Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States

Requested move 30 August 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: Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 misinformation by the United States → COVID-19 disinformation by the United States – This article is about disinformation rather than misinformation. The article title should accurately reflect this.

• Merriam-Webster defines misinformation as incorrect or misleading information.
• Merriam-Webster defines disinformation as false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. ––FormalDude talk 08:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. ––FormalDude talk 08:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• There are multiple articles that use this title format: COVID-19 misinformation, COVID-19 misinformation by governments, COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 misinformation in the Philippines, and COVID-19 misinformation by the United States. Maybe consider elaborating a bit on why you think this article contains more disinformation than misinformation, and maybe mention some examples. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  The first sentence of the lede of this article states that it consists of disinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic propagated by officials of the United States government. It seems to me if we're gonna describe it as disinformation, that's how it should be titled. I think the lede description is an accurate representation of the article, but the title is not. ––FormalDude talk 19:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if we accept that some of the cases of misinformation discussed in this article were intentional, and hence disinformation, it is reaching to claim that all of them are (it mentions disinformation by Trump at the start, then misinformation by Fauci towards the end – many people who accuse Trump of deliberate misinformation would not levy the same accusation against Fauci). Disinformation is a type of misinformation. It seems better to have an article on misinformation in general, than one on disinformation specifically, because what then to do about content discussing misinformation which isn't disinformation? That seems a recipe for two articles, a misinformation and a disinformation one, when I think one will do. Not everyone spreading incorrect information is doing so knowingly and intentionally - many no doubt are simply genuinely mistaken or ignorant or confused. Mr248 (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, per own comments elsewhere, and procedurally as this probably should have been treated as a batch nomination given the same request has been made for other articles with similar titles too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 2 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.

Biased

This article is only Trump-bashing!! No reference to the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Harris and Cuomo outright criticizing Trump for scaring people about the seriousness of covid and subsequent shutdowns. Where's where these same peeps said they don't trust the "Trump vaccine" and we shouldn't either. Ridiculously biased, so won't be donating until reliability returns. 2601:701:8203:1A00:143C:DD25:A55D:95D0 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Fauci is mentioned four times in the entire article, and in a negative light only once, yet he could be considered a major contributor to the dissemination of misinformation on Covid-19. This article seems more like a bash on Trump than an actual article. Even if you think that downplaying and predicting before knowledge of the facts is spreading misinformation, why does it only focus on Trump? Where is the impact of the Biden administration on the spread of misinformation? What about the impact of the general media on the spread of misinformation? What about the impact of Trump's statements and the media's reactions to them, which also created misinformation, some statements which can be considered spreading misinformation solely based on the fact that he said it? 2ple (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Biden Administration?

Biden admin has made multiple false claims about the virus and vaccines (ex. That vaccinated people cannot spread Covid). Where is the section for US gov misinfo post-Trump? 2600:8800:6085:BA00:39E1:338:5E1A:9438 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a RS for your claim? -- Valjean (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WwDLzG--Y | 2 minutes in 2ple (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, youtube is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's his statement. I'm having a hard time finding the transcript for it. But he said it, and it's there. 2ple (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You need more than a WP:PRIMARY source (an official's statement) to describe it as misinformation. You need reliable, independent sources which describe it as such. Otherwise it's WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So, even though it's his direct statement, it still falls under the category of original research because the fact that it might be misinformation doesn't matter because no source said so? Just clarifying. 2ple (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"The fact that it might be misinformation" is your own personal interpretation of that statement, so yes, unless you can find a source which says that this is misinformation, then it cannot go in. Also, what Biden says, quote, If you're vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized, you're not going to be [in] an ICU unit, and you're not going to die. That is nowhere near the strawman of saying that "you can't spread Covid if you're vaccinated". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the source that he was looking for:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/14/joe-biden/joe-biden-overstates-effectiveness-vaccines-preven/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/16/people-covid-vaccine-safe-spreading-covid-others/8472251002/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/12/30/fact-check-can-vaccinated-people-spread-covid-19/9028463002/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9814723/Biden-flubs-answer-foreign-policy-work-falsely-says-WONT-COVID-shot.html

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/07/22/biden-claims-you-cant-get-covid-after-vaccine-n2592934

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/12/15/biden-goes-off-on-the-unvaccinated-n2600605

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-joe-biden-spread-misinformation-covid-vaccines-1612181

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/12/16/doocy_to_whs_jean-pierre_why_is_biden_still_telling_people_that_the_vaccinated_cannot_spread_covid.html#!

(Multiple sources, note that they respond to different instances of Biden saying this, July '21, 10/7/21, and 12/14/21.)

(Before 4/21, CDC made similar claims https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html , https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/cdc-walks-back-claim-that-vaccinated-people-cant-carry-covid/ and also Fauci here in 5/16/21 https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/ .)

Drsruli (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Not all items are actually misinformation

I don't think that some of the stuff talked about in this article is actually misinformation, for a variety of reasons. Here are some of them: April 2020 Paragraphs 1, 3, 7 Mid and Late 2020 Paragraph 7 | This one annoys me especially because it feel like a lot of time was spent on Trump. Who are these 'members of the opposing political party' and why were they not mentioned in depth? Others Paragraph 4 | "If you're under 50 and you're healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there's very little threat here." What about that statement is misinformation? The fact that a source said it wa does not make it so. 2ple (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, yes, if a reliable and qualified source says something is misinformation, it is. See WP:VNT. And in this case, what the reliable sources are saying is also correct. "If you're under 50 and you're healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there's very little threat here." is an obvious example of downplaying the risk and ignoring the fact that not only A) it's not entirely harmless, even if you're young and healthy and B) you may still transmit it to more vulnerable people even if you don't get terribly sick from it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

With regard to "spread misinformation or greatly exaggerated actions by the administration", is this acceptable: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/on-the-covid-19-vaccine-trump-was-right-and-the-fact-checkers-were-wrong ? (This particular claim was widely fact-checked, and had been in the Wikipedia article.) Drsruli (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No. That is 1) an opinion article (not reliable for fact by Wikipedia standards) and 2) published by the Washington examiner, which Wikipedia does not consider reliable. (See WP:RSP). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)