This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Okay, am I the only one that thinks this page seems to be almost sensory overload with pictures, graphs, and other visual distractions? I realize pictures are helpful, but there seems to be a few too many on this page. It seems like every section and subsection has its own photo of some kind. I suggest some of these photos be moved to a gallery section, near the bottom. It just seems overloaded with imagesMulstev (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I should not have used the word 'gallery' in my earlier comment. What I meant by that was to perhaps move some of the pictures that appear along the right hand of the screen and put them at the bottom of sections they appear in. For example, under the subsection 'China' in the 'Urban Response' section, there are two pictures and a video clip along the right hand side. Perhaps these images could be placed at the bottom of the 'China' subsection, centered. It may not help, but at least it could be attempted. To me, having images grouped at the bottom of sections and subsections would be cleaner, for lack of a better word. Initially what caught my eye was the group of charts and graphs at the very top, and then I saw how many images appeared along the right had side. Mulstev (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Death rate by age
The graph at this link appears to show that fatalities drop for age 90+. Is that correct, or is the graph actually showing fatalities by a percentage of the total affected population and the drop is because there are so few people at that age? If the latter, this seems confusing and misleading. Consider linking a corrected / clarified version of this in the Wikipedia article.
No, it's a graph per capita, the amount of 90+ shouldn't affect the graph. But COVID-19 tests are performed only if the doctor witness an acute and ABNORMAL breathing distress. It would explain why less 90+ yo patients get tested. Iluvalar (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Chinese origin
The Chinese government is ramping up its propaganda trying to deflect claim that the country is the source of the virus, by casting doubt on its origin - [1], also pushing the idea that US may be the source [2]. We also have a recent spate of edits doing the same thing pushing the Chinese view, changing the origin of the virus to unknown or undetermined, and now it has been removed completely. What is the opinion on keeping or removing the origin of the virus? I would object to saying that its origin is unknown since its purpose is to serve Chinese conspiracy theorists, but ambivalent on keeping the mention of its origin in the infobox. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This Paragraph responds well and should be kept as it is :
On 31 December 2019, a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause was reported by health authorities in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, China,[145] and an investigation was launched in early January 2020.[146] These cases mostly had links to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals; consequently, the virus is thought to have a zoonotic origin.[147] The virus that caused the outbreak is known as SARS-CoV-2, a new virus closely related to bat coronaviruses,[148] pangolin coronaviruses[149] and SARS-CoV.[150] It is believed that the virus possibly originated in horseshoe bats (genus Rhinolophus).[151]
Indeed there is not Known Origin. Read the Page about the market that you understand that even Chinese government can not be sure about half from market and half not from market. In addition with more than 120 specimens of animals in market, it is not identifiable in which meat this came from, neither specify the animal, neither in which region this animal of globe was infected or caught. So it is unknown. Of course before that had economical fights between USA & China about tax in products, the Handling Import Taxes. So, of course USA has a guilty part, but do not believe USA would contaminate itself or planned bad this fight. It is a pity as consequence the Animals in Africa is not protected yet or China still leave Traditional Medicine allowed, in which, Rhinos still gonna brutally disappear, no, they have still not learned. Regards
The sources do not question that China is the origin, they question whether the market is the origin or which animal it came from, which is an entirely different claim and irrelevant to what is being discussed. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You do not understand, there is a half people that had NO contact with market... and ... If you have a Crystal Ball, use it with your more than 6th sense... I really do not know if China was the Origin, for me not, for me the Origin was the Arabian Deserts were in 2003 Sars Virus had and that is a Fat Mutation with a mix of other virus together... So.
Whether they had contact with the market or not is irrelevant in this discussion, which is about China. 100% of the earliest cases were in China. It has already been shown that the 2003 SARS virus came from bats via civets as intermediate hosts in China, why you are trying to suggest it came from the Arabian desert? Is this a new conspiracy theory? Hzh (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Hzh, 100% of the case where Chinese because we were only testing people coming from China. Based on what we know now about the virus, it would take about 2000 patients before a doctor start noticing a trend (IF there was any trend whatsoever). Let's say, he didn't have the information and just was incompetent and raised the alarm with only 200 patients. Still the virus would have needed to spread for at least 2 months before it could have been noticed in Wuhan. And we know how much this virus spread in 2 months... We could have detected this virus even earlier by extreme luck, but that's just wishful thinking. Iluvalar (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You are speculating, unless you have a valid source for your assertion, then it cannot be accepted as an argument, and in any case not relevant to the argument here. Considering how quickly it spread in Europe (and many countries did a lot of tests and detected very few until the last week or two), the idea it has been spreading for months beforehand simply doesn't make sense. We already know that many such outbreaks originated from China, like the 2003 SARS outbreak, and like SARS, it has been linked to bats in China, although in this case the intermediate host is unknown. If it had been spreading for months beforehand, it would still have been in China itself. There is simply no evidence that the virus originated from outside China [3], any claim otherwise must be considered fringe or conspiracy theories, as it would be if I say it comes from Mars. Hzh (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Guys, it is not our role to decide or to argue about where it originated, our role in that regard is to present information about what verifiablereliable sources have said about where it originated and to cite those sources. Please see WP:DUE and/or take this argument to a blog somewhere. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The claim of origin is something now disputed in the edits, the most recent one - [4], frankly it wasn't really disputed until the Chinese government recently decided that the origin is not in China, and a number of editors chose to follow the Chinese government line. Personally I'm not fussed if the infobox use the first case or origin (although some said that the first case should only be used for date of first case), but I would object to people adding "unknown" or "undetermined" to origin. Hzh (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes it is our role people look to Wikipedia for accurate information. Its obvious it started in China. china just doesn't want to take responsibility so they are shifting the blame. Lets not help China people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.84.170 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
So give the people looking "to Wikipedia for accurate information" accurate sources to back any claims that are made. Mulstev (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Guardian: Air pollution likely to increase coronavirus death rate, warn experts
Seems important to include somewhere (but not sure where)
I propose that the table be replaced/reordered with one that is based on deaths or severity of cases. Identifying a large number of cases is fine if they're all low-level and/or cured. The problem comes when there are many severe cases and deaths. Tsukide (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@User:Doc James: as far as the first paragraph goes, I think there need to be some sort of clause placed in between the info that "the first case was identified in December" and "the WHO declared a pandemic in March". That's a pretty enormous step-up in magnitude.
