Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

Imputing anti-China motives

As media sentiment shifts on the lab leak hypothesis, the editing of this article seems to be getting increasingly reactionary. A few editors' instinct seems to be just revert everything, even the addition of italics to a journal name. In a section about the lab leak possibility, there's one sentence that really sticks out: "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments." The reference is this Wired article. This sentence raises a number of questions: who are these people? What's the misrepresentation? How is their anti-China motivation known? And maybe most importantly, why does it matter? This article is about misinformation, not about the motivation for misinformation. I removed the sentence, but another editor restored it, saying only "Seems apt". I then added some clarification tags, so we can at least find out what this sentence means, but the same editor reverted that too, saying "Wikipedia cannot be more specific than cited sources.". Which is kind of a hilarious thing to say: we don't know who these people are, or what they have said, but it's important for everyone to know that such people exist, and that they have said incorrect things. Can anyone justify these reverts? Should we start citing WP:OWN? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The source says it's "Trumpists" doing the racist thing. Perhaps the article should just specify that too? Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I added two additional citations which hopefully clarify the claims. I'd like to bring attention again to the section above on Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 11#Specific examples of accidental lab leak misinformation?, which providing clearer examples in the article section dedicated to this disputed claim would also help clarify the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify the claims at all. Who are these people - "Trumpists"? If so, what does "Trumpist" mean - anyone who voted for Trump? Trump himself, and his political allies? The articles themselves don't seem to shed any light - this Time article says, "Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric, Trump and his team started a systemic—and roundly condemned—campaign in April suggesting that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan". There are various bizarre assertions here: that criticism of China is "anti-Asian" (a surprise, I would guess, to the citizens of many other Asian countries), that condemnation of the lab leak theory was in order even if the theory was correct - and finally, by the fact that this article is being cited, an implication on Wikipedia that the lab leak theory itself is misinformation. I would love to hear clarification on any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, reading back through, I'm missing the source I thought I included, which made the link between Trump misinformation (including this week's statement that "everyone's saying he was right") and the backlash that meant dismissiveness against the bioweapon stuff spilled over into labeling everything related to the lab conspiracy. I'll try and find again. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you find that source, any objection to removing this sentence? So far, no one here has even been able to explain it, let alone justify it. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert until I find the better source, if you feel strongly about it. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you just said, but this does sound like the exact mentality that WP:OWN is about. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the existing NYT reference enough? "the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." and "Each saw an opportunity in the pandemic to push its agenda. For the diaspora, Dr. Yan and her unfounded claims provided a cudgel for those intent on bringing down China’s government. For American conservatives, they played to rising anti-Chinese sentiment and distracted from the Trump administration’s bungled handling of the outbreak." However, it is unclear exactly which variant seems to be referred to (Yan pushed the "man-made deliberate bioweapon" one; Bannon is said to have "pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research" [that would be GoFR, also ruled out if I read the scientific sources correctly]), although even the mundane accidental one has surely amplified such existing forms of bigotry. This mentions some of the political context (USA-wise), and again, like the NYT piece, mentions the existing China-USA context which informed readers are surely aware of by now, but does appear to be an opinion column so I don't think we should cite it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Sorry, I mean I won't stop you from making the edit if you feel strongly that the current sources aren't enough. But I wouldn't make it myself, and I can't guarantee that someone else won't revert. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping that you could guarantee that someone else won't revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me wiki that for you: Trumpism --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. Which just leaves Li-Meng Yan, with her bioweapon assertions. The NYT article says that her statements have been seized on by those with anti-China sentiments, but I don't think it says that she herself is motivated by that.

Hob Gadling - great, so now we know that the spreaders of misinformation are "those exhibiting characteristics of a set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping power that are associated with Donald Trump". Well, that clears that up.

