Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Conspiracy theory section unbalanced

A large number of the conspiracy theories regarding COVID originate in the west and involve accusations of secret experiments by Chinese labs etc. which have been debunked. The pandemic is portrayed as part of some propaganda war by the axis of evil Russia, China and Iran. Unless we fix this, the section is going to require a neutrality tag.Php2000 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Php2000, could you provide sources? Wikipedia doesn't provide truth but it just report what sources are saying.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I can. On biological weapons program in Wuhan:

These originate in the western far-right yet complete ignored in the section.

In a now-deleted tweet on 27 February, the Republican California congressional candidate Joanne Wright wrote: “The Corona virus is a man made virus created in a Wuhan laboratory. Ask @BillGates who financed it.” In another disappeared tweet, she added: “Doesn’t @BillGates finance research at the Wuhan lab where the Corona virus was being created? Isn’t @georgesoros a good friend of Gates?”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/america-far-right-coronavirus-outbreak-trump-alex-jones

The Inverse reported that "Christopher Bouzy, the founder of Bot Sentinel, did a Twitter analysis for Inverse and found [online] bots and trollbots are making an array of false claims. These bots are claiming China intentionally created the virus, that it's a biological weapon, that Democrats are overstating the threat to hurt Donald Trump and more. While we can't confirm the origin of these bots, they are decidedly pro-Trump."[1]

MP Tobias Ellwood, chair of the Defence Select Committee of the UK House of Commons, publicly questioned the role of the Chinese Army's Wuhan Institute for Biological Products and called for the "greater transparency over the origins of the coronavirus".[2]

I could go on and on. The section has a marked anti-Chinese pro-western bias. I will wait a couple of days before tagging. Php2000 (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to argue. If you are saying that there are sources suspecting China of involvement but not mentioned in the article, then the article would be pro-China by not mentioning them. If you are saying that the article is not focusing on American or European claims or far-right ones, I see claims of far-right conspiracy theories about Jewish bio-weapons in the section above, and accusations against Trump adviser and American congressmen. If you want to add a line the Wuhan military conspiracy theory, by all means add it instead of complaining here about any alleged bias. It's no big deal. Note also that there are differences between what's said in China and Iran and what's said in the West - In Iran the conspiracy theory was made by their Supreme Leader, while Chinese officials and official media don't make claims without tacit government approval, in the West it is made by individuals reflecting their personal opinion whatever their official position may be and don't reflect official government position. You might say that Tobias Ellwood insinuated something about the Chinese military, but he did not make outright specific claim, merely that they cannot be sure about what happened, and also say that it would be irresponsible to suggest the source of this outbreak was an error in a Chinese military biological weapons programme. Contrast that with the statement made by Zhao Lijian who made specific accusation against the US army based on nothing whatsoever. If you are arguing that there should be more American conspiracy theories in the article when there are in fact a lot more conspiracy and crackpot theories around the around the world not mentioned here, then the problem is not with this article.
A note also there is a plan to reorganise the Misinformation section based on previous discussion, which I might start doing soon, so the whole argument is probably moot. Hzh (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bots are waging a coronavirus disinformation campaign on social media". Inverse. February 27, 2020.
  2. ^ Ellwood, Tobias (February 29, 2020). "Transparency will convince the world China is a friend". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on March 2, 2020. Retrieved March 3, 2020.

Extended-confirmed-protected required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data as it is a vital source for this page

Indefinite Extended-confirmed-protection required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. It seems that protection is expired. Lot of vandalism has started. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User:El C put the template under indefinite semi-protection. So far that level of protection appears to be adequate. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's written that the covid-19 infected million people on 29 March, even though it happened in April 2nd

such as the title mentions, if you need a source https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/04/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/

I don't have permission to edit the page so I mention this problem here, please fix this Omer abcd (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Omer abcd: This page is protected for new editors, but I am pretty sure that if you make 10 edits (I think that creating a user page and practicing in your sandbox counts towards edits) and have an account for more than 4 days you are auto-confirmed and can then contribute. It would be great to have more editors helping on this page and other med articles. Please review WP:MEDRS for sources and reach out to other editors or post questions on the talk page if you are uncertain. JenOttawa (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Poland recovery cases

There is 2 recoveries in Poland NOT 35. Please change that and STOP PUTTING IN FALSE INFORMATION! Hi poland (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 

Why is there a link under my text? Is it an ad or something? Hi poland (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi poland Actually according to this website [1] there are 56 recovery cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
On the PL page, we've given up trying to check if there's a serious "two negative SARS-CoV-2 lab tests separated by at least 24 hours" recovery count. It's unlikely that the PL recovery statistics will be sourced properly per day, so the consensus on the PL page looks like we'll just put a referenced total and assume that the source (usually a Ministry of Health (Poland) source) is serious. The Ministry does not publish proper data tables, as far anyone has managed to find out, and it seems to have calculated 19+6+8=14 in one of the case counts per voivodeship cells. Boud (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hi poland: There's an external link to a pastebin, in which anonymous people have added URLs to sources claiming recoveries per voivodeship. Boud (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted a live updates link in the external links section. Is it suggestible or desirable?--Buzles (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Virology - household soap kills the virus?