My suggestion: First identified by health authorities in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019, the outbreak spread to over 100 countries before being recognised as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020., or some variation on this.
Something to watch in any case is grammar (your revision says The first case was identified ... and later recognized as a pandemic ... .; the 'first case' was not recognized as a pandemic, the 'outbreak' was recognized as a pandemic). — Goszei (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@User:Doc James:Fair enough, but I think there should be 'some' kind of cue to the reader that 4 months of international spread occurred in between the first case and the pandemic recognition. I find it a bit jarring to read as it is right now. I like the "100 countries" bit, because it is specific and is called upon in the next sentence mentioning "170 countries". Maybe something like "spread worldwide" or "spread outside of China" could also work. Any suggestions? — Goszei (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: for now, I have fixed the grammar that I mentioned and reduced it to the outbreak was later recognized as a pandemic. — Goszei (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
"by health authorities" is not need. We can simple say "First identified". I think it is better to keep sentences shorter to make them easier to understand for those who might read English as a second language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I am also interested in making the article as easy to read as possible, but I think that particular bit of context is important (explaining the conditions leading up to a pandemic declaration). — Goszei (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Juxtaposing it, seems like an effort to criticize the WHO for their delay in calling this a pandemic though. I am not sure if that is what was meant. But we would need a good source for that. In my opinion the criticism of their timing of calling it pandemic belongs in the body of the text if sources exits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: Since this may require a discussion on which page this should go I'm going to deactivate this request for now to help keep the semi-protection edit request backlog down. Once it is determined which page this edit should be implemented on please reactivate this request. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?09:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Leading scientists report that the coronavirus pandemic is probably linked to environmental destruction like climate change and deforestation
I think it is necessary to include it here for preventing other pandemics. For example:
Any article that has a question mark in the title can generally be given a "no" answer (because it's speculation), and the Express should not be used (it's a tabloid). Hzh (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I have tried write the pandemic as viral, but it can't save it. The first introductory writing is rapidly changes. However it is unstoppable. Users must write fixed type of introductory statement about the subject. The Supermind (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Global cases rate vs wuhan before lockdown
With the world having a higher average rate of active cases than Hubei the day before lockdown it is important to provide a reference metric against which to compare the need to declare a state of emergency to save lives. Please do not remove this statistic, rewrite if needed.Moneyball99 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Originally a new section, converted to reply to the above section I removed an addition by @Moneyball99:. While objectively, this information could be useful somewhere in this article, it doesn't belong in the lead, whose purpose per MOS:LEDE is to summarize the article and not go into intricate details like this. In addition, citing another Wikipedia page is explicitly not permissible per WP:CIRCULAR. It is also arguably improper synthesis to compare numbers from different sources. @Goszei: might have additional thoughts.--Jasper Deng(talk)22:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: From what I understand improper synthesis would be stating a conclusion (eg this is the most important) vs A is higher than B is NOT improper synthesis as it is a plain reading of the facts from sources. Rates such as comparing homicide rate between two cities would require different sources from each respective city as such could naively be construed as improper synthesis as would all Coronavirus data for a country and not from a supranational entity (eg WHO). Calculating the rate is support by the included source (Worldometer Coronavirus - cases per million) as such as is not covered by No original research and a calculated rate is a Routine calculations using just simple arithmetic. Also "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition" Moneyball99 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moneyball99: This is not a mere juxtaposition. You are asserting that the virus is worse worldwide than in Hubei based on that metric. This can be very misleading (local densities vary; what counts as a case? This is not something like homicides that has an unequivocal global definition). CALC is not applicable since you clearly have no consensus that the calculation you did from the Hubei article is valid. Most importantly, no reliable sources make this comparison, so at best it's WP:UNDUE weight to include it.--Jasper Deng(talk)23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, switched numbers to deaths rate per million following metric of Coronavirus meta analysis of citation (see edit) Moneyball99 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think this is enough to address the WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE concerns. For example, the two dates (March 17 and January 23) are picked from many other possibilities, so this is not a straightforward comparison. E.g. it ignores the important context that (to quote from 2020 Hubei lockdowns) "the [January 23] lockdown came two days before the Chinese New Year, the most important festival in the country, and traditionally the peak traveling season, when millions of Chinese travel across the country". In contrast, March 17 does not carry such special meaning and urgency across the compared region (rest of the world). Your addition is likely to promote (intentionally or not) the conclusion that the Chinese authorities acted more diligently than - on average - the rest of the world, based on cherry-picked data points. This is why we have policies like NOR and UNDUE. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng:@HaeB: Please edit or mark (eg citation needed) next time instead of deleting. Not cherry picked, comparison made here "Spain and Madrid Spain has very similar numbers as France (1,200 cases vs. 1,400, and both have 30 deaths). That means the same rules are valid: Spain has probably upwards of 20k true cases already. In the Comunidad de Madrid region, with 600 official cases and 17 deaths, the true number of cases is likely between 10,000 and 60,000. If you read these data and tell yourself: “Impossible, this can’t be true”, just think this: With this number of cases, Wuhan was already in lockdown. With the number of cases we see today in countries like the US, Spain, France, Iran, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden or Switzerland, Wuhan was already in lockdown. And if you’re telling yourself: “Well, Hubei is just one region”, let me remind you that it has nearly 60 million people, bigger than Spain and about the size of France." [1] ctiing data from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention the was analyied in a published JAMA paper "Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China" here. [2]. Not my research by the way. Facted check by professionals here [3] and cited by the NYTimes [4]. Can you please clarify NOR and UNDUE? Anymore citations needed? Moneyball99 (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"Please edit or mark (eg citation needed) next time instead of deleting." - No, the burden is on the editor who wants to add the insufficiently sourced material, see WP:BURDEN. Especially in a very high profile article like this.
You have now reinserted your observation (in only somewhat different versions) four times within less than seven hours [5][6][7][8] against three different editors who removed it. Please stop, read Wikipedia:Edit warring, and obtain consensus here on the talk page first before inserting it again.
I don't blame you for being of the opinion that the juxtaposition you found is interesting, or for wanting to bring it to the attention of many people. But Wikipedia is not the place for promoting such findings. That is basically the gist of NOR. To your question, you can find NOR and UNDUE explained at the links Jasper Deng gave above (WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, respectively). If there is a suitable source that directly makes the comparison you want to add, that may solve the issue.
@HaeB: Thank you for the quick response. 1. I read (WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE already before replying, I was asking how it specifically applied to this situation in this context. In other words why the editors interprets or believes the tag may apply for clarification? 2. I understood the purpose of wikipedia is to do live edits, I did not see your suggestion to fix in TALK as requirement is that an unwritten best practice? 3. WP:DONTREVERT "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." "While objectively, this information could be useful somewhere in this article" Jasper Deng 4. As the new sources show it is not my observation as that would be NOR. 5. Aren't edit wars when people revert changes the exact previous change or merely reword it? To the best of my understanding a good faith edit addressing the editors in a "bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle" would not be counted as that would it?. Moneyball99 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moneyball99: No, you cannot obtain consensus by repeatedly reinserting your material, even if you try to address concerns each time; doing otherwise is edit warring. Wikipedia is actually as much about discussion as it is about editing, for discussion and consensus is what's needed to resolve an editing dispute like this one. DONTREVERT is only an essay without the force of a policy or guideline, and in any case we would here argue that you made the article worse by inserting material not compliant with the verifiability policy. The burden is on you, as the content proponent, to show that your addition is compliant with Wikipedia policies, not on us to show that it isn't. In this case, you cannot insert information on a comparison of per-capita cases unless a reliable source explicitly makes that connection. Otherwise, that is WP:UNDUE weight, and original research.--Jasper Deng(talk)06:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@HaeB: Sorry to ask again, did you read the sources carefully? Because this source [5] made that comparison already and it received 501 public media citations [6] and was reviewed by medical professionals. "you cannot insert information on a comparison of per-capita cases unless a reliable source explicitly makes that connection" So how is a source cited by the NYTimes [7] and fact cheched by medical professionals like "Richard Hopkins, a retired epidemiologist" and "Richard J. Kuhn, editor in chief of the journal Virology and a professor of science at Purdue University" [8] original research WP:NOR , what am I missing something here? I don't know how else to put this but as this is I assume a science based article, Wikipedia editors are not a realistic source of professional consensus. As such should editors like Bondegezou (Associate Professor in health informatics) and other editors with a statistical or medical research experience should be the ones commenting on this as this is a very complex topic. Moneyball99 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: Thank you for getting involved, your health background should be very useful for this discussion. Could you carefully review the sources please, what am I missing? Awaiting your feedback, Moneyball99 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
What you are missing is that your draft sentence is WP:SYNTH. It's not about whether the sources for your input data are OK. The problem is that you are drawing a novel conclusion. Find a reliable source (preferably meeting WP:MEDRS standards) that says the same thing and you can cite it. But you can't carry out original research. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
You have 7 citations in your draft sentence. Can you give us a single citation for the whole point being made and maybe point out an appropriate quotation from that citation that matches your draft? Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: Thank you for the reply. I understand it is not about citing input data. My question is what wrong with the citation for the type of numbers and comparison datas used (eg death rate at lockdown) or the use of the dates by the source. When the source of this type of analysis was extensively cite by hundreds media sources of media source and fact checked (SEE ABOVE). As for WP:MEDRS logically purely statistical analysis done by the source (SEE ABOVE) with be enough given the fast paced current Coronavirus situation should not have the same type of evidentiary burden as testing of a medical product. When the "Cost of waiting 1 day equals increase in 40% of coronavirus cases" [9]. In other words "Perfect is the enemy of good"[10] for now, in the future we will have better information.
