Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China

No notes/references

Something seems to be off... there are no notes and references listed at the bottom, and the link provided for them leads to wikipedia pages on reference templates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisa Valencia (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is probably because there are too many references which hits a limit in the scribuntu backend. ""postexpandincludesize":{"value":2097152,"limit":2097152}" The max is hit before the page is fully rendered. This can be mitigated by splitting the page in smaller subpages.--So9q (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I hid some of the maps and other templates which were causing the post-expand include size to exceed the limits, which fixes it for now, but we're very close to hitting the limit again just due to the sheer number of {{cite web}} templates on the page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hm, so how does one prevent these errors other than hiding? Using other templates other than 'cite news' or 'cite web'? (I wonder if that's possible for alot of the news site links available) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: For now, probably removing {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart}} would be the next step. Beyond that, you could hard-code the references instead of using {{Cite web}} et al., but in general when the citations alone exceed 2MB, it's time to split the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China – Per China. Sawol (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sawol: I don't understand the rationale for the proposed move. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason is that the article China is there but there is also Mainland China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't cover HK or Macau but rather is focused on mainland China. COVID-19 in HK and Macau is covered in separate articles. So on that basis I have to oppose. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, there are separate articles about HK and Macau. Dede2008 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per all replies above. There is virtually no rationale for this move, as the proposer has not adequately explained any part of their reasoning. People also need to understand that Hong Kong and Macau are part of China, not independent nations, and there already exists the articles 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Hong Kong and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Macau. Therefore, the "Mainland China" disambiguation is necessary to distinguish this article from the two aforementioned. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. We mustn't let this page on a virus attract a geopolitics debate about Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan and so on. The article doesn't discuss Taiwan, Hong Kong etc anyway as they have their own wikipedia pages. There is no reason to cause a media frenzy and get this page locked. Peter Kelford (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There are separate articles on Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The NHC of China reports cases separately, and Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, have different epidemic situation, and are covered in respective articles. Peter Wu (2019) 02:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above reasons. Mgasparin (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• weak Oppose per all the above reasons. Red China < China, Red China ≠ China. DMBFFF (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As there already are separate articles for the regions of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, it would be redundant to rename it as such. Doing so would require a merger of those articles as the name would suggest information on the pandemic in all of China. Shawnqual (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per arguments above. --Efly (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per arguments above. Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 10:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Use the official name instead of "mainland China." i.e. "2020 coronavirus pandemic in People's Republic" or "2020 coronavirus pandemic in The PRC" or "2020 coronavirus pandemic in People's Republic of China" to differentiate it from "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Republic of China" which is Taiwan.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 03:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC but not mainland China. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General RfC opened

Hello everybody, because arguments here can be applied to many other articles (e.g. Cinema of China, Video games in China, etc.) instead of this specific page only, I've opened a general RfC on "mainland China" vs "China" in article titles here. Feel free to discuss there! -- Akira😼CA 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Per capita map

Per the consensus at the overall pandemic article, a cases per capita map would be preferable to one that lists totals by province (thus skewing toward making it look like the pandemic is worse in more populated areas). If anyone is willing to create such a map (ideally an SVG that uses formatting similar to the main world maps at the top of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), I would support adding it to the subsection of that article on China's response. Sdkb (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Pechristener helpfully identified that such a map exists at File:COVID-19 attack rate in Mainland China.svg. I'm going to make it the main map for the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The caption under the photo.

"Patronage was significantly reduced at May 4th Square Station of Qingdao Metro Line 3 during the epidemic."

Patronage? I can't find any sense in it. Please, could you explain it? 85.193.250.200 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. However, the word patronage is ambiguous, and its primary meaning is the support given by a patron, and hence my confusion. 85.193.250.200 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Changed to "ridership" from "patronage". The change should make things less ambiguous. Risker (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Risker: Great, thank you :-) 85.193.250.200 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there something in this article relating to the concerns about accuracy of number of infected/deceased?