Seriously, though - leaving aside that this article should not be discussing motivations in the first place, I think so far we've found zero specific people who "have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments". Can we just get rid of this sentence? Korny O'Near (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. I think we may need to clarify either this statement, the article text, or both. I think we agree that the WHO-evaluated theory of an inadvertent lab leak, includes the possibility of GoFR having affected the escaped virus. But simply mentioning GoFR doesn't give someone a free-pass from being described as having misrepresented information regarding this possibility. That's what we're looking for, misinformation around an otherwise valid possibility. Which, fair point, requires a direct example before we claim it. Do we agree that misrepresenting the certainty of findings (for instance, pushing pre-prints as "proof") would fit within the current description? Do you think there's room to improve the article text to make this more clear? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it would fit the description, but that doesn't mean the sentence is worth including. A statement like "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" is obviously true - there are 7 billion people on earth, after all. And even just among people who are notable in this context - politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. - there are tens of thousands or more of those, so whatever statement you make is bound to be true for someone. The question is: is it notable? Is it cited? Is it worth including in this article? I think the answer to all of those is "no". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It made more sense when the article went on to name specific people proliferating misinformation, but lacking those specific examples it doesn't make as much sense. So I'm in favor of removing it until we can cite the specifics. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a simple solution is just moving the sentence a paragraph down, along with the conspiracy theories (since Bannon et al. did promote the conspiracy theory supported by Yan's bullshit papers, and the NYT piece is bloody clear enough about the implications of that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Did Steve Bannon "misrepresent information" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments"? If so, where's the relevant quote for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

[1]? "Mr. Bannon noted that unlike Dr. Yan, he did not believe the Chinese government “purposely did this.” But he has pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research and has been intent on creating a debate about the new coronavirus’s origins."; "Mr. Bannon pivoted his podcast to the coronavirus. He was calling it “the C.C.P. virus” long before Mr. Trump started using xenophobic labels for the pandemic. He invited fierce critics of China to the show to discuss how the outbreak exemplified the global threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party."... And much else which makes this clear without much doubt about the issue RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You could certainly argue that he was trying to stoke anti-China sentiments. But what information did he misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Promoting misinformation" (what I've altered it to, more in line with the given quotes) and "misrepresenting information" sound like two ways to say the same thing, and the first quote above is clear enough that Bannon "pushed the theory" and has been "intent on creating a debate"; and the hook of the NYT article is also quite clear: " the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RandomCanadian: I'd suggest that this is one of the potential solutions, so long as we have a source we can wikivoice the claim. I'd suggest, given Bannon is named later in the bioweapon conspiracy (sufficient?), we should either name him (and Wengui?) specifically and what they did, or find a better source(s) that more directly supports the 'multiple people, with the intention of anti-China sentiment' statement. Another option would be to split the statement if we can't reliably source the intent in the existing statement. I'm sure it's easy to cite "some people spread misinformation", and separately to cite "there was anti-china sentiment linked to origins" (whether that goes in this section or Xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion, depends on the source). I'd propose that, whether we add it to the cite tag in the article or not, the quote should be shared on the talk page or edit summary to help verify the source was faithfully represented. Like Korny O'Near, I think we need to make sure we're using up-to-date sources, which aren't using last year's mistaken descriptions of the theory (the reason I removed the list of Republicans from the article, in retrospect the citations got it wrong). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused here. We've already established that the "accidental lab leak" theory is not inherently misinformation - certainly, this article doesn't treat it that way. So why are we talking about Steve Bannon? If all he has said is that COVID-19 may have been caused by a lab leak, he doesn't even belong in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bannon didn't just push the "accidental lab leak" - the fact is he offered a platform for Yan's (obvious) misinformation (per NYT source already cited). Even some aspects of the "mundane" lab leak, including overstating evidence or misinterpreting the statements of scientists, including for more sinister motives ("In the Science letter, the authors note that Asian people have been harassed by those who blame COVID-19 on China, and attempt to dissuade abuse. Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas." [2]), is misinformation. Even the mainstream media is apparently taking part in this now:

At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.” [3]

Seems like a decent reason to avoid over stating the status of the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a lot of verbiage that seems (to me) irrelevant. Maybe I'm not grasping what you meant, though, so let me ask again: what information did Steve Bannon misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

He funded Yan's misinformative papers, as the bioweapon section says. That should stay, IMO. I also think I agree we shouldn't name Bannon in the above section, that's just redundant and confusing. Unless we have an additional citation of specific misinformation beyond merely promoting a non-mainstream theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize before that the sentence had changed to "promoted misinformation". But yes, I agree with this - Bannon's funding of Yan is also mentioned in the article. There's no need to mention it a second time, in a vaguer way. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent removal

I don't see any reason why this keeps getting removed. Of course, not everything and everyone related to virus origins misinformation is racist, but multiple sources attest that some aspects of the misinformation undeniably are linked with such attitudes - the twitter groups harassing scientists and promoting xenophobia, the Bannon et al. sinophobia, etc... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that "attest" that misinformation is related to racism. Although actually I don't know why you bring up racism, since racism was never mentioned in the controversial text. So I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of sources cited on this page and elsewhere show how racism against Asian-Americans is linked to COVID-19 misinformation.

