Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page is not an attack page. Rather, it lists a number of disinformation campaigns launched by the Chinese government, referencing a number of highly reliable sources. This page, which is critical of the Chinese government and several Chinese politicians, is no different to other pages here on Wikipedia, such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple origins - Spain
Can someone help in the multiple origins section? Other than the finger-pointing to Italy, there was also quite a few Chinese state media reports about Spain, such as this one. Apparently, its based on a misrepresentation of the findings in this paper. There were no counterstatements from the authors, that I could find. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Content Removal
, you have twice removed the section relating to Chinese government disinformation on case numbers and death count. Please can you explain your reasoning as per WP:RVREASONS? Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the section because, as I said in my edit summaries, it is not an example of disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I saw your edit summaries, but I am asking you to explain here how false data isn't disinformation and qualifies for removal as per WP:RVREASONS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What false data are you referring to? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The false case numbers and death counts. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Which false numbers? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As indicated in the Time Magazine source you deleted. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Times article describes a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media. There's no evidence there that the case and death numbers are disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Time Magazine is largely considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, as is credited along with The New Yorker for originated the practice of fact checking, and has for many years been famous for the reliability of its content. So again, please don't remove content, especially if it is well-sourced, unless you provide clear reasoning as per WP:RVREASONS. This is still a new article, and WP:NOTPERFECT, and there are a lot more sources we can still add, such as this one. If you feel a section doesn't meet WP:NPOV, then you can simply add content from reliable sources, where they are due. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're citing a Time magazine article that discusses a social media conspiracy theory, and then saying that that article demonstrates that the Chinese government has faked case and death numbers. The urn conspiracy theory discussed in that article would be much better suited to an article about disinformation targeting China, rather than disinformation by China.
 * The other source you've now provided is about some people's (including Trump's) doubts, last Spring, about the decline in case numbers in China. Yet in the following months, it became clear that case numbers had actually decreased dramatically in China, as has been widely acknowledged since last Summer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Time Magazine is a reliable source and social media is a good place for Chinese netizens to discuss what is going on around them. The Time Magazine isn't the only source we can find as a reference for this section, and I will add more soon. If you feel a section doesn't meet WP:NPOV, then you can simply add content from reliable sources, where they are due. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Social media is also a good place for people to engage in unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing. The urn conspiracy theory was mentioned in a few news outlets and magazines, but the existence of this conspiracy theory doesn't render the numbers reported by the National Health Commission "disinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the section "Treatment disinformation" also does not contain any examples of disinformation. How is noting widespread use of traditional medicine in China "disinformation"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to build out that section for the benefit of discerning Wikipedia readers. The disinformation relating to Chinese Traditional Medicine as a means of treating Covid-19 is quite well covered by a number of reliable sources, such as this piece from NBC, this piece from the Guardian, or this one from DW. It's an essential part of their strategy to promote their containment narrative to domestic and even international audiences, and has served as a means to show that the central government is doing something, while vaccines and therapeutics were under development. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't say we should build out the section, so we don't agree there. This isn't disinformation, so it doesn't belong in this article. Practitioners of traditional and alternative medicine may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're engaging in disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The reliable source provided clearly indicates that the Chinese government's portrayal of TCM as being effective against Covid-19 is intended to promote the superiority of their approach while the rest of the world floudners. That is disinformation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The articles state that many Chinese officials believe in TCM, and they quote TCM practitioners who also naturally believe in it. TCM is something that many (probably most) people in China believe in and use to some extent. To be "disinformation", it must be deliberately wrong, not merely incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The title of the article, the quote from Mr Huang, as well as the quote from Dr Lao all make the case that this is disinformation in every sense of the word. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * How so? The article doesn't discuss disinformation or use that word. Calling this "disinformation" appears to me to simply be your own (incorrect) interpretation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is about disinformation. Our sources don't need to use the word. Propaganda in China doesn't cite only sources that have the word propaganda in them. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Then this appears to be your own original research, unsupported by the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the information you recently added has to do with "misinformation". You added material about a conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media about the supposed number of urns going to Wuhan, for example. The existence of this conspiracy theory does not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation". You also wrote that it was "revealed" that the death toll was higher than previously reported. The additional deaths were "revealed" by government authorities after they reviewed cases that had not previously been positively identified as CoVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, such as deaths in nursing homes. How is this an example of "misinformation"? Similar upward revisions occurred around the world, including in the US. NY state, for example, announced a large upward revision in May, after looking into nursing home deaths:. I very much doubt we're going to label that "misinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thucydides411 - do you not consider downplaying the scale of the virus to be misinformation? I added material cited to high quality RS, so it wasn't OR. Besides, it's not up to us to call something we disagree with a conspiracy theory, or to refute a RS based on our own POV. I provided some of the events that not only triggered the belief it was misinformation it supports the claim and is obviously what inspired RS to publish articles about it. If there is published material that refutes the claims, we simply add it, and let our readers make their own decisions. This article is a spinoff from the section at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic but in all likelihood, the material won't be identical, which is not too unlike what happened with Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States. It also doesn't appear that consensus is favoring deletion of either article; i.e., the US or China, so we do our best and chug along writing about what RS say. I think that's the best way forward.  Atsme 💬 📧 12:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "downplaying". You're citing an article by Time Magazine that discusses an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the number of urns supposedly shipped to Wuhan. How does that render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation"? Are you saying that the people on Weibo and other social media platforms who speculated about a few pictures of urns have the correct numbers, and the PCR testing results published by the National Health Commission are therefore misinformation? Or are you saying that the social media speculation is misinformation? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the Time Magazine article in question: . It literally links to a Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) post, discusses how the urn theory has circulated on social media, and says that "some in China have been skeptical of the accuracy of the official tally". Okay, but how does that establish that the National Health Commission's figures are "misinformation"? Is this Wikipedia article supposed to be a clearinghouse for every conspiracy theory that "some in China" believe in, or is it about actual misinformation? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, the urns were a visible concern by witnesses/family members of the deceased who weren't getting answers. They drew attention to what was really happening, but the focus is not the urns themselves, or the validity of the concerns expressed by the grief-torn Chinese families - the urns were simply a switch that brought light to a major problem; i.e., the government's attempt to downplay the virus by not reporting accurate tallies, suppressing information that the virus even existed, and worse, punishing whistleblowers and journalists for exposing it. The information is indisputable because officials have already to admitted to doing it. You can certainly add whatever you believe is DUE, but sources that I've cited and the material that I've added, most recently citing a NYTimes article dated Jan 2021, is DUE and highly relevant. It is encyclopedic information that our readers need to know. We write what RS say - it's that simple. Happy editing!  Atsme 💬 📧 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Thucydides411 - give me a little time to reconsider your argument now that I've added the Li material. I'm open to making some changes, so give me a little time to hash it over in my mind.  Atsme 💬 📧 15:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There's almost always some true kernel that sparks conspiracy theories, but that doesn't make the theories true. There was indeed a conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media, based on some images of urns. Those theories were never substantiated. Times Magazine ran an article discussing the theories, noting that "some in China" are skeptical of death figures because of them. But that doesn't mean that the figures published by the National Health Commission are false or "misinformation". By including this conspiracy theory on this page, the implication is that the National Health Commission, in publishing case and death numbers each day, was engaging in "misinformation". Time Magazine doesn't even say that, and this inference looks to me like original research.
 * As for the material about Li Wenlang, I again don't see what that has to do with "misinformation". This page is supposed to be specifically about misinformation, not a list of every criticism of the Chinese government or every conspiracy theory about China and the pandemic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing to see that you've added the urn conspiracy theory back in, without first reaching consensus here. The urn theory is much more likely misinformation about China than by China. It's simply a social media conspiracy theory that was never substantiated.
 * Your latest edits also add the following line:
 * This makes it sound like someone outside the Chinese government "revealed" a higher death count than the government had previously published. In reality, the Chinese government itself revised the death toll upward after investigating deaths that were suspected (but not previously diagnosed) to be due to CoVID-19. Similar upward revisions have happened in many countries, including the US.
 * Just more broadly, you've added a hodge-podge of criticisms and dubious theories about China, which aren't clearly related to the subject of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point that you're missing is that it is not about the urns - it is about the outcry of the people that was triggered by the urns that led to the investigation which is ongoing. Can you provide a RS that unequivocally disputes those numbers? If so, please provide the link. I couldn't find anything in my Google search.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Find an RS that disputes what numbers? The numbers that some people on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter made up? Why is this material even in this article in the first place? You're acting as if random conspiracy theories from social media are the established truth, and that if the National Health Commission publishes different numbers, then they must be engaging in "misinformation". As far as I can tell, this is entirely your own original research. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing Twitter - I cited The NYTimes, Bloomberg and Time - what are you talking about? Call an RfC if you disagree - it's that simple. I'm not going to argue with you over this because you're not providing a valid source to refute the information you are challenging. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't carry much weight in a debate where RS are not only imperative, but in this case, they were properly cited. I expect the same in return.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They wrote about the existence of the conspiracy theory. They didn't state that the theory is correct. You're confusing these two things, and then making the WP:OR leap to imply that the National Health Commission is engaging in misinformation, because its numbers are lower than those of the Weibo conspiracy theorists. You're saying you have reliable sources, but those sources don't actually support the conclusions you're drawing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They wrote about the existence of the conspiracy theory. They didn't state that the theory is correct. You're confusing these two things, and then making the WP:OR leap to imply that the National Health Commission is engaging in misinformation, because its numbers are lower than those of the Weibo conspiracy theorists. You're saying you have reliable sources, but those sources don't actually support the conclusions you're drawing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , there are many more sources to substantiate the allegation that the Chinese government is fudging the numbers of how many cases and deaths there are, such as this Bloomberg article, this Nature article, and this Foreign Policy article. I'm not sure why you keep on trying to censor information from Wikipedia that portrays the Chinese government in a poor light. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg and Foreign Policy report that US intelligence agencies claim China is downplaying its numbers. That gives us zero information on whether or not China is actually downplaying its numbers. For all we know, this could be an example of US government disinformation. The Nature article is about how the National Health Commission in China categorizes people who test positive but show no symptoms. The Nature article notes that experts are divided on whether the way China categorizes them is appropriate. As the Nature article notes, people who test positive are counted and those numbers are reported publicly. They're just not called "cases" unless they show symptoms. You can still see exactly how many such people there are every day. This is very different from the urn conspiracy theory, which posits that many times as many people died in Wuhan. This is a rather technical discussion about how to categorize cases. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the way China counts its cases is very different, as established by the Nature article, among others, how would you advise we broach the issue in an article which is about how China engages in disinformation in the general? You think this method, isn't something can be considered as a means to engage in disinformation, similar to the way China also falsifies unemployment figures? Can you suggest wording for actual content changes? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not misinformation, so it doesn't belong here. China breaks down people who test positive into two categories, symptomatic and asymptomatic, and reports both. The Nature article quotes a number of scientists who say that it's reasonable to break down cases into these different categories. The question isn't how to word it here: the question is why you're calling this "misinformation" in the first place. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * At the time the Nature article was published, which was February, it wasn't known if asymptomatic patients transmit the virus, and as Jašarević pointed out at the end of the article, it seemed to make sense that China would focus only symptomatic, which were presumed to be transmitting the virus on a sure basis. But the Nature article, though it provides this useful information on China's methods, was not the only source provided, and there are sources that have yet to be provided, such as the BBC documentary from last night, which carries vivid details on how the Chinese National Health Commission put out obviously false case figures and death counts, while other arms of the Chinese government moved to censor any other sources where the information could come out. Even when China did supposedly start revealing figures from asymptomatic patients at the end of March, Fortune magazine published this piece, calling into question China's figures. Are you still sure it was right to delete the entire section rather than fixing the issues?
 * You're engaging in synthesis here, trying to draw together different sources that don't call the National Health Commission's figures "misinformation" to argue that they are misinformation. Yes, I'm still sure that your original research does not belong on the page. The way to "fix" synthesis is to remove the claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith on your part, I'd like to know how you would present the Fortune magazine article, and the numerous other articles from reliable sources provided? Please can you suggest some text for content changes? Or would you rather delete the entire section? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the National Health Commission's statistics are "misinformation". In the Nature article you've pointed to several times, a number of scientists state that separating out asymptomatic cases makes sense. The article ends with this statement:

There were legitimate differences of opinion on how best to count cases early on, and these differences do not constitute "misinformation", any more than the near-complete failure to do any testing at all in the US during this same period constituted "misinformation". Another change to the reporting methodology that the Nature article discusses, which occurred in the same period, had the effect of increasing numbers of reported cases:

Chest scans would not have been considered sufficient for a CoVID-19 diagnosis anywhere else at the time. Yet because PCR testing capacity could not keep up in Hubei province, the National Health Commission began counting patients with this less certain form of diagnosis, leading to a substantial increase in the number of confirmed cases. Were other countries that did not allow this form of diagnosis engaging in "misinformation"? It's quite a bold claim to say that national case statistics are "misinformation", and there should be strong sourcing for any such claim. This article is about "misinformation", not every criticism of cases counting methodology, and it's certainly not about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about urns. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I can empathize with the problem of having an issue misconstrued as "misinformation". What I would suggest is that we lay out all sources for and against the position that the Chinese government has engaged in disinformation on case figures and death counts, or on any other issues. I can already spot a few sources supporting your position, here and here, and I am sure there are more. There are already a number of sources referenced in the page for the position, which we should also lay out here, and summarise properly. Besides for the allegation that China is funding their numbers, you will also have to contend with the allegation that the WHO is playing "second fiddle" to China, as reported and here, as part of a diplomatic balancing act, so bringing them into this is hardly convincing. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the urn story. Ironically, this story itself is very likely disinformation, and was originally propagated by the US government outlet Radio Free Asia and by Falun-Gong-related media ("New Tang Dynasty"). The story was never substantiated, and subsequent studies of seroprevalence in Wuhan rule out the claims about tens of thousands of deaths in the city. Using this story to imply that the National Health Commission's numbers are "misinformation" is inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Most material here is not about misinformation
The "early beginnings" section does not appear to be about misinformation at all. It's about the local government chastising Li Wenliang for sharing information about pneumonia cases in WeChat, and about the government's missteps in the initial weeks.

This article should narrowly focus on actual misinformation. Instead, it's becoming a compilation of criticisms of the Chinese government's handling of the pandemic, with some conspiracy theories about China (such as the urn conspiracy theory that originated in Weibo) thrown in for good measure.

The material that is actually misinformation is quite limited, and includes: the claims about Fort Detrick, the claims about Italy, and the claims about the Biontech/Fosun/Pfizer vaccine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed most of the information that's not relevant to the article. The treatment of Li Wenliang or early missteps in responding to the pandemic should and are covered in other articles, such as COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, but they're not examples of "misinformation". Similarly, unverified claims by Macron or the CIA that China is downplaying case numbers or the death toll don't render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation". I've left the examples that are arguably misinformation (with the exception of the Chinese Traditional Medicine subsection, which isn't "misinformation" - the claim that most patients in China used some sort of traditional preparation in addition to scientific medicine is not obviously false, even if the traditional remedies are useless). -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You have to seek consensus before adding back in material that has been challenged. Simply adding it back in is edit warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not what NPOV looks like
I don't think any comment is needed beyond just quoting the opening sentences here:

This is not what a neutral point of view looks like. The opening sentence accuses an entire country of failing to prevent the emergence of a novel disease, for crying out loud. This xenophobic attack page really needs to be cut down to its ostensible subject matter - examples of misinformation by the Chinese government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It accuses the central government of China, for the way it utilizes its own communications bodies (like spokespeople), as well as its state media outlets (like CHTN). It does not accuse the "entire" country, as most Chinese are in fact good people, and this article should not in any way detract from that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede is making sweeping accusations about how the virus should/could have been contained. These statements assume that a highly contagious respiratory virus could have been contained, and that its spread to the rest of the world is somehow the fault of China. The irony is that this page is supposed to be about misinformation by the Chinese government, but the lede looks a lot like nationalistic misinformation to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are making false conclusions on what the lede does and does not say. As it is, there are a multitude of reliable sources telling of how Chinese government failed to acknowledge, let alone contain the virus, and even lied about its transmissibility, to their own people, and the world. There was an interesting report on AP about that, which should find its way into this page soon enough. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede can't stay like this. You can write this sort of stuff on your own personal blog, but not on a neutral encyclopedia. In addition, at the moment, most of the content on this page has nothing to do with misinformation, and should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article was recently moved
Hi. I notice you boldly moved the article to a new title. First, I think it may have been a good idea to hold a discussion on the move first. There is a template you can place in the article to let people know a move is being discussed. Please see Template:Requested_move for more info. Second, we should always use sentence case for article and section names. So a better title for this would have been "Chinese government disinformation on COVID-19". Finally, I think we're supposed to capitalize all letters of "COVID-19", because it's an acronym. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a little bold, but it was also discussed in the AFD. I moved it back to the original title of the article I created, as I want to distinguish the Chinese government from the Chinese people. I will correct the other two points you made as per sentence case and capitalisation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * too many bold moves are a problem. Please do it right by launching a proper move request, then the consensus (or lack thereof) will be made clear, and that will be that. El_C 05:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin, does this apply also for a page I created under a different name that was moved to another name without any explanation? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China that I closed a few hours ago had that title, so I'm inclined to leave it at that. El_C 05:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

More Content Removal
, removing content without consensus is highly disruptive and an editor with your level of experience should know better. If you're unwilling to discuss the issues here, or if you feel that other editors are biased, then WP:DR or WP:RFC would be the right avenues for you.

