Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
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)
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, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
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. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
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)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Should this article be merged into one of these other COVID-19 China articles?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The original question of the merge discussion was whether that article should be merged somewhere or left in its place. As neither side seemed to prevail in this discussion, neither by vote count nor by arguments, I can state that there is no consensus for the merge, therefore, the article will stay in place for now. However, a proposal to rework the article, either by redefining its scope or by renaming it, garnered more support. Exact remedies on how to improve this article should be discussed separately (for example in Jr8825's sandbox). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

The previous draft AfD had a lot of discussion about merging this article into COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, or another article, mainly due to the scope of this article being so similar and easily explained within the context of one another. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please answer the survey about which of the following proposals you most support:

1. Oppose merge–keep as is.
2. Merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China
3. Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China
4. Merge to another article(s) (please specify)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been advertised at WikiProject COVID-19. 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been advertised at WikiProject China. 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge - Agree with either, but prefer merge with COVID-19 pandemic in China. These basically cover the exact same content, and I don't believe this topic is notable outside of how it is covered with regards to the misinformation campaign. Maybe one article covers it without mentioning the other instances of misinformation, but most include all the misinformation. In fact, this very wikipedia article includes lots of misinformation that is not strictly a "cover up." And if one reads the misinformation and Cover-up articles one after the other, it is one of the most obvious cases of WP:POVFORK I have ever seen. I would prefer merge into the more general "pandemic in China" articles, to avoid the issues of removed undue content as described by ProcrastinatingReader below.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC))

• I would also support a new article titled "Chinese government response to COVID-19" which would include elements of this article and the misinformation article, as per Jr8825. That, to me, seems like the most appropriate "consensus via compromise" conclusion to this. As it is compatible with the arguments of merge-friendly editors and avoids the issues described by merge-skeptical editors who are concerned about content removal via WP:DUE. Clearly, any content that is DUE here would be DUE in such an article, as it is precisely describing the response to the pandemic, in this case a covering-up response.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because on that article, several times content has been removed as out-of-scope. Example. If, as that removal claims, "misinformation" is not the same as being secretive/misleading/"covering up" (for lack of a better word) then it's not tenable to merge, because then this would just be a pretext to remove reliably sourced content. Additionally, this article goes beyond just misinformation by the Chinese government. Clearly this article has POV issues, about which something must be done. An adjustment of the scope of this article may be one solution. An appropriate merge might be appropriate too, but I'm just not convinced on the target unless people can agree this merge is actually going to be a merge, and not a backdoor for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merging this into the disinformation article. The issue that led me to start this article is that the scope of the disinformation article leaves out hiding information. If you know fact X, and you don't say anything, that's not disinformation. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (#1). This is a non-trivial question. There are other historical examples of cover-ups or information blockades by a state, for example, by the USSR during Holodomor here. If there are enough of them, it would worth creating a category. But the cover-ups are definitely a part of intentional disinformation. Still, merely withholding information (as customary for every piece of classified information) or blocking access to information (as with Great Firewall or state censorship) and intentional disinformation are not the same. For example, imposing the embargo on Australia by China in retaliation to suggestion to investigate the origin of COVI-19 by Australian authorities is clearly not just misinformation. If there are enough material for the both (as in this case), I think they should be kept separately, meaning that the page "cover-up by X" should be a sub-page of "misinformation by X". My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I remember a previous comment of yours about this and it made sense to me. All governments have propaganda campaigns and secrets, but some are very notable for blockades, like in this case, and it's nothing new, but it keeps happening. This means that yet another plausible merge target may exist, or that a better term than "cover-up" could be used, that is chosen to imply that there's really something important to cover (and of course, an argument for much speculation)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• That's one the reasons I think a merge and retitle using "Disinformation" would be ideal because disinformation is intentional deception, while misinformation is moreso deception in general. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it could be handled in different ways. Yes, it could be possibly renamed, although the current name is not really problematic [3]. And it could be merged, but there is enough significant information to have it as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China would be my second choice. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• My very best wishes, how would you feel about a novel article titled "Chinese government response to COVID-19" ?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This topic is obviously notable enough to have its own article. X-Editor (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge or create a new series of articles on Censorship (Option 4) The current title is ripe for WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:POVFORK issues, and the current state of the article is poorly sourced for the extraordinary claims it makes (ex. the lede and first section uses a Foreign Policy article which seems slanted and possibly opinion and shouldn't be solely used to support these claims). While cleanup can solve some of these issues, there are still significant issues with the title that will make this article hard to edit neutrally. I feel there are two possible ways to resolve this issue:

1. Merging Quite a few of these sections can be covered in other articles (there are probably better or missing targets, feel free to suggest):

-Release of the genetic sequence -> Merge into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and/or Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020

-Silencing of medical workers -> Already covered extensively in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Censorship and police responses

-Arrest or disappearance of citizen journalists -> Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Censorship and police responses

-Control of domestic research -> Merge to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Chinese government

-Actions against foreign research -> Merge to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

-Disputes with other countries over proposed inquiries -> Possibly merge to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international relations

2. Create new series of articles on Censorship While it is unclear if this amounts to a cover-up (we don't know what China is covering up for one), it's fairly clear that information is being censored. We currently do not have an article series about Censorship (at least, I couldn't find one), and it can be debatable if Censorship = Misinformation (as per ProcrastinatingReader's comment). In addition, censorship/"covering up" of COVID information is not an exclusively China thing, so an article about COVID censorship exclusively can provide a good balance of worldwide content, with the usual article splits if needed (similar to the misinformation article series). There is also likely lots of content about censorship in various other articles which can be merged into this new Censorship article series.