Here are a few:

The decision is notable because it shows, once again, how social media giants struggle to strike the right balance between protecting the public from harmful misinformation and enabling robust discussion of controversial ideas...the reopening of debate presents challenging issues for Facebook because the claim has also been associated with a wave of anti-Asian sentiment.

The activity follows a rise in anti-Asian misinformation last spring after the coronavirus, which first emerged in China, began spreading around the world.

First, the United States must stop scapegoating China. Leaders need to stop referring to Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus”, trying to blame China for the outbreak and feeding conspiracy theories about China launching the disease on purpose. Halting this kind of rhetoric can help reduce some of the discrimination against Asian Americans that has been sparked by racist comments surrounding the virus.

On Jan 24, 2020, misinformation that “Chinese passengers from Wuhan with fever slipped through the quarantine at Kansai International Airport” was disseminated through multiple social media channels.6 Although Kansai International Airport promptly denied the fact, discrimination against Chinese people has become widespread in Japan. #ChineseDon'tComeToJapan is trending on Twitter, and Chinese visitors have been tagged as dirty, insensitive, and even bioterrorists.

The study says that a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, focusing an initially rather diverse and incoherent set of messages into a few dominant narratives, such as blaming Jews and immigrants for starting or spreading the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth (see ‘Highways of hate’).

Some reactions may have roots in lack of awareness and understanding of historical events and cultural norms. The use of face masks is a prime example; the sight of East Asians wearing face masks on public transport and in communal place has caused panic and become a catalyst for rising levels of fear in some Western cities. Some of the attacks on Chinese students in the United Kingdom were reported to have been triggered by the so-called maskaphobia.

Sources

This is one of the most well-sourced sentences in the article, in my opinion. In both news and scholarly sources. It should not be removed, for that reason.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Maybe I'm just missing the root concern here. Is it the terminology regarding whether we describe something as 'anti-China sentiment', 'xenophobia', or 'racism'? Is it the link to misinformation? We might just be referring to different concepts, when we think we're referring to the same thing.

I'd also like to add the following two items to Shibbolethink's links above. One being the Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic article which has a wealth of additional citations, the other being the WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases. The latter mentions avoiding geographic names (ie. 'China virus', 'Wuhan flu') in order to the minimize unnecessary negative impact of disease names on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare, and avoid causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups. I'd suggest that's a pretty clear link between misinformation (namely, intentionally incorrect names) and "unnecessary negative impact", so the better we understand your objection the more likely we can reword to avoid it and reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Terms like "China virus" and "Wuhan flu" are not misinformation, and neither is the lab leak theory. Is there any proof that violence has been caused specifically by misinformation? A lot of the citations found are very vague, talking about how violence was preceded by misinformation or that sort of thing without directly indicating a causal link. If there are any sources that directly specify a link, then please just cite those in the article, and leave out the rest. Let me remind everyone again that this is an article about misinformation. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

