This is an archive of past discussions about SARS-CoV-2. 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.
I would like to contribute an animation detailing the structural biology behind the first stage of cell entry of SARS-CoV-2. This animation is based on the following research articles:
I am not sure how we would use this, but it would not be incorporated into the article in this form. It would have to be uploaded and copyright status would need to be determined. It's possible it could be added to the "external links" section at the end of the article. Dekimasuよ!02:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Original creator of the video here. I would be happy to contribute by having the video added to the external links section. FlorisvdF09:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Who are the 'protectors' of Wikipedia? The last four fundamental principles of Wikipedia might be in danger when editors assume the roles they are ascribing to themselves before the media which go beyond their regular community roles of administration and maintenance. The public image of Wikipedia is likely tarnished, as well as, other editors. What do you think about stories like these? See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-coronavirus-page/Church of the Rain (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
All editors in good standing who edit in good faith are "protectors" of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can be protected both by maintaining and by describing Wikipedia principles, policies, and guidelines. Dekimasuよ!02:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't intend to reply to this further here, but if you believe there is an issue, then a more centralized venue is probably appropriate. Dekimasuよ!03:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Change:
The basic reproduction number ( R 0 {\displaystyle R_{0 R_{0}) of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9
to
The basic reproduction number ( R 0 {\displaystyle R_{0}} R_{0}) of the virus has been estimated to be 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)
Please note that this is a single journal article, not a CDC estimate, as I noted in a removal here ("that's a number from a single preprint study submitted to a journal published by the CDC, not an estimate by the CDC itself"). Further, the fact that this journal article yielded an estimate of 5.7 does not change the fact that other estimates were between 1.4 and 3.9, so it would not simply overrule those estimates. And they noted that they are talking about a period during which there was a much higher rate of travel and contact than would normally be expected, which is not what we generally mean by R_{0}. (The possible range of their estimates beyond what is in the text is in Appendix 1.4, and it seems like they yield the high number because of an assumption that detection did not increase over time, but my objection to inclusion right now is not on those grounds.) Given that this is a preprint with a result far from what's been accepted to date, I think we should probably wait a bit to see what reactions to it are. Of course, we can continue to discuss it here. Dekimasuよ!18:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Repeated addition of "China Virus"
Half of Symphony Regalia's contributions to Wikipedia now consist of adding "China Virus" to this article in different forms. WP:POVNAMING requires that a "name is widely used in reliable sources"; the sources added here are reliable, but none of them calls the virus by this name. They simply use it as shorthand in titles. China virus does not even redirect here (nor should it) and this is not a common name for this virus. The addition is a description, not a name; in some of the sources added, "China" is just part of a chain of adjectives, and "China" is only adjacent to "virus" because it describes the place discussed in the article ("China virus death toll"). In my view, this is like saying we should add "Chinese food" as an alternate title at Fried rice or, say, add "Gent superstar" as an alternate title at Jonathan David on the basis of a headline that says Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar.
The edits ([1][2]) also involve removing the naming section, including the information on WHO sometimes calling this "the COVID-19 virus" and (conveniently) the explanation of why the WHO deprecates names that involve places, or why it was ICTV that chose the strain name. Now, I think there was always some idea that the naming section would be temporary, but the removal in this fashion looks to me to be counterproductive. The new version of the introduction says the virus is called "China Virus", doesn't explain what the ICTV is, and says nothing about WHO usage. I have reverted using a chain of more and more descriptive summaries ("unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names", "rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify", "Cite does not even verify the addition; it is used in the title as shorthand for "a virus in China", not as a name for the virus, and is never used in the article body. And yes, we do care about WP:POVNAMING. The added *descriptive* title is rare and unnecessary (105 Ghits)") to no effect, so other opinions on this would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ!01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I added "China Virus" to the collection of informal names, because it is an informal name that is used to refer to the topic, and encyclopedias are supposed to include this information. It is used as a shorthand in titles because that is what a lot of people search for. In other words the existence of it as shorthand in the title of multiple reliable major sources, is direct evidence of the fact that many people use that specific phrase when looking for information on the topic. Furthermore, it is not only used as shorthand. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. I understand that the name may bother dekimasu and possibly others, but it is a name that is used, and removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. For instance the article for the novel And Then There Were None has an extremely derogatory alternative name, but the article includes it because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information and not interpret it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Just because you have cherry picked a handful of examples that use the term does not mean the term is widely used. Out of hundreds of articles on this outbreak you have cited less than half a dozen. Some of these are using the term not as "China virus" but as part of a sentence. You talk good game for somebody with less than 10 edits across your entire account history. "Dereliction of duty"? Give a break. what's next, proclaiming yourself persecuted like Gallileo? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. Additionally I've witnessed many, many, many, many people use this term informally on all varieties of internet platforms. If the article is going to mention names used informally, which it should so that people can find it, it should mention all them that are relevant. It is indeed a dereliction of duty and editor bias to remove relevant information from an article just because an editor does not like it, just as it is bias when your argument is based around the amount of edits someone has rather than the substance of what they are saying. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because people use term online does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedic article viewed by tens of thousands of people daily. For instance I see loads of people on reddit call racoons "trash pandas", is this name mentioned anywhere in the wikipedia article on raccons? No. The term "Trash Panda" redirects to the article, but there is no reference to the term anywhere in the article, as it isn't notable enought to include. Thousands of people of chinese descent are being racially abused and in some cases physically assaulted because of the outbreak. The term "China virus" is incredibly generic, Wuhan virus is at least more specific. Why is including this term in the article so important to you that you feel the need to repeatedly add it back in after it is removed? Why do you feel the need to push this issue when you have less than 20 edits to your name as an editor? You are repeatedly adding content to the article despite the fact that 2 editors disagree with you, engaging in WP:edit warring. In content disputes the burden of justification generally falls on those who are adding the content, and you have failed to prove your case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang, and so on. Second of all introducing social reasons at all as justification for removing relevant information from an encyclopedia article is a clear sign that you are biased on this topic, in that you are viewing it through an emotional lens. "China Virus" meets the same criteria that "Wuhan Virus" does, and as mentioned earlier removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. You're essentially making the argument that we should engage in social activism from the editing chair of Wikipedia to censor information that might be considered harmful, even when it is relevant. Whether some people consider the term offensive or not has nothing to do with if it qualifies for mention or not, and since it is used so widely it clearly does. No one is making the suggestion to re-name the article, but to simply include it in the single sentence that includes the other commonly used informal names. Such an extreme objection to a widely used and well-sourced variation does not seem reasonable to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The criteria for inclusion is not "all names used informally". Coverage is expected to be balanced, and the term you are adding is rare. See WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." No one here has been removing anything on the sole basis of not liking it. The fact that you are continuing to add the same name to the article despite objections from multiple editors shows that, as presumably a new editor, you might benefit from reviewing Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRDD. We have taken out the more detailed naming section to which you objected, but you have now added "China Virus" [sic] at least five times despite explanations as to why sources showing the phrase are using it as a description, not a name, and only rarely. This is edit warring. Dekimasuよ!05:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The term I'm adding is not rare though. It is extremely common; in fact it is so common that you yourself cited an instance of a major Canadian newspaper using it, apology or not. It being used as a descriptive name in title of multiple major reliable sources still indicates that it is what many people call the virus, and as mentioned prior it is not only used descriptively. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. You've also mentioned social concern as justification for not including the name, and I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise editors would be able to arbitrarily censor politically sensitive articles. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Consensus and it mentions that consensus should be reached while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Why again to do you feel the need to push your views on this particular article when you seem to have absolutely no desire to edit the rest of the encyclopedia? Why is this so important to you that after having the content repeatedly removed from the article you add it again and again? Is the artice significantly improved by the addition of this name? Not really. I don't understand why you repeatedly feel the need to add it. The chinese government has condemned the use of the phrase. Wikipedia's content is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Would the term "China virus" be used in a Brittanica article on SARS-COV-2? Probably not. "I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines," says the editor with less than 30 edits. I think the term can be included in wikipedia if you provide better evidence that the term has signifcant use colloquially, but it shouldn't be in this article, it should really be included in Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, where I think it fits better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You mentioning edit count again in a judgmental fashion, I believe, only showcases that you are biased and are avoiding arguments of substance. Including a reliably sourced phrase is not "pushing my views", but rather improving the article and making it more representative. It is precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that it is not supposed to exclude pertinent information based on whether it is positive or not. The views of the Chinese government, which of course is an organization that is not neutral in any sense of the word, should not influence what is allowed on Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is preposterous and contrary to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I think removing the informal names section entirely is best, as the "Wuhan Coronavirus" name has fallen into disuse as the virus has become a global pandemic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Removing both phrases, when both are valid and used, simply because you don't like one of them but cannot find a good reason to disqualify only one of them, seems like tendentious editing. This degrades the user experience because people who use those names now will be unable to find the article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not actually how finding articles works, but the stated reason "fallen into disuse" is clearly different from your characterization "don't like". Wuhan virus and Wuhan coronavirus still redirect to this article. Dekimasuよ!05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The name(s) have not fallen into disuse, and his stated justification for assuming so is factually incorrect. As it stands 85% of cases are currently in China. Also, I was referring to people using search engines. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You have not presented any evidence that "China Virus" is common. "Common" is not the same as "I can find cases of it on the internet." Try going to Google, putting in the search string ("China virus" -"China's virus"), and going to the last page of results. I get under 120 total Google hits, or 196 in Google News–this might even be considered surprisingly low, but then the phrase uses substandard grammar. How many do you get? These are overwhelmingly either false positives or headlines that are honing in on a location and an article topic–that is, describing the article contents, not naming something "China Virus". I pointed this out above in the example of the headline "Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar". That headline is not creating the new name Gent superstar by inserting it in the headline. The first actual hit I see that refers to what you are adding here is from the Bangkok Post: "China virus cases drop as foreign fears rise". This is a reference to where virus cases are emerging, not an attempt to describe "cases of the China Virus". The second I get is a Nikkei article about South Korea that reads, "The 'hate China virus' could end up being as harmful as the epidemic that is threatening to put a crimp on the nation's economy." Next is an ABC News story, "Mainland China virus cases rise again after earlier decline." In no sense is the story calling this coronavirus "China virus". The Washington Post article is behind a paywall, so I can't see it. But I have no reason to think it's any different. And it doesn't employ caps in the strange way you are attributing to it.
You have now added this at least six times, even though no one has agreed with your position. You have been warned, by an editor not taking part in this discussion, that this represents edit warring and can result in being blocked from editing. It seems that you believe this represents taking a stand against censorship, but what you are really doing is not listening and rehashing. It is important for all of us at Wikipedia to be supportive of new editors, but since you are not working on anything else, there is a thin line here between Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. I suggest that you try to contribute to the encyclopedia in other productive ways so that you do not end up the subject of a preventative block. Dekimasuよ!03:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Although it is extremely common, I'd like to point out that the phrase "China Virus" does not have to be common (which can be hard to quantify as informal terms by definition do not show up on formal internet articles very often) to qualify for mention as an informal name. Rather, it has to be informal and it has to have reliable sources. It is, and it does. I've presented just as much credible evidence, and in fact even more, as there is for "Wuhan Virus". It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. And yes the Washington Post article does use it as "China Virus", and this should be apparent to anyone as the paywall does not prevent the viewing of the title.
Two people does not constitute a consensus, the only other person here disagreeing with me is actively involved in the editing, has made arguments centered around personal social views/the approval of the Chinese government/edit counts indicating that he/she is extraordinary biased in regards to this topic, and seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Yes I am aware that it has stigma, and no the encyclopedia including it is not an endorsement. If you are insinuating that you are threatening to ban me for following the guidelines and engaging in a proper open discussion, then I'd like to point out that edit warring works in both directions, and that I welcome others to review this case. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to "ban you". I have given you actionable advice, and so far it looks like you are not interested in following up on prevalence on Google, addressing the idea that there is a difference between a description and a name, discussing WP:PROPORTION, or working in other areas. As far as who is edit warring: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject may be informative. It is good that you are engaging in discussion. Engaging in discussion does not justify reinserting the same text a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing, when you know the addition is still being opposed by other editors. Dekimasuよ!05:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I followed up on most of those in my prior response, and both of you have yet to inform me which guideline was used to justify the arbitrary removal of reliably sourced information concerning the virus. As far as I'm concerned you and the other editor simply do not like those names and thus want them gone even though they are reliably sourced, but is not that the definition of editor bias? This question is not in bad faith. I'd also like to point out that engaging in discussion does not justify removing reliably sourced information a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing. There should be no reason to remove reliably sourced information from an encyclopedia article as long as it is reliably sourced and in the proper context, which it was. I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The list is specifically of points that you have not addressed. I am confused as to why you are readding “China Virus” repeatedly when you know you have not convinced anyone of the validity of your argument. The idea that there is such a name has not been established, and I have given logical evidence to the contrary. Even were the name established to be in circulation at some level, it is not the case that all cited statements are valid inclusions. I gave you the example of WP:PROPORTION, but another one is the idea that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” (WP:NOT). Rather than violate WP:3RR on purpose for little benefit, you could have attempted to address some of these issues, or you could just slow down and not try to right great wrongs (the great wrong of censorship, I assume, although that is not what is taking place here). Dekimasuよ!10:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I have addressed those points though, and ignoring the rebuttals does not change that. It wasn't that it was being repeatedly re-added, but rather than it was being repeatedly removed (despite being reliably sourced) for political reasons. WP:PROPORTION was already in effect here, because there was only one sentence on it, and “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” (WP:NOT) does not apply here as that concerns things like numerical data and lyric databases; in other words collections of information out of context, while the two names were of course in the proper context of the introduction to an article, with independent sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No, the original point has never been addressed: "WP:POVNAMING requires that a 'name is widely used in reliable sources'; the sources added here are reliable, but none of them calls the virus by this name. They simply use it as shorthand in titles. ... The addition is a description, not a name; in some of the sources added, 'China' is just part of a chain of adjectives, and 'China' is only adjacent to 'virus' because it describes the place discussed in the article." I subsequently also asked you to discuss the relative prevalence of the name, which is different from presenting individual examples of it. You have not done that either. Anyway, here is an example of the evidence you could have given, from Google Trends: in the last 90 days, the phrase "China virus" is said to have received roughly 1/50 the searches of "coronavirus" in South Africa, India, and New Zealand. (This is actually a higher value than I would have expected!) In all other countries it is 1/100 or less. WP:NOTEVERYTHING certainly does apply here. The first sentence of the section on not being an indiscriminate collection of information explains that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Now, it must be kept in mind that the existence of the term as a prevalent name has not been established as being true here. But in either event the idea that the phrase "China virus" (not "China Virus") has been used in a small number of newspaper titles is not proportionally one of the most important thing to convey to readers. If you really think you addressed these points, then please summarize your argument again, because I do not understand what you are trying to argue here. Dekimasuよ!15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I did directly address that multiple times. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. I addressed "relative prevalence" as well in that anything included in the title is consider extremely important in relation to the editorial content. It being used as a descriptive name in title of multiple major reliable sources still indicates that it is what many people call the virus, as search engines give priority to the text in article titles and the publications know this. Google Trends shows relative traffic, not absolute traffic. Considering that "coronavirus" is used globally among over 8 billion people, 1/50th or 1/100th of that relative traffic still means that many millions of people use the term. The case for arbitrarily removing Wuhan Virus is even weaker I believe, as it is even more popular of a term. Entire countries use the term. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"1/100 or less" is, I think, the measure for anything below 1/100. That is, 0 would also come back as "<1%". Please feel free to link to any actual numerical results you find. Dekimasuよ!03:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Having a decent edit count implies experience and investment in the content of the encyclopedia. Almost all of your edits have to do with the controversy, and nothing else. How can you proclaim to speak with authority on the content and purpose of wikipedia when you have barely edited it, against people who have been here for years and have made thousands of edits? Tens of thousands of people read this article every day, what makes you think that your opinion is more valid than any other person? I was once in a similar position to yourself as a suspicious new user nearly three years ago now, and people distrusted me then, but I was reasonable and explained myself and then people listened to me. You are showing no desire to seek concensus or come to any sort of compromise, but repeatedly re-add the content to the article against the opinion of multiple contributors, as if some invisible "will of the people" agrees with you. The reason I am terse with you is that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, you repeat the same claims over and over again in spite of evidence to the contrary that you don't address in the hope that your persistance will eventually force us to give in and that the content will be included, as often happens in wikipedia discussions, plus the fact that you repeatedly add the content back to the article as if your opinion is the only one that matters, which is extremely rude. The informal names already link to the article as redirects, so it isn't exactly hard for people to find the article using these names. Please desist from re-adding the content to the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Correlation does not equal causation. Insisting that people without decent edit counts must lack those qualities is of course logically flawed and in many cases incorrect. It also seems you are implying that your opinion is more important than others because you registered your account earlier, which is of course a very problematic way of thinking to have, and also highlights the substantial bias I've been talking about. Indeed, you are showing no desire to seek consensus or come to any sort of compromise at all. The content has only been added back because it is reliably sourced and did not violate any guidelines, but was removed due to what seems to be personal editor bias. Which brings me to the point: seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Please desist from removing properly sourced content from the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. That includes the reliably sourced "Wuhan Virus", which was present by other editors long before this discussion started and is not even the topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there was a great deal of compromise with your position: your removal of the naming section was accepted (note that you did not object to the removal of reliable sources there). Your idea that some nicknames should not receive more focus than others is what resulted in the removal of the other geographic names, at a time when that removal was finally appropriate, considering that the name has now been "SARS-CoV-2" for as long as it was under the provisional name "2019-nCoV" or was simply in a state where there was no single widely-accepted name. The only part of your edits that was strenuously objected to was the idea that this coronavirus is often called "China Virus", and you gave only weak anecdotal evidence in support of your position, such as cramped-for-space newspaper headlines of articles that never use the phrase in the body, and with no evidence of widespread use in other reliable sources–particularly the sorts of reliable sources that are favored here, generally WP:MEDRS. Dekimasuよ!10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The name section was only removed because it was redundantly restating the naming information in the now censored 3rd paragraph of the introduction, and was added after. The idea that some nicknames should receive more focus than other is contrary to WP:NPOV because it introduces an avenue for editor bias. Names that have achieved notability (something the average person has heard of) and are included in reliable sources should not be removed without good reason. The Chinese government does not comment on names that people don't use. Furthermore, the evidence for "China Virus" was not anecdotal. Multiple major reliable sources including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC News, Aljazeera, Canadian newspapers, among others is anything but anecdotal. And the evidence for "Wuhan Virus" was solid as well, in that it was already accepted by you so you're contradicting yourself now. The real reason that "Wuhan Virus" was suddenly removed, despite being a name that millions of people actively use to find help, is because you could not find a valid reason to remove the other reliably sourced name from the article that you happen to personally dislike, so you're deciding to attempt to skirt the rules by throwing them out all together. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Body text is supposed to repeat and expand upon information introduced in the lede. That is how articles are written here. It remains the case that none of the sources you have presented used "China virus" in body text, and none of them used it in any way different from my earlier example of "Gent superstar". I do not have a particular "personal dislike" for the phrase "China virus", beyond the fact that it is vague, rare, and unnecessary. But your attempt to paint all removals as unacceptably moralistic is also imprudent. We are expected to maintain a neutral point of view. That does not mean that Wikipedia is some sort of exercise in detached antihumanism where we prove our disinterestedness by affecting a lack of concern for the implications of our edits. Dekimasuよ!14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand that, but there is a fine line between "expanding upon" and restating redundantly. If anything, now that the paragraph has been removed, the name section should be added back with this information to help users find the article from search engines, and to be more complete. I do believe you have a personal dislike for the name and that it was your primary motivation for opposing the inclusion. Otherwise why would you mention social issues at the beginning of this discussion? In regards to detacted antihumanism, simply listing reliably-sourced informal names is a far cry from that. To quote Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia". The article for the novel And Then There Were None has an extremely derogatory alternative name, but the article includes it because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information and not interpret it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
See WP:GRATUITOUS. "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Whether the material in question is considered offensive or not, it has not been established that its inclusion makes the article more informative in any substantial fashion. I would mention WP:PROPORTION again here, but it is clear that we simply have different views on the proportional importance of the fact in this context. That's what makes consensus important in these types of discussions. At the moment, it still appears clear to me that consensus does not favor addition of the term. Although only three editors have engaged in most of the discussion here, the other comments we do have are generally against inclusion. Dekimasuよ!03:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No one has made the argument that material should be included simply because it's offensive, but plenty of people have made the argument that material should be excluded because it is offensive. Verily so, and while I am assuming good faith, your initial summary mentioned it being "derogative" as a reason for non-inclusion. It also seems consensus has changed a bit since then. I believe the sources and the notable people using this term to refer to the virus, ultimately speaks for itself. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that overall consensus has changed despite the appearance of a few new voices below. The answer to this claim about my summaries was responded to on March 7, a few paragraphs below, in a message even older than the 16-day-old post you are replying to here. "No, my first reversion said unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names. The name is deprecated by the WHO. One of the WHO's reasons is that it is derogatory. Therefore, my second reversion said rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify." I was not the source of the claim that it was derogatory. I understand how the second edit summary could be read that way. But I explained it to you weeks ago. We all assume good faith, but you have been warned or blocked by more than five administrators for tendentiousness here. I suggest dropping the stick. Dekimasuよ!01:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Symphony Regalia is now engaging in personal attacks using edit summaries. For the record, 1) I am not "colluding" with Hemiauchenia; I do not think we have ever interacted outside of the context of this article. 2) No one is engaging in "censorship" here. 3) The idea that the virus might be called "China Virus" by someone does not represent "information sensitive to the Chinese government". There is no grounds for accusing any editors here of having political purposes. This is an article on an organism, not a political topic. I do not now and never have had any association with the Chinese government. 4) The edit summary claims that Symphony Regalia is not the only one (!) in violation of 3RR here, but Hemiauchenia is not in violation of 3RR here. I did not even report Symphony Regalia's fourth addition of the same text in 8 hours, but now we're at a fifth addition, and it does not appear that the editor has any intention of desisting from violating the 3RR, so intervention appears to be needed. It's unfortunate that Symphony Regalia has decided to go down the path of falling on a sword ("I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends"). Dekimasuよ!10:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I checked out his claims that the term is being widely used online, on twitter it seems to be used maybe a dozen times an hour?, which when compared with the coronavirus traffic as a whole is really insignificant, so Symphony Regalia's reasoning doesn't hold up at all.Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so your reasoning doesn't hold up at all. The term qualifies for inclusion because it has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. Excluding these terms because some editors dislike them for political reasons, seems very strange to me and sounds like something we should be avoiding. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggesting that we are trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese government as you have accused me of in edit summaries is hilarious and quite frankly pure conspiratard and you know it. If 12 tweets an hour on twitter are using it (slightly under half by bots), then what's the chances that it is a widely used term? You have completely failed to make your case outside of anecdotes and innuendo. The fact that you are so entitled that you think that your edit deserves to be seen and read by tens of thousands (~60,000 daily views as of yesterday) of people is quite frankly ludicrous. The fact is that three editors have now disagree with you, so you can't just proclaim that it's just us who are biased. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so your reasoning doesn't hold up at all. Multiple major reliable sources including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC News, Aljazeera, Canadian newspapers, among others is anything but anecdotal. And the evidence for "Wuhan Virus" was solid as well, in that it was already accepted by everyone. The real reason that "Wuhan Virus" was suddenly removed without reason, despite being a name that millions of people actively use to find help, is because you could not find a valid reason to remove the other reliably sourced name from the article that you happen to personally dislike, so you're deciding to attempt to skirt the rules by throwing them out all together. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Your friend has engaged in at least 4 (!) personal attacks using edit summaries, and you've completely failed to mention this at every stage which is more evidence of the fact that you are transparently biased and engaging in favoritism, in a campaign to censor information that personally bothers you. If we look back at the first edit summary you used when you removed said name, you gave the reason that said name is "derogatory" which means you were seeing it through the lenses of social issues, and having an emotional response which to me indicates bias. The article is of course not on an political topic, but naming is inherently political. 1) There is additional evidence that suggests that you two know each other. 2) If the arbitrary removal of long standing reliably sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike is not censorship, then what is? 3) In general there would be no grounds for accusing editors of political bias, but when you came to this talk page one of the first things you mentioned, in regards to censoring these terms, was social issues. This indicates that you are politically biased. 4) Not only that but you've cited the approval of the consul general of China in Vancouver, andHemiaucheniahas directly cited the approval of the Chinese government. In other words you've both directly cited the approval of the Chinese government as rational to remove reliably sourced information. The views of the Chinese government, which of course is an organization that is not neutral in any sense of the word, should not influence what is allowed on Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is preposterous and contrary to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. This is extremely concerning to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This is getting to be a Gish gallop. No, my first reversion said unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names. The name is deprecated by the WHO. One of the WHO's reasons is that it is derogatory. Therefore, my second reversion said rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify. All of those things are still true. In writing any article, it is important to determine what the most essential facts about the topic are and present them to the reader. This is an article about a virus. It had a section about why certain names are favored over others, but you deleted that section. If the way the virus has been officially named is not one of the most important things to present to the reader, then it certainly isn't important to present the reader with evidence that a variety of vague or misleading names have been used from time to time. There is still a redirect to this article from Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus. But the name is very rare, becoming rarer, and there are arguments that the virus did not come from Wuhan or from the seafood market. Now, you can look into the archives to see places I have specifically criticized some of the data coming out of China that seems to be biased on behalf of the government in some way. For example, I argued against removing the sentences linking the seafood market to the virus at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 4#Discussion of a source. The study I am arguing against including (for now) in the section below argues that the S and L types changed in frequency because of the "effectiveness" of the response of the Chinese government; the way it is described in that article strikes me as irregular, which is one my qualms with it. But in the end, you are attributing a variety of qualities to me that are not the case: I do not "dislike" the term, I do not know Hemiauchenia, I do not have political bias in favor of China, and you are unwilling to accept my statements to the contrary.
Ah, I see I have not yet responded directly to point #4. First, do me a favor, and I really mean this. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/Community view and find my addition, and then see if I seem to be biased in favor of the Chinese government.
Next, I did not "cite the approval of the consul general of China in Vancouver". I pointed out the only other place on Wikipedia where the term "China virus" is used to apply to this virus, and that is the place. The specific point that I made about the article was that the editor of the very paper that used the phrase said it was not used as "a name". But in either event, naming the virus after a place name would be deprecated no matter what place the virus arose in. I would be arguing against the name "Taiwan virus" if the virus arose in Taiwan. I would be arguing against the name "Symphony Regalia virus" if someone tried to name the virus after you. Now, if everyone called that, it would be a different story. But four or six news headlines do not rise to the level of a name that requires coverage in an article. Dekimasuよ!14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A virus by any other name is just as deadly. Months from now, nobody is going to care if the virus was called "Wuhan Coronavirus" or "China virus" or "Trump virus". The virus has spread all over the world, such that China is even banning travel from Italy (and other countries) to protect its own Chinese citizens from the outbreak. If anything, the media is mostly calling SARS-CoV-2 informally as "the coronavirus" if not "the COVID-19 virus". If you want to list all the names this virus has been called in "reputable" news and publications, get your own page. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. We go by WP:RS, not by normative bodies. The WP:RS CNA and NDTV, which have been arbitrarily deleted, call the virus the Wuhan Virus. This name may appear undesirable to some editors, but if that's what the sources call it, it is a core Wikipedia policy that we go by the sources. Right now the "Wuhan Virus" moniker has been added down the page, which is questionable, but, whatever. The name should be bolded to meet Wikipedia's policy. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Although I reinstated the older paragraph, usage of "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus" spiked briefly in the last week of January when infections were almost entirely confined to China. It was also used in coverage at that time–at a time when there was no established name for the virus beyond "novel coronavirus". Since then, and particularly since the disease and virus were given actual names, it has fallen precipitously to under 1/6 of its original peak, even as overall coverage of the virus has increased exponentially, such that both names barely register as a blip. Even at their peaks, these terms were used less than 5% as much as "coronavirus". As above, existence in sources is not the same as proportional relevance to the article topic. (The CNA source does not use "Wuhan virus" in the text of the article. It is in meta-material on the page. The article itself is from early February. The NDTV article is from January 22. NDTV does not use that name anymore, although it also tends to not be clear on the difference between the virus and the disease.) Dekimasuよ!06:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it is ridiculous that names still in usage by many people, that are reliably-sourced, can be arbitrarily removed from encyclopedic articles simply because some editors do not personally like them. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not salutary to your position to cast aspersions on "some editors" when they have specifically told you that "personal dislike" is not the concern here. (This also applies to your restoration of a vandal's template on my talk page, a template that entails assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline that editors here are expected to follow so that we can have productive discussion. The short explanation of WP:AGF reads "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives.") Please argue your point, if necessary, without continuing to claim that the motive for others to oppose it is "personal dislike". Dekimasuよ!04:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Such claims were not arbitrarily, but rather made in regards to editors who invoked social issues, and thus personal politics, as justification for removal. In any case, noted. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The virus has spread throughout the world. This is not the time to call the virus a "China Virus" or criticize those people. This is a time to inform people. Why is this argument continuing? Foxtail286 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It takes a poor command of the English language to believe that the name "China Virus" is in any way is a criticism of a people. China virus simply means it arose zoönotically in China. I, for one, do not like French food. What kind of sad mental gymnastics would it take to say I have anything against France, a country I love, have lived in, and will return to literally a handful of days after it reopens its borders? XavierItzm (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended discussion on topics unrelated to article content
The user seems to have no understanding of the nuanced differences between ethnic group and nationality, or have ever met actual chinese people. Considering in one comment previously in this thread he stated that "First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang, and so on." While it is true that chinese is a nationality, 90% of China's population is Han Chinese, an ethnic group, who are widely referred to simply as "Chinese". While I can understand the reference to Uyghurs, who are the "Black Chinese" and "White Chinese" being erased exactly? It strikes me as disingenuous. In a previous edit summary on the page American Born Chinese he states that it is a "contradictory term/misnomer", which again just seems to be pure ignorance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Your sock puppet report was immediately closed because it was bogus. Filling bogus reports against someone when you can't support your case here with substance reflects quite poorly, and is indeed a dereliction of duty. This highlights that you are playing dirty, and calls into question your impartiality. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't immediately closed, that was the second case where I tried to go after your account directly. In the first case it was confirmed that the account you were allegedly using to try to intimidate Dekimasu with, Karicodex was indeed confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of Architect_134, a notorious sockpuppeteer. Don't think you're pulling the wool over my eyes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes it was, and I have no idea who that is. The fact that you filed two denied bogus reports against me within a span of 20 minutes or so highlights that you may be becoming a bit unhinged. I am indeed having a hearty laugh over you non-ironically accusing me of "conspiritard thinking" earlier in this discussion. Please keep in mind that we can not have a production discussion if you are going to engage in a petty, one-sided harassment campaign against editors that disagree with you. :^) Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Disregard my above statement, Architect_134 is a notorious troll who imitates users that get blocked for edit warring in an attempt to get them further punishment. I can now say you are merely obstinate and not a troll. Also the troll didn't use "deriliction of duty" 0/10. The fact that you left yourself open to be convincingly imitated by a troll is pretty embarassing. I admit I was completely fooled. Why would you revert Dekimasu removing the trolls warning? Did you not think that made you look really suspicious? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