Jumpytoo Talk 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to have this page (or possibly this page merged with COVID-19 misinformation by China). Then, we need to link to this page from the corresponding subsections of pages like "COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Censorship and police responses" using "main" template. That is how we usually do it. There is nothing so special about this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to the two articles specified. Not sure why there should be three separate articles for this. That title seems too POV as well. Ekuftle (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Merge (options 2 & 4) I think the article should be merged into both COVID-19 misinformation by China and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Chinese government. These articles best match the scope of this article. Option 3 is not suitable as COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China is already too long. I really favor a merge because this article's title is likely not NPOV as others have mentioned, because the article isn't just about a cover-up by China, it's about an active disinformation campaign. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with the suggested topics. I do like the second idea as well, that would be a bigger project which could be adressed seperately. --Leo Navis (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge Even if historians and scientists will eventually support any of the various ideas about a "cover-up", a "lab-leak", or even a "bio-weapon", or any other hyphenated and somewhat inflammatory descriptions, in the present climate this seems more likely to arouse (play into?) anti-Chinese racial bigotry in western countries. (Actually anti-Asian bigotry. I have Japanese friends who had stones thrown at them by people shouting "Free Tibet" -- I don't doubt that the same would have happened if my friends were themselves Tibetan! -- and while I've been hunkered up in Japan since the start of the pandemic, I don't doubt that similar shit is going down now.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My preferred merge target is 3. 2 is a remote second choice, followed by 4 (Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic?). 1 is the only option I outright oppose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and comment – I mostly agree with Hijiri88 about the problematic scope, which is centred on a vaguely conspiratorial characterisation and consequently runs afoul of NPOV (and to lesser degree CRYSTAL). However, I think the title is a large part of the problem: I expect sources sufficiently support using the term "cover-up" within the article body (the weight of sourcing needs to be examined to determine whether it requires attribution or can be stated in wikivoice), but it's a WP:POVTITLE that is not the common name, so it's inappropriate. I think this title sets the tone and scope of the article in an improper manner, as recognised by others above.

I also agree with the point My very best wishes makes, that censorship (1), the withholding of information (2) and disinformation (3) are not the same things. All three categories MVBW identifies fall under the scope of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, which is already too long. Narrowing the subject further, the next obvious topic to me is Chinese government response to COVID-19 (a WP:SPINOFF article of COVID-19 pandemic in China#Government response, something suggested by several editors in the discussion below). I strongly support this proposal, as it would act as a central hub for information on its slow response, downplaying of risk, censorship and misinformation, possibly with further spinoffs as necessary depending on the length and notability of each section (we already have COVID-19 misinformation by China; an article on censorship is another contender, integrating content from Censorship and police responses). Some suggestions below included renaming/rescoping the misinformation article so it becomes the government response article; if the length is manageable, I'm also not opposed to this.

So, I think the best course of action is to rename/rescope this article, rather than merge, as there's no appropriate target (some of the content is appropriate for the misinformation article, but much of it isn't) and the content is notable enough for inclusion somewhere. At the moment my preferred solution would be a page move of this article to focus on censorship, which a large part of this article addresses, possibly with some sections moved elsewhere, as it's the least work. Another alternative might be reshaping this article so that it forms the nexus of the broader one on the Chinese government's response, why I think is eventually needed. Input/discussion from other editors might change my mind about the way to best deal with a renaming/restructure of this article, but overall I oppose a straight up merge. Jr8825 • Talk 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Merge (somewhere) As per my comments in the discussion section below, much of this is already covered at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. The analysis by Jumpytoo highlights the other possibilities. I would support merging different aspects of this to different articles. I'm also not opposed to creating Chinese government response to COVID-19 as a new spinoff of the relevant section of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, and moving relevant content there, as per Jr8825. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as this is a standalone notable topic. We will probably be unpacking it for years to come due to the coordinated governmental cover up. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Right now I think it's largely still within the scope of misinformation. If it comes out that China deliberately covered-up the origin of COVID-19, then it may be notable on its own, but as of now, they have only stifled investigations. I think this article needs to be merged in the meantime. ––FormalDude talk 22:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This works best is its own, not divided and lost elsewhere. Dream Focus 00:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose COVID-19 misinformation by China should provide a link to China COVID-19 cover-up, but they are two separate topics both individually notable and significant enough to warrant separate articles . Aeonx (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Cover up is a form of misinformation, however the article has enough information to be kept as it is. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per ProcastinatingReader and Adoring Nanny. Forich (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  PR's and AN's comments only address concerns about merging this as a whole to the COVID pandemic in mainland China or the Misinformation by Chinese government articles. There have been much more nuanced proposals since. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Merge (any one of #2-4) To me, this article is blatantly a POV fork, and should be merged ASAP. Félix An (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong merge to 2. Article badly biased and very few of its paragraphs are salvageable.Mottezen (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is notable topic that has been covered extensively in the press. 79.70.190.198 (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Reliable sources refer to it as a cover-up.--Francesco espo (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Merge - to either. The article although covered extensively by the media, is quite biased is not written in a neutral point of view. The media outlets usually only portray one POV. The other two article also covers most of the main point on this article as well. The title of the article does not appear to be neutral as well. ThePoi (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• ProcrastinatingReader, I would agree with you that anyone who deleted content from the destination article based on the argument: ""misinformation" is not the same as being secretive/misleading/"covering up"" was wrong. If I did that, then I apologize. But such content would be appropriate for any article about misinformation imo. Such events certainly have corollaries in our COVID-19 misinformation article. Is there content in this article that was removed under such pretexts from the destination?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the title supports such removal. That fact is not going to go away. And that's why this article is not a POV fork. The topics are different. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the diff I linked in my original comment. That content is currently in this article, but was removed from COVID-19 misinformation by China. (the removal edit summary was also not true, the raw sequences were not republished AFAIK.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge and Retitle?