Hi, just noticing that someone's seen an excellent description from NZ of how washing your hands stops the virus but they've written on the wiki that it kills the virus - I think it just breaks it down. I'm wary of editing the page directly but if someone else thinks this should be changed I will! TreeReader (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

we are writing for the general reader. It kills the virus ( I know it technically inactivates it) but for the general reader it kills the virus, as per the wp:medrs source —Almaty (talk)


I would go for inactivation, but then our other article has: "An inactivated vaccine (or killed vaccine) ... The virus is killed using a method such as heat or formaldehyde..." Zezen (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


I would prefer to say "inactivate" or "destroy". I'd also prefer a source which gives a reasoned explanation - there are a number of them, reliable sources such as NYTimes, BBC Science, Guardian. BUT I don't want to change someone else's work. Robertpedley (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We follow medrs, and we have medrs source saying killed. —Almaty (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
many of our readers are second or third language English speakers who may not understand the word inactivate or destroyed. And it’s a bonus that the medrs source says killed. —Almaty (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
furthermore I’m certain that the general reader does not care for the technical debate as to whether viruses are “alive” or not. —Almaty (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a very patronising characterisation and we can only write for someone with a reasonable understanding of English and basic science. I consider my science understanding to be little better than 'general reader', but talk of 'killing' simply raises more questions than it answers for me. Of course any word chosen (breaks down/destroys/inactivates??) should be supported by good sources. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Aye. Life is understood from the gutters on up to involve hatching, eating, growing, breathing, fucking, fighting and dying. If a virus has no egg, mouth, shape, airway, junk or weapon, common sense says it's more like the ubiquitous computer virus than a mouse or spider or whatever easily killable pest. Clean it, sweep it, disable it, neutralize it, block it, terminate it, delete it all to hell, but "kill" a virus? Makes little sense, in layman's terms, and metaphor shouldn't be taught to English beginners as if it were literal (not even novices). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

Publicsanitation.blogspot.com Keshav8055 (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Brownlowe.2 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Spain disclaimer is unnecessary

Ceuta and Melilla are, for all intents and purposes, a part of Spain just like any other. They are not special, overseas, associated territories of any kind.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for pointing this out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

UN Secretary-General calls pandemic greatest test since formation of UN

UN Secretary General António Guterres today called the COVID-19 pandemic "the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations."

I believe that this is a significant and historic statement which deserves to be mentioned in the opening. While he did not explicitly mention World War II, the implication is clearly that this is the greatest test for the world since WWII, as the UN was formed at its conclusion and in response to it. As such, I propose adding the following sentence to the opening section, which includes both his direct quote and also mentions the implication after the quote in a very neutral manner:

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called the pandemic "the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations," which took place in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