What would be the point of having this discussion? You obviously have an opnion that is fixed that isn't going to change and other contributors who diagree with you. The answer is that your change will not be implemented and the discussion should end now. I don't see why you are laughing at the conspiratard, as believing that me and Dekimasu are censoring wikipedia on behalf of the Chinese Government is conspiratard. You've obviously closed of your mind after I was rude to you, and are clearly incapable of separating my contempt for you from logical arguments being made by Dekimasu and others. Ultimately if you wanted to make edits to articles without opposition, you wouldn't pick the article with 60,000 views a day, You went in at the deep end and that was your choice. You think that you're entitled to my respect, but you've done nothing to deserve it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative:, It's fine, my main issue it that Symphony doesn't listen to what we are saying at all and talks past us, it's like talking to a brick wall and is not productive at all, theres no use arguing with him. Ultimately if you're willing to listen and change your opinion and have something interesting to say, then I am all ears, no bite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I wouldn't be afraid to contribute. Hemiauchenia tried (and, of course, utterly failed) to attack and intimidate me with two bogus false reports for disagreeing with him, but I doubt that he will do it again now that he's been exposed. You should be safe. The discussion is very much still ongoing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
You don't understand, there was a deliberate troll pretending to be a sockpuppet of you in order for you to get banned. It wasn't false in that sense I wasn't making it up. I was decieved, not that I am particularly sorry about it. In many ways I am impressed by the troll considering how much angst they have stirred for barely any effort, masterful work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If your two bogus reports to intimate me for having an opinion you dislike was a misunderstanding, how about the 5 or 6 times you've personally insulted me? Frankly, it is difficult to take you seriously at all, and you are clearly not here to improve the article. Stop directing comments at me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative, sorry to hear that. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. As for editor behavior, I would suggest that all involved avoid escalating things unnecessarily. I filed one 3RR report to discourage edit warring here. It's unfortunate that there has been another cycle of 3RR reports and SPIs, but at least the article has been more stable. As far as my talk page is concerned, if I have removed a message, I have seen it; if I didn't file an SPI, there was probably a reason for that too. Dekimasuよ!03:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Pageview data. Brief spike of "Wuhan coronavirus", now does not register. "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" never registered. People are getting here (or to Coronavirus) fine without them. (During the peak of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), both the disease and the virus were covered at the same title, and there was a link to the article here from the current events section on the main page; now that only goes to the outbreak.) Dekimasuよ!06:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
May I humbly suggest we move an itemized list of "widely used names" for SARS-CoV-2 in its own section? While y'all can edit war on that section, the virus is still coming for the rest of us. Perhaps we should focus our energy on the details of the virus and the disease it causes, you know, stuff that might save people? If we survive this pandemic, like in a year or so, maybe we'll have the luxury to argue if names like "Chinese coronavirus" and/or "Chinora-virus" are worthy of inclusion. — Hasdi Bravo • 12:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to expand the names beyond what's there already. That was the upshot of the long discussion above. Before the edit war, I was certainly concentrating on the details of the virus. If there's anything in particular that should be covered that you think is missing, please let us know (maybe in a new talk section instead of here). Dekimasuよ!13:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the old "other stuff is more important than this" argument. But anyway as Dekimasu says, I thought the consensus was to avoid calling it the "Wuhan coronavirus" and that leaves you free to move on to the other important stuff. Although now I see that Dekimasu also reinserted the text yesterday, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We should be avoiding this, as noted above. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, to be clear, I readded it not because I wanted to, but because it seemed preferable to the additions that were being advocated by another editor as seen at the end of the section just above this one, or in the article edit seen here. If you think it should be removed again, your input is another indication that consensus leans toward removal. Please feel free to undo this edit if you think it's warranted. Dekimasuよ!14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is warranted so I have gone ahead and removed the re-addition as you suggest. Although there are a couple of dissenters above, there is consensus here and strong evidence that the name is no longer in general use, and it has been clearly deprecated by the WHO. As such we should not be bolding it or mentioning it, even with a caveat. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The name "Wuhan coronavirus" should certainly be mentioned in the article because it was widely used. It does matter if the WHO, scientists, or individual editors like it or not, it is unencyclopedic to remove it. In fact now in common use it is just called "coronavirus" so that should also be mentioned, even if it needs a qualification to say why that name is inadequate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I also want to add to this that the term has been used by several major US politicians recently, so it is still notable irrespective of partisanship. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The name should only be mentioned in the appropriate context of Trump supporters and their minions/drones using the term. It is not used in any reputable source. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})23:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It has been, as was shown by a few editors above. But it is not being used now, except in extremely rare cases. The reasons for this may have something to do with the politics you are alluding to, but the fact that it has fallen out of use is something that has happened outside of Wikipedia. It's not representative of censorship within Wikipedia. At any rate, the question has to return to whether or not to readd the third paragraph of the intro. It is pretty clear that there is consensus against referring to the geographic names in the first sentence of the article. Dekimasuよ!04:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we need some resolution on the third paragraph question, as Symphony Regalia has twice reinserted the paragraph this morning, citing the pre-existing status quo. I don't know if the leade said Wuhan coronavirus before, but things have moved on since January, when this term was in some limited use, to being rarely used now, which makes it WP:UNDUE to include it as well as flying in the face of WHO guidelines. — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The sourcing contributed by Symphony Regalia is quite solid. I think the positioning of this name is acceptable, though perhaps it would be better to move it closer to the top. I should add the BBC, generally considered a gold standard WP:RS: Dr Li was seen by many in China as a whistleblower and hero; the man who first highlighted the threat posed by the Wuhan virus outbreak. He himself succumbed to the disease.[1]XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that this sentence could also be parsed as "the man who first highlighted the threat posed by the Wuhan virus outbreak", that is, the outbreak of the virus in Wuhan, which is what Li was combating at the time. In fact it's pretty clear that's the correct interpretation, since "Wuhan virus" is never used elsewhere in the article but "coronavirus" appears 11 times. Dekimasuよ!11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the sources added by Symphony Regalia are evidence of use in reliable sources. They are not so much evidence of use by reliable sources, since the outlets themselves are not using these names in them. The actual text of the Fox News article uses "coronavirus" and "new coronavirus", and the text of the NBC News article uses only "the virus" except in the title. "Wuhan coronavirus" is only used in them in reference to direct quotes from politicians. The idea that the BBC might be using the title is helpful in that sense, but I don't think it holds up. Dekimasuよ!11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It should be said that the Chinese foreign ministry objects to the expression “Wuhan coronavirus,” as cited by WP:RS CNBC. Aside from yet another source that prints this informal name, the mere fact that there is a cabinet secretariat of a major country making a statement on the subject certainly ensures that the subject meets WP:NOTE, for if the thing were not notable at the highest levels, then it would be not worthy of mention.[2]. XavierItzm (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
As before, there is a difference between a reliable source using the term and a reliable source quoting a politician. This is not an article about politics. The informal names are tangential at best to the clearly delineated topic and scope of the article. There are, in fact, other articles that are about discourse on the pandemic. Thus, here WP:NOTEVERYTHING must still be fulfilled. A major politician calling Namibia "Nambia" does not automatically make "Nambia" worthy of mention in that article. A major comedian getting a large number of people to call a major politician "Drumpf" does not mean that "nickname" should be covered in the lede of that politician's article. One country's opinion of another country's politicians' language is about three levels removed from what this article is about: a virus. Dekimasuよ!14:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, couldn't have put it better myself. If every time people used a fringe name for something, and it was rejected by a government, we went ahead and put it prominently in our articles, we'd end up with all sorts of nonsense. — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Your "Namibia" and "Nambia" example is a typo though, and "Drumpf" does indeed redirect to an article that features it in the lede. Additionally I want to point out that not only just people, but major governments across the world use these names for the virus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