• Would it be possible to merge these articles together under a title that includes the scope of both articles? Maybe "COVID-19 disinformation by China"? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 21:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, just throwing this out for consideration: "COVID-19 origin investigation(s) in China"? – robertsky (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: No offense, but I think that would be a really bad title. These articles aren't about investigations into the origin of COVID, they are about China's ongoing COVID-19 disinformation campaign. That title would be FAR too close to the scopes of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Chinese government as well as COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 00:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• What about COVID-19 pandemic in China#Government response? That would be the most appropriate place to cover criticism of the Chinese government's response, which is what this article really is about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  It extends beyond what the Chinese government did, nor is this about their response to the pandemic in the sense of the measures they used to control cases etc, nor are these issues limited to China domestically. It's way way way outside the scope of that article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader:: The common point of this articles is that this all involves actions (or lack of action) by various layers of the Chinese government - hence this is inherently about said government's response to the pandemic. I note that most of this, and actually much more is actually already included there, see COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Censorship_and_police_responses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  That section is still mostly about domestic issues, as it should be. When people go to that article, or those set of articles (COVID-19 pandemic in ____), they expect to read about the domestic pandemic and response in ___ country. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, no. international responses can be included in such articles as well. see COVID-19_pandemic_in_Singapore#International_relations. – robertsky (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Those are still largely about domestic issues: Stranded Malaysian workers, border controls, repatriation efforts. And assisting other countries is generic enough to fit in that article. This article is uniquely about China and not solely about issues just affecting its domestic affairs or its own citizens. It just isn't about the COVID-19 pandemic in China. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  in fact, there is already an international section in the China article. which parts of these can be included in the Information sharing sub section. – robertsky (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, ProcrastinatingReader: I think a good option might be to merge the article as originally proposed, but rename the title of the newly merged article to something that includes the scope of both. Something like "China's COVID-19 disinformation campaign" or "COVID-19 disinformation by China" as I mentioned above? Let me know what you all think. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  That might be a little bigger project, but wouldn't it be wise to make a general article about the response of China/the Chinese government/the Chinese institutes, put those parts out of the few articles above, and include desinformation and misinformation there? I feel like there are way too much articles discussing this topic. There's even a general one about COVID-19 misinformation in general, it could even be included there (in which case, however, I feel we should also cover the misinformation of the US- and UK- (or Trump/Johnson) governments there as well. Is there an article about the misinformation Russian propaganda-arm RussiaToday spread?). --Leo Navis (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  a general article about the response of China/the Chinese government/the Chinese institutes – if I'm understanding you correctly, this sounds like a good idea to me. We have articles like Indian government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic; we could well create an article like Chinese government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We could start by splitting it from the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China article, incorporate information from other articles as well, and merge this page to that one. I think this would help to address many of the POVFORK and other concerns that have been raised here and at the MfD discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  I also found this article: COVID-19_misinformation_by_governments. It would be nice if we could find a way to conform the various government responses indeed. --Leo Navis (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  It would probably be a good idea to not limit such articles to misinformation, but instead create general "government XY's response to Covid 19" (or even "country xy's response/reaction") with a subsection handling misinformation and such. The state of the handling of the topic right now feels a little convoluted. --Leo Navis (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes it is convoluted to say the least. I think Mx. Granger's idea is a good possibility. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  If the article must be merged, merging to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China seems reasonable to me. But I note that much of the material in this article is already covered, with better attention to neutrality and verifiability, in that article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Mx. Granger, FormalDude, Yes I would agree with this. It's a better overall heading that can include the "cover up" elements, and will much much much less likely become a POV problem. As it stands the title and the contents of this page suffer from POVFORK issues...perhaps we should add this as an option to the above merge survey?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal expanded

• The merge proposal has slightly expanded and been reworded to reflect that (see diff). Courtesy pinging Adoring nanny and My very best wishes as they have already commented on the survey. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging ProcrastinatingReader for that reason.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more opposed to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China than I am to COVID-19 misinformation by China, because I think this falls outside the scope of the former, and it's just not where a reader would look for information on this topic. I think the closest option I find acceptable while removing this article is just splitting this article up and moving content as appropriate, e.g. to Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Chinese_government, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and COVID-19 misinformation by China. It would be split up but at least it'd be on the expected articles. Alternatively, we can change the scope of COVID-19 misinformation by China and retitle it.

