Talk:COVID-19 misinformation: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 misinformation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:COVID-19 sanctions

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Medicine: Society / Pulmonology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Viruses C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. China: History C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Skepticism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Espionage C‑class High‑importance COVID-19 misinformation is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Psychology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Internet C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Internet culture C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Asia C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Disaster management C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Omer Benjakob (9 February 2019). "On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired. Retrieved 15 February 2019. Noam Cohen (15 February 2019). "How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation". Wired. Retrieved 15 February 2019.

Template:Copied multi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 misinformation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The final sentence, "In reality..." is uncited. We should not be including Cuba and Interferon alfa-2b in this article, unless there are reliable sources stating that it is misinformation. Edwardx (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pancho507, for adding the source. The AFP article does appear to make it clear that Interferon alfa-2b may be helpful in symptomatic relief, but is neither a vaccine nor a cure. For the record, I have no medical background and am not fluent in Spanish. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a medical background either. The reference was always there, but in another place. I am fluent in Spanish. Pancho507 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AFP article ^[1] does not say that Interferon is not used and the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University Novel Coronavirus Management and Research Team^[2] gives Interferon as a treatment option. As such it is clear that it can and would be used. Neither Miguel Díaz-Canel^[3] or Granma^[4] claimed that Interferon was a cure or a vaccin. I think the whole section should thus be scrapped. JVLebbink (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page is in need of some outside eyes, it's on the way to a POV-fork. Safrolic (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The references have been moved, so you'll need to review the permalink to fetch them. Regards, Sdkb (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be in favor of expanding the scope of the article to include this because it would dilute the overall seriousness of the subject. Perhaps a separate article could be created. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see misinformation as very intertwined with the concept of information ecosystems; it's just one side of the coin of such systems. Also, this page already has a "fighting misinformation" section. Splitting off information from misinformation seems like an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Sdkb (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to go for separate articles. Open-access science refers mainly to research papers by professional scientists, most who (the scientists) have quite rich online profiles (ORCID and so on) that can easily be checked to distinguish them from conspiracy theorists, Russian trolls, and random viral amplification of nonsense. At a broader level, sure, the topics overlap; but in terms of specific events in the recent/present context, I would see separating these as justified (with overlap to some degree, of course). In a way, the open-access science contributions during this pandemic are something like a scientists' collective response to WP:MEDRS: can the research process itself become more open while insisting on the uncertainties in the procedures of seeking "knowledge", with the aim of battling the easiness effect through educating the public about the complexity and statistical nature of much of scientific knowledge? To avoid misinterpretations: I don't promise to contribute here, but if I hypothetically planned to contribute, then I would go for separate articles. Either separately or together, this is useful knowledge about knowledge, and it would be a pity for it not to be rescued. Boud (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can find enough sources for an overview article - misinformation + open-access information - go ahead! But for it to work, it would need a bunch of more in-depth contributors than those willing to add 'On 5 April the Ministry announced 173 more SARS-CoV-2 infections.[ref]'... Boud (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respirators ar e not surgical face masks. The title should be changed to Face masks are ineffective; and the content should include a distinction to focus on Respirators that filter air, not ventilators with a separate air supply. Imersion (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section as there is a genuine debate on face mask efficacy in public setting. In clinical settings face masks have a demonstrated efficacy. In public settings, the efficacy is debated and overuse by public leads to shortage in supplies for practitioners.--Muddymuck (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This edit request to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Change reference 267 to: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hackers-are-using-coronavirus-concerns-to-trick-you-cybersecurity-pros-warn-2020-03-12 Chromehackle (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Source added, but not replaced. I see no justification for replacing. Also, if you make such a request, please don't name the references by numbers, but by the name. Otherwise, we would have to go back to the last revision before this edit request was made. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

SharabSalam The lead of the article needs to be expanded, typically for an article of this size it should be at least around three paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. The reason I'm doing it is so that it can be transcluding to the main article to make the main article less bulking. If anyone does not like what's in the lead, then it can be adjusted. Discuss what you like to include in the lead, but it does need to be expanded. At the moment it is inadequate. I see nothing wrong with adding the conspiracy theory proposed by a country's leader, that in itself is notable. If there is something Trump said that you think is worth adding, then suggest it here. Hzh (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have highlighted Iran in the lede. That makes the lead POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those additions (revert link) seemed okay overall to me. The only UNDUE thing was the methanol poisoning. I would add general self medication as an issue and include methanol in Iran aquarium cleaner in US, etc. Highlighting Iran is not POV as it was one of the early countries with a large number of cases. If we have similar from Italy and Spain, then include those too. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the methanol poisoning issue is an interesting case because it is a clear example showing that misinformation can have serious consequences. I have no objection to replacing it with something else, unless you think that examples should not be given there. Hzh (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, I am talking about adding that Iran's religious leader (not president) said that the coronavirus is a U.S. biological weapon. Should this be in the lead? Here is the revert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion that he is just a religious leader is inaccurate. He is the head of state and has considerable power. Hzh (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is the spiritual leader of Iran. The president of Iran has almost all the power.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the head of state of Iran and the commander-in-chief of its armed forces or not? Are you arguing that the article Supreme Leader of Iran is wrong to say that The Supreme Leader ranks above the President of Iran and personally appoints the heads of the military, the government, and the judiciary? Hzh (talk)