@Bondegezou: Thank you for the reply and the actionable insight. I create a second draft in stages to try address your concerns(see below). 1. The excessive number of citations was to satisfy the other editors concerns. 2. While the comparison is the same format and type a minimum of four new citations are needed for the numerator and denominator of new input calculation (1 Global deaths & 2 Pop, 3 Hubei deaths & 4 Pop) 3. As the statement about Spain is of little general utility for this article, I used the global rate instead using the same metric of the source like the common misnomer Global GDP[11]. 4. I believe the fact checking article may be a good second source but at the cost increase the sources to six. [12] 5. Are there any objections to the version for spain (see below) aside from relevance to a global article? Moneyball99 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Medium fails WP:RS - see WP:RSP. You need a different source. That source seems to only talk about Madrid, so you can't use it talk about the global situation: your "Global generalized version" still appears to me to violate WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: Thanks for the reply, I think something is getting lost in translation. Let's break this down step by step, are there any objections to the Version for Madrid? (aside from relevance to a global article) Moneyball99 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: You are right, I agree completely in part. About the Medium article in and of itself it should not be a source normally but in this situation it is extensive cited 501 times [13]WP:GOOGLETEST by the media meeting the notability test and fact checked by medical experts meeting reliability test WP:RSP ("Richard Hopkins ... epidemiologist" and "Richard J. Kuhn, editor in chief of the journal Virology and a professor of science at Purdue University" [14]) not by itself but in aggregate. As a logical point simple analysis done of medical statistics relying on primary offical sources should not be held to an unnessesary high standard as this is not a test of a medical product that warrants double blind studies of effectiveness. Given the rapid pace of development of the Coronavirus situation I think the aphorism "Perfect is the enemy of good"[15] should apply, as better sources of information will be available in the future but too late to be useful to the public. Is not the review by medical experts the approximately equivalent to be "peer review" like despite not being journal published research in this situation? (See changes "Version for Madrid" below) Moneyball99 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moneyball99: No, especially in a time like this we are not going to relax our verifiability standards, as it is more important than ever that readers not be misled. The point you keep not getting is that you cannot combine numbers from multiple sources to make a comparison, period. Find reliable sources that make the exact comparison you want to (Medium does not count, WP:SPS).--Jasper Deng(talk)20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Please do not mischaracterize my comment I did not suggest lowering the standards for verifiability. Medical sources are different and much higher standard for products than general sources because effect on health, medical statistics are different. Please show me your source for your opinion with the exact wording you used. "that you cannot combine numbers from multiple sources to make a comparison, period" because following the logic all tables from multiple sources on this page are SYNTH. Also it appears other editors User:Dan PolanskyJulian[16] agree with me that the Medium source should be included. Why do you think you know better than the medical experts that reviewed the Medium post and the New York Times? What sources do you have disprove them? Moneyball99 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sentence draft
As of 17 March, using deaths per million[17] the number of global deaths (1.0 deaths/mil)[18][19] per capita surpassed that of Wuhan, Hubei (0.3 deaths/mil)[20][21] when the region was placed under lockdown on Jan 23 2020.[22][23]
Sentence draft 2
Source
"Spain and Madrid
Spain has very similar numbers as France (1,200 cases vs. 1,400, and both have 30 deaths). That means the same rules are valid: Spain has probably upwards of 20k true cases already.
In the Comunidad de Madrid region, with 600 official cases and 17 deaths, the true number of cases is likely between 10,000 and 60,000.
If you read these data and tell yourself: “Impossible, this can’t be true”, just think this: With this number of cases, Wuhan was already in lockdown.
With the number of cases we see today in countries like the US, Spain, France, Iran, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden or Switzerland, Wuhan was already in lockdown.
And if you’re telling yourself: “Well, Hubei is just one region”, let me remind you that it has nearly 60 million people, bigger than Spain and about the size of France." [24]
Summarized
"In the Comunidad de Madrid region, with 600 official cases and 17 deaths"...[at that case number Jan 23 2020] "Wuhan was already in lockdown" ... [while] "Hubei is just one region"... [it has]"60 million people, bigger than Spain and about the size of France." (showing city/region/country comparison & per capita rate comparison) [25]
Version for Madrid
As of 10 March, the Madrid region has more deaths per capita than Hubei did when the region was placed under lockdown on Jan 23 2020.[26] Cited 501 times [27] Fact checked [28]
Global generalized version
As of 17 March, the number of global deaths [29][30] per capita surpassed that of Wuhan, Hubei [31][21] when the region was placed under lockdown on Jan 23 2020. [32]
Why? The standard year range representation is preferable as "2019-20" unless the initial range of year transits to the next millennium, or century, it have to be written depends on the transit digits. The stable digits is unnecessary to write again. I rely with on "2019-20". You can see other Wikipedia articles that the title has been written as the same rule. The Supermind (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
TC)
Requested move 19 March 2020
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.