But mostly I'm waiting for someone to come up with either a convincing rationale for one of the suggested merges, or brainstorming a different option that will work. I'm absolutely not in favour of doing a merge to somewhere where the information just doesn't make sense, where readers looking for it don't expect it, and readers looking for something else run into it, and IMO that's the case with COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. Note that article is also at almost 100k chars, which is at the upper limit of WP:TOOBIG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I think most all of this article would be salvageable for a merge into both COVID-19 misinformation by China and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Chinese government. We can talk about China's general COVID-19 misinformation campaigns at the former, and their specific covering-up of the origin of COVID-19 at the latter. Thoughts? ––FormalDude talk 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments above apply to this proposal; this article’s scope is broader than the Chinese government. I still have largely the same opinion as originally on the targets I discussed, for the reasons stated. However I haven’t really checked up on the couple of ‘mass split’ proposals since, so formally neutral on those, but at a skim I don’t see an alternative strategy that inspires confidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: how do you feel about moving this article to Chinese government response to COVID-19, and merging the content currently at National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic#China and COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Government response into new sections, with the future option to split much of the content off again into a new article on censorship if length requirements make it necessary? The text is already sitting in those sections (they overlap considerably, both sections could be reduced to a short summary pointing to the new article), so I don't think too much heavy rewriting would be necessary. This way the content here is kept together, but added into the wider context of Chinese government's actions, which will hopefully make it easier to resolve the NPOV issues. Plus it'll be easy to link COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China from the background section using {{broader}}, and the disinformation article from the relevant section using {{main article}}. Jr8825 • Talk 06:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I agree the article's scope is broader than the Chinese government, but so too is the scope of COVID-19 misinformation by China, which is why I think it is a good candidate for merging. ––FormalDude talk 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus

I've read through everyone's comments at this discussion again, and I believe we have some pretty similar thinking. Given it has somewhat stalled, I was wondering if we might be able to come to more of an agreement in order to strengthen the consensus to merge. At this point, some of the main considerations are article scope and standalone notability.

My current proposal is to merge the article to COVID-19 misinformation by China and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Chinese government.

The point made by My very best wishes about blocking access to information not being the same as intentional disinformation is something I also agree with. I do want to note that "misinformation" likely entails both the purposeful blocking of information as well as intentional deceptions. I believe Jr8825's suggestion, Chinese government response to COVID-19, is an equally good solution compared to what I proposed. Some, such as ProcrastinatingReader, still have objections to the article scope, and do not necessarily agree that it would be better off merged.

I'm notifying several editors to see if anyone is willing to go into more detail in support or opposition of either Jr8825's or my own suggestion. My hope is that further discussion will result in more agreement that possibly prevents this from being closed as no consensus. ––FormalDude talk 02:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Ping PaleoNeonate, Mx. Granger, RandomCanadian, Shibbolethink, Leo Navis, Adoring nanny, Forich.

I’m still opposed to your proposal, but Jr8825‘s proposal directly above sounds workable, but I don’t have the time & bandwidth to give it a close thought atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I would say I support your original proposal, but I see @Jr8825's as a very reasonable compromise I can get behind. I think it maintains neutrality, improves the scope to something very useful and clearly more NPOV, but still remaining within the DUE weight of our sources. All aboard the consensus via compromise train, 🚂 choo choo 🚂! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I support Jr8825's suggestion, with the caveat that work will still be needed to ensure NPOV and verifiability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Mx. Granger, FormalDude, Shibbolethink, and ProcrastinatingReader: Seeing as the response is generally favourable and it's going to take a fair bit of copy-editing, I've started bringing together the three bodies of text (this article, and the sections at 'COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China' and 'National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic'). The result is currently at User:Jr8825/sandbox 2, and any help whipping it into shape would be greatly appreciated. A few things to note: I've merged and re-ordered the three different texts into something resembling a consistent, logical structure (only roughly – this can probably be done better) but I've only made a few minor adjustments to the text so far. Consequently there's a lot of repetition that needs to be cut. The current prose size is 61kB, whereas the ideal target is ~40kB. I think it'll be pretty near this number once all of the repetition has been removed, but there's definitely scope for a separate article on censorship, if anyone's keen to split it off. The worst repetition is in the two police response sections, and in coverage of whistleblowers such as Li Wenliang (in both 'police response' and 'Cover-up of the initial Wuhan outbreak'). I'm also unsure about the state of the 'Political leadership' section, and whether there's enough coverage about the initial slowness of the response in late 2019/early 2020. Jr8825 • Talk 16:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for getting started with that, Jr8825. It looks like there's a lot of content from COVID-19 misinformation by China that is duplicated in the new article as well, such as origin disinformation, censorship, and misinformation. Possible solution for that is merging COVID-19 misinformation by China to the new article, but I think the better option is likely to merge all content from the new article that is within the scope of COVID-19 misinformation by China to COVID-19 misinformation by China. Most of it can probably just be removed from the new article and replaced with excerpts from COVID-19 misinformation by China. ––FormalDude talk 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm strongly against merging 'COVID-19 misinformation by China' to the new article, both for size constraints and because I think misinformation is a notable enough topic to deserve a stand-alone article. The current article is decent and contains information which would be too detailed for an overall article on the government response. What needs to happen is that the section on misinformation currently in my sandbox needs to be shrunk down so it acts as a briefer summary of the issues dealt more substantively in the misinformation article. It's possible some content in my sandbox would be better off being moved directly into the misinformation article, if it isn't already covered there. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone care to give a hand with the suggested compromise? I'm finding it a bit much to take on by myself. I will definitely get round to it, but I don't know when I'll finish. See User:Jr8825/sandbox 2. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving title

