User talk:Adoring nanny/sandbox/cgr

Draft

I am starting a draft of the improved first paragraph. It is a recent version which I wrote but was of course promptly reverted. I invite other users to contribute. I am particularly interested in contributions from people who disagree with me a lot but are among the cooler heads of contributors here.

Despite the fact that I wrote it, I think this initial version is frankly terrible. In particular, the sentences after the first two do not connect will with the first two at all. That said, I think it does at least conform to MOS:FIRST.

I do have one request for contributors. Please let me have the "last word" on reverts for now, both on the draft and this talk page. I will use this to keep the discussion on track, not to push my own POV. In other words, if I think your edit is on track towards trying to get some kind of consensus, then I will leave it even if I disagree. It's my sandbox, and I do want to work towards consensus among people with diverse views. The way the editing and discussion of the article itself are going, I don't think that is likely to happen there at the moment. If you think I am abusing this, you can let me know at User talk:Adoring nanny/sandbox/cgr/adoringnannysucks. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a strategy of concealing information about the virus from the world" seems like OR compared to the zero-covid strategy. ––FormalDude talk 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for coming here. Part of my logic for putting in that part was that your purpose of starting the article was I believe to include multiple aspects of the Gov response, including both disease-fighting and information-management-related. Please do edit that part if you think you have a better way to summarize. I will take a look in 8 hours or so. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: How do the first four sentences (up to the word "misinformation") strike you now? Incidentally, if you think the third sentence (on C0) has too little detail compared to the 4th (on information), I actually agree C0 could use a little more. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny: It strikes me as WP:SYNTH to say that they're pursuing a strategy of managing information about the virus. What reliable sources mention that that's a strategy of theirs? ––FormalDude talk 01:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Good question. I'll investigate about 10-14 hours from now. I will say this much in advance of investigating. In general, I think the title, first sentence, first paragraph, lead, and body should all say the same thing, at increasing levels of detail. For the earlier ones, I'm not sure if synth is OK or not. I'll look into that as a part of my investigation. In the meantime, let me ask you this. Do you view the proposed text as progressing in a reasonable direction? Not whether it has gotten there, but whether it is moving towards a good opening? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: The problem I was trying to solve when writing the sentence about an information management strategy was that of summarizing. It is obviously possible to say that the response has involved covid zero, censorship, secrecy, and misinformation. I felt that was saying too much at once. So I summarized the last three with "information management strategy". My first step in looking into this was to look at WP:SYNTH, which in turn led me to WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, which seems to say that this kind of summarization is OK. That said, I'm not in love with it and would be interested in other suggestions. One would to be to say "information management" without the strategy part. Not sure what I think of that. Suggestions? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both of you, it was not the types of the two of you I was thinking of when I wrote the bit about "last word on reverts". No one who has showed up seems likely to require that. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate that you don't think I would edit war over a userspace draft.

My main concern is that censorship/secrecy/misinformation has not been labeled or implied by RS to be a "strategy" of the Chinese government. I've made a bold edit that I think possibly resolves that. ––FormalDude talk 01:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I may have been reacting to recent experience not involving you. I guess I do think the communication aspects deserve equal billing with covid zero. Going to take it easy on that. I hear you about sourcing for strategy. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:FormalDude. One idea might be to say "communications strategy". See the sources below. Idk what you think of that. Regardless of what we do in that regard, my gut is to move the basic historical info ("first country to experience . . .") to a separate para. as I've done in my edit. What do you think? Adoring nanny (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use the documentary as the source, as it is a youtube link. Instead, use the transcript or the summary FRONTLINE article: [1]. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Adoring nanny (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and quotes

This[2] is a WP:PRIMARY source obtained by the AP and linked from here: [3]. According to the AP, it is a leak from within China's government. According to the leaked document itself, it is on the topic of the Gov't response to Covid. Unfortunately I can't seem to copy paste it or search, but here are a couple of excerpts. Title is Notice on the Standardization of the Management of Publication of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Scientific Research.
In order to thoroughly implement relevant requirements from the meeting of the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council Response to the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia . . .(p. 4)
1. Comprehensively strengthen the management of the publication of scientific research. (p. 4, emphasis in the original)
4. Strengthen the coordination of the publication of scientific research information (p. 6; again, emphasis in the original).
Adoring nanny (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one,. from the BBC: [4] In January and February [of 2020], 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. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd be okay with a sentence like "The government of China (an authoritarian political system) has also responded to the pandemic with strict media regulations including censorship and propaganda." but I am not at all convinced that it should be in the first paragraph of the lede section. ––FormalDude talk 04:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]