Oppose because it would be a waste of time for whoever would get stuck moving these. Per the manual of style, the current title is allowed and has led to absolutely no confusion whatsoever. It isn't worth the effort of adding two more digits to dozens of page titles when there isn't a serious issue with them. NoahTalk11:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It would be more difficult to change something that doesn't need to be changed. The title is already clear to most. MJVAccount (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Move fatigue. Move should be proposed for something significant, this is inconsequential since the closure acknowledged that exceptions are allowed, and there is no indication that this would be confusing in any way. Hzh (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I would support the similar proposal of moving to "2020 coronavirus pandemic". But it seems wise to keep it to an informal discussion right now. -St.nerol (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment in retrospect I should've realized this wouldn't be a simple non-contentious move (it didn't seem as controversial as whether to call it "pandemic" or "epidemic" as an example). However, I'd like to clarify that the suggestion isn't so much based on ambiguity concerns as it is how two digits look incomplete and informal compared to four digits. Since this site is supposed to take a professional tone, it seemed more encyclopedic to go with a more formal style that isn't abridged. If people really don't like that idea, then I'd be fine with just using 2020 given the virus's overall prominence during this calendar year, which is far bigger than anything it did in 2019. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose move requests on current event articles in general. We should expect to see one of these pop up every few days, and it doesn't really matter, because once the dust settles we'll actually decide on the proper name. That's how it always goes. GMGtalk13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose There are already many articles following this format, particularly for this topic. Perhaps once this has been dealt with we can get a bot to go through all the titles and change "20" → "2020". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
‘’’strongly support’’’ as an incremental name change to a more normal name, do you guys not remember that consensus can change? —Almaty (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Amakuru: The closure statement of the discussion that was referenced to justify this RM proposal says it is not needed. It describes this case in the exceptions, saying "consecutive years use the two-year date range convention without problems [and] can continue to do so." —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: stylistic tinkering really isn't a priority right now, the current title is permitted even if mildly disfavoured, and I don't see much added value from this. —Nizolan(talk · c.)18:29, 19 March 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.
arch 2020 (UTC)
Celebrity deaths caused by COVID-19
Resolved
Is there already an section with prominent deaths caused by COVID-19? For example:
Celebrity deaths
February 2020
Li Wenliang († February 7, 2020 in Wuhan, 33 years old), Chinese doctor
...
March 2020
Vittorio Gregotti († March 15, 2020 in Milan, 92 years), Italian architect
Nicolas Alfonsi († March 16, 2020 in Ajaccio, Corsica, 83 years old), French lawyer and politician
是發明人、也是傲視中外對健康靠自己非常有研習的健康達人、林培長 健康共勉之
台灣 E-mail：mhealth5791113@gmail.com 行動：886-935791113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.77.156.116 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC) It was fixed with this edit. The above user misunderstood the request; a full stop was accidentally used instead of a comma, not vice versa. JTP(talk • contribs)05:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Request the removal of the following sentence as it is not factual but biased.
"The coronavirus outbreak in the United States may have been used to affect negatively Donald Trump's chances of re-election at the 2020 United States presidential election." 76.68.224.201 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done, but reworded: this is appropriate than removal here, in my opinion. I have moved the sentence to a more appropriate position in the paragraph and changed the wording slightly so that it reads more neutrally. The statement is in fact fairly neutral, since the New York Times source includes the views of both Democratic and Republican commentators. -- Pingumeister(talk)12:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a useful illustration of one aspect of social distancing. Of course a lot of measures will be required. Not sure why removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you justify why this funny comic strip showing people doing thumbs-up and namaste is a useful illustration? Because it's obvious to me that's not the case. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this kind of content has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a textbook for kids. --RaphaelQS (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
These animated images feel a little out of place on Wikipedia. Displaying handshake alternatives doesn't feel as important as communicating some other prevention recommendations and the animated format can be distracting. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It can also be engaging. We have the instructions on how healthcare providers should put on PPE. We do not really need more pictures of people wearing masks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There are a few cultural references that are specific to New Zealand: hongi, “NZSL” and “East Coast wave”. That isn’t ideal for an article that’s global in scope; many viewers will be wondering what a hongi is before noticing the .nz URL. Roches (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd oppose the use of such graphics. It made the article looks like it's for children, and also quite irrelevant for a global audience. I'd oppose anything made by that website whose images aren't good at all (as can be seen by their misrepresentation of the intervention curve, suggesting that the quality of their so-called experts is dubious). Hzh (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Their curve is sourced to CDC, and since it deviates from that source, we can say it misrepresent the source. Anyone who can misrepresent a source cannot be reliable. Hzh (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
They did more than emphasizing one single aspect. For example, they moved the curve below health capacity, which is not supported by the source. I have seen curves used in various news report, and they made no such claim even when showing a line for health care capacity (for example, a recent report I saw on BBC TV news and it shows the curve going above the line with intervention). The idea that you can do it with a large-scale outbreak, particularly with no decrease in total number of cases, is pure nonsense. All the curves I've seen in RS in fact also show decrease number of cases, which is not shown in this curve. Very poor effort by that website. Hzh (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