I went BOLD and moved the title. There are so many neutrality problems with the article, especially the second section about the Chinese government supposedly trying to cover up investigations into the origins of COVID-19 by using original research to conclude "cover up", simply because the Chinese government refused to assist in some international investigations.--GeneralBay (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the title. As you've noted, the article needs a lot of cleanup for neutrality. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is a terrible coatrack article that should be deleted, and I will be nominating it at AFD presently, because it's evident from just reading this discussion that some editors have personal opinions on China that is clouding their judgement and ability to write encyclopaedic articles neutrally. It is also telling that when it comes to experienced editors who probably came across this discussion at RM, they're all leaning the other way. Wikipedia discussions are not a vote, and those experienced editors saying "there are inherent neutrality problems with the article, let alone its title" should be given more weight than editors whose arguments boil down to "I don't like China". Sceptre (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

China COVID-19 cover-up → China COVID-19 cover-up allegations – Current title is non-neutral. The article refers to "alleged efforts", and does not substantiate that there was an organised coverup. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support is at least an improvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a step in the right direction towards following NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: 1) First of all, before saying that "The article refers to "alleged efforts" ..." and using it as an argument one should know when the word "alleged" first appeared in the article. Here. One might ask: so what? Well I am not sure that this edit was constructive for many reasons. But I can definitely see that this newly added word is used here as an argument to move the article. It reminds me of this discussion - link. A very similar situation: people came and randomly put the words "alleged" and "allegations" everywhere, and then used this as an argument in favour of renaming. I am not saying there is the same situation, but we need to be careful.

2) If someone thinks that "China COVID-19 cover-up allegations" is obviously a neutral title and "China COVID-19 cover-up" is obviously not, I have a surprise for you: it is not that simple. Presence of the word "allegations" can be as non-neutral as its absence. At least see WP:NDESC.

3) Obviously, it is important to understand what is a "cover-up". Has China tried to hide information about COVID-19? We have this COVID-19 misinformation by China and then this: 1 2 3 and many-many more including scientific articles. If you are really interested - you will search and read further. If not - it mean you are here only to rename the article without analysing what is what. That is actually another problem - some editors cannot even accept the idea that China could actually hide the information. It doesn't matter for whatever reason. Some editors are just always pro-Chinese government. They see the current title of the article and immediately want to change it. They will accuse you, talk about "American propaganda" (relevant example). They see anti-Chinese actions everywhere and when you show them evidence - they say: "Your evidence is not evidence". Question to them: what kind of evidence do you expect? China refused to grant access to the Wuhan labs, lab record, samples etc. Chinese researchers and journalists are being censored, punished if they say something about COVID that is not supported by the Chinese government. And if these actions are not a cover-up I do not know what cover-up is.

Simple explanation "non-neutral title" is not enough. I can clearly see evidence why someone might think that there is a cover-up (its scale is irrelevant just like if it is a passive cover-up or active etc). I do not see any plausible counterarguments. Renat 15:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that being neutral outside of Wikipedia has nothing to do with being neutral here. If someone think that the article should be renamed only because the Chinese government do not like it or even some editors do not like it - I would say that is not how English Wikipedia works (I said English because I know some other Wikis are different when it comes to this). The Chinese government thinks that Uyghur genocide is a non-neutral name. But it is neutral according to our policy. The Russian government thinks that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is a non-neutral name. And there are other governments, religious groups and articles about them, pseudoscientists etc etc. Just because there is someone who disagree with what RS say does not mean we need to give them equal weight and add "alleged" or "allegation" everywhere. Renat 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

China refused to grant access to the Wuhan labs, lab record, samples etc. Chinese researchers and journalists are being censored, punished if they say something about COVID that is not supported by the Chinese government. etc. You've kinda described an authoritarian regime. Per your link, "cover-up" is defined as an attempt to prevent the public from discovering information about a serious crime or mistake. For the title to be accurate, doesn't there need to be a "serious crime or mistake" that is being covered up [by the Chinese government]?

