The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
@Coffeeandcrumbs: removed it - I've added one on from commons instead that's a stylised version of the face mask photo and public domain is claimed, but it I prefer the fair use one. Mvolz (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - extremely new to contributing on wiki. If I may... The photo of Li Wenliang with the respirator mask/apparatus (File:Li_Wenliang.jpg) does not seem to resemble Li Wenliang as he is pictured in the first photograph on the title card(File:Li_Wen_Liang.jpg). I understand that the stylization & filtering applied to the photo causes some differentiation, however, certain facial features do not seem to match up between the two subjects (i.e. forehead size, hairline, eye-shape). Wouldn't it be best to not utilize a doctored image of the subject for the purpose of clarity?? Buddy2342 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using the photo is better than the stylised version; the problem is the stylised version is being claimed to be public domain (because suitable alteration has been made to it?) whereas the photo has to be used under fair use as it is copyright the heirs of Li Wenliang. There's a discussion about whether the photo should be considered under fair use here: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_February_10#File:Li_Wen_Liang.jpg Depending on the outcome of the discussion it may be deleted. Mvolz (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It is now used, at least in the german wiki section, and I implemented it in the english-article about Li Wenliang, too. Hopefully, nobody is removing it. I wouldnt wanna be eternalized with a selfie on wiki.LennBr (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LennBr, this is vandalism. Please revert the edit to the actual photo of Li Wenliang since this has historical significance, and not a Facebook page where one puts anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.150.234.15 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The three Weibo quotes used in a row in the article are a bit much. "Another user commented, "I also want to lie in the exclamation mark. I am an exclamation mark, but also a drop of tear." Others wrote, "some people use snow to hide something, while some use snow to exclaim."People also questioned, "will it be forgotten as usual, when the snow melts?"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No differences in Chinese. We don't import Latin terms in Chinese. Actually the original Chinese text is literally "eye-ology doctor", two words, four characters (morphemes). --Yejianfei (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Li privately informed his former classmates and alumini of his medical school, he accidentally became a wistleblower when his private messages were leaked. The article can improve the spin if necessary. Yug(talk)19:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborated on context in lead. Reluctant to minimize the term whistleblower wholesale as that is nonetheless what an overwhelming amount of RS call him. Sleath56 (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But is it factually true to the meaning of the word whistleblower? From Google, "a person who informs on a person or organization regarded as engaging in an unlawful or immoral activity." He was punished after the WHO/public notification. If the immoral activity was 'what China did to cover up', is this not WP:NPOV? Acalycine (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ai Fen is the real whistleblower. If anything, Li should be referred to as a "reluctant whistleblower", but if we do that, it would probably be original research. One way around the problem would be to say that the media referred to him as such. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this assessment, though I don't even see how he could be called a "reluctant whistleblower" given the chronology of his punishments/scale of his disclosure. He did not 'leak' covered-up information or seek to alert the public of wrongdoing. The Chinese CDC was aware of the situation when he shared the information. The information was technically wrong (it was not SARS, which is now known to be deadlier than SARS-CoV-2). From the facts just stated (which I'm happy to discuss), I really don't see the case for "whistleblower" here. However I do seek consensus on the solution you state - let us specify he was called a whistle-blower by media outlets (unless anybody can reason as to why he is technically a whistleblower). Acalycine (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember well, Li explicitly asked his wechat/whatapp group to "not spread the info". Someone leaked the info (screenshot) anyway. Given this primary sources, it is not original research to say he is an accidental or reluctant wisthleblower. Yug(talk)06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would generally agree. I'll wait for more consensus, but since it's a primary source it makes sense to change it to 'accidental' or 'reluctant'. Again, I still think this is a flexible usage of the word whistleblower, which I take to mean "a person who leaks information about an organisation/person involved in corrupt misconduct". The relevant authorities were already notified and aware of the results by the time Li had shared this info, and Li was certainly not the first to raise the alarm or share the test results. Seeing as sources describe him as such, though, I think this 'reluctant' solution is best. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that assessment is correct. The authorities had received the same test result he shared on the same day as him. Ai Fen, who supplied the report to Li, had already notified social media privately of the report, as well as hospital authorities. The relevant official channels for infectious disease surveillance had been triggered. This let authorities notify the WHO the following day, broadcasting the reports on national TV that same day. At best, he is a 'unintentional', 'reluctant' or 'accidental' whistle-blower - this solution seems to be the consensus forming here. Ultimately, this probably comes down to a difference of definition. @Pestilence Unchained:, would you agree with this definition of whistleblower: a person who informs on a person or organization regarded as engaging in an unlawful or immoral activity. If so, which organisation specifically was Li informing on, and what illegal/immoral acts were they committing? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The given date of birth 12 October 1986, which just comes from a police report on 3 January 2020, contradicts almost all recent sources, which say that Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, e.g.:
I think we'd better follow birth date and age based on the police report since it has degree of realiably about the date and age. Also, there is no realiable source questioning the realiably of the police record. The realiable sources may be accidentally recorded the wrong birth date and age since the only primiary source about the birth date is from the police record. (in fact, Chinese record of age in news may be a little different to the western record in news and I don't know why)Mariogoods (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent Lefèvre and Mariogoods: I'm not that familiar with contemporary Chinese society when it comes to this matter, but is it possible that when Chinese sources like this one say 今年34岁。 they are using East Asian age reckoning and the English-language sources are just misinterpreting their Chinese primary sources? My Chinese is not great and I'm essentially reading in Japanese kanbunkundoku, but 今年34岁。 looks like "He [would be] 34 this year", which interpretation does not contradict the police report.