(I have said "at the conclusion of" WWII rather than "after" WWII as the UN Charter was signed on 26 June 1945, which was after the surrender of Germany but before the surrender of Japan, and came into force on 24 October 1945, by which time the surrender of Japan had taken place and the war was considered over. As such, the precise date of "formation" (the word used by the Secretary-General) of the UN is somewhat ambiguous, so I have used the more ambiguous phrase "at the conclusion of" WWII rather than "after" WWII.) --Z117 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It would have been significant if he had said it a month ago. Now, even babies know it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added further quotation and changed the citation to an official UN source (https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1060702). --Z117 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, especially WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, for how such sources should be used for Wikipedia. Additional detail, as you say, may be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please refrain from WP:Edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The current consensus list item 4 says that we do not include a comparison in the lead to World War 2. @Z117: It's fine to start a discussion here seeking to change consensus, but you need to let that discussion play out before editing the article. Editing repeatedly as you have done is edit warring and will lead to sanctions if you continue. I'm going to revert back to the WP:STATUSQUO while this discussion takes place.
As to the merits of the proposal, I firmly oppose the statement currently in the lead, which is The United Nations has called the pandemic "a global health crisis unlike any in the 75-year history of the United Nations" and the worst global humanitarian crisis since World War II. That's a misquote, because the UN didn't specifically categorize it as the greatest humanitarian crisis — just the greatest "test", which is a much vaguer term and connotes a more informal kind of proclamation — and because Guterres, while speaking for the UN, is not the UN itself. Further, even if the quote were true, the statement would be severely flawed. The pandemic is certainly bad, but to call it a worse humanitarian crisis than, for instance, the Great Chinese Famine, which killed tens of millions of people, is an insult to history. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not add the part which said "and the worst global humanitarian crisis since World War II". If you read the edit history correctly you would have seen that. My version did not compare the crisis to WWII, rather, it included the direct quote from the SG ("the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations") and then specified that the formation occurred following WWII after the quote. This is not a comparison, but rather specifies the timeframe the SG is referring to. See above for my full version. I recommend that you actually read the edit history properly before making accusations (in particular your obscene accusation that I was calling the pandemic a worse humanitarian crisis than the Great Chinese Famine).
Anyway, I propose adding the following, which only includes a quote taken directly from the UN's report on COVID-19:
'The United Nations has called the pandemic "a global health crisis unlike any in the 75-year history of the United Nations".[1]' --Z117 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Its not about the death toll. SDKB, you sound obsessed with making it about a comparison about death tolls. 70 million people died in World War II, this pandemic won't kill nearly as many. Its about how this Pandemic has caused disruption, impact and touched lives around the world. Not since World War II has a singular global event impacted so many countries, touched so many people. How various industries are now marshalling to produce medical equipment, how entire countries are under lockdown. From China, to India, to Australia, to Africa, Europe and the Americas. No continent has been left untouched by this. And the last global event which caused this much disruption was World War II. And as such it most definately merits inclusion in the lead paragraph. It gives context of how historical this event is. I firmly SUPPORT adding this into the lead paragraph. Mercenary2k (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm opposed to it. Its not a war, its gonna have a lower death toll, and frankly too many people have blown this way out of proportion. Its more like a mass hysteria event than an actual pandemic, and I would prefer rein in the mass hysteria as much as possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have added a quote from the UN report with no mention of WWII. --Z117 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Z117 Since you're new here, I don't blame you for not having an intuitive sense of how the BRD cycle tends to be applied, but just so you're aware, trying to add the line you did to the lead would be considered edit warring if it came from a more experienced editor. Once a change has been introduced and reverted, it goes to discussion at talk, and consensus there needs to be reached before making any further changes away from the WP:STATUSQUO, and that includes alternate proposals like the one you just tried to unilaterally insert. This discussion doesn't have enough participation or enough unanimity for a new consensus to be clear yet — right now, opinions are split — so we need to be patient and wait for that to emerge. I'm not saying that just since I personally am opposed to the proposal, as hopefully others less involved can affirm. I'd recommend not trying to edit that part of the article directly again for now, since many editors' patience in this area is (understandably) somewhat thin right now, and there are general sanctions active.
Regarding the above, you're right that I didn't check the precise edit history. You'll notice that what I wrote was that what I opposed was "the statement currently in the lead", so if that statement wasn't the one you put in there, my comments weren't directed at you. There's no need to take things personally here; we're all just trying to build an encyclopedia. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
TomStar81 - Making a comparison to World War II is not about death tolls as I already explained before. Its the amount of social-economic, daily life disruption which has been caused by this pandemic. Not since World War II has a singular global event caused as much disruption. So its truly historic and needs to be put in the lead paragraph. So I firmly SUPPORT adding that sentence in the lead paragraph. Mercenary2k (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19" (PDF). United Nations. March 2020. Retrieved 1 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Modify a graph

Replace

with

  • Graph showing the daily and cumulative count
    Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

Reasons: Simpler graph with less and clear information.

It is easy to modify the graph to simple one. If the consensus is for the simple one, I can modify the graph. It is quite rude to replace the long standing graph with a quite similar one without asking for modifications.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong in modifying a graph to make it more clearer. Unlike text graphs cannot be directly edited so replaced it.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how it is clearer. The first one shows that the early cases are largely in China, and later cases in the rest of the world. It's clearer and more useful than the second one where it is not clear why there is a hump in the early part. Hzh (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
There are other graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries. Since this page is not intended only for the scientific community I suggest to replace the first graph which has more information (meaning it is combining 5 graphs) with a simpler graph which just shows 2 things (daily and cumulative count).Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Hzh: we are not doing WP:OR to point out that the reason for the first hump is that the pandemic started in China. That is overwhelmingly supported by the sources. I also do not understand the reason for changing the caption. We don't need to tell the reader that the graph is a graph; providing a link to epidemic curve is more useful. Strictly speaking, we could change 'COVID-19' to 'SARS-CoV-2', because most of the lab-confirmed case counts are SARS-CoV-2 counts, including many asymptomatic people, with only the later phase of the China counts including clinically diagnosed COVID-19 cases. On the other hand, to use an analogy, should we talk about the AIDS epidemic or the HIV epidemic? My guess is that the disease aspect counts more than the virus aspect, so there's probably no point arguing between COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 here. Boud (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
When labelling graphs, even though it is obvious that it is a graph the comman usage is to say "graph showing".Givingbacktosociety (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
WHO's situation reports use a caption "Epidemic curve of confirmed COVID-19, by date of report ...". So I followed it.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Fecal-Oral Transmission