Has the Chinese government hidden things about COVID-19? Sure. Did it hide things for the usual reasons authoritarian regimes do, or was it because they're trying to prevent the discovery of a "serious crime or mistake"? There's not really any evidence here to suggest it's the latter rather than the former, and there should probably be such evidence for "cover-up" to be an accurate descriptive title. Probably a noun like "suppression" would be more accurate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that can be summed up as: "why try to hide things if there is not something to hide?" If there is nothing to cover up, there is no reason to go to such lengths to inhibit research into the pandemic's origins. To be sure, even allowing the pandemic to happen in the first place can be construed as a mistake that is worthy of covering up, hence the insistence it started elsewhere. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: are we distinguishing between the cover-up of the early outbreak and origins of the virus? China's cover-up of the early outbreak is reported as such in several high quality RS already in early 2020, including the BBC and the Guardian. CNN had the scoop on accidentally released and leaked documents in Dec 2020 (WaPo as a secondary source on that), and the BBC ran its documentary series soon-after with further supporting evidence, which also aired on PBS in the US (I can't find the link). CNN had another good piece on this in Feb with even more supporting evidence, and there are more. See also the PDFs in the Dec 2020 AP report. LondonIP (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Renat. if it walks like a duck — Ched (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I am quoting the article itself, which says, "China has acted to control domestic research into the virus and to limit the information available to foreign researchers. It has been inferred by members of the media that this is an attempt to control the narrative around the origin of COVID-19." That is the definition of a "cover-up". Whether it is an attempt to hide a manmade origin, or just deflect blame for the virus, adding "allegations" to the name would be biased towards China given the available evidence that they are indeed covering things up._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: The sentences you quoted do not accurately reflect the cited sources (one of many verifiability problems in this article). I have edited the article to correct those sentences, but other problems remain. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government's response to that incident was not convincing, and allegations of an origins coverup don't hang on it alone. Anyone interested in this particular incident can read the full discussion on Wikipedia here [4] [5] [6], or read page 58 of Alina Chan's new book. Taking Bloom's finding together with reports of Chinese government gag orders on scientific publishing, it is clear that Chinese scientists aren't free to speak. While Donald Trump was still praising Xi Jinping for China's successful containment of the virus, Chinese scientist Botao Xiao published a paper suggesting it leaked from a lab in Wuhan, but it was taken down very fast. The Chinese government still stigmatizes Jiang Yanyong for publicizing their coverup of the 2002 SARS outbreak, and they more recently locked up Sun Dawu who criticized their coverup of swine flu [7], and their handling of Covid [​​https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/business/china-tycoon-sentenced-sun-dawu.html]. Francesco espo (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Most of this article is speculation and nothing confirmed nor actionable where action can be taken (eg UN). Thus remains allegations that absolutely must be in the title to keep Wikivoice neutral. --Masem (t) 01:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: actually the WHA is a UN body. Have you ever heard of the International Health Regulations and did you know it requires WHO members states to report disease outbreaks in a timely manner? Did you know IHR was revised in 2005 following China's cover-up of SARS, and that the WHO just held a special session to negotiate the International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response to make this reporting legally binding? I hope this also answers ProcrastinatingReader's question about what the "crime or mistake" was that China may be covering up. LondonIP (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support a step in the right direction. The previous merge discussions (above) showed pretty widespread concern among participants about the current title. Jr8825 • Talk 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SPADE. The hiding of blood samples, raw patient data, and so forth are not allegations. They are facts. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the name change resides almost entirely on a technicality. The only way for it to work appropiately would be to have the allegations term in the title, accompanied with a very strong emphasis of how China systematically censors all kinds of things related to this topic. It is far easier to work with the simpler title that upfront says there IS a cover-up. That would save us the time to have to connect every allegation with the censorship background. Let's not fall into the trap of treating this article like we are dealing with Norway. The equivalent analogy with a related country would be to have a press release from North Korea saying their standard of living is very high, and editors using that technicality to interfere with the title of an article that says how north-koreans live oppressed lives. Forich (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support while less concise its more neural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Until there's concrete proof of an coverup from the top-down, I'd support the moving of this article.Tanjeeschuan (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support as more NPOV title, more in line with how much evidence exists about many of the points made here. Many of the points are speculative/lacking firm evidence. I think a lot of it is probably ultimately true (the cover up, not that there was anything particularly to cover up), but wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH. It's verifiability. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Many of the oppose arguments are based on editors' personal assessments of the situation. If I were discussing the topic with friends, I wouldn't have any issue saying that China covered up aspects of the outbreak, to my knowledge. But Wikipedia is a tertiary source and reflects the cumulative weight of other sources. I haven't seen oppose !votes that are based on policies and the strength/weight of the sourcing available for making the claim of a cover-up without qualification. Jr8825 • Talk 11:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and Jr8825: how is it possible for there to be a cover-up when there nothing actually being covered-up? RenatUK and ProcrastinatingReader cited the Cambridge dictionary which defines a cover-up as an attempt to prevent the public from discovering information about a serious crime or mistake. If you assess with high confidence was there was no crime or mistake, shouldn't we be discussing the WP:SPLIT of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Government response under a similar name? LondonIP (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

how is it possible for there to be a cover-up when there nothing actually being covered-up? Welcome to communism. And especially, welcome to communist China. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Propaganda and spin-doctoring are the rule, not the exception. Controlling the narrative is the most important thing, regardless of what the "truth" actually is. The truth is not important to the CCP, they are only interested in making sure the conversation is as benign to China's image as possible. They look bad if the wet markets were responsible. They look bad if the wildlife trade in the provinces was responsible. They look bad if Traditional Chinese Medical cures of bat feces in eye drops was responsible. They look bad if farmers using bat guano with their bare hands were responsible. And yes, they look bad if a lab leak was responsible. But which of these was actually to blame is, to an extent, immaterial to the CCP propaganda experts. They likely see it the same way they see the Uighur crisis, tianemen square, hong kong, etc etc. Neutralize the anti-CCP narrative, spread propaganda that centralizes the CCP as epitomizing competence, ever-presence, and effective governance. Advance China's image on the world stage globally. And prevent unrest domestically. None of that is particularly dependent on there actually being something fantastical and nefarious to cover up.