No one is talking about removing redirects. Though it's neither here nor there, "Nambia" was spoken, so it couldn't possibly be a typo. Dekimasuよ!02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with "China virus" not out of some kind of political correctness but out of accuracy. "China," a gigantic country, wasn't the source of the outbreak; Wuhan specifically was. That was the region, and this has always been the naming convention of diseases, for better or for worse. This is why all (non-PRC owned) original reporting from November-January from WP:RS referred to it as the "Wuhan Coronavirus." This is the spirit of NPOV. Regurgitating what PRC government propaganda wants, well, isn't NPOV. 24.26.218.181 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree on all points except I think that just like Wuhan Virus meets WP:UCRN, China Virus does as well, for many millions of regular people, whether one likes it, or not. Exactly like Spanish flu () and like German measles (). But I won't press the point. XavierItzm (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It's absolutely nothing like those cases, which are the common name used by a majority of English speakers and found frequently in sources. "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" are only used by a tiny minority of people and sources, and the fact that that seemingly includes the President of the US is irrelevant. It's a POV as well as a niche term, and has no place in our article. — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are allowed to contain POV material, but it should be mentioned whose POV it is, rather than making it a while article POV with would violate the NPOV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: when I checked last time, "China Virus" was being used around 12 times an hour on twitter, mostly by bots, which when considered against the traffic for the term "coronavirus" is nothing, so to appeal to the crowd of "millions of people" using the term is complete nonsense. I definitely think that Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia somewhere, just not the article about the virus itself, which largely focuses on technical description. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Twitter is not representative of the general population: «Twitter users are statistically younger, wealthier, and more politically liberal than the general population.»[3] Please do not bring your bubble to Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Having come back and checked, the number has gone up significantly, perhaps it is now 10 times a minute, compared to about 70 times a minute for Coronavirus itself. @XavierItzm: This isn't just some stupid semantic discussion, using the term on wikipedia risks normalising it, and normalising prejudices against chinese people, this isn't a fucking game. Over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_virus, most other contributors are agreeing that the disambiguation page should be kept or redirected to this article, at this point I can't disagree, as the term has significantly picked up in usage to refer to the virus. The problem is is that it validates Symphony Regalia's viewpoint in retrospect, when in fact the answer has changed since the discussion first started, making him look more right than he was initially, and making me look like a pompous jerk in denial, when actually when the discussion started it was not a widely used term, and his position was based on misinterpretation of newspaper article headlines. I still think that the term shouldn't be included withinin the article itself, under WP:DUE, but hopefully the link I provided to this discussion from the AfD will spur other uninvolved contributors to share their opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
An increase in absolute usage is not surprising but also not very informative in and of itself, since overall usage of any reference to coronaviruses is also sure to have increased exponentially. Since this discussion began, several English-speaking countries have gone from basically ignoring the outbreak to being locked down on a large scale. Any string of words related to the virus will have increased in frequency, and is not necessarily indicative of what is a common or proper name for the virus. Dekimasuよ!16:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally it seems just a casual phrase, especially used when the topic was relatively unknown. That the Chinese government prefers not to be associated is a reasonable political stance, but does not alter that the association exists or that casual phrasing happens, nor the point of origin being Wuhan. Will perhaps be better to get a separate section re gathering naming facts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have posted what I found in the subsection below for ‘just the facts what RS used the phrase’, from a basic google, and feel free to add any others using it as a virus reference there. Please put ‘just the facts of what RS used the phrase’ there, with links. Observations or discussion here or in some other subthread, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
^ALEXIS C. MADRIGAL (24 April 2019). "Twitter Is Not America". The Atlantic. Retrieved 23 March 2020. A new Pew study finds a gulf between the general population and Twitter users.
Just the facts of RS that used it
Let’s try to get this away from side discussions and onto one aspect of facts. I think it’s somewhat agreed that the phrase “China virus” or “Chinese virus” is commonly recognized as a naming, and was used by many RS. That seems separate from it being recently debated as maybe too casual or imprecise and perhaps derogatory. But I thought part of the question is whether it factually was used by many RS so here is a subsection for that question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Previously mentioned was “Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others”, and unnamed Canadian newspapers. Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett:, This was pointed out in the initial discussions by Dekimasu, their argument (which I agree with) is that the term "China virus" as a syn of SARS-CoV-2 isn't really being used, but that the apparent use of the term is merely the result of contraction in newspaper headlines, and that the term "China virus" or similar is never used in the body of the aricles text. The virus is far more commonly referred to simply as "the coronavirus" and that is probably more worthy of inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Hemiauchenia OFFTOPIC. This area is for resolving whether it factually was used by many RS, common and widespread. Please bear with the google-pasting takes a while. Whether it’s usage is COMMONNAME would be a separate debate. I suggest if you want ‘In text, not as title’ subthread we can pursue that, but facts first, and at the moment the Google is simply to ‘find phrase in many RS’ about the Pandemic, and to resolve whether that is fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Hemiauchenia more specifically, I am just listing RS usages from a google “the China virus” -racist and pasting links. That’s by specification all this subsection is for. Discussions of what that shows ... would be separate. First, let’s get some facts OK? Markbassett (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the discussion is about whether the use of "China virus" is validly used as a specific synonym for SARS-CoV-2 by the newspaper articles, which I am arguing it is not. Because "China virus" is being used as part of a newspaper headline contraction, and not a specific term, which I think means that the term is not validly used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Adjectival (contracted) usage is not invalid in itself, and non-adjectival usage does exist in newspaper headlines as I have shown. Such usage has only gone up recently due to the US president. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you are deliberately cherry picking sources from January and February? I promise you we are not going to call this the China virus in any Wikipedia article, so I suggest you move on. This looks an awful lot like POV pushing. - MrX 🖋20:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If that's what people are calling it, which a lot of people are, then yes we will. An encyclopedia that does not include that information, or worse willfully excludes it, is not meeting it's purpose and is thus unencyclopedic. If anything the insistence that it will not happen looks an awful lot like POV pushing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
User:MrX Personal attacks unwelcome. This subsection is to gather where it *is* used, facts for discussion it is under. Conclusions first needs facts of examples - please contribute any timeframe links to the virus you wish, but don’t jump to conclusions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Unhatting. Hatting leaves the impression that your central point is not being contested, but whether this represents "just the facts of RS that used it" is being actively disputed, so it is not off topic. I understand that you are arriving at the discussion now, but use only in headlines and not in body text was dealt with extensively above. Use as an adjective rather than a name (e.g. "China virus outbreak", which is talking about the location of a virus outbreak, not an outbreak of "China virus") was also discussed there. More than one editor argued that this did not constitute "using it". Dekimasuよ!22:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, and as discussed above not all sources use it as an adjective, and even adjectival usage itself is still indicative to a degree. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is Nature, the British multidisciplinary scientific journal: A comparison of the SARS and new China virus sequences, published on 16 January, found that they probably bind to the same receptor.[1] Markbassett is not wrong to ask to see the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
We had the same conversation 11 days ago when you bolded "Wuhan virus outbreak" instead of "Wuhan virus outbreak". Here you could have bolded virus sequences. Two words occurring next to one another is not evidence that they constitute a proper name. We seem to be constantly discussing whether Clifford the Big Red Dog is made out of chewing gum. Dekimasuよ!12:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The edit proposal is to add to the article one alternative name, based on the sources added by Markbassett as well as other sources, as appropriate. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
MrX, I agree that this particular discussion is not moving forward. It is clear that there is not going to be a consensus in favor of inclusion among the current participants, and it also seems clear that proponents have not been convinced to move on. If there is an RfC that is necessary afterwards in order to resolve the issue, we can have an RfC, of course. WP:EXHAUST applies here. The discussion shouldn't be decided based upon how much energy participants are willing to expend over a period of (now) several weeks. Dekimasuよ!13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Sadly I note there was an amazing resistance to look simply Googling out whatever sources did use the phrase. After repeated efforts to list such, I will point out that views opposing 'Chinese virus' being even examined persisted in disruption of this section for OFFTOPIC remarks that obscures the identification of sources which used the phrase. I hit repeated edit conflicts, saw multiple reverts of multiple hats, got personal accusation that simple Google was "cherry picking", and personal TALK threatening to topic-ban me, and ... generally everything in this subsection not listing a RS seems to simply be disruptive OFFTOPIC junk not having any wish to look for facts of sites re usage of the phrase or to allow such search for facts to occur. So I'm going to stop hatting and let the disruptions be their own evidence of 'if they had a good argument, they wouldn't be doing this'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Apparently people want to discuss more, so here is another subsection so they can without misplacing it in the subsection defined as just the facts of which RS used it (with stuff not a RS that used it). Have at, and cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
According to the sources, it is a WP:COMMONNAME, along with other names. So it should be added. A case could be built that not adding this name violates NPOV, but I am not sure it's been fully developed above. XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
When this discussion started on March 3, "China virus" got 105 Ghits. Today it has 130 Ghits (go to the last page to check; in your region the count may be slightly higher or lower). Many of these hits are false positives. Several others are reporting about politicians and/or xenophobia. However, there is no evidence of reliable sources using this phrase consistently in body text. As I wrote in the first post here four weeks ago, we would not add "Gent superstar" as an alternate title at Jonathan David on the basis of a headline that says "Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar". Nor would we add "celebrity chef" as a "common name" at Floyd Cardoz because of the headline "Celebrity chef dies of coronavirus". There is a difference between two words that sometimes appear next to one another, or a description, and two words that constitute a common name.