• Here is a more neutral paragraph.: Politicians from countries like Iran, China, and Russia have alleged without evidences that coronavirus is a U.S. biological weapon. While politicians from the U.S. have alleged that China mishandled the crisis and suggested that coronavirus may have been produced in a Chinese biological weapon lab.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So your point is to make it more about US accusation? How does any US politician who made such accusation compare in status to Khamenei? Hzh (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am trying to make an appropriate neutral summary of the body of the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with adding what's you wrote there, but it cannot replace what Khamenei said completely. Are the people who made conspiracy theories in the US comparable in status to Khamenei? Trying to give greater prominence to less important people is not balance, nor can it be neutral to give a false balance. Hzh (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Your notability argument is fallacious. The notability is established by the amount of coverage in the media not by the position. Trump's misinformation coverage is way more covered in the media than any other politicians from other countries. You are using an editorial judgment to decide who deserves to be in the lead and who doesnt. This decision should be based on the amount of coverage in the media.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that what Khamenei said did not receive enough press attention you are wrong - [1][2][3][4]. And as I have said, if you have anything you want to add about what Trump said, then do suggest it here. I have considered adding Trump and Brazil's Bolsonaro downplaying the threat of the coronavirus, and that is certainly possible as a paragraph. What Trump said however is not relevant to the discussion about Khamenei. Hzh (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant. The U.S. leadership has spread way more amount of stupider misinformation regarding the coronavirus than any leadership in the entire world. At least Khomeini didn't say it's a hoax. Look, my solution to this is instead of providing details, names, etc and only highlighting one example of misinformation let's make it neutral, more broader and also less political centric as this article is supposed to be medical centric.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have Trump saying China created the virus, then it is not relevant. Anything else you want to add about what Trump said you can suggest them here. I'm still not sure why you are not giving any suggestion to add on Trump since you keep mentioning him. I'm also not sure why you feel that it has to be medical centric, this article is not titled "Medical misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Hzh (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll expand the lead a bit first without adding anything that is under dispute here, you are welcome to expand the lead. Hzh (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless you have Trump saying China created the virus, then it is not relevant." This is a false choice argument. This article is about all misinformation not just bioweapons conspiracy theories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant with regards to the conspiracy theory said by Iran's Supreme Leader. There is no false choice, since I'm not saying you can't add anything about Trump, just that it is not an argument for removing Khamenei statement. I'm still puzzled with your refusal to say what needs to be added on Trump. Yes, you can suggest adding any stupid thing he has ever said about the virus, and please do. Hzh (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was about what's due and what's undue weight in the lead. The Iranian misinformation is shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. The amount of coverage in the news media is way less than the Russian, Chinese or U.S. allegations. Also, you have added the disputed text back to the lead, you should subscribe to WP:BRD instead of reinstating your edit, I still believe that the lead should be a summary of the article and details like biological weapons accusation should be subordinated. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should give general information not details.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which bit I put back is disputed. Do you mean the state involvement part? It is just a general statement, you can remove it if you want, but I don't see it being disputed. A large part of the article involves the bioweapon accusation (it appears to be the biggest part of the article), so of course it should be mentioned, that is what summary does. It needs at least one or two sentences that deals with it alone. Hzh (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I see no problem with your last expansion to the lead. Thank you for your work on the lead section. I think it is now appropriate. It doesn't not give undue weight to one example of misinformation and doesn't engage in details.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, it is still too short. There are nearly 30 paragraphs on the bioweapons claims in the article, but at the moment it's just one passing mention together with other things that are only mentioned in one paragraph, therefore it fails the due weight policy MOS:LEADREL as well as failing to properly summarise the article. I find it extraordinary that you consider what's said by the head of state (and widely reported) to be the equivalent of something said by a minor politician or government official. Hzh (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be based on the coverage of the media. Adding Khomeini comments to the lead is going to make it undue weight.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are just making random claims about media coverage, given that you simply ignore coverage that contradicts you. That is in addition to the fact that English publications will concentrate more about what happens in the West, and that they give greater prominence to minor things that happened in the West. Do yo have any evidence that non-English sources don't cover Iran's claims, or can offer any idea as to what the scale of coverage is in Iranian and Chinese media on the various conspiracy theories? Hzh (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I will adding the issue with Iran to the lead since there is support here apart from the methanol poisoning issue. I don't see other people objecting to it here apart from SharabSalam. Unless others want to chime in in the meantime, it will be added. I will be adding other issues perhaps those involving Trump and the US as well as China, so it is not about any specific person or country. Hzh (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Berenhinia, that wasn't a misinformation. Those are preliminary investigations not full investigation. Please don't do original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation (that they initially claimed that) is original research and false. They stated that they had "found no clear evidence" at that time, which is in fact correct (they had not found it yet) and does not point to misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, SharabSalam and Cold Season are right. It's like me honestly saying I've never seen a woman eat her hat. Doesn't mean certain women can't or won't eat hats when or if it becomes a thing most people know about, and if anyone thinks I imply otherwise, that's on them for misinferring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC

I have to agree with InedibleHat. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

As others said, the timeline is important. It was not reliably known yet that transmission also occurred between humans. It's something that whenever was confirmed, also caused China to strongly react in an effort to limit its spread. —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese officials said that they had "no evidence" at the time, which is a true statement. You make the interpretation that this means that the officials "initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human", which is a false and uncited WP:OR by you. At the moment, you are editing against consensus, so I suggest that you self-revert. --Cold Season (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, not talking about intent, just the statement. Taken at face value, it's true. It's arguably damn true. Important to not conflate a few hushed doctors (or one) with the Chinese authorities. Two totally different jobs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it was misinformation. It was "preliminary investigation". It was bullshit. Obviously it belongs. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This is beginning to look more and more to not be such a “conspiracy theory” after all... Accidental releases/exposures of pathogens occur all the time in labs all over the world (especially those that work with animals that are potential reservoirs of novel zoonotic organisms), there’s no reason to believe that this absolutely couldn’t have happened at the WIV. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News claims today (April 16th) that "Sources believe coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US" [5]. Similar claims came very early, and BBC said as early as January 30th that there was no evidence of that. [6] Fox writes that: "Additionally, the sources tell Fox News the World Health Organization (WHO) was complicit from the beginning in helping China cover its tracks." What is going on? Is Fox spreading a consiparcy theory trying to implicate WHO? A virus has to be identified in a lab, so that the virus "originates" from a lab is hard to avoid - but if the virus is designed in a lab everything published about bats and pangolin is wrong. If Fox is spreading misinformation deliberately (which is how it looks) or by accident (their sources misinform them, and they fail to recognize) it should be mentioned. If they are actually right, we need to rewrite multiple articles about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Markuswestermoen (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're asserting that the lab in Wuhan was studying a bat-derived coronavirus, and that it escaped from the lab due to lax practices, at least according to one story. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cruisemapper.com/news/6915-video-engineer-intentionally-derails-train-near-usns-mercy

A train engineer from Los Angeles was arrested on Wednesday, April 1, for allegedly derailing a locomotive at high speed close to the docked hospital ship USNS Mercy, believing a conspiracy theory the US Government is covering up the ship’s true purpose, federal authorities announced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_KxsLZiMQk

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

This edit request to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This article more accurately describes the hacker activity. Chromehackle (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The "Pets" section in this article is now containing false information. And I would suggest separating it to another independent article given the recent development on the subject. C933103 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the first part, but don't do the second. It's bad enough we have one article like this to keep track of. It's much better if everything of this nature is kept in one place, even if the page gets long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some news outlets incorrectly reported that fish tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate, a compound similar to one President Trump has recommended, can treat coronavirus. One man in Arizona died from ingesting such a substance. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People actually take medical advice from Donald Trump?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, some take it from incorrect news outlets. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Added [8] in the scope of misinformation. Irony being that the content (properly removed in the edit that you linked) is the misinformation itself, so you're correct in your skepticism. --Cold Season (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

" the British tabloid The Daily Mail, and right-wing media in the United States" are included in main-stream media in our article. Is that accurate, especially considering that the latter is not specified?Kdammers (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing media" is too vague to be accurate or not. Runs from 24/7 cable TV down to message board. The Daily Mail is very mainstream. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any common misconceptions? If so, they might belong in List of common misconceptions too. Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too early I think. We'll see which misconception stays around. This article is listed as "see also" for misconceptions about "disease", that should cover it for now. --mfb (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Ayatollah's_Photo_in_Misinformation_Section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

