegraph"

I think that a) must include c), for reasons of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thank you. Acalycine (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those outlets publish false and misleading information regularly during normal time, do you really think we’l believe that they aren’t doing it in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic? It seems the WP:RS are being clear about this and I see no reason to give these three highly unreliable sources the benefit of the doubt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, RS have said these state media bodies have played silly buggers. If you want I am sure we can find even ore sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of your responses seem like WP:OR. In order for a news organisation to be implicated in spreading misinformation, it should have sources that provide evidence of this misinformation being spread. Do you agree with that or not? Acalycine (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, in this case I am torn between wP:v and wp:iar. ON the one hand yes we should only call it misinformation if RS do, on the other we have a duty of care that make it imperative to make it clear when dangerous bollocks is being spoken.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [], [], [],. So give my doubts above I say this is enough to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in those sources is Xinhau mentioned as spreading misinformation about the origins of this virus? The only other mention I see of potential misinformation is this article. I therefore approve of the mention of Global Times, given that the article technically does propagate a conspiracy theory (albeit offered as 'expert's opinions and urgings') but I haven't seen any evidence of Xinhau spreading misinformation in the sources you have sent. I therefore maintain my proposal. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic source mentions it, "the official Xinhua News Agency". As I said this is enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What? The Atlantic source says the following and is the only mention of Xinhau in the article: The English-language Facebook pages for the state-owned newspaper China Daily and the official Xinhua News Agency have more than 75 million followers each; and the China Global Television Network has a following of 99 million; by contrast, CNN has 32 million and Fox News has 18 million. Where is the evidence of misinformation (or even the claim) about origins by this news agency? This source gets this discussion to the same point it was at the beginning - the original source at least claims Xinhau has propagated misinformation...this one does not appear to. Acalycine (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "In February 2020, they took a different turn. The ads began boosting state media coverage of the coronavirus, with dozens of ads praising Xi for his leadership and emphasizing China’s ability to contain the disease. They incorporated hashtags such as #UnityIsStrength and #CombatCoronavirus, predictions of a quick economic recovery, and stories in which world leaders in Italy, Serbia, and elsewhere express gratitude to China. By March 2020, angry ads appeared in the mix, promoting outraged coverage of President Donald Trump’s use of the term Chinese virus.", it then goes on, about china's AGENCIES, as I said that is good enough for me, as they are saying these agencies started to push disinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have read my proposal, or perhaps you simply misunderstand it. I am proposing to remove the mention of Xinhau propagating misinformation about the origins of the virus. None of what you just quoted is about the origins of the virus. I note that "#CombatCoronavirus" and the like is not misinformation, nor are ads complaining about racist terms. I also note that you are talking about 'China's agencies' in general, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I am talking about a specific news agency: Xinhau. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read it, and I think what I have presented is enough for me to think we should keep the wording.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so quote the relevant part of the article that specifies exactly the following: Xinhau spread misinformation about the origins of COVID-19. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be responding to me. Acalycine (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If a source says "and bob did this as well as George" and and the next paragraph goes "and then they did this" three is no reason to assume they are not referring to both bob and George.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but what you're linking me has perhaps nothing to do with my question, which is about misinformation on the origins. The 'this' in your and bob did this as well as George is the action, and what I'm asking for is evidence of a specific action. Such a sufficient act of misinformation would be Xinhau publishing claims such as "The virus may have come from a US bioweapon lab". That is what I am asking for, because that is what has been claimed in this article. Please read what I'm writing. Acalycine (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Err the sentence under dispute is not Xinhau published claims such as The virus may have come from a US bioweapon lab" its '"The Xinhua News Agency is among the news outlets that have published false information about COVID-19's origins.", nothing to do with US labs. I think its time for others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)