Propagandists have always had a job completely divorced from what the actual truth is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That is basically what I was getting at. I don’t really get the impression sources are clearly saying China is covering up because there’s a lab leak. I think the events are better described as suppression, but there’s no clear motive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

But Wildlife smuggling is illegal and a coverup of natural origin is still a coverup, like this source screams in its headline [12]. Whether their motive is to hide a natural or lab origin, describing it as suppression instead of a coverup is a distinction without a difference. Btw, China just came out denying market origin, and more scientists are calling this a coverup of natural origin [13]. Francesco espo (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I would remind you to always be weary of headlines. Though I agree with your sentiment here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Importantly, Francesco espo's point about a possible violation of Wildlife smuggling law can serve as the "serious crime or mistake" to meet the Cambridge dictionary's definition of a cover-up. LondonIP (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. LondonIP (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. LondonIP (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as its not speculation in relation to the cover-up of the early outbreak in Wuhan. Attribution may be required for allegations of an origin tracing cover-up, as its an ongoing controversy and China has yet to confirm if they will cooperate with SAGO. We attribute to Peter Ben Embarek the claim that China pressured the WHO to drop the lab leak theory from the WHO-convened study, and drop it from further investigation. I know some editors don't know this, but Ben Embarek was the only member of that team who was actually a WHO official, and a member of the WHO Secretariat. His comments are very much WP:DUE for allegations related to an origins cover-up. LondonIP (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • One expert is not sufficient to turn allegations into fact, no matter how high-level of an official they are. --Masem (t) 02:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposer is wrong in that the article refers to "allegations", the word is used once in the lede but is never used in the body, where all examples are cited as fact and to authoritative voices like the WHO, scientists and WP:RS. Allegation is an expression of doubt MOS:ALLEGED and should be avoided when sources are not doubting themselves. Loganmac (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's because the sources aren't using "cover-up" in the first place. The current title is a WP:NDESC not a WP:COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: - what about the CNN, BBC and Guardian articles that do use "cover-up"? Like also these articles in Foreign Policy, Wired Magazine, Financial Times Washington Post, The Conversation, The Independent, The Telegraph, ​​New York Times and NBC? Francesco espo (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

okay now i really have to remind you not to source anything to a headline. Many of those articles do not use the word "cover-up" anywhere in the body. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

But several of those sources like the BBC, CNN and Guardian do use the word "cover-up" in their body. Are there any sources of similar quality (not the Chinese government) that say it wasn't a cover-up? If not, then what is the distinction we are making with a move? LondonIP (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support and it is mind-blowing to me that an article like this isn't speedy deleted. Sometimes I am left pondering whether some people seriously can't comprehend the title and the article itself purposely have inherent negative implications and clearly violate WP:NPOV or whether people just enjoy reading looney fanfiction, being completely disconnected from reality and attempting to push such nonsense as a fact. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Mx. Granger I'm concerned that by removing the outbreak coverup from the lead, newcomers to this discussion may get the wrong impression that this article's main focus is on allegations of the origin coverup. I think the article title and lead should remain as is till we reach a consensus here. I am preparing a full list of sources for my vote. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I see most of the sources you added are talking about local officials' efforts to restrict information about the outbreak (and about later events that happened well after the initial outbreak was widely reported). We should not conflate local officials in Hubei with the Chinese national government any more than we would conflate local officials in California with the United States federal government. And one of the sources you cited is this opinion piece, which should not be used to cite statements of fact. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The "local government" is a branch of the central government. It's not some Federal system like the US. For example, Zhou Xianwang was named, not elected, acting mayor of Wuhan. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• oppose There are actual evidences of cover-up, including in COVID-19 misinformation by China, no allegations. Also per Renta's explanation above. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – as others have stated, the cover-up is well established and documented by reliable sources such as BBC. I mean, the Chinese government controls the narrative about everything through censorship, propaganda and prosecution of opposing voices. They employed these methods to effect a cover-up of Covid-19. There is nothing inherently POV about the title if we are calling a spade a spade. Citobun (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The present title is more accurate, more concise, and more NPOV. The initial cover-up in late 2019/early 2020 is well-substantiated and described in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

not dubious

Regarding this edit[14], There is nothing dubious about this source, which is linked from the AP story.[15] Adoring nanny (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