My response here is only to ensure that silence is not seen as agreement. The current discussion should either be closed to avoid WP:REHASHing it with a revolving cast of editors, or it should be turned into a new, neutrally-worded RfC in a new section that proposes something actionable. Dekimasuよ!02:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"China virus" is a deliberately provocative name, and the only time that reliable sources refer to the virus responsible for Covid-19 in this manner is in reference to this provocative use. It is therefore more decidedly not the COMMONNAME of the virus, and should only appear in this article if it is in reference to the use of "China virus" in that way. This is not rocket science, this is standard Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:RS such as this from March 2020 give the lie to your argument: Fortescue hopes for China virus recovery as steel backlog buildscitation BTW this was already cited above by Markbassett but people are choosing to turn a blind eye to the reliable sources. What could be sadder than that? XavierItzm (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you read that article? It sums up how these sources are not evidence of what is being claimed. It is an Australian article about China specifically recovering from disruption caused by the virus ("virus recovery"), not "China virus" recovery. First sentence: "...Fortescue Metals says the fall in new coronavirus cases in China provides hope...." And again, "China virus" is not used in the body text. Dekimasuよ!21:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect, it is used in the title as a noun “China virus” recovery, not apostrophe China’s “virus recovery”. It seems a SMH editor used “China virus” in the headline, then reporter Toscana used “coronavirus” in body, and the link there goes to where SMH reporter Chessell uses “COVID-19”. All three phrasings have factually been used there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly about economic recovery–in China specifically–from the disruption caused by the virus. I am confident that anyone who clicks through will see that, so I encourage anyone interested to do so. The headline would have been "Fortescue hopes for Country virus recovery" no matter what country was being discussed. It isn't grammatical, but it is an established way of writing headlines, in the same vein as putting a title in present tense even when it is talking about events that happened the day before. Here is "South Korea Virus Outbreak" about the outbreak of this virus occurring in South Korea. Here is "Spain Virus Outbreak" about the outbreak of this virus occurring in Spain. Here is "Germany Virus Outbreak" about the outbreak of this virus occurring in Germany. Here is "Italy Virus Outbreak" about the outbreak of this virus occurring in Italy. In the end, "China virus" gets under 0.03% of the page hits for the most relevant names related to this page. If you really want to continue arguing that it is a common name, please go ahead and initiate the RFC. Dekimasuよ!07:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Text usage - factually "China virus" simply was used as a name in the SMH title. Your links are interesting but beyond OTHERSTUFF and WEIGHT some have fact issues. Your so-called "Germany Virus Outbreak" article title actually is "German leader calls coronavirus biggest challenge since WWII" and the "Spain Virus Outbreak" isn't actually an article (looks like auto-generated google hook). The "Italy Virus Outbreak" actual title is "Italy Virus Outbreak Contagious Game" so does have "Italy Virus". But that doesn't change that "China Virus" simply was used as a naming. I suggest you accept that inconvenient facts exist.
The tool link you give claiming 0.03% is interesting but has some credibility and meaning issues - that is a redirect but the tool says it isn't, this shows nothing of January when "China Virus" was breaking news -- nothing before February when the now directed-to page was created, it doesn't seem to be live-counts, and finally the obvious catch-22 aspect of will a redirect to 'List of Incidents of Xenophobia' get retweets or revisits. I'm thinking the tool isn't viable as a name indicator. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming that the "South Korea virus", etc., phrases were in the article titles; in fact, it is more meaningful if they appear in the body text, and the phrases appear on the pages I linked. Whether a page is listed as a redirect on the wmflabs site simply has to do with what type of template is on a talk page. If it is assessed as a redirect on talk, there will be a redirect icon on the page view summary. The tool counts how many people visited the redirect without any regard for where the redirect goes (it only started to go to the xenophobia page again two days ago), or whether it is a redirect. "China virus" was not used in January, as is clear from the chart. Titles with "Wuhan" were used briefly in January and since then their usage has dropped. At any rate, as I noted, it is neither here nor there whether "China virus" has ever been used. The fact is it is almost never used, and anecdotal references to use are different from showing common use. Dekimasuよ!04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You were suggesting headlines with ‘<Country> virus’, (which was not seen for SMH “Australia virus”), and gave text that simply were not such examples. Literally, you wrote ‘Here is “Germany Virus Outbreak”’ for something that did not have such a title. It could and should have been more clearly stated as hypothetical ‘I could just as well call this article “German Virus news”’ or as body ‘this article might have contained the phrase’. Again though, fact is “China virus” exists in usage, while the “German virus” usage did not exist in that title nor in the body. Regardless, like “Spanish flu” usage, it is OTHERSTUFF that does not address this article and how “China virus”, “Wuhan virus”, etcetera is used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Germany Virus Outbreak" serves as the headline of the photo set on the linked page. It appears in bold at the top of the caption of 11 out of 12 photos on that page. This is not a case of "OTHERSTUFF". I am illustrating that the phrase "Country + Virus" is often used in the case of this particular coronavirus without intending to indicate a "name" of the virus. You appear to be arguing that only "China + Virus" is attempting to name the virus, while "Germany + Virus", etc. are not attempting to name the virus. It is more logically consistent to recognize that none of these formations is attempting to name the virus. Again, just as in the "Gent superstar" example given in the first post here over a month ago. Dekimasuよ!13:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett:Did you read the SMH article? It is pretty obvious from the text that the combination of the words "China" and "virus" in the article's headline isn't used as a name for anything. The word "China" is used in place of a possessive "China's" to define where "virus recovery" is hoped to occur. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make sense - from what can a "China virus" recover? The text goes on specifically about Chinese economic recovery. Enivid (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Envid: The phrase “China virus” is used, not “China’s virus”, nor any of the readily imaginable alternative phrasings. It can be read as talking hopes for steel consumption in economic recovery after the China virus will prevent any Australian mining shutdown due to current overstock. Any reason you’re interested with the SMH in particular ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Using "China virus recovery" instead of "China's virus recovery" is normal in Headlinese. Yeah, that's exactly what it is talking about - a hope for China's economic recovery from the virus. I am talking about the SMH article as an example of a case when the words "China" and "virus" standing together in the title aren't necessarily an example of the usage of "China virus" as the name for "SARS-CoV-2". Most of the articles provided by you and Symphony Regalia (except for the AP one) are indeed offering evidence that "China virus" is sometimes used by the mainstream press to denote SARS-CoV-2 (or COVID-19). And I am not against including a mention of "China virus" as an alternative name, which is sometimes used despite the WHO recommendations. However, I would be against listing SMH or any other source that doesn't fit as a backup for such an inclusion. Enivid (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be equally headline -ese to skip ‘from the’ out of ‘recovery from the China virus’, it’s kind of speculation beyond just fact of ‘China virus’ occurred there. It’s clearer in ‘Govt can prevent India inc from catching the China virus’ a metaphorical usage, as an economy cannot literally have a virus. And in ‘China virus:ten cities locked down’ the use is as a tag or topic identifier, not literally the disease per se in any detail. Facts only get one as far as usage exists - after that takes further thought on how to apply the facts. Markbassett (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe XavierItzm is pushing any sort of pov. "Chinese virus" is a disambiguation that links to this article for a reason. It received major international usage in March due to influential people using it, similar names were used in January and part of February, and it has been used in reliable sources. It may not belong in the lede as the more popular names belong there, but as a part of history it certainly should not be scrubbed from Wikipedia entirely. That wouldn't be encyclopedic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not exactly true. There is a Washington Post source that uses "China virus" as an actual name, and not in regard to controversy. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that so much time has been spent on this. The virus and disease were (past tense) called the "Wuhan coronavirus" in January. Usage of that term gradually declined when the provisinal name 2019-nCov was given and usage was encouraged for all of the reasons explained by the WHO in 2015. It declined further once the virus and disease were officially named by WHO and ICTV on 11 February. The term "Wuhan coronavirus" persisted for a short period thereafter out of familiarity and inertia. Then (and with new variations) out of ignorance (not in the negative sense), xenophobia, or for political reasons. Trump acknowledged as much when he stopped using the term on 24 March. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
So is consensus that "China virus" is one of the WP:OTHERNAMES that in the early days might have been WP:COMMONNAME but now has seen marked decline in usage ?