Risks in public bathrooms, etc. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.055 https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(20)30282-1/pdf?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.medpagetoday.com%2Finfectiousdisease%2Fcovid19%2F85315 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/ Rick (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes in the statement of "xenophobia"

@The Supermind:, please see this discussion above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The statement that is said "incidence of xenophobia trends to Asian or East Asian people and European people" is changes periodically. Once it says East Asian and European hotspots, and otherwise East Asian and international hotspots. I am confused about the statement is reliable to what trend? The Supermind (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2020 (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.

History section

There's a gap between late January and late March. 99% of the content details the pandemic History until 20 January only. Then there's a small note about US and then the global numbers. Just pointing that out as I'm far from qualified for writing this History.

I noticed this is something that happens often throughout wikipedia: content from early stages are kept, fewer up-to-date content is added and people (myself included) are fearful (or lazy) of condensing the early content. Maybe this phenomenon has a name (as everything in here has a label and a wikipedia page), but I'm unaware of it.

Feelthhis (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Easybreath

Hello. This is a short message to let you know that there is probably a nice coronavirus-related article to be written about Easybreath, a brand of widespread snorkeling masks that have been heavily retrofitted in many European hospitals. See my French stub, fr:Easybreath, for a possible starting point. Also, that New York Times article may be helpful. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Great just bought one... User:Thierry Caro we need to get the 3D printed parts you need to retrofit it to be CPAP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Length

As some of you may have noticed I removed a rather significant chunk of text a little while ago. This is because the page was hitting the transclusion limit and the navboxes were not appearing at the bottom of the article. I did the bare minimum to get under that threshold (having not really paid a lot of attention to this group of articles I didn't want to remove too much), and I believe there is probably a lot more redundant text found on other pages that could be removed, but I just wanted to give a notice that the page is very long. Please consider what is the most important information, especially when there is a split/fork linked via {{main}}. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

unfortunately as the pandemic goes on, so does the information, however you do have a point the length of the article has to be manages--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed to 2020 Coronavirus pandemic?

Move moratorium. Interstellarity (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Obviously there were cases in China in 2019 but this was not declared a pandemic by the WHO until 2020. So why does it still have 2019 in the title? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Not Support The COVID-19 was reported and started in 2019 in Asia although the WHO declared pandemic in 2020. Therefore, it should not be renamed as its inappropriate and may cause confusion. Amkgp (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (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.

Numbers getting too big

With the number of cases rising over a million and expected to increase further, can i propose that we use '1.xx million' instead of '1,xxx,xxx' (rounded to 3s.f.) when it is mentioned in prose? This should be better as the exact number of cases is reflected in the table of cases and deaths. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 05:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

interesting suggestion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@1.02 editor and Ozzie10aaaa: That's common sense, right? I'm really trying, but the guys patrolling the template aren't allowing... even after consensus. Please vote <here> for "more" consensus.Feelthhis (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure I would support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Support. Readability is crucial in any article, perhaps especially this one. Harlequence (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

hold off for now - no individual country is at one million. I think that doing so will probably be warranted shortly, but not just yet. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

  1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
  2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
  3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
  • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
@Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1. Concise and avoids WP:UNDUE weight issues. Option 2 if hotspots were to be included. Some1 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd go with option 3, the broadest possible and short. If it gets longer, there is a danger of it being given WP:UNDUE prominence. Certainly when you look at the section on xenophobia now, it is WP:UNDUE, and could be trimmed to half. Hzh (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

  1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
  2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
  3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
  4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
  5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

    "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
    — User:Sapah3

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))
I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See [2], [3], [4] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [5]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [6]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [7][8][9][10][11] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [12] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with naming of national pages

So I was quite defensive when someone suggested that "Coronavirus Pandemic in Italy" or whatever should be renamed. Their argument was that there is one pandemic whereas this makes it sound like there is one in each country. I think it's clear - my analogy was "World War 2 in France" doesn't imply that there was a separate French World War 2 other than the global one.