As there, I think this article is extremely focused on humans, photowise, particularly political people. These make up 80% (100%, discounting the standard infobox virus) of the images here, and are all bunched together after several pages of complete and utter nothing. Where are the cell phone towers, drugs and bats? Maybe a facemask, ambulance or drone? Wake up, illustrators, or at least dream big! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I second that. This researcher's opinion is not a WP:RS here.Zezen (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I third this opinion; this single researcher’s opinion is being afforded undue weight, as it is highly unlikely that he could be aware of every strain of bat-derived coronavirus being studied in the WIV labs. In fact, this entire section of accidental release being construed as “misinformation” is looking more tenuous by the day given the recent reporting from media outlets that are not state-sponsored. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fourth. And this is all speculation. It is plausible that there was a bio containment leak, but no definite proof of this yet.

This section should simply be removed as it isn't an example of misinformation or a conspiracy theory. In fact, it's the most likely scenario. Rhejhect (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, should be moved to the main Virus page at the "origin" section --Forich (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the revised toll on China: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/trump-issues-reopening-guidelines-gilead-trial-virus-update

Zezen (talk)

It is too early to tell how credible the leakage scenario is. It is a plausible scenario, but little proof yet.--Muddymuck (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we should be making judgements of credibility, but as this page is only about misinformation and this does not appear to be that I think removing or moving the section is the right choice. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, there is a relation of this topic to disinformation. Please, check Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Leaked from lab. There are a few episodes of the "accidental leakage" theory. The earliest one (reported on 6 February) was originated from social media hoaxes and harassment to Shi Zhengli. The second one was originally published by Daily Mail about some sources in United Kingdom "not ruling out" the theory (but not advocating it either). The third one was about speculation based on US documents from 2018. It was reported as "speculation" by all reliable sources. The last one was Zero Hedge with some conspiracy theory about Facebook censorship.

So I think that the theory merits inclusion in this page. At least for part of these episodes. The Shi Zhengli harassment definitely belongs here. I guess that it is debatable to what extent the speculation about the 2018 US documents belongs here, for example. --MarioGom (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed a large portion of the coverage in reliable sources. I havent seen any current source that specifically calls this theory misinformation. We do *need* to have that BTW to include it here. Try [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Lets be clear, speculation is not misinformation so if thats your argument then you’re also arguing that it shouldn’t be included here. The Shi Zhengli part does probably belong here, but again we need a WP:RS that explicitly calls it misinformation or disinformation. This is not a page for “Speculation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, I was probably not clear in my previous comment. I have examined many sources and posted brief analysis of some in the link I posted. From the episodes I mentioned, only the first one involving Shi Zhengli is explicitly discussed as rumor/misinformation/hoax. The others are discussed as being speculative or lacking evidence, but not as rumor/misinformation/hoax. --MarioGom (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for what is worth, I agree that a speculative theory is not necessarily misinformation. --MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 87-year-old virologist, Luc Montagnier, claims that the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19 is a creation from a Chinese laboratory. Because it has similarities to the AIDS virus. On paper, this man is not just anyone. In 2008, he received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for isolating HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS, with his collaborators Jean-Claude Chermann and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, in 1983. But for more than 10 years, he has also been one of the most controversial and most discredited French scientists. The blame for a series of massive controversies, theories and publications produced without foundation according to his peers. Anybody knows if he showed to fellow scientists what sequences he referred to, so they could check his claims? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SvenAERTS, you can check Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020. As the stated source mention, Montagnier's claims were not peer-reviewed. The theory about relation to HIV is currently discredited by WP:MEDRS. --MarioGom (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the message of that section: Young people with no premorbidities have exactly zero chance to die? If that's the message then it should be backed by a reference. A reference that two self-selected cases were not examples isn't enough. This Italian study had three Italian deaths under 50 with "no major pathologies". I suggest to remove that section completely. Its main claim is completely unreferenced and the Italian study says the opposite. --mfb (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should there be a section on Chinese statements in December and January of 2019-20 that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission? Example here. [15].

Voting

Yes, obviously. This is indisputable. China lied and the article should say so. [16][17] See also Li Wenliang and Ai Fen. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this RfC in its current form. A discussion about more concrete changes and analysis of the available reliable sources (WP:RS) should be done before jumping to an uninformed !vote. --MarioGom (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Adoring nanny, stating there is "no evidence of person-to-person transmission" is not the same as claiming there is no person-to-person transmission. The difference about both types of claims is clear in science, but often confused by non-scientific commenters. This topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and I would suggest to other editors reviewing past discussions before jumping to an RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation". Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Reuters Institute has done a detailed report on the topic. Should be used to expand this article. Cedix (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]