CNN "failed verification" tag

This story [16] shows CNN alleging that China tried to hide information about the 2019 outbreak, among other things by disappearing Chen Mei, who archived and republished articles about the outbreak on a censorship-resistant platform. The article goes on to describe prison sentences, forced relocations or disappearances of Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin, Li Zehua, Zhang Zhan, andd Cai Wei, all of whom shared information about the outbreak in one way or another. This is a source for the sentence "There are allegations by major media outlets including CNN,[failed verification] BBC,[failed verification] PBS and others that the Government of China tried to hide information about the early outbreak of the COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019." How does that fail verification? Adoring nanny (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to phrase it that these outlets (which are reliable) have reported allegations of a cover-up rather than that they themselves hae alleged it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Although actually I think this particular article does allege a cover-up; it says "The Chinese Communist Party needed to create its own storyline, both to cover up its initial missteps and to deflect the reputational damage caused by China being the country where the first cases were detected.". As it is an RS, we can actually just say it reports a cover-up. The other CNN source cited in that sentence[17] comes close: "The Chinese government has steadfastly rejected accusations made by the United States and other Western governments that it deliberately concealed information relating to the virus, maintaining that it has been upfront since the beginning of the outbreak. However, though the documents provide no evidence of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate findings, they do reveal numerous inconsistencies in what authorities believed to be happening and what was revealed to the public." BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

BBC "Failed Verification" tag

The BBC article contains the following sentence: "The BBC's Kerry Allen and Zhaoyin Feng take a look back at the country's online government censors who worked harder than ever to supress negative information, the citizens that managed to break through the Great Firewall, and how the propaganda machine re-wrote the narrative." Again this appears to verify the sentence just fine. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

this is an editorial subheading, it isn't from the authors. It's treated similarly to WP:HEADLINE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, then what about the material in the article that is consistent with the headline. One example:

During the Wuhan outbreak, a number of citizen journalists made a notable impact internationally, by circumventing the "great firewall of China" to get word out of the city.

These include Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin and Zhang Zhan. They racked up hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube for videos they say gave the true picture of what was happening in Wuhan.

However, this came at a cost. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that in Wuhan, the authorities "arrested several journalists for coverage that threatened the official narrative of Beijing's response". CPJ says three are still in prison. And given YouTube is blocked in China, few in the country know of their impact. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest this is also best rephrased as "reported allegations of a cover-up" which is definitely true. ("Thousands of messages of public outrage appeared on Chinese social media, asking whether local governments were covering up another Sars-like virus.") But it could be interpreted as itself alleging a cover-up: "In January and February, multiple media outlets took the opportunity to publish hard-hitting investigations, which were widely shared on social media. Later, as Beijing came up with a propaganda strategy, these reports were stifled.... it became clear that one man's voice had been silenced where it shouldn't have been... several notable activists may be written out of the country's Covid-19 history... The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that in Wuhan, the authorities "arrested several journalists for coverage that threatened the official narrative of Beijing's response".") BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted content

As there has been heavy back and forth editing here, I thought I'd paste passages that have been deleted recently, in case there's a need to discuss:

1. Some have also questioned the accuracy of China's reported case and fatality figures.
2. As COVID-19 began spreading within China between December 2019 - February 2020, Chinese authorities prevented doctors and laboratories from sharing information about the outbreak, including admonishing frontline healthcare professionals and perceived whistleblowers, most notably, Li Wenliang. By 27 December 2019, the local government knew there was an outbreak of pneumonia. At least one healthcare worker had already been infected, which, under international healthcare regulations, requires a country to report an outbreak to the World Health Organization (WHO), as it is considered proof of person-to-person spread. However, China did not report the outbreak to the WHO at that time. Instead, the WHO noticed a media report of the outbreak on 31 December. On 3 January, when China acknowledged the outbreak to the WHO, it called it "viral pneumonia of unknown cause", even though they had the complete genetic sequence at that time. It also said that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, even though 20 cases had already been confirmed among medical workers.
3. In January 2020, Chinese biomechanics researcher Botao Xiao released a paper saying that the virus probably came from a lab leak. He withdrew the paper after Chinese officials insisted that no lab accident had taken place.
4. The World Health Organization investigation into the source of COVID-19 was delayed over a year by negotiations over the arrangements. When the WHO-convened study was conducted during 14 January – 10 February 2021, the Chinese authorities only provided limited access. The Chinese authorities did not share a specific list of early cases with the international team. Instead, this information was shared with a Chinese team. The Chinese team then gave the international team a summary. With the line-by-line list of individual cases, the team could have contacted each person and tried to determine where they might have become infected. Members of the WHO team have reiterated that the Chinese team "was and still is reluctant to share raw data (for instance, on the 174 cases identified in December 2019), citing concerns over patient confidentiality".
5. China has closed access to an abandoned mine shaft which once contained bats who were infected by RaTG13, the closest known viral relative of COVID-19. Two researchers managed to get samples from the shaft, but their samples were confiscated. Three teams from the Associated Press were followed by Chinese security agents.
6. In June 2021, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center found 13 genome sequences that were deleted from the Sequence Read Archive following a request by researchers at Wuhan University. They were originally published by a Chinese researcher and represent samples collected near the start of the pandemic. The sequences are more distantly related to bats than the active variants of COVID-19. Researchers do not believe this finding supports either a natural or lab origin.
7. China has refused to allow an independent investigation into the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
8. Taiwan News reported that Malaysian Chinese rapper Namewee made a music video mocking the Chinese Communist Party's coverup and obfuscation of the early outbreak and origins of the pandemic in Wuhan.

Last one seems very undue to me, but I don't see the problems with the others, which look robustly sourced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this list, Bobfrombrockley. LondonIP (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References