However, now I notice the attempt to change "2020 Coronavirus Pandemic in the USA" to "2019-20 Coronavirus Pandemic in the USA" has failed because "the USA didn't record its first case until 2020".

That would be the right outcome if the article were "USA Outbreak of Coronavirus in 2020", but the article, and other national pages, are about the 2019-20 Coronavirus Pandemic. There isn't a "2020 Coronavirus Pandemic", so I think this is clearly an error.

Thoughts? 88.145.150.95 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't declared a pandemic until 2020. Having nation specific articles makes sense because it is almost exclusively being tackled at national levels. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Well your first point isn't valid as this article, through many RfCs, is called "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". Clearly the date has relevance to the event, not when it was dubbed that class of event. I agree that national articles should be consistent with displaying "2019-20". ɱ (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
My first point is completely valid, because no matter what some Wikipedia editors think, the WHO did not declare it to be a pandemic until this year. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: the WHO declared the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2019 a pandemic this year, which would mean that the outbreak from then to now is a pandemic. 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we should have had created a separated article for the pandemic when the WHO said it's now a pandemic. I think articles about coronavirus pandemic in countries shouldn't contain "2019" in the titles. The outbreak could be in the "background" section or it can be in a separated article. This sounds like a lot of work but I think this is how it should have been.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

# of Cases

Shouldn't we add one or two sentences to cases to say that in general how trustworthy the numbers are? You can assure that numbers of some states are more trustworthy than of others. I would assume no one believes the Russian numbers for example. They simply declare it as pneumonia and they also most likely haven't tested as much. The fact that different countries hold themselves to a different degree of moral duty should be mentioned somewhere. Many sources say China had 40.000 deaths and they underreport numbers on purpose to look better in front of other countries. Many newspapers pick up the obviously wrong numbers and make certain states appear better in handling the crisis than those states who report their numbers honestly and trustworthy, this should be mentioned somewhere. Numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyos92 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to promote conspiracy theories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I would have phrased it differently (e.g., I don't think any credible news source claims 40,000 deaths in China), but underlying a good point - if credible sources raise doubt on the numbers of certain countries, then I believe those doubts should be included, as long as it's done in a neutral and well-sourced way, also to avoid the impression that the table is a reliable totalling and ranking of cases and deaths. Examples of such doubts: Brazil [13], China [14], Iran [15], North Korea [16], Russia [17]. Morgengave (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT for the 40,000 deaths but I would say there is some doubt about the number of cases and deaths in China as most people hold that view. — RealFakeKimT 07:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo

The annotation that the number of cases in Kosovo do not include Serbia are pointless and should thus be removed. (http://prntscr.com/rtjeme) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.95.0 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Section, International aid: The Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Georgia, and the Czech Republic expressed their concerns over Chinese-made masks and test kits.[1] For instance, Spain withdrew 58,000 Chinese-made coronavirus testing kits with an accuracy rate of just 30%, meanwhile, the Netherlands recalled 600,000 Chinese face masks which were defective.[2] 59.14.10.85 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

information Note: This is an unanswered request that I have unarchived. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I've marked this as answered since it lacks consensus. I would oppose it as written. As I remarked last time this came up Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 26#Getting more info that Chinese humanitarian aid to Europe is faulty, it's not clear this is a problem relating to international aid. The sources seem to suggest the Netherlands masks were a commercial purchase. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/netherlands-becomes-latest-country-to-reject-china-made-coronavirus-test-kits-gear
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/29/spain-poised-to-tighten-coronavirus-lockdown-after-record-daily-toll

Putting per capita figures into the article

We now have per capita maps, which is good. I think we also need per capita figures: cumulative confirmed cases per capita and cumulative confirmed covid-associated deaths per capita. The per capita figures are calculated by my script (Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg) and published on my page at Wikibooks (B:User:Dan Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths per capita), but they need to be in the article along the "uninterpreted" raw figures, I think. If someone could source per capita figures from a "reliable" source (WP:MEDRS), that would be perfect since we would no longer need to argue about whether calculation of per capita figures is in accord with WP:CALC; I think doing the calculation ourselves is fine, but preventing discussion about this by picking the ratios from an undisputed source would be even better.