What "large-scale outbreak"? Most of the images I've seen have been somewhat targeted at an NZ audience. NZ has 20 cases so far. Significantly, fewer at the time the images you are referring to were likely created. Which highlights the point that there has been a worrying increase in cases. However, there's still no indication of any real community spread, and all the border closures likely mean there are likely a bunch of people who've decided it's time to come home fairly recently. (Plus NZ still hasn't banned non residents and citizens from coming so there's probably some coming to try and ride out the outbreak in NZ.) There is some concern over insufficient testing, and so we may be in a Italy, UK etc situation. The hope is that NZ can prevent this becoming an outbreak akin to Italy etc. Whether that will succeed is strongly debated. But if you're trying to apply the images to the situation in Italy etc, it's not surprising that they don't work since I don't think they were really targeted at such a situation. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are arguing that that curve is specific for NZ, then it is not applicable to the rest of the world, therefore it should not be used aimed at a global audience. Hzh (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you so much to all the volunteers who are helping share evidence-based information in this article. I took a look at "File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif" and also the source. I think it adds information to the article and given that the article has strong references that follow Wikipedia's Guidelines indicating that social distancing is a prevention measure, I do not see why we cannot include this to demonstrate social distancing. Given that articles are supposed to be written at a level for everyone to understand, I support re-adding this. JenOttawa (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
What information is added? You can't just say that the illustration adds information and expect people to take your word for it. To be absolutely clear, this illustration is useless, distracting and unencyclopaedic and should be removed. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus to use it (4 support, 4 oppose or expressed reservations), so I'm not sure why it's been put back. Hzh (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
While I can appreciate several of the arguments against this, on balance, I'm in favor of this illustration. The main reason is that there is a lot of high profile image/footage at the moment of people using greetings that bring them physically close to each other, like elbow and foot bumps: this image is sending the message that true alternatives aren't physical contact. On whether it's too childish, I don't think that's a problem: some readers are young, and this style of cartoon adds lightheartedness to a social issue at a time when people are very stressed about their personal behavior. I think many images on Wikipedia are culturally specific, so I'm not fussed about one being NZ-centric. Hildabast (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is some rudimentary "social distancing" lineart: 1. no crowds, 2. physical distance, 3. no handshakes. I can make more in the same style, if there is anything you would like to have depicted. Cheers, gnu5723:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to the use of a graphic like this one, but it should be multicultural (include alternatives greetings from different cultures), without a watermark and ideally public domain and uploaded on Commons. Darylgolden(talk)Ping when replying23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, it is New Zealand-centric. Though I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to the use of this image, but I don't think it should be used in this article (there are more important aspects to social distancing than alternative greetings). Darylgolden(talk)Ping when replying01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If the illustration demonstrates in one small space several important methods of avoiding hand contact... It appears ok to me to use. It's effective. A number of world leaders are talking about them and if it cheers people up as a sideline, does it matter that it is a cartoon?Whispyhistory (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a Kiwi so probably biased but I support the use of that image. As a free image, we don't have to worry about the possibility other images could be created which may be the same or better. The only question is whether this one is good enough and IMO it is. If someone creates another suitable free images, then we can discuss which one to use but until then..... If editors are really worried about the 2 or so panels which are somewhat NZ specific, we can always remove them but IMO it's not necessary. The question of whether other images created have been misleading is largely moot unless someone can provide evidence that this image is a problem. Editor's personal dislike for the website, is also irrelevant unless they can show some reason why it matters to us. (E.g. they mislead on copyright.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe I was the one that removed the image. The article is already thick with illustrations and this is pretty light on educational value in comparison. I'm not opposed to its use on more specific articles like Social distancing, but the bar for educational value warranting inclusion is set by the range of illustrations available for a subject, and I don't believe this falls in the upper range of most educationally useful media for this higher level subject. GMGtalk12:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Add new Field Death by country
Can someone update the table with *Death Rate By Country* as I tried showing in the picture? I am not good in updating the Wikipedia table and moreover I think I can not update this article.
I think it will help to compare the healthcare system by country in this crisis.
DeathRate = (Deaths / Reported cases) * 100
I heard on a radio newscast that the Trump administration knew last year they were unprepared for such an event and did nothing. Once a source is found for this statement that we can use, how does this go into the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Less detail this time, but NPR was mentioned, so I'll check for the story there. I couldn't quite tell whether the current pandemic was already under way for the even in the NPR story.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
totally agree it's too long. i tried rewritting it a bit so it would be less wordy
"The United States reported its first case of COVID-19 on 20 January, 2020. By March 12, diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. exceeded 1,000. The number of cases exceeded 2,000 by March 14; 4,000 by March 16 and 8,000 by March 18. In response, the Trump administration limited travel to and from China and Europe. Many American sports leagues and organizations, such as the NHL, NBA, and MLB have postponed events. As of 18 March 2020, the epidemic was reported to be present in all states, plus the District of Columbia. The number of confirmed cases in the U.S. rose to 8,019, with 124 deaths. A national emergency was declared on 13 March to deal with the outbreak, and individual states have closed schools and restaurants in order to slow the spread of the disease.