While I could imagine an (IMO, tenuous) argument for "China virus" being merely insensitive rather than misinformation (though I'd still disagree, and say the use fits into the broad umbrella of misinformation), I think "Kung flu" is unambiguously misinformation (coronaviruses aren't influenza, and the comparison was clearly made by Trump to minimize the disease severity). Time refers to all three terms alongside a broader trend of Trump et al Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence we're discussing isn't linking the use of these incorrect terms (aka, misinformation) to violence, is it? We say it "stoke(d) anti-China sentiments" and "increased anti-Asian activity", which can be accurate with or without physical violence. Let's stick with discussing the actual wording, not a strawman version that nobody seems to be suggesting. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, it's just anti-Asian sentiment, not violence. (I literally didn't remember what the original subject was.) Anyway, "China virus" is very clearly not misinformation (it's a virus from China), and "Kung flu" is not misinformation either - it's an obvious joke. Let's try to keep some common sense here. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1)"Wuhan flu" would then be the corollary. And Bakkster Man's citation of the WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases is key here as well. Calling H10N3 "China Flu" would be just as wrong. Same with calling Ebola "African Hemorrhagic fever." Both would be misinformation, and in both cases, we don't use such terms anymore in infectious diseases. But it also doesn't matter what is a joke and what isn't. Common sense isn't at issue here. We're supposed to follow what the sources tell us. Even if it's driving us off a cliff. If the sources are telling us something that you believe in your heart to be wrong, then we still say it. That's WP:V. Best PAG would be WP:V and best essay would be WP:NOTRIGHT. It doesn't matter what you or I think is misinformation, because the quotes I provided directly link what others have described as misinformation to what others have said is anti-Asian sentiments. If enough independently-generated WP:RSes are saying it, then we say it in wiki-voice. This is how we avoid POV, bias, and OR. You may not like it, I am sure there are cases also where I will not like it. But that's how wiki is.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a change of subject down a blind alley. We have sources that say misinformation in general is linked to anti-Asian sentiments, we even have specific examples (such as the Kansai International Airport situation above) plus several others. We don't need to debate the particulars of the term "Kung flu." Even if you were right, and that term were not misinformation, we have many other examples that are. Invalidating one example does not remove the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

All I said was that every citation on this subject should back up whatever the statement being made is. That's not fully the case now, but hopefully it will be in the future. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation? I'd suggest we're now approaching WP:SKYBLUE territory. For the record, the lede of misinformation says Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive. Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks. All three terms are being referred to by sources as 'insults' and 'misleading' (or synonyms), and "kung flu" is unambiguously also false and inaccurate (Kellyanne Conway said so as well). So yes, it's misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, let's step back and use some common sense here. By your logic, addressing someone by a nickname is misinformation, since that's not their real name. (And if you a call a tall man "Tiny", forget it - that's a double violation!) I don't see where Kellyanne Conway called the phrase "kung flu" inaccurate - and even if she did, that's just one person's opinion. What does it even mean for "kung flu" to be misinformation? It's a pun that conveys no information. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Purple cows in Arkansas. This feels like it is hopelessly off on a tangent. Whatever the substance of the "kung flu" or the "China flu" designations, we have better stuff than that, and Wikipedia isn't a debating website so we shouldn't really waste time arguing over this secondary detail which we're not even planning on mentioning directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, using an insult (according to the page we link) can be misinformation. But perhaps we're missing the more notable example of Bannon/Yan. Whether or not Time's linking of the two concepts is sufficient, Bannon's PAC's promotion and funding of deceptive pseudoscience to act as propaganda fits the bill. Whether or not we link it to Trump, I struggle to see the ambiguity in Bannon/Yan as "American far-right" -> "misinformation" -> "anti-China sentiment". Along with Shibbolethink, I agree that currently we have a consensus here with one holdout. I'd suggest that you'd need to take this question to another venue to get an outside opinion if you think that's in error, as otherwise we're at an impasse. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC would be in order if Korny O'Near wants to pursue. But all in all, I am skeptical that it would have a different outcome. This is very similar to our discussion down the page of the "bullying of scientists" line.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pursue what? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the aforementioned content. You could open an RfC if you want, that's what we're saying.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted to remove it; I said (and I think this is the third time now) that the citations should back up what is being said. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: This is a bit dated (March last year), but it might be useful to make a mention about the naming here (after all, misinformation has been ongoing since the pandemic started), particularly as racist sentiments go: " In addition to inflaming racism, emphasizing the foreign or external origins of a disease influences how people understand their own risk of disease and whether they change their behavior." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who was mocking this whole topic as "Purple cows in Arkansas"? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No, they were mocking your argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I urge every editor in this discussion to read WP:SATISFY. Consensus building does not mean unanimous support, and if a single editor needs more proof, the burden is on them to prove the inverse. Not on everyone else to satisfy that editor. If wiki worked like the UN security council (and thankfully it does not) then nothing would ever get done. It is also possible to AGF without satisfying the intricate demands of one editor. I'm not trying to upset anyone here, just saying it can be a waste of time (and it takes a lot of effort) to track down endless quotations to prove a point that a consensus of people already accept to be true based on the currently available evidence.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be included in Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump?