In the Content Removal section above, I provided a Nature Magazine source explaining how China counts its cases differently to other countries, constituting misinformation. Other countries, particularly Russia have been doing the same thing, which they have even admitted to (source), and no one would claim they're not engaging in disinformation. There are numerous sources attesting to the disinformation put out by China's National Health Commission in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in China; most recently the "54 days" documentary that the BBC just put out (here). You did not even reply in that discussion before removing the associated content, as you've done numerous times before.

I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Wikipedia is not censored, and if the Government of China is engaging in disinformation, then it is due for coverage here (and it shouldn't reflect badly on the good people of China and Chinese people around the world). We must assure that it is covered from a neutral point of view, so if for instance there is a reliable source indicating that the Chinese government methods of counting cases and deaths aren't out of whack, then, by all means, bring that source to this discussion, or put it in the article yourself. However, removing well-sourced content supported by reliable sources that clearly indicate that the Chinese government's figures are off (here), or questioning whether it constitutes disinformation, should not be done without consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You've got it exactly the wrong way around. If someone boldly adds content, and another person objects and removes it, then the third step is discussion. Instead, you've just added the same content back in without first seeking consensus. That's simply edit warring, and if you continue, I will report it.
 * The Nature article does not call China's statistics "misinformation", and in fact quotes a number of scientists who say that the way that China breaks positive results into different categories (symptomatic and asymptomatic) makes sense. But you're asserting that it is misinformation, apparently based on nothing more than your personal opinion, and then demanding that I find reliable sources that refute your opinion. That's not how this works. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your put-down about me being sensitive because I'm supposedly Chinese escaped my attention at first, but that's just way over the line. I shouldn't have to tell you what nationality I am, and it shouldn't matter. Attacking people based on their nationality is not okay here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I already countered your point about the Nature article above, so let me move straight past that to counter your ad hominem about me personally attacking you.
 * Your conversation with on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Wikipedia editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case given that you display French and German on your user page, and that it runs contrary to what you've told other editors in the past (like ). Your account history shows that you have mainly engaged in Talkspace, only recently getting more involved in Mainspace, where you are currently engaged in a number of China-related pages on EN:WP, removing content that is unflattering to the Chinese Communist Party. There is also a behavioural pattern emerging that is consistent with WP:HOUND.
 * I won't presume to know your motives, but if you continue along this path of disruptive editing, I will not be inclined to engage in any further good-faith discussions with you.
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have to "disclose" my language abilities to you, any more than I have to disclose my nationality. What implication are you trying to get at? You said I was "sensitive" about this issue because I'm supposedly (according to you) Chinese. That's way over the line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Further disruptive editing on China-related pages will only invite more scrutiny. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Into what? My nationality? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not that. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So far, you've told me that I'm "sensitive" because I'm supposedly Chinese and that it's suspicious that I have Mandarin proficiency, and now you're vaguely intoning something - I'm not sure what. This is all completely inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your removal of all of my content that I worked so hard to include was disruptive. You were in opposition to keeping this article, and the AfD was very clear that it should be kept. I expanded it citing high quality RS and have started a discussion below. If you or anyone else wants to remove material, can we please discuss it first, and at least provide a viable reason for its removal which you did not do when you removed all of my work.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If the material you add in is unrelated to the subject of the article, or if the "high quality RS" don't actually support the claims you're adding to the article (e.g., calling the National Health Commission's statistics "misinformation"), then just saying that you included sources doesn't mean the material should remain. I've explained my edits in quite some detail, but you've immediately reverted to reinstate the same material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The key point being if the material is unrelated or the sources don't support it as you claim, but that clearly isn't the case. Everything I added is related to misinformation, broadly construed, and nearly every sentence I added is cited to a RS, some include quotes and/or intext attribution - the sources support the material, but there is nothing that supports its removal. Stop making blanket statements with nothing to support your claims. Either include diffs, or the actual sentences that you consider to be problematic, starting with the one you claim is calling the National Health Commission's statistics "misinformation". I don't see that statement anywhere in the article. Provide a link to the NHC's stats for the date/area in question so we can make an apple to apple comparison and properly determine what needs changing, if anything. Pinpoint exactly what you're referring to so I can either explain what might be a misunderstanding, or correct it or possibly even remove it if you present a convincing argument that the material is UNDUE. That's what collaboration is all about.  Atsme 💬 📧 02:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't simply cannot remove large blocks of well-sourced text
I spent 8 hours researching and gathering the material I added to this artice, and everything I added is sourced to high quality RS. Much of the material was quoted. If you believe something needs to be changed, let's discuss it here first, instead of reverting big blocks of text. I am open to suggestions and work well when others are willing to collaborate to help build this encyclopedia and get the article right. Let the discussions begin.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 topics are subject to general sanctions, and per the application note: "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." More generally, WP:BRD is an accepted way of proceeding, not BRR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've explained why I removed the text in question - it's unrelated to the topic of this article. For example, the statement that Traditional Chinese Medicine is widely used in China is not misinformation. It's a fact (even if the "Medicine" is unscientific and probably ineffective). So what is that material doing in this article? To take another example, there was a conspiracy theory on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter that claimed that many times as many people had died as reported in Wuhan, based on pictures of urns. There was never any solid evidence for this theory, and it goes against everything that's been subsequently learned about the infection fatality rate of the virus and the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population in Wuhan. Yet this conspiracy theory is being used in the material you added to imply that the death figures published by the National Health Commission are misinformation. It's an incredible leap to go from the existence of a conspiracy theory on social media to claiming that health statistics are faked.
 * As points out above, the general pattern is supposed to be BRD, not BRRRR. By immediately reinserting the same material over objections of other editors, you're engaging in edit warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue with you about your unwarranted removal of large blocks of text that was well-sourced to high quality RS - in fact, you removed all of my work back-to-back without a single valid reason for doing so. Let's keep in mind that this is a new article, and it was quickly taken to AfD for removal which you supported. As a new page patroller, I started citing sources, reformatting per MOS, and expanded the article while you were arguing for its deletion. Bygones now, so let's move on. The article survived AfD quite handily because of the fact that China's mishandling of the early onset of the virus, even to the point that it received international attention and criticism from several world leaders. The facts have been well-covered in numerous high quality RS. Despite my requests, you still have not provided any RS or policies that support your POV and you continue to insist that the urns are a conspiracy theory despite the fact that the material I added is cited to Times Magazine and corroborated by The NYTimes, Bloomberg, & also Newsweek, which I just found. None of those sources are known for publishing conspiracy theories. Following is what you keep calling a conspiracy theory: Some Chinese raised questions about the government's official tally as thousands of urns were shipped to several funeral homes, giving rise to growing skepticism particularly in light of "Wuhan’s overwhelmed medical system, authorities’ attempts to cover up the outbreak in its initial stages, and multiple revisions to the way official cases are counted.” Find the RS that refutes the information and calls it a conspiracy theory. There's nothing wrong with editors having a different POV because that is how we achieve NPOV. It also appears that you have either misinterpreted or misunderstood the context of "misinformation". It includes replacing factual information or stats with inaccurate figures, or propaganda or not providing anything at all, and downplaying the extent of a problem to the public, or by keeping the information hidden from the public. You've got plenty of time to find the policies or RS that support your position, because that's what is needed when you challenge well-sourced content.  Atsme 💬 📧 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You cite the passage, Some Chinese raised questions [...], and then demand that I Find the RS that refutes the information. I don't doubt at all that some people in China raised questions. I saw the Weibo posts, just like the NY Times reporter probably did. But the fact that some people on social media doubted the numbers does not mean that the numbers are "misinformation". The sources don't verify anything beyond the fact that some people believed in the theory about the urns. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think 's hefty content trim was good for the article and in line with the WP:PAGs. This is meant to be an article about misinformation, not a conduit for it. Some of the content I removed was ridiculous (the TCM stuff, for example). But in general off-topic, WP:UNDUE, and having no place in this article. I would urge a return to the trimmer version of the article as a sound basis for possible expansion in more fruitful directions. If sources can be found on actual misinformation (for example the PRC's attempts to boost dodgy science about European viral origin), that would be taking things in that more fruitful direction. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's look at 2 of your reverts involving large chunks of text and your claim that you were removing material that was "ridiculous", "off-topic" and not actual misinformation:
 * Pushing Chinese Traditional medicine to treat the virus, cited to a BBC article. I did not add that material, and I'm of the mind that it is not well-written, and needs some copy editing, but not removal. What I find rather ironic is your edit summary: why is this disinformation? TCM is woo, but it _is_ widely used. Huh?! The Oxford definition for "disinformation" is false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media. How is pushing woo to the public not disinformation? I had to rub my eyes because I couldn't believe what I was reading. I see that you have not edited Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States wherein "misinformation" includes the suggestion to use chloroquine. why you're contributing there since chloroquine is "widely used"?
 * Removal of a large block of my text with in-text attribution cited to The NYTimes, and other material about the downplaying of early signs, all cited to high quality RS including Bloomberg, Time, and the BBC. Your edit summary: Can we please ensure sources and specific to misinformation, rather than having speculative journalistic tittle-tattle. Wow, now that's a brow-raiser considering I used in-text attribution which clearly refutes your false allegations to justify removal. Your comments should raise all kinds of red flags about your behavior. It's a rather disruptive and unwarranted approach to collaborative editing.  Atsme  💬 📧 11:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably best to WP:FOC rather than try to personalize this or raise out-of-place behavioural points. The TCM statement was not disinformation. TCM is (sadly) used as a treatment extensively in China. Saying e.g. it was a "cure" or an "effective treatment" would, on the other hand, be disinformation. In fact, the BBC piece cited says merely that the treatment is "inconclusive", and has quite a bit of the false balance (typical BBC medical reporting) that Wikipedia likes to avoid. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors are not doctors; we simply write what RS are reporting, and the TCM statement is unequivocally disinformation. There is absolutely -0- doubt in my mind based on RS and actual results, or in short, what the facts show. A May 2020 article in Nature states: "The Chinese government is heavily promoting traditional medicines as treatments for COVID-19. The remedies, a major part of China’s health-care system, are even being sent to countries including Iran and Italy as international aid. But scientists outside China say it is dangerous to support therapies that have yet to be proved safe and effective." I'll add that source when the article is unlocked. How is believing that CTM is an effective treatment not promoting pseudoscience? In March 2020, the South China Post reported "Beijing is now keen to promote its use internationally, but some scientists have warned there is no evidence to prove it works". Then in June 2020, a South China Post article claims that "A clutch of traditional Chinese medicine makers has reaped stunning results in the first quarter". That is misinformation and propaganda being fed to the public. SupChina reported in June 2020 that the virus hit record highs - common sense tells us what's going on.  Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On TCM, I'd also add that "misinformation" typically implies intent to deceive. False statements that the speaker believes in are not normally called "misinformation". There are many people who actually believe in TCM, and even if they're wrong, they're not necessarily engaged in "misinformation". We're talking about widely held folk beliefs about health here.
 * In the particular case we're dealing with here, the specific claim that was being labeled "misinformation" was the claim that TCM was widely used to treat CoVID-19 patients. That claim is not even necessarily incorrect. It's very likely that TCM was widely used (in addition to scientifically grounded treatment). If someone were to claim that TCM was effective, and if that person knew better, then that would be "misinformation", but that's not what we're dealing with, as far as I can see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. The text we had was true (not misinformation), and the source not very good. I am sure TCM is being pushed as effective, and that would be misinformation because all TCM is pseudoscience/quackery. Just looking now, there is a perfect source for this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No it does not, and that is one of the reasons you should not be removing well-sourced material. The arguments to justify removal are baseless, and in and of themselves, misinformation. Happy editing!!  Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Misinfomation most certainly does carry a strong implication that the speaker is being dishonest - not merely that they're incorrect. From Cambridge Dictionary, the 2nd definition is:
 * Information intended to deceive.
 * The primary definition from Oxford Languages:
 * false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
 * The Wikipedia article says otherwise, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
 * If this article is about every claim about CoVID-19 that is merely incorrect, as opposed to deliberately meant to deceive, then I don't even know where we should begin. We'll have to compile a list of half of all the statements ever made about CoVID-19. We might even have to throw in a few Nature papers that didn't pan out. I think this would be absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then use this scholarly source. I was trying to simplify, and thought you would at least look at the cited sources in the WP article. Regardless, I should not have to explain to a seasoned editor the definition of misinformation because that borders on a WP:CIR issue.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the precise definition of "misinformation" is beside the point. Our task is to find the best sources which describe misinformation as misinformation (or some synonymous term) ... by China ... and summarize them. The "by China" means the misinformation has to have originated from the Chinese State. This way, we will accurately reflect what sources are saying on the topic. It is not the job of editors to try to surface things that they consider (maybe even correctly) to be misinformation, as that would be a species of WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should stick more closely to statements that are actually explicitly labeled "misinformation", and which were made by the Chinese state.
 * I'm literally quoting the dictionary definition of "misinformation" to you. I don't think the point of this article is to compile a list of honest mistakes made by the Chinese state. Is that more what you have in mind for this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose an alternative. Suppose we rescope the article to something like Misinformation and mistakes related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China, and clearly delineate therein what is represented by reliable sources to be intentional misinformation, and what is represented to be unintentionally erroneous information? The fact that errors have been documented seems notable enough to mention. BD2412  T 15:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you guys decide, may I suggest we try to keep the name WP:CONCISE? "COVID-19 misinformation and mistakes by China", for example. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be an impossible article to write. How many mistakes are we going to include? There must be a vast number of mistakes made by every country during the pandemic. I think we should restrict this article to examples in which there's a definite level of intention, like the Ft. Detrick conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the contours of the article include reliably sourced mistakes, I don't think that would be impossible at all. At least, no more so than a subject like Music or Bird, which could easily cover vast numbers of instances. BD2412  T 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Music and Bird are at least coherent categories. I don't see why we would take "misinformation by country X" and "mistakes by country X" and mash them together into one article. Mistakes should just be covered in the "CoVID-19 Pandemic in Country X" article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already provided high quality reliable sources but here are a few more that specifically state the terminology, such as this peer reviewed Harvard Misinformation review, and this CFR article about how China ramped up its disinformation efforts during the pandemic, and this NYTimes article about Russia and China which states: The propaganda campaigns show how both countries turned to a typical authoritarian tactic of spreading propaganda to undermine their shared adversary, the United States, rather than addressing public criticism of their own problems. There's also this CBC article which states: Russia and China are driving an online wave of disinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, say experts.Some of the disinformation circulating online amounts to conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus — claims that it was invented in a lab or brought to China by U.S. soldiers, for example. Some of it involves false reports that experts say could end up harming people — the claim that handwashing doesn't help to prevent the spread of COVID-19, for example, or that the virus doesn't affect smokers. And there's also an article published by CHOICE (a multinational consortium of experts) that states: COVID-19 has spread from within [China's] borders and Beijing has contributed to the intensity of the pandemic by concealing the problem for several months. China is now trying to rewrite this unflattering narrative and position itself as a world leader in the fight against a pandemic, which it has already managed to overcome. There's no need for us to tiptoe around what RS have been reporting. What happened in China may have been mistakes, but the reporting of it was disinformation. Everything I wrote in this article is well-sourced and I haven't even scratched the surface of what's been going on.  Atsme 💬 📧 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some of that information is usable. The Fort Detrick lab conspiracy theory, for example, should be included. The Council on Foreign Relations has close ties to the US state, and should not be used for factual statements in Wikivoice. I've never heard about CHOICE (link?), but they're simply wrong about "concealing the problem for several months". The timeline of the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 is very well documented, and the time from the first cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology being noticed until the very public announcements of wide-scale lockdowns in Hubei province was less than a month (approximately 27 December 2019 to 23 January 2020). The time from identification of the virus until Zhong Nanshan's announcement about person-to-person spread was shorter. Nevertheless, some of the material you're raising is indeed usable, and should be included in the article.
 * Everything I wrote in this article is well-sourced and I haven't even scratched the surface of what's been going on. A lot of it isn't "misinformation". You wrote a paragraph implying that death figures published by the National Health Commission were misinformation because they don't align with what conspiracy theorists on Weibo claim about the number of urns shipped to Wuhan. I don't think anyone takes the Weibo users' claims seriously any more, especially given subsequent research demonstrating the low seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan.
 * Just in general, it would be more productive to begin from the trimmed-down version of the article and then discuss individual claims of misinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the lede to a bare-bones statement about the fact that various false statements have been made. The previous lede was highly POV, claiming, for example, that China could have contained the virus. I don't know of any scientific basis for that claim (for example, the virus had already spread beyond China before the first cases were even detected in Wuhan). Additional content can be added to the lede, but it should adhere to NPOV.