I suggest the edit for such a consensus would be to make a new subsection at the bottom for historical information or naming, a bit of separation from the technical article that this is. Then put all references to the WHO naming and the alternative "Wuhan Virus" and "China virus" there as dated terms without mention or explanations. We should not portray a fact-of for why it declined, we can simply say that the technical article here is named from the WHO guidance and that prior terms existed. I observe that plenty of theories exist including (a) it ceased to be just China; (b) the more technical names became recognized and COVID or Coronavirus were put forward by the official bodies; (c) China objected to the continued association; (d) it became political in the United States; and (e) it has some associations to xenophobic incidents. ---- and recommend this article just not get into SPECULATION or ADVOCACY about entymology. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, all of the "China..." and "Wuhan..." names are no longer used except in the cases I cited above. Relevant data here. Given that this is a medical topic, I don't believe it's appropriate to discuss the very limited continued use of the terms by the fringe.
I think it would be fine to add a paragraph on naming that cites the historical usage of "China coronavirus" and "Wuhan coronavirus". The full "coronavirus" forms have always outranked the "virus" versions (except when Trump used "China/Chinese virus" to make a political statement). Though these terms were often applied to the disease, not the virus. Relevant data here.
I'd propose something like this under a Terminology heading at the bottom of the article:
Terminology
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus and disease were commonly referred to as "coronavirus" and "Wuhan coronavirus,"(citation, citation) a name that conformed with historical disease naming conventions. However, the WHO has advised against using locations in disease and virus names since 2015.(citation) Accordingly, "Wuhan" was not included in the official name and usage of the term was discouraged.(citation and citation) To avoid confusion with the disease SARS, WHO sometimes refers to SARS-CoV-2 as "the COVID-19 virus" in public health communications.(citation) The general public often call both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus", but scientists typically use more precise terms.
I do not see evidence that the virus or disease were commonly referred to as "China coronavirus", ever. [With regard to other participants, more than to Wikmoz, who is clearly trying to resolve the issue: Again, this does not mean the phrase cannot be found (Al Jazeera, Japan Times). But if you hold anecdotal evidence up to scrutiny, they don't indicate a name that was ever common. The Al Jazeera story discuss a "big drop in China coronavirus infections", which we know means it is about the number of coronavirus infections in China, not "China coronavirus" infections, because the number of infections would still be increasing if that were the intended meaning. The Japan Times article is titled "As China coronavirus cases near zero, experts warn of second wave". We know, again, that this refers to coronavirus cases in China, not "China coronavirus" cases, because it is not the case that SARS-CoV-2 infections are nearing zero overall—only in China.] Dekimasuよ!04:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Upon closer review, I think you're right. Per Google Trends, the term was definitely popular but to your point, it could merely be people pairing "coronavirus" with the location of the outbreak. To test this, I compared Google Trends results for "China coronavirus" to "coronavirus China" and sure enough, they're on par with each other. Reviewing actual media usage, there isn't too much there... see Google search results for "China coronavirus" (restricted to 1 Jan to 10 Feb). In contrast, these Google search results for "Wuhan coronavirus" (from 1 Jan to 10 Feb) return many references. I'll revise the proposed text accordingly. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Multiple "China..." and "Wuhan..." names are still in use, and I believe the way this is worded gives slightly too much weight to the WHO. Continuing, any proposed terminology section is not complete without "Wuhan virus" and "Chinese virus", which have both received extremely notable usage. For example "Wuhan virus" was nearly in the final draft of the joint G7 statement just last week, and the vice-prime minister of Japan still uses it. Lastly, I want to note that any terminology section should not be used as a pretense to remove names from the lede. Rather, it should provide background. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
While still noting that “Chinese virus” is not a common name (as pointed out repeatedly, proportionality is the goal, and it is extremely rare), I should also point out that usage in other languages is not relevant to determining common names on the English Wikipedia, so statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan in Japanese are not relevant. Dekimasuよ!11:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wuhan virus" was not "nearly in the final draft" of the joint G7 statement. It was in a US draft that was rejected by other member countries. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"Chinese virus" is not extremely rare. The US president used it multiple times, and many millions of people still do. While is it more rare than Wuhan virus, and comparatively rare compared to the general terms, suggesting that is extremely rare given those circumstances is misleading. I didn't say "usage in other languages"; rather I gave an example of usage in another country, irrelevant of language. The English speaking press has covered Japan's vice-prime minister's usage of it, and many of the people in countries where "Wuhan virus" is the most popular term (Korea, parts of China, Taiwan, Japan, and so on) also speak English. Lastly, "Wuhan virus" was indeed nearly in the final draft of the joint G7 statement, because the US was the one in charge of drafting it. Since other countries objected, and the US was not willing to not use it, separate statements were ultimately released as compromise. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking more a simple relocation than any addition, at least for now, just removing lede content to a Naming section at the bottom of the article. This...
Naming
The strain was first discovered in Wuhan, China, so it is sometimes referred to as the "Wuhan virus"ref ref or "Wuhan coronavirus".ref ref ref. Because the WHO discourages the use of names based upon locations ref ref and to avoid confusion with the disease SARS,ref it sometimes refers to SARS-CoV-2 as "the COVID-19 virus" in public health communications. ref The general public frequently calls both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus", but scientists typically use more precise terminology.
The only issue I see is that there are three distinct sets of names, which should not be conflated. SET 1: "Wuhan coronavirus" in use prior to the official name; SET 2: Official and provisional names (SARS-CoV-2, nCov-2019); SET 3: "China virus" and others in current use out of general ignorance (not in the negative sense), xenophobia, political motivation, or anti-PC culture motivation. Sets #1 and #2 definitely need to be included. We should refer to Set #1 in past tense as the name in common usage prior to the official name. I don't think it's worth discussing Set 3 in this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
With regard to "" The general public frequently calls both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus"," I think coronavirus ought to be bolded, as clearly it is a WP:COMMON. With regard to SET 1, many WP:RS simply called it the Wuhan virus, not the Wuhan coronavirus. With regard to SET 3, it should be included, with the disclaimers you have listed, if you wish. XavierItzm (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing has changed regarding "Set 3". We know that it is your view that "Set 3" should be included, but that is not close to gaining consensus here. It is still not proportional or relevant to this topic, onus has not been fulfilled and as explained several times above, it is not verifiably used by (as opposed to in) reliable sources at any significant frequency. Dekimasuよ!13:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
) and like German measles (
). But I won't press the point. XavierItzm (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