Result was overwhelmingly "Support." This was relatively uncontroversial, hatting per WP:SNOWBALL after 6 days stale. If the coverage in WP:RS massively changes, we can revisit. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Korny_O%27Near has now removed the category twice, and so I think we need to have a discussion about this. My position is that this article currently mentions DJT by name 22 times, of which I believe 4 are direct mentions of conspiracy theories he promoted. A 5th is more accurately described as non-conspiracy misinformation (promoting UV light and bleach-based cures). Examples include: the bioweapon origin (as promoted by Li-Meng Yan) the idea that COVID-19 death statistics in the United States were systematically over-reported (intentionally) the idea that pharmaceutical companies/the FDA are intentionally downplaying the benefit of Hydroxychloroquine and other quack cures the idea that the pandemic was over-promoted and over-emphasized by media organizations and Democrats to damage President Trump (referencing empty parking lots, for example) Also a direct quote from our article: "A Cornell University study of 38 million articles in English-language media around the world found that US President Donald Trump was the single largest driver of the misinformation." So, plainly, I think this page deserves to have that category. Thoughts?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Support If we have sources that say that Mr. Trump has promoted conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 misinformation, and especially if we have sources that say that he has promoted conspiracy theories that are explicitly discussed on this page, then this seems like an obvious reason for inclusion. Additionally, I do not see how the inclusion of this page on that list would alter this article in any way. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Support (and de-facto already put back in) this is definitively a "defining characteristic" of this subject, and there are more than enough sources which attest to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Support Comment I think we need to maintain a distinction between misinformation and conspiracy theory, particularly for WP:BLP reasons. On my quick scan through these sources I didn't see a "smoking gun" linking DJT explicitly to COVID-19 conspiracy theories. DJT promoting COVID-19 misinformation, absolutely yes. DJT promoting Q-Anon conspiracy theories, also yes. But I didn't see the link to conspiracy theories about COVID-19 in the above links. For instance, neither of the two cited sources for the "bioweapon origin" included the words 'weapon' nor a reference to Li-Meng Yan's discredited pdfs, if they couldn't be used to WP:V the claim. I haven't gone through all the sources (in part because the ones I read first struck out so hard in making that link), but if a short list of sources (with direct quotes, if short enough to replicate here meaningfully) making the explicit link between DJT and COVID-19 conspiracy theory can be provided I will support. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Is this false death count claim not enough? It's alleging a concerted effort on behalf of the CDC to misreport deaths. I would assert that that is a prima facie conspiracy theory. Literally a theory describing a conspiracy of involved persons to mislead the public. Here's a source that directly describes DJT as peddling "the stuff of conspiracy theories" in reference to death count misinformation. Or the theory that a conspiracy is being perpetrated by the FDA to deny approval to HCQ. Here's a source that directly says "Trump Shares Conspiracy Theory About Hydroxychloroquine." It would be great if every time someone described a conspiracy theory they also called it such by name, but sources don't always do that. It should be enough that they call out DJT for doing it, and we call it a conspiracy theory in article space. Or I'm sure we could find other RSes calling these things conspiracy theories. To me, that's an encyclopedic summary.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Particularly your first[4] and last[5] sources are, IMO, sufficient to make a verifiable link. My issue was with gilding the lily by including seemingly unrelated citations that didn't make the link like these do. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Comment - I have no problem with adding that category to this article, provided it's backed up by text within the article itself (which isn't the case yet). If you add some or all of these statements and references to the article, and of course if the references come from reliable sources, etc., then the category should probably be added back in. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Support - Trump was, at the least, loose with his endorsements of theories, and at the most, crazy. My only suggestion is to avoid sourcing the association with Trump on news outlets with an evident personal battle with Trump (e.g. CNN), to try to sterilize this the most we can. Forich (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Sources