Given this, I would say died at the age of 34 is more dubious than born on 12 October 1986, and so have tagged both accordingly, and moved the tag out of the lead, where it was misplaced. (The lead simply summarized the article body, so tagging something in the lead but not in the body is inappropriate.)
@Mariogoods:the only primiary source about the birth date is from the police record Not sure if you noticed, but apparently he had a photo taken of him holding his ID up; the published version of in the above tweet has the month and day blurred out, but the year is clearly 1986, which does not contradict the police report and rather has about a 90% likelihood of agreeing with the police report.
Moreover (might as well ping Vincent Lefèvre for this as well), Li apparently[1][2] posted a birthday message on Weibo on 12 October.
BTW, the screenshots on this page appear to indicate that this is the Weibo page in question. This is probably the post in question, but I don't have a Weibo account and so can't access it to verify. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. This thepaper.cn source says 1985 as the birth year, but now I suppose that this might have come from the ambiguity on the age. BTW, for something completely different, I've just received a letter with Vietnamese to English translation, where strange wording is used for the birthday count and the age, and this matches the explanations on East Asian age reckoning with an age that seems to be one more year than the actual one (as here I know the date of birth); thus this would confirm that even local translators may introduce ambiguity. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the preponderance of sources that include a photo of him showing his ID with his full name and birth year clearly indicated, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was born in 1985. Anyway, in Japan, virtually every biographical source on pre-1868 Japan (not just sources that actually date to that time but modern scholarly sources that discuss that time) that says "30歳" actually means the person was 29 by European reckoning. However, this is not normally done for modern individuals (if a source says Donald Keene, who was born in June 1922 and died in February of last year, died at "97歳" I'd be more likely to think they clumsily subtracted his birth year from the year he died), so I'm reluctant to just assume it is still commonly done in China (or Vietnam). However, the "今年" part of the above quote makes me also think that maybe they were going by the photo with his birth year but not the month or day showing and (not clumsily, since they hedged their bets with the wording) subtracting the birth year from the death year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a lot of Chinese biographies and I can confirm that most Chinese obituaries still use East Asian age reckoning, which is usually a year older than the Western age. For example, this obituary for Yang Enze reports his age as 100 even though he died before his 100th birthday. An article published when he was still alive also listed his age as 100. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Li's chat mentioned that 1937 coronavirus was isolation from chicken. We someone search that source and include in External links section. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article's source [3] has a screenshot of the Chinese chat as a reference. Logically, Li referenced the first cultivation of infectious bronchitis virus (avian coronavirus) in chicken embryos by Fred Robert Beaudette and C.B. Hudson, published in 1937 [4] in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association volume 90, pages 51–58 [5]. Wakari07 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add Li's CCP membership to his bio twice, and that has been removed by probably the same person twice (since the IP address is close and they have the same ban log). So I'm looking for some discussion here.
The first time he removed my edit with the reason "There are no political parties in China other than the Communist Party. Therefore, it is pointless to say that this person was a member of the Communist Party as part of his description." This is objectly false as there are other political parties in China. You may say they are just puppets of CCP or whatever, but they are still separate organizations, and as such you should not assume a Chinese can only be a member of CCP.
