Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China

Comparisons to similar state propaganda campaigns
I added this section but it was reverted entirely with the note that my contribution does not: "discuss Chinese government misinformation campaign and does not seem relevant to this article."

My contribution is quite relevant and does specifically mention by way of comparison the Chinese government's secrecy and (mis-)handling of the truth with respect to the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic. The line that accompanies the title of the NY Times article is: "The accident and a subsequent cover-up have renewed relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." The fifth paragraph describes how the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." A few paragraphs after that the NY Times notes "There is also widespread concern that the Chinese government — which, like the Soviet government decades before it, dismisses the possibility of a lab leak — is not providing international investigators with access and data that could shed light on the pandemic’s origins." NYCJosh (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this being one sentence or in the see also section. I just don't think this page should be a rhetorical device or about the origin of Covid-19. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with . We need to be very careful to avoid this becoming a WP:POVFORK.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the source does not discuss COVID-19 misinformation by the Chinese government. Of the three sentences you quoted above, the first two are about misinformation by the Soviet government (not the Chinese government), and the third is about speculation that the Chinese government is restricting investigations (which is not the same as misinformation). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mx. Granger It doesn't use the precise phrase "misinformation by the Chinese government." But the NYT article itself explains its "relevance as scientists search for the origins of Covid-19." That is, my contribution discusses how authoritarian governments fabricate yarns when it comes to the origin of pathogens that cause sudden outbreaks of illness, which is precisely our topic. Or to use the language of the NYT itself: the Soviet episode "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." It also shows how US scientists can accept the official explanation, even if untrue. So the contribution provides historical context for the Chinese govt misinformation.NYCJosh (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source does say that the Soviet incident provides historical context for COVID-19, but it doesn't say anything about Chinese government misinformation. That seems to be an inference you are drawing, not something the source actually says. It does talk vaguely about concerns that data may not be shared the way that some would like, but again, that's not the same as misinformation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mx. Granger "Inference" that I am drawing? In your view, and obviously others are invited to chime in, too, what is the historical context for Covid-19 that the NYT article purports to provide by describing at length the Soviet incident? Other than authoritarian state misinformation about the origin of a pathogen that causes sudden mass illness (and US scientists' acceptance thereof), what parallel could the source be attempting to provide?
 * Actually, the NYT source is quite explicit: it explicitly mentions the "search for the origins of Covid-19," this is indeed a major theme of the article, and states that the Soviet case "shows how an authoritarian government can successfully shape the narrative of a disease outbreak and how it can take years — and, perhaps, regime change — to get to the truth." NYCJosh (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the source does mention the search for the origins of COVID-19, but it doesn't mention Chinese government misinformation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question. NYCJosh (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure what parallel the source is hinting at. Maybe they're hinting at a comparison between concerns about lack of data sharing in the Chinese case and lack of data sharing in the Soviet case. Or maybe they're hinting at some other comparison. Either way, we can't add material to the article based on what we infer a source might be hinting at. We can only report what sources actually say. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree here with. , we don't need the source to use the word "misinformation" for it to qualify this page. We can use basic reasoning and logic to understand that there is possible misinformation here. If you think it is undue speculation, then we can trim it down. If there are competing claims, then we have a wonderful thing called WP:NPOVS. I just read it now. Have you? Francesco espo (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording of the source is not the problem. The problem is that the source does not actually discuss Chinese government misinformation about COVID-19 – that seems to be something NYCJosh is inferring, not what the source actually says. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude  talk  03:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation by China → COVID-19 disinformation by China – As this article has developed, it is clear China is engaging in deliberate disinformation, rather than merely misinformation. The article title should accurately reflect this.
 * Merriam-Webster defines misinformation as incorrect or misleading information.
 * Merriam-Webster defines disinformation as false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. –– FormalDude  talk  23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (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.
 * Renaming to "disinformation" would unhelpfully reduce the scope of this. There are plenty of instances of encyclopedia-mention-worthy misinformation which is not necessarily disinformation. This would also make this title inconsistent with the other ones ("COVID-19 misinformation by governments";...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ RC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a section dedicated to disinformation then. –– FormalDude  talk  19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just describe the variety in the prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RandomCanadian. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Right now we distinguish between misinformation vs disinformation. For now I weakly agree with RC that mis is a broader concept than dis, hence this article would not be helped by the move, as it would merit splitting some information. However, we could consider renaming it to COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation by China. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those articles seem a bit dubious though. See HQ dictionaries like Cambridge. I'm not convinced those should even be separate articles, and indeed the second has several cleanup tags. Anyway, I'm not convinced there's a real distinction between the words, at least not to the extent that a wordy title is warranted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CONCISE is what PR is referring to (if the link refers to the right place), so agree with that, obviously. The difference in meaning is that one is a bit broader, and of course we should use that one, as per my previous comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"China COVID-19 attempts to cover up" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect China COVID-19 attempts to cover up and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"China COVID-19 cover-up allegations" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect China COVID-19 cover-up allegations and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)