Lab leak

Is it the consensus the article provides an adequate distinction between an accidental leak during research and a deliberately engineered and leaked bioweapon? I certainly sense the distinction is being blurred by some in the political sphere. The former is considerably less sinister than the latter. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: There are separate headers for each. Problem is that much misinformation has happened precisely because of confusion between the different scenarios, and because of misinformation proponents deliberately using words from scientists and politicians as fodder for their ideas. I think I added a decent source about that somewhere here or at the investigations article, let me check. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like Wikipedia threw out it's neutral point of view policy here. This will get embarrasing as time goes on. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The line between plausible theories and misinformation/false is really blurred in this article Tisthefirstletter (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Spike Protein

I've been working on this section to clarify that there are no spike proteins in the vaccines. The question has come up whether or not we can use wikivoice to say "spike proteins are not cytotoxic." I think we need to quote an expert saying something to the effect of "the current scientific consensus is that COVID vaccines do not have a cytotoxic effect" or as I had it before "Anna Durbin, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Reuters via email that the spike itself is not cytotoxic." The source has this also good sentence "There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters." I'm not sure how to say any of this without COPYVIO, so I think a quote is fine. The word toxic is a favorite tool of pseudoscience, because pretty much everything is toxic in the right dose and context. Especially hard is "cytotoxic" which usually means you bathe some disembodied cells in something, and that is almost always bad for the cells. That's why the Reuters author said "to the human body". So we need a sentence like "there is no evidence of cytotoxicity resulting from COVID vaccines." Do the current sources support that sentence? Or should we stick with a quote? DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid using the term "cytotoxic", since it just means something that is capable of killing cells. Sunlight is cytotoxic (especially for us redheads). I suppose the needle itself is technically cytotoxic. Obviously this gets a bit into the difficulties of copyvio vs OR, but we should be able to find a way to cite sources on this to say something along the lines that mRNA vaccines trigger the production of the spike protein itself, but there is no evidence that the protein itself is harmful to humans. A lot of the FUD surrounding any medical procedure is the use of technical language to make it sound more dangerous than it really is. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps worth mentioning: the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine consists of actual spike protein molecules, plus an adjuvant. Not yet approved. IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all good suggestions. The section is currently being edited. This was my last edit comment: "Trying to find the balance of accuracy and clarity. Specific facts we should account for: Spike proteins are dangerous and might actually be toxic, but just not in this context. Pfizer and Modena do contain mRNA, but Sputnik, Astrazeneca and J&J contain DNA (not mRNA) that then produces mRNA in the host cell. Only cells in direct contact with the vaccine produce spike proteins" Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Of course, some of the other vaccines (e. g. Coronavac) are inactivated whole virus particles that the immune system reacts to directly. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Conservative media

• Romer, Daniel; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (27 April 2021). "Patterns of Media Use, Strength of Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, and the Prevention of COVID-19 From March to July 2020 in the United States: Survey Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. pp. e25215. doi:10.2196/25215.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Interesting source here about links between conservative media in the United States and beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. But I'm not sure where this could fit in with the current structure of the article. Any thoughts? (ping Alexbrn). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One possible structure could be a new section to discuss methods of spreading conspiracy theories? We cover social media in the context of preventing spread, but not in the context of it causing it. There are other related studies too, eg effects of YouTube and other social media on believing conspiracy theories, and the effect believing in conspiracy theories has on, eg, vaccine hesitancy; another new section on "Effects of misinformation" might be useful in this regard? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

On why this article should be either deleted, or drastically rewritten.

Encyclopedias are not supposed to force a conclusion upon a reader, hence labeling one thing or another a "misinformation" should not be something we, as Wikipedia editors, allow ourselves so easily. It must be left to the reader to decide whether something is a misinformation or not - otherwise what we are doing here is nothing but opinion journalism, which, let me remind you, simply goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. I would allow myself to say that the very existence of such "journalistic" articles on Wikipedia is disgraceful to the editorial community and something that must be fixed as soon as possible, because otherwise, with the current pace, we risk becoming a fully established propaganda platform sooner rather than later.
If deletion of the article is perceived as a non-option by the editors, a massive rewrite based on the principle of avoiding the word "misinformation" would have to be done in order to bring the article to a somewhat saner form. Ideally, the article should present the reader with nothing but a list of conflicting opinions and references to these opinions - only then the content of this article could be considered encyclopedic. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, because of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. Wikipedia likes to call out bullshit, as part of its mission to reflect accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean by "propaganda platform" you mean "what the experts say platform", yes we are going to be that sooner rather than later. See wp:fringe and wp:undue, we do not give ranting loons are conspiracy theorist the same weight as experts, to do so is WP:FALSEBALANCE. But if you wish to nominate it for wp:afd go ahead, you will fail, however.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Moon landing conspiracy theories shouldn't force a conclusion upon a reader? What about Misinformation related to vaccination?