I also removed the statement about Traditional Chinese Medicine. As we discussed earlier, TCM is widely used in China, regardless of its lack of a scientific basis. A statement that it is used by most people in China is not "misinformation", and doesn't belong in this article.

Finally, there is still a large amount of content in this article that is unrelated to misinformation. For example, the section about Li Wenliang is not obviously related to misinformation, unless we're going to define every bad thing done by the government as "misinformation". Much of the article is also written in a highly POV tone, which is something that needs to be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's never been any consensus for the lede as it is. You've repeatedly reverted to keep the lede locked in its present state. As it is, the lede just makes a mockery of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in effect
Once the week-long full protection expires, participants are informed of Template:Editnotices/Page/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China being in effect (though somewhat of a preemptive action, I still thought it was worthwhile to impose at this time). El_C 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 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: Moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China → COVID-19 misinformation by China – Shorter name, per WP:CONCISE. Also, the parent articles COVID-19 misinformation and COVID-19 misinformation by governments underwent a similar name change recently. Using the requested move template because this page is move protected. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

support. Starzoner (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because misinformation is inaccurate. China was spreading "disinformation" in the truest sense of the word according to Oxford: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/disinformation and Cambridge. I would support a change to COVID-19 disinformation by China. There are plenty of RS that have called it disinformation as I stated above, including the following examples of RS: CFR, this NYTimes, this CBC article, US News & World Report, and Politico: Chinese officials successfully leaned on the EU last week to water down its criticism of Beijing's disinformation tactics linked to COVID-19.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, it's nice to be WP:CONCISE. Also support the use of "misinformation" as this usage does not imply intent. Polyamorph (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as its much more concise. I also note that on the misinformation/disinformation distinction as disinformation is a subset of misinformation that would appear to be the correct title for an article that covers both. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds much better. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Shortening the title is an improvement. Whether it is "mis" or "dis" is a different question and has nothing to do with this move. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE and note that the term should be "disinformation" as that is more precise in this context. - Amigao (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of disinformation in this article
The article currently includes an unsubstantiated (and almost certainly false) story that derives from Falun-Gong-related media ("New Tang Dynasty") and the US state media outlet Radio Free Asia about urns in Wuhan. The article uses this story to imply that death figures in Wuhan are "misinformation". I find it ironic that our article is using what is very likely actual disinformation to suggest that death figures in China are misinformation. I've pointed this issue out above, but after my recent removal of the material, has again added this likely disinformation back into the article. The urn story was never substantiated, and if true, would imply an infection fatality rate several orders of magnitude above the actual figure. It doesn't belong here, though it may belong on the page Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States or Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by Falun Gong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The only misinformation is what you have stated above without one source to support your claims. I have already explained the context to you numerous times, and now your behavior is reflective of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I pinged you at the TP of where I've expressed my concerns about your disruption and what appears to be your misunderstanding of context. I do not appreciate your asperions which further demonstrate your misunderstanding of context. Please stop pushing your POV which conflicts with what RS have reported, and the material that is properly cited in the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've explained before that this is a story that emerged on social media, that it was never verified, and that the fact that some outlets reported on the existence of the conspiracy theory does not mean that it's true, or that one can label the actual death statistics from the National Health Commission "misinformation". To be exact, when I say that the story emerged from social media, it first came into Western social media through Falun Gong's main media outlet, New Tang Dynasty: . The conspiracy theory was picked up by the US government outlet Radio Free Asia ([]) and Vice . A few other outlets reported on the existence of the urn theory on social media (which is not the same as saying that there's any evidence for it or that it's true), but there was never any evidence for the theory, and it is contradicted by subsequent scientific studies showing a low seroprevalence in Wuhan (e.g., in the journal Nature). By juxtaposing the urn theory with the National Health Commission's figures in an article about misinformation by China, you're implying that the NHC's figures are misinformation. In other words, you're using what is very likely disinformation to argue that the NHC's numbers are misinformation.
 * I don't see any justification for the inclusion of the urn theory in this article, and I find its inclusion ironic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

POV and unscientific statements in the lede
The lede makes the strong claim that China is to blame for the emergence of CoVID-19 and its subsequent spread around the world:

What is the scientific basis for these statements? By the time the first patients were detected in Wuhan, the virus had already spread to several other countries. This just strikes me as an extraordinary claim to make. What relevance it has to an article about misinformation is also unclear to me. The lede then implies that the Chinese government hid the existence of the first cases, but fails to mention that it publicly announced the existence of the cases:

As far as I'm aware, the whistelblowers in question were not detained, but rather warned not to post about the cases on social media. At the same time, the government did, however, alert the WHO and issue public statements about the pneumonia cases. The lede should narrowly focus on actual examples of misinformation, rather than making these sweeping (and in part unscientific and otherwise inaccurate) statements about China's supposed responsibility for the pandemic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly POV. And not supported by the sources given. It reads like COVID-19 misinformation by wikipedia editors. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've placed a POV notice on the page. Until these issues are sorted, the template must remain in place. Polyamorph (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited the first sentence. The part about detaining whistleblowers is also not supported by the source, it states Li Wenliang was "summoned" not "detained". So none of this POV is supported by the sources as claimed. It would also be useful to check the sources for bias, something I haven't done. Polyamorph (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag for valid reasons. The lead is well-cited to high quality RS and is compliant with NPOV. We do not scrub articles thinking that achieves a neutral position - it does not. We do not divert attention away from what RS have published about China's disinformation campaign - that is what this article is about, and they achieved the disinformation in part using their state-controlled media and propaganda per multiple RS that are cited in the lead. Noncompliance with NPOV is when we scrub unflattering information from our articles. See WP:NPOV which clearly states: As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. The lead is supposed to summarize the context and material that is included in the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You should not remove the NPOV when there is good faith dispute over NPOV. In this article, there are clearly many disputes over NPOV, so removing the tag was not appropriate. Please put it back in.
 * The fact that you included references in the lede does not mean that
 * a) You are accurately summarizing the sources, or
 * b) That the lede is NPOV.
 * The claim that China could have contained the virus is POV (and also nonsense from a scientific point of view, given that the virus escaped beyond China's borders before the first patients were even discovered). That is just one of the many POV problems with the article. Please put the NPOV tag back in and actually engage with the POV concerns that I've detailed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is a good faith dispute over NPOV and an active discussion, so the tag should really be put back until this discussion is resolved. Atsme, the first sentence of the lede was seriously NPOV but it reads better now IMO. Currently there is still mention of people being detained, but there is no mention of anyone being detained or arrested in the article (that I can see) and the source for that sentence in the lede (BBC) simply states that Li Wenliang was summoned to sign a document and told to stop. As you say, the lede should summarise the article content, this is not in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOVD. Instead of being critical of the article lead when the body text is being removed without discussion first, I suggest that editors should be looking at adding back the well-sourced material that was removed without valid reason. When I originally added the material to this new article, almost every sentence in my added material was cited to a quality RS. I have not had to chance to go back and review the material that has since been removed to know what was in the lead that was removed from the body text. Please be more specific as to what was not included. Better yet, add it to the body text. Editors who are here working collaboratively in compliance with NPOV, and who are trying to expand and improve this article are not the ones who are tag bombing it, or removing material based on OR, SYNTH or DONTLIKEIT; rather, they are adding material that is cited to high quality RS, and improving the content. When there is no valid reason given, such as a consensus supporting removal of challenged material beyond reasons like OR, POV and SYNTH, it is not helping to build the enclopedia - it is disruptive behavior. Thucydides411 was a strong supporter for deletion of this article in the recent AfD. The article was fully PPP and the minute the PP was off, Thucydides411 immediately started back where he left off. His focus is removal of unflattering material and criticism of the way the Chinese government handled the onset of the virus. I have asked numerous times for him to provide quality RS that dispute the added material, or well-sourced material that provides an opposing view that we can add, if DUE, making sure that it is not a fringe view. He has not done so; rather, he continues relentlessly pushing his POV based on his own OR and what he has gathered using SYNTH. There is a valid reason this article is under the 1RR sanction, and that includes removal of well-sourced material for unsupported reasons. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I thought I was specific enough, but I will clarify, the lede states The government also detained whistleblowers and journalists who publicly raised concerns over the "mysterious illness" that had caused several people to be hospitalized but the source supplied does not support this. Neither is it stated in the section on whistleblowers - which focuses on Li Wenliang. I cannot add anything on this in the text because the sources do not support it. From the article edit history there are several users who have raised NPOV concerns. Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the "detained" part is supported by the Guardian source provided in the Whistleblower section. There is a question about whether this relates to the central government or local police policy, but that is something that can be clarified. Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Polyamorph!! Before I read these updates, I just cited the WaPo article which states: On Jan. 1, the Wuhan Public Security Bureau issued summons to Li and the others accused of fanning rumors. The detentions were reported on “Xinwen Lianbo,” a newscast watched by tens of millions. Detentions means the same thing as detained, so that works as well. The sheer number of quality sources that support the material in the article now and that is yet to be added is overwhelming. I'm thinking now that we should include material cited to The Journal of Bioethical Inquiry which states the following: But one feature of the Chinese authoritarian response that should not be overlooked is its practice of silencing and humiliating the whistle-blowers who told the truth about the epidemic. The "humiliating" factor is huge in the cultural sense from what I've gathered. They also state that Li was "...summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan, where he was forced to sign a statement in which he was accused of spreading false rumours and disturbing the public order" This article is clearly a work in progress, and what we need most is production collaboration so that we can provide the most important, well-sourced encyclopedic information to our readers. I very much appreciate your collaboration, Polyamorph, and look forward to your further input. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Atsme, the reason the page was protected was because you and ScrupulousScribe were edit-warring to keep material disputed by myself and others in the article (see this sequence of edits: ). There's never been consensus for much of the material in this article, but you've kept it in through repeated reverts. I don't know what you mean with your accusation that I waited until "the minute PP was off". I raised a number of issues on the talk page. You didn't really address them. I waited more than a week, and then removed some of the POV material. You immediately put all of it back in. I'd like to work with you constructively, but loading up the page with highly POV material and then repeatedly reverting to push it through makes that very difficult. I've raised specific points with you:
 * The urns conspiracy theory should not be used to imply that the National Health Commissions figures are "misinformation". The urns theory originated with Falun Gong and Radio Free Asia, was never substantiated, and the fact that other outlets reported on the existence of the theory does not make it correct (and it's certainly not correct, because it's contradicted by all subsequent research into the epidemic in Wuhan). The urns theory is itself very likely disinformation, and should not be used here to imply that National Health Commission figures are misinformation.
 * The fact that Traditional Chinese Medicine is widely used in China is not "misinformation". Yes, TCM is unscientific. That doesn't mean that the fact that it is used is misinformation.
 * The information about Li Wenliang doesn't have to do with misinformation. The local government warned a doctor not to post information about patient diagnoses online. It's a scandal, but it's not a case of "misinformation".
 * There are other problems with the article, for example:
 * The "Early response disinformation" section makes the strong claim that statements about lack of clear evidence of human-to-human transmission were "disinformation". None of the sources given in the paragraph claim that this was an example of "disinformation". When I've removed material, you've repeatedly said that it's sourced. This is an example of how the mere presence of references does not mean that material is actually well sourced.
 * I've expressed support for inclusion of actual examples of disinformation here (such as the Fort Detrick claims). But a lot of the information here is not about misinformation. Instead of just pushing through contested material, please make an attempt to actually engage with the issues I've raised. Finally, there are two people arguing with you about NPOV, yet you're saying that there's no NPOV dispute. The fact that we're talking here shows that there is a dispute, and you shouldn't have removed the tag. Please put it back in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be making due weight and verifiability arguments (which I largely agree with BTW), but you don’t appear to have actually made the NPOV argument (it isn’t an extension of either of those other arguments). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion has expanded a fair bit beyond the original title of this section. I've added an example of non-neutral writing below, but due weight is also a NPOV issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment from an uninvolved admin: I'd suggest re-adding the tag, as it's clear there's an ongoing dispute, and then going through the lead, assertion by assertion, to evaluate the specific wording in the source used to support each assertion; the onus is on the person wanting to include information to provide support. Consider using quotes with attribution rather than trying to paraphrase everything, if paraphrasing a particular bit is too contentious. Remember also that even when there's only one or a few people reasonably arguing a point of view, listen open-mindedly. It's very easy to assume you must be correct when you're in the majority. Consensus doesn't mean majority rule. It means listening to everyone's point of view and coming up with the best solution. And let's all AGF. gets down off her soapbox with an apologetic smile —valereee (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of the type of ridiculously POV statement that I'm objecting to:

This is what you call neutral writing? By the way, as has been abundantly documented, many people throughout different levels of government in China raised red flags about the virus. These include the city, provincial and national health authorities, which announced the existence of viral pneumonia cases on 30 December 2019 and officially alerted the WHO on 31 December 2019:. It includes state television, CCTV, which broadcast about the virus on 31 December 2019, and it includes the National Health Commission, which sent a team to Wuhan at the end of December 2019 (as noted in the CCTV broadcast on 31 December 2019). The statement about "silencing [...] anyone else who dared raise a red flag" is not only ridiculously non-neutral - it's also contradicted by numerous reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what the NYT source cited says: In those weeks, the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags. They played down the dangers to the public, leaving the city’s 11 million residents unaware they should protect themselves.. It is the and anyone else who dared raise a red flag part which is not supported by the source that makes that part problematic. There also needs to be balance between what was done by local authorities and what was orchestrated by the central government, because as you say there are multitude of sources that document the government alerting WHO and the media about the virus. Polyamorph (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...it's paraphrased, so we'll just do as suggested above. I think we should use the quote instead, "the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags." which is a statement of fact in the NYTimes. Wow, we just went through walls of text for that one word? Anyway, we should not downplay what the Chinese government has done, and it doesn't matter if it was local or not - it's government and they pull all the strings with the help of state-controlled media, censorship and propaganda to leave their citizens in the dark. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Chinese were desperately trying to draw attention to the virus and were protesting over their government's failure to act and that they were actually detaining and humiliating whistleblowers, or they simply dismissed the dangers by recommending TCM (pseudoscience by WP's definition) as a treatment. People died as a result, and that is the long and short of it. Read Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States which is similar and about the exact same topic - no punches pulled there - and also keep in mind that the following sources further support even more of China's disinformation campaign: Politico, The NYTimes, US News & World Report, and on and on. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we should not downplay what the Chinese government has done, and it doesn't matter if it was local or not - it's government and they pull all the strings with the help of state-controlled media, censorship and propaganda to leave their citizens in the dark. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Chinese were desperately trying to draw attention to the virus and were protesting over their government's failure to act and that they were actually detaining and humiliating whistleblowers, or they simply dismissed the dangers by recommending TCM (pseudoscience by WP's definition) as a treatment. People died as a result, and that is the long and short of it. This is a massive oversimplification. Local, provincial and national government are not all the same thing, and they did not all react in the same way to the outbreak. There's been extensive reporting on the conflicts between national and local health authorities, for example, such as the sacking of the governor of Hubei province (alongside many other local and provincial officials) in February 2020: . Sweeping statements about a "failure to act" or "dismiss[ing] the dangers by recommending TCM" are not accurate, and will not create an accurate article (by the way, who recommended TCM in the early days? I'm sure there must be some people who did, because TCM represents a widely held folk belief, but I haven't heard of this as being an issue that delayed the response). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a clear distinction between local authority and central government actions and they reacted in different ways. So the distinction does need to be made, the reuters source provided by Thucydides411 is relevant here. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, we just went through walls of text for that one word? Single words have the potential of turning correct sentences into false ones. This one did, so, no, we just went through walls of text for turning a false sentence into a true one. Carelessness and nonchalance in the face of truth are bad things for a Wikipedia editor to exhibit, especially in articles about misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this is a case where the Chinese government has arrested whistleblowers, some of whom were reported by RS to have disappeared after being arrested. I don't know what you believe to be the definition of "dare" but my use of it in that sentence was certainly not false. Editors are actually expected to use engaging prose. Using dare doesn't change what is happening, it describes it. Dare means, "have the courage", as in have the courage to speak up which describes whistleblowers. You might want to read the RS I've cited some of which are included in this discussion or on the TP. Excerpt from The Atlantic: The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.” If you need more sources, here's the BBC. We don't scrub articles based on IDONTLIKEIT, and while I have no issue with removing "dare" it probably should stay. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're citing an opinion piece in The Atlantic, which quotes another opinion column by Nicholas Kristoff. There is abundant RS that documents that different people and agencies in China "raised red flags" about the outbreak (issuing a public alert on 30 December 2019, alerting the WHO and broadcasting about the outbreak on 31 December 2019, etc.) and were not silenced. Whatever we write should be accurate, and it should be worded in a neutral manner. The sentence we're discussing here is neither. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The operational word is "anyone", not "dare". It definitely makes the sentence false, and this is not a matter of opinion, as Thucydides411 showed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you tone down the hyperbole? I agree with many of your points but not the nationalistic and hyperbolic way in which you’re choosing to make them. I think the addition of “in public.” at the end of the sentence squares it with our sources. The most current in-depth WP:RS reports do support the assertion that the Chinese government did everything in their power to cover up the outbreak. My apologies for forgetting that due weight was part of our neutrality policy btw. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The public announcements about the outbreak in late December 2019 are extremely well documented. Claiming that the government tried to hide the existence of the outbreak or silenced anyone who raised "red flags" is just unsupported by the sources. I don't know what type of nationalism I'm supposedly espousing, or what country that nationalism would be in favor of. I'm objecting to what is a completely unacceptable style of writing, and a statement that is factually incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But that the government tried to hide the existence of the outbreak and silenced anyone who raised "red flags” is exactly what the sources say (e.g. ). Those public announcements are also covered by sources such as the linked ones, I’m unsure why you’re using them as some sort of trump card or suggesting that they refute the reports in WP:RS... They aren’t and don't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m unsure why you’re using them as some sort of trump card or suggesting that they refute the reports in WP:RS. The claim that "anyone else who dared raise a red flag about the virus" is flatly contradicted by numerous RS that document the many public announcements about the virus from 30 December 2019 onward. E.g., SCMP, WHO, Reuters and The Independent. Any claims of misinformation should be specific and well sourced. The statement that "anyone else who dared raise a red flag" is sweeping and incorrect (as amply documented). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. Those sources don’t say anything about the public announcements contradicting the claims of a coverup etc. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They say that various government bodies in China have raised red flags about the viral pneumonia cases. That directly contradicts the claim we're discussing here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How? Seriously, how does that directly contradict the statement that the government tried to hide the existence of the outbreak and silenced anyone who raised red flags? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you asking how the fact that government bodies (such as the National Health Commission) and state media (such as CCTV) raised red flags contracts the statement that the government silenced anyone who raised red flags? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources weren’t talking about government bodies and state media, except when pointing out their role in censorship and disinformation pushing. They were talking about journalists, doctors, and regular people being silenced *by* the government. Where are you getting that from? This argument appears to only exist in your head, it isn’t in any of the sources we currently have. I’m also starting to question whether you even read the sources I link, I read yours and I expect that same courtesy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the statement, Besides the obviously unacceptable style in which the sentence is written ("dared"), the fact that various people in the government itself were raising red flags obviously contradicts the claim that "anyone else" was silenced. I've looked at your links, and they're about a range of different issues. I'm talking about this specific false (and non-neutrally worded) claim that's now in our article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I don’t understand your point, that line is directly supported by our sources ( "the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags.” etc). The authorities can both silence others and raise red flags of their own at the same time, those are not mutually exclusive activities. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that "any others" who raised a red flag were silenced is not supported by the sources. Maybe "some others" would be supported, but I'm not even sure who those "some others" are.
 * We're writing an article about "misinformation", not generally about freedom of speech or censorship in China. Right now, we include this line about silencing "anyone else who dared raise a red flag about the virus." In order to include this claim in this article, it would have to be related to misinformation in some way. The clear implication is that the Chinese government misinformed the world by hiding the existence of the virus - that's why this line is in here. But that's simply false: there were many early reports of the virus (from 30 December 2019 onward) from Chinese officials, state television, and newspapers in China. The WHO was informed on 31 December 2019, and issued its first comprehensive packet on the illness on 5 January, based on information received from Chinese health authorities. This is all extremely well documented in reliable sources. By including the claim that China attempted to keep the illness a secret, I think we actually risk sliding into misinformation ourselves. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Who are the journalists referenced in this sentence from the lede?

-Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One example would be these journalists, temporary police detention when trying to report on this story appears to be a near universal experience for both domestic and international reporters. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're linking to a nearly 1.5-hour-long episode of a TV series. Who are the journalists who were detained for raising concerns over the "mysterious illness" in the early days? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be equating detained with jailed... The journalist in that feature piece from a WP:RS is repeatedly detained by the police as the tried to report on the very first reported cases. Their identity is hidden but that doesnt actually matter for us as long as a WP:RS is doing the reporting. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who was detained, and when? Can you link to an article? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to watch an 80-minute (geo-blocked) TV show, and we don't normally cite TV shows anyways.
 * The sentence above refers specifically to journalists who raised concerns about the "mysterious illness", meaning that it is discussing events before about mid-January 2020 (for reference, the genome was published on 11 January 2020). This is an article about misinformation, so the implication here is that false information was propagated about the virus, and that detention of journalists who were trying to get true information out was somehow involved. Is there a source that details which journalists had information about SARS-CoV-2 before mid-January 2020, how/when/where they were detained, and how that helped to spread misinformation? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point. The detention of journalists is to suppress them reporting the truth. It may be related to misinformation if the government is trying to suppress information conflicting with their own misinformation getting out. Otherwise it is just censorship, which, while related to misinformation is not misinformation in itself. Although, getting someone to sign a statement to say they were spreading false is clearly misinformation. But this needs to be clear in the sources used. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already provided Oxford definitions of disinformation, which is what China is doing, and misinformation above; therefore, I disagree that he has a valid point. Thucydides411 has been relentlessly questioning well-sourced material, as you Polyamorph even pointed out above with The Guardian citation, and then I also added the WaPo citation. Having done further research, it is not that journalists were simply "detained", some of them were jailed so we should not include only what happened to Li, but add what happened to Fang Bin, and Zhang Zhan. I have not researched to see how many others, but I believe there were at least 8 journalists and possibly other doctors like Li. The latter is what we need to be focusing on, not removing content or misinterpreting that censorship is not part of China's disinformation campaign. Unsupported claims to scrub or spin this article based on nothing more than a failure to read the cited sources, or conduct one's own resarch has become quite exhausting, not to mention a serious waste of editors' time explaining the obvious. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your personal attacks and just get to the factual question about journalists. This is the sentence we're discussing: The government also detained whistleblowers and journalists who publicly raised concerns over the "mysterious illness" that had caused several people to be hospitalized, with the government claiming they were spreading rumors. The clear meaning is that early in the outbreak, when CoVID-19 was still a "mysterious illness" caused by an unknown agent (i.e., roughly before 11 January 2020), there were journalists who were silenced, and because this article is about misinformation, the implication is that this silencing caused misinformation to spread. I've asked you to specify which journalists you're talking about. You've now named Fang Bin and Zhang Zhan. Both Fang Bin and Zhang Zhan began filming after the lockdown of Wuhan (i.e., at the end of January, long after CoVID-19 had ceased to be a mystery illness). Fang Bin was arrested in February. Zhang Zhan was arrested in May. These examples do not support the statement about journalists made in the sentence in question. Freedom of speech is limited in China, but that's not the subject of this article. What we're discussing here is misinformation by the government (in this case, in early January 2020), and we should be precise about what claims we're making. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide diffs of what you refer to as PAs, otherwise you are casting aspersions. You also keep presenting arguments with no RS to support your claims, and I consider that to be OR and IDONTLIKEIT behavior. I am well aware of what we're discussing and I have a question for you that I'm asking in good faith because of your repeated misunderstandings, particularly about what constitutes a PA, which you just accused me of doing. Is English your 1st language because if it is not, then I can understand some of the confusion relative to context, and why you're misunderstanding the use of misinformation/disinformation as it relates to the actions of the Chinese government and their handling of the virus at the onset. do you believe TCM is a valid treatment for COVID-19, and is that one of the reasons you don't consider the actions of the government to be misinformation? I'm just trying to get your argument against this article in proper perspective because you were quite adament at the AfD in support of its deletion. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Provide diffs of what you refer to as PAs. The comment directly above mine needlessly personalized the dispute. You also keep presenting arguments with no RS to support your claims. I'm provided sources throughout this discussion. What specific claim do you want a source for? misinformation/disinformation: We've been over this before. I cited two dictionary definitions of "misinformation" that state that it implies dishonesty. Some dictionaries do not mention dishonesty in the definition, while some do. do you believe TCM is a valid treatment for COVID-19: My own views are irrelevant, but I believe the overwhelming view of the scientific community is that TCM is unscientific. It is regarded the same way as other folk traditions of medicine (like humoral theory in Europe) are - most of it is probably relatively harmless, some of it might be harmful, some of it might be helpful, most of the effects seen are probably placebo. The sentence I object to in the article is, In June 2020, the Chinese government published a white paper, claiming over 92% of COVID-19 cases in China were treated with traditional Chinese medicine. How is this misinformation? Is it false that TCM was widely used in China (despite the lack of scientific evidence for its effectiveness) during the pandemic? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right about that sentence – it does not seem to be an example of misinformation. It only says that TCM was used, not that it was effective. Maybe there has been state-sponsored misinformation about TCM (and if so, it can be added to this article), but that sentence isn't an example of it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the sentence – thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I expanded it because they used integrated treatments and hospitals that specialize in integrative medicine, but there is more emphasis on the TCM portion. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a question: who is "Beijing"? There are different agencies in the Chinese government. The second sentence is more specific, so I'd remove the first sentence and move the BBC source to the end of the 2nd sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another issue: the section is titled, "Treatment disinformation". According to the definition that all of us appear to agree on, "disinformation" definitely requires intent to deceive. Do the sources say that the people promoting TCM believe it to be ineffective and are engaging in deception? By the definition that Atsme is saying we should use, this would be "misinformation" (though I still maintain that the word has a connotation of dishonesty, as some dictionaries say). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "misinformation" is a more appropriate word than "disinformation" for this section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again...when a government does it to whitewash, cover-up, mislead or propagandize, it is disinformation whereas when it's done in the private sector it means the same thing only it's referred to as misinformation relative to false or inaccurate advertising, overselling a product when they know the advertised results aren't realistic, etc. - bottomline, it's false or misleading information, intentional or otherwise, it doesn't matter. The distinguishing factor between the two words is simply that government provided misinformation is disinformation, which is exactly what the Chinese government has been doing. It's a ridiculous waste of time to be quibbling over the ubiquitous use of words in the English language, specifically two words that mean the same thing except that one refers to government. Oh, and BTW - I added a bit more clarity to the section about the urns hoping it will end further discussion about that sentence once and for all. When all the back and forth between editors slows down, and the WHO publishes their final report (may take a year), copyeditors, Wikignomes and members of the lead improvement team will come in and clean-up what needs cleaning. It's routine. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you get your definition government provided misinformation is disinformation from Atsme? Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Frozen food transmission
None of the cited sources describe this as misinformation. They give the sense of disagreement among experts and skepticism that frozen food is a non-negligible mode of transmission, but they do not say that it's impossible. One source notes a preprint finding that frozen food transmission is "a feasible source" for certain outbreaks. And the source I added today cites Peter Ben Embarek, a WHO official, who says that frozen food transmission may be possible.

The sources do not support the claim that the frozen food controversy is misinformation. Therefore, we should remove it from this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could, not may. That expert isnt saying what you’re claiming and they aren’t contradicting the other sources we have here in any way. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, none of those sources say that it's misinformation. It may be worth covering this controversy in some other article, but it doesn't fit in this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an idea of a better home for it I’m all ears. I will note that the current text does feel more general but there is a way to cover the topic within the disinformation discussion. In particular the industry angle, e.g. "However, seafood trade groups in the United States and Europe are fighting back against what they’re calling misinformation being spread in China.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Transmission through the cold chain is not well understood now, as the WHO investigation pointed out: . It's a controversial topic, but given the uncertainty about the issue, I don't think we should be labeling claims that transmission could occur through the cold chain "misinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we should be either, from what I can see the claim we are labelling as misinformation is the claim that the origin of the virus was abroad and that it was imported into China through frozen food. As I said before I don’t think we should be covering the topic in such a general way. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we don't have any reliable sources labeling that as misinformation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not hearing a constructive suggestion in there. That point has already been made and I’ve already said I don’t like the current text. I propose a move to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 unless anyone else can think of a better home. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good good, lets give it a few days to see if anyone else wants to weigh in and then lets move ‘er on over. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual biological transmission would fall under WP:MEDRS in order for WP to state any specific origin. On the other hand, the politics and what we know of China's attempts to cover-up, suppress, downplay or propagandize the origins can be cited to reliable news & various other sources. At this point in time, nothing is known, so everything up to this point is either propaganda or speculation. For example, just yesterday The Sydney Morning Herald: "The early conclusion is this: the virus is likely to have been transmitted via an intermediate animal more closely related to humans than bats, but the original source or location of the disease remains unknown." The next paragraph reads: "The difficulty for the WHO and the dozen highly regarded scientists, virologists and epidemiologists on its investigating team is managing expectations of a result, while undertaking the most politically charged scientific investigation in history."

Reuters stated: The head of a WHO-led team probing the origins of COVID-19 said bats remain a likely source and that transmission of the virus via frozen food is a possibility that warrants further investigation. He ruled out a lab leak. Keep in mind that the WHO investigation is limited by what China's officials allow them to access. The only factual statement that can be made at this point is that the origin of the virus is still unknown with bats in the lead, frozen food possible, and not a lab leak. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. Accordingly, I've moved the information to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

More precise name proposed
Recommend moving COVID-19 misinformation by China → COVID-19 misinformation by the Chinese government – per WP:PRECISE. This is closer to the parent COVID-19 misinformation by governments and it is fundamentally what this article is about: misinformation/disinformation propagated by a party-state, its officials, and its media outlets. The title change would reduce ambiguity that comes from the word "China" which can be (and unfortunately is) interpreted to encompass ethnic Chinese people generally. In a climate of rising Sinophobia, it may be warranted to make the title crystal-clear in this regard. - Amigao (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The page has literally just been moved, there was plenty of opportunity to make this suggestion in the move discussion. So, while you may (or not) have some valid ideas, another move proposal is not what this page needs at this time. Polyamorph (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Let's assume that some person from China - who is not in the government - says something about about COVID-19 which is false. Only an extreme simpleton, a conspiracy theorist, or a liar with lots of chutzpah would call that "COVID-19 misinformation by China" and want to include it here. It would be reverted instantly. So, if there is a danger of confusion, it is very slight and can be averted by including in the lede that the article is about misinformation by the Chinese government. And that is already there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. As noted, this article seems to be about government misinformation. Let's avoid the othering oversimplification of reducing an entire country to its government. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You going to change COVID-19 misinformation by the United States as well then? Polyamorph (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That one should also be moved, for the same reason. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, both these articles were moved very recently. So unless there is substantial support I don't think it is productive to move them again. Polyamorph (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, if this said "by Chinese (people)" or "by Americans" then I'd agree, but referring to the country naturally implies the state, not individuals. Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It can  refer to both but this small change would simply make the title far more consistent with the policy of WP:PRECISE and lessen possible ambiguity and misinterpretation. Even if the risk of misinterpretation is slight, its effects can be nasty for those on the receiving end. - Amigao (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, WP:PRECISE explicitly states titles shouldn't be any more precise than needed to unambiguously define the scope of the article. This does that. Why did you not propose this during the original discussion which you participated in? Polyamorph (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename?
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. 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)
 * 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)

Misinformation about death toll in Wuhan
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)


 * Concur with your assessment and appreciate the RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. will revert when I get a chance on desktop-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)