Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. (RfC, February 2021): There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021): How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information. [...] Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories.
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. (RfC, December 2021): Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.[1] [...] Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
  8. (RFC, October 2023): There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
  10. In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead. (RFC, December 2024).

Last updated (diff) on 19 March 2025 by Just10A (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

US House Results

[edit]

This topic may need to be updated as the USA House of Congress report concluded there was significant misinformation being spread by the USA government and WHO.

This pertains to masking, vaccine efficacy social distancing, and mass quarantining.

They concluded that there was more harm by the policies than good, and that much of it was not based in science but instead for optics. 155.254.196.211 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians spreading misinformation is part of the misinformation phenomenon (as in this 'report').[4] Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
already been discussed, and it has been discussed before. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

It seems like the US military psyops effort to discredit the Sinovac in the Philippines and later also in Central Asian countries and the Middle East has not been added, so I would really recommend doing it. I believe it deserves a visible section or at least a citation near the top in

“Multiple countries have been accused of spreading disinformation with state-backed operations in the social media in other countries to generate panic, sow distrust, and undermine democratic debate in other countries, or to promote their models of government.”

here is the source

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/? 46.24.201.206 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it appears in the USA section of @COVID-19 misinformation by governments , although a bit suspiciously in smaller font than the rest of the body text SketchupTreeTrunk (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t the more “innocent” misinformation spread to cut costs in masks and the like, this was very deliberately done to influence the opinions of Asians in favor of the US government even if that meant Middle Eastern, Southeast and Russian speaking Asians becoming ill and dying. SketchupTreeTrunk (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is this comparable to ignorant statements made by politicians. SketchupTreeTrunk (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment I will leave: according to Reuters “The clandestine operation has not been previously reported.” And this is merely from last June. SketchupTreeTrunk (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be in the same font as everything else. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk claims about USAID as a possible source

[edit]

In a flurry of tweets last week, Elon Musk declared that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was “a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America” and was pure “evil.” One of the prime sins of the international development body, he said, was its alleged role in starting the pandemic. “Did you know,” he tweeted, “that USAID, using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19, that killed millions of people?” This looks as though it is becoming the governments view.[5] Doug Weller talk 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that’s misinformation in a big way. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe, but are we using it as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I screwed up the section heading. Suggesting it as a source.
I think it would violate wp:primary unless very carefully worded, also may fail wp:undue as this seems to be politically motivated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I am politically motivated? Damn, I still feiled to get it right, Musk claimed USAIS financed COVID/ See Forbes[6] and NBC.[7] Doug Weller talk 12:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying Musks claims are. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief.:} Yes, they are. Might be worth a mention. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it falls afoul of WP:RECENT for now. This is all moving very fast and we don't know how long it'll hold together. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPathtalk 12:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_misinformation&oldid=1277467994"