We follow WP:FRINGE, if the mainstream has thoroughly rejected an idea (or labeled it misinformation), we reflect that here as well. Policies explicitly prohibit us from giving misinformation equal billing when we can reliably verify that it's misinfo. Unless you have a specific example of something we label as misinformation without reliable sourcing, your suggestion seems to be counter to policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue?

Moving this from @Shibbolethink:'s talk page.

Why is "Testimony of former Admiral Giroir to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis" UNDUE? The guy was a highly placed government official. If you go down that path anything and everything can be arbitrarily deleted as UNDUE just because you don't like that side. JS (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

hi Jayanta Sen, the appropriate place for this conversation is the talk page of that article. but I based that assessment on the fact that we have covered this topic in extreme depth there, to the point of having many many voices about it. Not every single voice is due. In this case, due weight is based on the share of coverage in peer reviewed secondary sources. as per WP:RSUW. Please move this to the relevant articles talk page or I am be happy to...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please move this thread to the article talk page.JS (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we have an Stanford professor and microbiologist David Relman saying lab-leak hypotheses are "absolutely legitimate" and are "plausible." Relman said the Wuhan lab housed a vast library of bat coronaviruses, including specimens from the caves.

"They weren't just studying these viruses. They were actually collecting samples from nature in the largest number with the greatest diversity of almost any place on the planet," he said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/

If Relman's opinions are added, will that also be deleted as UNDUE? This article is a disgrace.

JS (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What's your content concern relative to this article? Does this article not already mention that some lab-leak scenarios are plausible? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that relevant material from RS supporting the lab leak hypothesis is arbitrarily deleted under the pretense of being UNDUE. Best, JS (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the misinformation article, though, and we only mention the plausible theories on this article in order to distinguish between those which are plausible and those which are not (both according to the mainstream view). Could you link some diffs you find problematic, if you're still concerned? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In what way do you disagree that these quotations are WP:UNDUE? From one editor to another, I would give you the advice that arguments related to the text of the policy, and citing evidence in RSes, will go much farther than opinions and broad statements about the state of the article. That has been my experience anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite simply deleting an opinion of a government official who was the head of testing of the US Admin (testing czar) as UNDUE is not appropriate.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-covid-testing-czar-testifies-183700319.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFGUaC3lbtkX-Mfjrb2pjGGOFZB13xe5yW5DfGrfq-yTWLhq5fXO757dgIxdlMiyBLR_R8oOz81oikzl-NcedQ_Jq4b9W3fw907JWdh2TB3uZTcsotvQptbVYRJq9dL2A6uMr-RC1szyzhPCihr0qf44-xqwTOR3ACF29CsyvSYa

JS (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Increase in US Ivermectin Prescriptions

Propose adding:

Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US following widespread media coverage of the drug. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)" Caprilyc (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very interesting stat.....do we have an info on how many people had negative affects. ..from over use or whatever? Seems out of place without any outcome.--Moxy- 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I found Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis which compared standard vs high dose of ivermectin and found "no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin." Some mild to moderate and transient ocular side effects in high dose group. Caprilyc (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Current consensus template

I created Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) and filled it with some common recurring discussions. Thoughts welcome, as well as additions/tweaks to ensure it is complete and accurately summarises the discussions linked. Hopefully it helps prevent the constant, very long discussions that keep rehashing the same issues (such as the Segreto papers), or at least provides a convenient link to past discussions on the issue so we're not starting from scratch each time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, thanks for making this. Looks pretty good. My only suggestion would be to consider removing the XFDs, PROTs, and ongoing discussions at the bottom. I think the numbered FAQ format should be the focus. Do you plan to add this template to the top of some talk pages, such as this one and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)