One can argue that publishing raw figures without their per capita counterparts is misleading the public; the raw figures mean almost nothing without being related to capita. I find that argument rather convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Later note: Fresh per capita figures can be found on worldometers, cases per million people and deaths per million people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is to add no more columns to the current table. Other tables can and do include this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find any such table with per capita figures on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Searching that page for "per cap" only finds the images, but no data table and no link to other page containing such a data table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I support this per Dan Polansky's rationale. It's not as vital as it is with the maps, since there's not the misleading implication that a measure of density is being displayed, but it'd still be very useful information for readers. Regarding how to implement, though, the table would need a new column each for cases, deaths, and recoveries, and there's definitely not room for three more columns, even if we move the references to the name column (which I think we should do regardless—there's no need for them to have their own column). Instead, I'd favor including a separate table in the article with the per capita counts. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is however that the current table is wide enough. One could put the per capita data someplace else I guess.

Or add a button to the current table that brings one to wider version with more data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Modify a graph

Replace

with

  • Graph showing the daily and cumulative count
    Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

Reasons: Simpler graph with less and clear information. There are other graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries. It takes a lot of effort to understand the first graph as it has too much information. Since this page is not intended only for the scientific community I suggest to replace the first graph which has more information (meaning it is combining 5 graphs) with a simpler graph which just shows 2 things (daily and cumulative count). Also text in the second graph is more legible and the updated legend reflects the bar chart unlike the previous graph which has a line symbol instead. The only reason which is being told for not replacing the graph is that it has been this way for a long time. Just because this graph has been drawn this way for a long time doesn't suggest it shouldnt be changed.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Formatting can be changed. But the graphs should have less information.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You have yet to provide a compelling reason why "less is more" that doesn't boil down to "I think our readership is too stupid to hold this many facts." Not one reason.--Jorm (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There are several other graphs which show the same information so why add redundancy. Less information makes it easy for reading.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how data redundancy is an anti-feature. Folk who are reading this aren't stupid. They don't need "easy reading". In this case, the additional data provides context for the data being shown while your graph does not. --Jorm (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Everyone would appreciate things which are easier to read.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Also already mentioned in previous discussion, the second one is less clear than the first and has less information. The first one shows clearly the early cases were largely in China, but later cases around the world. The second is unclear why there is a hump. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There are other graphs which shows that information. Not all the information should be added in one graph as that can be confusing to read.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, more isn't always better. I don't see much value in the lines; I'd ditch them or keep just the red line. However the first graph is prettier indeed. If you manage to make yours with the same styling I think you have a better contender here. Feelthhis (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Updated the graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: per consensus Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Significant digits of worldwide cases: 1.19 million vs 1.190 million?

How to we increase the number of significant digits? The total worldwide cases is given automatically, so how do we modify its command so it gives a value of 1.190 million (not 1.19 million)? That way, we instantly know it is 190k cases more than 1M, not 19k. Titus III (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to do that. 19k moe than 1M would be 1.019 not 1.19. 88.145.150.95 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to as the zero is after the 19 so it is clearly 1,190,000. I don't think many people will interpret it as 1,019,000. — RealFakeKimT 07:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it will be misread. Or at least we shouldn't worry about a few people who don't understand how decimals work. That said, no harm in adding the digit to account for non-zero numbers. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Balancing out the per capita and totals map colors

attack rate in Mainland China
Red Europe map cases per capita

The totals map is currently much darker than the per capita map, since it uses a different scale and just seems to have more countries in its top tier than the per capita map in its. Could we balance them out a bit? I do like keeping all the case count maps red and the death count maps purple, though, per WP:CONSISTENCY. The only place in the article where that needs fixing is the Europe map. (Plus I'd still like to see us add a per capita China map for the China domestic response section, but it looks like the editors at the China page haven't responded to the request to create one.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, not sure, what I should do. Till now, I did not see any purple death count maps in the article, maybe in another article? The case per capita map is held with intention in blue to avoid a mix up with the total case map. China: I may do if that request is still unfulfilled.--Pechristener (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pechristener: The purple death count map can be found as the third map in the infobox; it's collapsed by default, so you just click to see it. And yes, the China request is so far unaddressed. The world per capita map does include data for Chinese provinces, though, so it may be possible to save some work by going off of that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: Ok, found the purple death map. In my opinion it is a very bad idea to have this map collapsed. Nobody will find that especially people not familiar with Wikipedia. China: you are maybe looking for this:
--Pechristener (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pechristener: Thanks for the link; glad to see that that map exists! Regarding the collapsing, with four maps (none of which I think we could get consensus to remove), collapsing is a necessity to keep the infobox a reasonable length and the very nice photo collage not too buried. The consensus for it was originally achieved here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: ... and here is the red map. Ok consensus may have been achieved regarding the infobox. In my POV the maps would have more information content than the pic collage and about the length of the IB: I may never understand the discussion, why it can not be long enough to contain all the required information. Currently the maps are burried. --Pechristener (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pechristener: Thanks for the red version! It's now in action here: 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Europe. Nice to have the consistency. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