I couldn't find it, but perhaps it's in another article? Sample reference sources here and here. Since there are many editors who have worked hard on this article, I don't want to jump in without full understanding of what has happened before. Risker (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This topic needs its own section. There is (and has been) growing suspicion that China's numbers are complete nonsense. -- Veggies (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • In fairness, there are now concerns about the completeness of numbers from a lot of countries. I've since read articles relating to Italy, Spain, the UK, and even the US, where it is alleged that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 reflect mainly deaths where the deceased had a positive test and (usually) died in hospital; those who died at home, in non-hospital facilities, or did not get tested may not be included in the totals. This may be something more for the overview article? Risker (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    • We're not talking about aberrations in data or different standards for counting. The allegations against China are that they have deliberately covered up and concealed actual figures, including persecuting any authorities that speak out. -- Veggies (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, I would support Veggies' point here. There is data that indicates that 1 in 5 people may be asymptomatic (CDC) and that there are people who get the illness but simply ride it out without being tested because they think it's the common cold. These sorts of things are testing insufficiencies for sure. They obscure data collection. But, a death of data knowledge due to asymptomatic cases or people not getting tested because they are not severe is NOT a result of negligence, which is often the charge levied upon China, from what I have read. I think that, whether it is a separate article or not, there should be documentation of the high level of doubt surrounding China's reporting of numbers. The CIA has noted that numbers have been misreported by China, and there is growing evidence to support the fact that China's government has been dishonest. CharlieWilloughby (talk)

Leaked US intelligence reports have apparently confirmed this idea, so I added it to the article. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/china-concealed-extent-of-virus-outbreak-u-s-intelligence-says Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Any insertion of allegations of cases under-reporting in the lede should not mention only a single nation's allegations, let alone a single agency that had admitted its operations in mainland China were decimated in the recent past. Either mention the U.S. NSC in conjunction with UK minister Michael Gove as well, or none, per WP:UNDUE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the seriousness of the issue and obvious gross misreporting by China, your statement makes no sense. Entire world has been doubting the stats provided by China. See this too. This deserves a mention on lead which is currently overloaded with "praises by WHO" (which should be mentioned only one time). CodeSlashh (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that Michael Gove has always been in Boris Johnson's Cabinet, perhaps you should read WP:CIR. And we can all make do without Entire world unsourced hyperbolic nonsense. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What Michael Gove has to do with the facts stated by British scientists that China underreported coronavirus statistics?[1] I would say you are the one who needs to read WP:CIR. See [2][3][4]. It is fair to say that there is unanimous agreement over doubting China has been deliberately underreporting the statistics. Info had been added by Vgy7ujm and you have already tried to remove it enough times [5][6] even after getting reverted two times by Horse Eye Jack. Since Jaedglass has also brought some new information,[7] I would strongly recommend you to stop with these attempts now. NavjotSR (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If your argument is to be taken seriously, perhaps it is advisable not to cite a "3,500 urns" conspiracy theory tracing to both Radio Free Asia and Jennifer Zeng, who is known to have palled around with Tea Partiers, and certainly not to pass that off as British scientists. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I never cited such information. Don't misrepresent my comments. NavjotSR (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

British scientists is literally cited in the first sentence here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is there something about having connections to the "Tea Party" that makes a source unreliable? -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