The second time he removed my edit with the reason "Mentioning that this particular individual was supposedly a member of the communist party is clear pandering by Chinese trolls. It is not common practice to list the political party of other scientists or doctors." Ignoring the ad hominem attack, the difference between Li and other scientists/doctors is that Li is also a whistleblower, and his membership is important to consider his motivation. From the article we can clearly see "he wrote in a private WeChat group of his medical school classmates" and "He was upset when the discussion gained a wider audience than he expected". Yet, I have seen plenty of people trying to portrait him as some sort of anti-CCP hero, which is not his intention. Here is one example I just saw that pushed me to talk here. As such I believe the membership is helpful to remind the future readers that there is more nuance to his story.
I also quickly reviewed this page in 9 other languages listed on the side bar. 4 of them list his party membership (Español, Français, 日本語, 中文). I do not see why this information need to be suppressed twice.
While I don't agree adding his party to the infobox is pandering to Chinese trolls and that the communist party is China's only political party. One of those staments is simply false and the other is just speculation and nonsense. However, I do not agree that his political party should be put in the infobox. For something to be in the infobox it needs to be relevant to the subjects notability, and from what I can see him being a member of the Communist Party is not at all significant to his notability. I completely support having it mentioned the Early life section like it is right now, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. You would have to prove that him being part of the party is significant to his notability. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking, but which Wikipedia policy/guideline says all the details of an infobox must relate to their notability? The infobox should contain biographical facts that are within the article. Acalycine (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its standard under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE for things notable about the person to be in the infobox and things not to be excluded. Li Wenliang was not a politician or a political person; therefore, his political affiliation is simply not important. This is why we don't put death cause on every infobox; death cause is only included if its relevant to notability. Its similar thing with political party. For example, Fred Rogers was a Republican, but since he wasn't a political person we don't include it in his infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says "present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." I think thats the guideline your looking for! Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, take a look at his selfie, there is a badge on his right collar. He was proud of being a party member. Also, many people in China were asked or willing to join the party, but they were not necessarily working in the government system. A teacher, a doctor or a worker can be a party member when they are at school. Sky-Dream (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1.
In the article, under the CORONAVIRUS INFECTION section, it says:
"On 12 January, [Dr] Li was admitted to intensive care at Houhu Hospital District, Wuhan Central Hospital, where he was quarantined, treated, and tested ... "
Then in the next section, DEATH, it says:
"According to a colleague, Li's condition became critical on 5 February. On 6 February, while Li was on the phone with a friend, he told the friend that he was having trouble breathing and that his oxygen saturation had dropped to 85%. At around 19:00, he was sent to the emergency room.""
Why would he have been removed from an ICU in order to be taken to the emergency room? Unless he was no longer in an ICU when he failed, but had been stepped-down to a standard medical floor, and there was no room in the ICU for him to return there? Please clarify.
2.
I did not read the following in any RS or even non-RS, but in the comment section to an online newspaper article. The poster claimed that Dr Li's wife was hospitalized in critical condition with the virus. Is this true? If so, did she survive and did her fetus survive?
In the intro, it claimed he warned people worldwide. But that's an overstatement. He only warned his fellow medics. There didn't seem to be any indication that he even planned to tell the rest of the world, and after he got arrested and the virus was already well known.. That was when he had interviews with the international media but before then. When the virus was relatively unknown, he only told his colleagues only. That's not the same thing as warning people internationally or worldwide.
The book "Snake Oil: How Xi Jinpeng Shut Down The World" claims that there is no evidence of Li Wenliang's existence prior to January 27th, 2020, and there is no corroborating evidence of his allegedly viral warnings about the new virus prior to February beyond claims in government-controlled news outlets. It ought to be easy to puncture this conspiracy theory. What sources exist that can be confirmed to be before those dates, and which are not under the control of the Chinese government, referring to Li Wenliang or his warning? 2601:600:8180:7560:433:AFA4:6F6B:2124 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that his Weibo blog, linked from the article, was started on 2019-11-26 and contains nothing more significant than forwards before the alleged "announcement". It looks like a low-quality psy-op to create a "preexisting" blog with prior unrelated posts. To Serve Man (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four days later he was summoned to the Public Security Bureau where he was told to sign a letter. In the letter he was accused of "making false comments" that had "severely disturbed the social order".
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done That's a direct quotation from the source. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