The White House has been criticised for downplaying the threat, and controlling the messaging by directing health officials and scientists to coordinate public statements and publications related to the virus with the office of Vice President Mike Pence. On 4 March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States deleted the running tally of the number of people tested for the coronavirus across the US from its website. Concerns has risen that the deletion, as well as the previous May 2018 dissolving of the National Security Council directorate for global health security and biodefense, could possibly limit the country's response to the epidemic." Of course we have to put the citations and stuff but MadameButterflyKnifeyeah sure.talk00:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Removing U.S. from list of countries with major outbreaks in lead
Someone added the U.S. back to the list of countries in the lead with "major outbreaks", but due to extremely poor edit summary usage, I don't know who they are. I don't think it makes sense to list the U.S. but not e.g. Australia/Malaysia/Japan, so I'm going to take it out again and add a hidden text warning. I think this reflects an inappropriate U.S.-centric perspective that we ought to combat. Sdkb (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
No, someone did not "add the U.S. back to the list of countries in the lead with major outbreaks". The USA were included as part of the countries with major outbreaks before your edits, so you are the one deleting the USA without consensus in the talk page. There are over 8,000 cases in the USA, almost as many cases as there are in South Korea, a country labeled as a major outbtreak. And your analogy with Japan makes no sense. In New York city alone (not the state but the city specifically), there are 1,300 cases. In Japan as a whole there are less than 1,000 cases. No single Japanese city has over 1.000 cases. Please, stop deleting the USA without consensus. James343e (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The United States was only added about two days ago (sorry, I'm not able to find the diff, again because of bad edit summary usage/the sheer quantity of edits), so the WP:STATUSQUO is for it to not be present in the lead. I'll revert to that while this discussion plays out. Japan was a bad example for me to choose, but the overall point stands that, when looking at the severity of the outbreak in different parts of the world, there's nothing currently to make the U.S. stand out. Sdkb (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The WP:STATUSQUO was including the USA as one of the countries with major outbreaks before @User:Sdkb edited it. If it was before he edited it, it was the status quo. "when looking at the severity of the outbreak in different parts of the world, there's nothing currently to make the U.S. stand out." There are over 2,500 cases in New York (state), over 1,300 cases in New York City and over 1,000 in Washington, it is already uncontrolled in the country. There are also 8,990 confirmed cases in the USA, more than in South Korea, a country listed as major outbreak. James343e (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the U.S. was perhaps added here. James343e, I ask that you please self-revert to respect WP:STATUSQUO. You are welcome to continue believing and arguing that the U.S. should be added, but a presence of 48hrs is not close to long enough for the text to acquire status quo status. Sdkb (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sdkb, i find it slightly inapproppriate that you avoid discussing the topic at hand. 2 arguments I gave:
1. There are over 2,500 cases in New York (state), over 1,300 cases in New York City and over 1,000 in Washington, it is already uncontrolled in the country. At this point, it looks like denialism to deny that there is an uncontrolled pandemic in the country.
2. There are over 9,000 confirmed cases in the USA, more than in South Korea, a country listed as major outbreak. Therefore, it makes no sense to include South Korea, but not the USA. It would be following a double standard.
Please, do reply to those arguments, instead of avoiding the topic. The WP:STATUSQUO is valid after 24 hours without revert. Your specfic edit (deleting the USA) has lasted less than 24 hours and so it cannot count as status quo.James343e (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC).
There is no such thing as a 24hr rule for WP:STATUSQUO, and I think any reasonable interpretation of the policy would require text to be present for significantly longer than that before becoming the status quo. I have no interest in debating settled policy here. I ask that an uninvolved editor please enforce it by reverting James343e's edit and then collapse the off-topic portion of this thread so that we can return to the actual question at hand. Sdkb (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
You did it again. You ignored my 2 arguments. These are my 2 arguments:
1. There are over 2,500 cases in New York (state), over 1,300 cases in New York City and over 1,000 in Washington, it is already uncontrolled in the country. At this point, it looks like denialism to deny that there is an uncontrolled pandemic in the country.
2. There are over 9,000 confirmed cases in the USA, more than in South Korea, a country listed as major outbreak. Therefore, it makes no sense to include South Korea, but not the USA. It would be following a double standard.
Please do reply to those 2 arguments. The talk page is to discuss about the topic at hand, not to avoid the discussion, as you are strategically doing by ignoring my 2 arguments. By the way, there is no such thing as "an edition needs to last 48 hours to be status quo", especially in constantly changing articles about an ongoing event like this.James343e (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC).
I noted in my edit summary for the previous message that I was replying to policy and would reply to your arguments in a minute. I've now done so below (slight delay from the edit conflicts), but you evidently could not wait that long before accusing me of avoiding your points. (Side note: it appears the timestamps on your signatures are inaccurate. If you are copying your earlier signatures, you may want to use tildes instead.) Sdkb (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@James343e: I noted above that Japan was a bad example for me to choose, but the overall point stands that, when looking at the severity of the outbreak in different parts of the world, there's nothing currently to make the U.S. stand out. You asked me to reply specifically to your points about the counts in some U.S. cities and about the comparison to South Korea. Regarding the former, those numbers don't mean much unless they are put in comparison with other global cities, many of which also have similar counts. Regarding the latter, the U.S. is a much bigger country than South Korea, so having only a slightly higher count is not very persuasive. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: OK, let us compare with other global cities. Please do tell me the name of one single city in the world (only one), that has over 1,500 coronavirus cases, and is from a country which is not included as having a "major outbreak" in the lead paragraph. You won't find it. That is the reason why NY city having over 1,500 cases proves there is an already uncontrolled pandemic in the USA.