I don't know how to do this, but I want to suggest that someone remove the American flag from the listing for Guantanamo Bay in the list of countries and the flag simply be left blank or put a symbol on it that is neutral. Both the US and Cuban government recognize Guantanamo bay to be sovereign territory of Cuba, but the US insists that it has a right to lease this land from a 1903 agreement and Cuba insists that the lease is illegal. There is no dispute about the fact that the land belongs to Cuba, however. Although if a US flag is put on it, it may seem to suggest that Wikipedia judges the US side in the dispute over the legality of the lease to be the correct one. Reesorville (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

per[18]US flag can be placed...IMO(additionally we don't do politics, this is a pandemic/health related article)User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If we don't do politics, there should be no flag at all on the listing or a neutral symbol. Putting the US flag is taking a side in the political dispute. Reesorville (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point, I have removed the flag from this entry (and would also support removing flags in general).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's ok to remove the flag for this territory. But let's not overreact and remove all flags just because the right flag is unclear for one territory. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
But it's OK to remove all flags on the basis of our not doing politics, surely. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the seal for the base itself could be used, or even the navy flag, as the base doesn't have an official flag. --17jiangz1 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that the seal for the base would be OK, because there is no dispute about the fact that that seal is used to identify that base. The US flag is obviously flown on the base too, but I still feel like if we put it here, it seems to be suggesting that we are saying the place properly belongs to America. Putting a symbol for a port or a soldier or something else like that (like how the US carrier has a ship symbol) would also work I think. Reesorville (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Animated map of daily deaths toll by country

I've used data published on Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data to generate an animated map Covid-19 reported daily deaths toll by country. For now, it is published on my personal website. Here is the link:

Animated map of daily deaths toll by country

The animation is powered in Javascript generated from a PHP / MySQL engine. I would like to donate this work to Wikipedia however I don't know how to do that. A solution would be to convert it into an animated gif but I don't know any method to automatically generate it. Does anyone has any advice about how to do this? Metropolitan (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Metropolitan! Not sure how that could be converted into something that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Do note, though, that we have something a little similar if you expand the "interactive timeline" in the infobox. That's Wugapodes' work, so feel free to collaborate with them to make improvements to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Metropolitan, thanks for your work! For security reasons, Wikipedia restricts the use of user generated javascript so it will be difficult to deploy as-is. I'm not sure how to make a GIF either, but you may get help at the technical village pump. Most of our interactive content is made using the mw:Graphoid parser which you can see in use at Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/common. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Modify a graph - updated formatting

NO ACTION
Your request was denied yesterday wait a bit before proposing again. — RealFakeKimT 09:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Replace

with

  • Graph showing the daily and cumulative count
    Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

Reasons: There are other graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries. So replace the first graph which has more information (meaning it is combining 5 graphs) with a simpler graph which just shows 2 things (daily and cumulative count). Also the legend symbols are more accurate compared to the previous graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You were already denied this before. Please don't open duplicate requests.--Jorm (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The graph formatting have been updated.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: All your request does is make it less colorful. I think this request is not an improvement because your requested graph removes information. The original graph already contains yours requested graph. Just look. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 05:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That graph got modified after this request was posted.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the graph as the modified graph is incorrect. The new graph is complex and I still prefer the simpler graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2020 (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.

Replace incorrect graph

No. You have been repeatedly told that this isn't going to happen. Continuing to do this is disruptive and may result in sanctions.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Replace this incorrect graph

with a correct graph

  • Graph showing the daily and cumulative count
    Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

Note: This is not the same request as the previous one which asked for a simpler graph. This is about replacing an incorrect graph with a correct graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2020 (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.

Deaths in Slovakia

The death in Slovakia is 1 in "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Slovakia" and 0 in the template. What happened? The Supermind (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Information has to be updated seperatly in different articals so there will be some diffrence in numbers accross articals. — RealFakeKimT 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Reporting deaths varies from country to country, Slovakia deciding only deaths caused by the virus directly counted, thus both previous deaths not counted as caused by it (1st being caused by massive heart attack, 2nd still not having its autopsy results officially confirmed - thus different reports about numbers even in Slovakia as of today) --20.133.7.254 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit / clarification request - sneezing