The USA is the 4th country in the world with most new COVID-19 cases the last 24 hours. Will you keep the denialism? James343e (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC).
I wasn't able to find a list of global cities by coronavirus cases. Can you give me your source for your assertion that NYC has the highest count? Regarding the worldometers list, it also shows that countries like Israel and Singapore have nearly twice the per capita case count as the U.S. I'm perfectly open to adding the U.S. if there is evidence that the severity of the outbreak has reached a comparable level to the countries/regions already listed (remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not win battles; there's no shame in conceding). However, I have not seen such evidence yet, and the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide it. Sdkb (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb:Well, arguably you have the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate your thesis, as you deleted an already existing USA mention as major outbreak that had lasted more than 24 hours in a constantly changing article of an ongoing event.
If you carefully read the link, you will see that the USA is the 4th country with most daily new cases in the world. How is that not a major outbreak in the USA? So only 3 countries in the world have a major outbreak?
In addition to that, there are over 1,500 cases in New York City, and no other city in the world has so many cases and is part of a country not included in the lead section of major outbreaks. I don't need to send you a list of other cities, it is common sense. In Japan as a whole there are less than 1,000 cases, and other cities with more cases are alreayd included with the mention of Europe. In the next 24 hours, NY could be in quarantine according to local news.
What is your criterion to add the USA? Do you need 1 million cases? Not even China needed 1 million cases to be included as a major outbreak. The USA has now more cases than both South Korea and France, both of which are listed as having a major outbreak (France is in nationwide quarantine as decreted by their first minister Macron). James343e (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC).
@User:Sdkb: I accidentally reverted the message you added when making other lead changes; I have reverted my mistake. I don't seek to make an argument in either direction on this topic. — Goszei (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no country with major outbreak. We are all human beings. The virus doesn't care if you are democrats, republican or jew. The gray countries in Africa on the map doesn't mean the virus go around their frontiers, it's just a sign of their health system capacity. The "curve" may be flatten or not in some countries, but unless some evil genius start thinning the population with flamethrowers, the virus WILL propagate internationally until it's own wake of infected people slow the propagation down on it tracks. 5% to 25% of the world population I would guesstimate... I agree with Sdkb, the article is a bit too much US centric. Iluvalar (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
We are required to deal with facts from reliable sources here. America is having a major outbreak by any metric. It's going to get worse, especially when compared to those nations which took timely and effective action. The virus doesn't read Wikipedia, and there is no way anything we write or do or write here can affect the spread.
With one exception. By providing a timely, accurate, and NPOV resource for those looking for information, we can help people take effective action.
As for US-centric, remember that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we may reasonably expect that our readers come from the English-speaking world, of which [is the largest single nation]. We are going to have more Americans reading our article than (say) Chinese, Koreans, or Italians. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the whole sentence concerning countries affected by major outbreaks was removed at some point, should it be restored? — Goszei (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears so. I'm okay with it being taken out — we already have mentions elsewhere in the lead to China, as the origin, and Europe, as the new epicenter. I'll see if I can work in a wikilink to the overall pandemic article for China, as that appears to be missing, and (possibly) to the articles for South Korea and Iran.
More generally, this is another example of a concerning phenomenon with this article, where editors trying to engage on the talk page are being steamrolled by editors completely disregarding the talk page/established processes for consensus and making major edits to the article with poor edit summaries. There is simply such a flood of edits to the page that any given edit is not being given adequate scrutiny unless someone notices the change through reading the article itself. This is the exact opposite of the incentive structure we want, and I think it's leading to a decline in the article quality. Sdkb (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James and Pete, and thus with the general consensus, that the USA obviously has a major outbreak by any objective measure, with +16,000 cases in the USA, +7,000 cases in NY, +1,000 cases in 3 states and more cases than South Korea, France and soon Iran. I am fine with the section of "countries with a major outbreak" being out though, because at some point we will have to include almost any region in the world. James343e (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC).
Dataset for South Korea, versus China
Slight data anomality? Confusing a bit.
Look at China versus South Korea.
Right now we have:
China (mainland) 80,967 infected, 71,150 recovered. I will ignore the dead folks for the moment.
Now: South Korea has 8,652 infected, and 2,233 recovered.
I understand that China was initially the country to be hit first, but from there it spread to other countries, including South Korea.
So it's almost 3 months now past that ... isn't it strange then that China has almost all of these already recovered (excluding those who died), but South Korea has only 2233 recovered, and 6400 still not recovered?
I think this can probably be best explained that not many folks here on wikipedia seem to update this information - so if there is anyone from south korea or perhaps asia, and can explain this, it may be interesting to see why the dataset is quite dissimilar so far. At the least I think it appears that way. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 03:41, 20ned by SineBot-->
Note: Since this may require a discussion on which page this should go I'm going to deactivate this request for now to help keep the semi-protection edit request backlog down. Once it is determined which page this edit should be implemented on please reactivate this request. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Do not move, no need for that! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Template "Cases by country and territory": Spain – Moved to the relevant talk page.
Resolved
Done - 
Thank you - MrX 🖋 20:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The map has been refreshed and the key rewritten. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done — Not clear why this would be relevant on this top article. See perhaps 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom.
Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Template "Cases by country and territory": Spain