Hi all. The article mentions sneezing a few times as a route of transmission, including in the opening paragraph. But sneezing is not listed as a symptom (not even a rare symptom). I can imagine if someone had both a common cold and COVID-19, sneezing caused by the common cold could spread COVID-19. But I am concerned that because sneezing is mentioned in the opening paragraph, the reader is likely to conflate it as a symptom (and therefore potentially worry about their own sneeze). Is this something which could be reworked? For instance, leaving it in the later section on transmission but removing from the opening? 2001:44B8:1102:C200:6CAF:E01E:18A6:FA59 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Extensive debate of this topic elsewhere on this talk page!! Robertpedley (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Vatican City is at 10,000 infected per million

Hi, on the map Vatican City should be 10,000 per million. There are seven cases and 618 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B148:5B1C:D548:DB2C:8CF0:6321 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
and its over 190 000 for the Diamond Princess. DMBFFF (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Antibody testing

Mentioned on a related page COVID-19_testing#Detection_of_antibodies, Should we mention it here, in which section? Robertpedley (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are they widely avaliable / avaliable yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Doc James They are coming on stream, and there is extensive news coverage. [[19]] There are big questions about the reliability of the various tests, and currently it's not clear whether they can be used for diagnosis (as opposed to demonstrating immunity post infection). I think it would be useful to put a qualified reference to them on this page, but not sure which section to place it. Robertpedley (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Robertpedley okay yes coming on line but not avaliable yet. We need to make that clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Article: "Coverage of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic on Wikipedia"

Okay, this might sound absurd and a little too much detail, but look at these articles:

Warrant that a couple of you reading this might have been interviewed in one of the above. These are just articles in the first and second pages of Google News where Wikipedia's coverage of the disease is the key topic, excluding secondary mentions. Trying to get opinions on whether an article could (and for that matter, should) be created. Juxlos (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is very cool! Thank you for collecting and sharing these links. I'd vote against trying to make this into a topic though. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

About that: both editors and non editors of Wikipedia have to admit that Wikipedia offers information about facts. But just facts in light of reliable sources and from scientific view. But we have always to remember that it is up to the people to JUDGE these facts as they freely want, such as government responses or even WHO responses. We should not forget that the measures that have been taken from "scientific" point of views affect people lives, in many areas, meanwhile, we should be careful to judge information in the net NOT as mis-information, but free speech and a way to judge the facts that happen. 83.39.208.224 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlighted open discussions

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 27/Current consensus

Regarding “first few” sentences, the discussion was mainly on just the first two.

RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

And instead of “not generally airborne,” we’ve currently decided to go with the phrase “are not generally spread through air over large distances.” FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes 2

Total deaths in 2020 irrespective of cause

Does Wikipedia have a page showing total deaths in 2020 per region (country or territory), irrespective of cause of death, that is, regardless of whether covid-positive or not? Does anyone know of data sources for these figures?

The above would help answer the following questions, say for France:

  • What is the cummulative death count in France in 2020 up to a date, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?
  • What is the cummulative death count in France in March 2020, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?
  • Or even, what are the daily death counts in France in 2020 up to a date, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?

If a source could be found, it would not be amiss to expand the table in the article with total deaths irrespective of cause, for a very basic context for the figures shown. Maybe there was a consensus that this should not be done, but I think there are very good reasons to do just that if possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Easy trick : divide the population by 100 to 150. Knowing that the life expectancy is 65-77 year but there is more younger people. Something like that would give you a good rough estimate per year. Typical pneumonia ends at 7-8% of total deaths, this one seems as high as 25%. Judging by italy's death toll. I'm not opposed to source this better in the article, I agree it gives context. Iluvalar (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to see the actuals for 2020, not estimates based on previous years; I want to see how the covid-positive deaths are reflected in the actual totals for 2020, especially for the worst affected countries and regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Generally it is about a year out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I found something for England and Wales: Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional by Office of National Statistics, ons.gov.uk - has 2020 figures downloadable as a spreadsheet. It would be good to have similar data for other countries. The linked source seems well done to me, it has e.g. for week ending on 27. March 2020 (week 12): Total deaths, all ages: 10645; deaths for respiratory disease: 1514; covid-on-death-certificate deaths: 103. Meanwhile, the covid-associated deaths have increased, and can be put into relation to the other two figures, although what we would really need to see is what happened to them as well in the most recent weeks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's Northern Ireland: Weekly death registrations in Northern Ireland, 2020., nisra.gov.uk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's U.S.: * COVIDView: A Weekly Surveillance Summary of U.S. COVID-19 Activity, cdc.gov - has a graph showing total deaths together with deaths via pneumonia and deaths via influenza. I don't see a data table but there is a graph at the bottom from which the scale of the numbers is seen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh wait, the Data from CDC for corona like ilness (CLI) dating back to the 40th week of 2019, that's new to me. Iluvalar (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_27&oldid=1136586216"