She thinks Chinese people view Trump as their "powerful grandpa". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps some of them do. Or maybe some don't. Are we citing her personal blog for something...or is this a complete non-sequitur on your part? -- Veggies (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A bad-faith dodge and a mis-understanding of the point, she is a partisan extremist and yet is being cited, without question, by Vice (among others) as giving authoritative evidence. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. You never answered the question as to why (ahem) "palling around" with the "Tea Party" makes someone an unreliable source. Despite that, I wouldn't cite Vice for anything as a general rule. But I wouldn't start demanding medical journal citations from editors, either. -- Veggies (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reputable news organization which has now run a high profile news article written by their Beijing Bureau Chief, with sourced information concerning the numbers of cremations and the numbers of people collecting the remains of family members. Presenting information that contradicts official Chinese government officials is entirely appropriate under these circumstances, and that information should be presented early enough in the article to temper reliance of questionable official statistics.Jaedglass (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to authority: You have not at all addressed the concerns that MarioGom and I raised over that bogus urns / cremations theory. And contradicts official Chinese government officials is entirely appropriate seems like a misunderstanding of WP:RGW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post is the source and is considered as WP:RS whether you like it or not. NavjotSR (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't WP:MEDRS and it isn't infallible. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not making biomedical claims or talking about biomedical information. This is a political point: are the numbers of cases and deaths that China has published accurate or not? If not, is there deliberate deception involved on the part of the Chinese government? -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Veggies: Please, see the latest comments at #Possibility of under reported cases. WaPo here is just reporting about some social media rumors. These are due in the article because these rumors had high impact in reliable sources, but they are social media rumors and are now presented as such. You don't need to shout to make your point clear. --MarioGom (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about the Washington Post? Why has the discussion split into two different sections? And I don't think you've read WP:SHOUT or what you linked to at all. -- Veggies (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Veggies: I assumed you were referring to WaPo's report because that's what the message you replied to was about. Of course I've read what I linked: More than occasional use of bold, italics and underline is also very 'shouty' behaviour.. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Anyway, WP:CAPSLOCK is an essay, not policy or guidelines, you are free to ignore the passage I mentioned. I'm sorry if my remark came as inappropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I object to User talk:CaradhrasAiguo who described the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington Post as a bigot. This is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate a reputable U.S. medial outlet, based on a personal opinion. It must also be note that sources in Wikipedia entries that are cited to support statements attributed to Chinese government officials on the matter of Covid-19 deaths also note that there is great skepticism of these Chinese government claims. When writing Wikipedia entries on events in a country which does not allow the free flow of information, and there is evidence from legitimate news sources that call into question the statements of that country's government it is fair to present that information. Moreover, that information should not be buried deep within the Wikipedia page.Jaedglass (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a characterization so ridiculous and devoid of facts / quotes that it beggars belief. The article that you had cited was written by the Beijing Bureau Chief , who literally ignored the national 3 minutes of silence mandated at 10:00 on Qingming. She is invalidating herself by literally making shite up. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, Jaedglass . Further, there is something a bit disingenuous (if not creepy) about implicitly saying that we can cite the numbers that the Chinese government puts out, but we can't cite skepticism of those numbers by any otherwise reputable source. -- Veggies (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Veggies:. Cut it out with the strawmen. I myself replaced the WaPo with Bloomberg to cite the Caixin urns "story", but sure, ignore all evidence that is contrary to your and Jaedglass's mistaken beliefs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I think I am a neutral opinion between Veggies and User:CaradhrasAiguo, and User :CaradhrasAiguo is unreasonably blocking edits with citations to western news sources that questions that the information from the Chinese government, which are now being questioned by western governments and academics. That the Washington Post did not mention a fact that User:CaradhrasAiguo finds important is irrelevant and most definitely does not make this journalist a "bigot" as alleged by User:CaradhrasAiguo, nor does it invalidate the information published in that news article. Indeed, that fact would not have invalidated the thrust of the Washington Post article which was that Chinese officials worked to keep people in mourning out of cemeteries to avoid the massing of angry families whose family members died of Covid-19. At this stage, I think additional neutral moderators should be brought into ensure that this page accurately and more prominently address the issue of questionable statistics issued by the Chinese government. Jaedglass (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The above is a load of nonsense given I just introduced Bloomberg News (or does evidence in the form of diffs not matter to you?) to that section. Yes, implying that mainland Chinese cannot mourn simply because of the Communist system, as the WaPo Beijing Bureau chief did (false), makes her a bigot who should be sacked from her position and visa revoked. There is no way around that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We've heard you. Stop using this talk page to call people bigots. -- Veggies (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, nothing on the falsehoods that Jaedglass was perpetuating then. Chinese officials worked to keep people in mourning out of cemeteries to avoid the massing of angry families is more easily disproved nonsense given the whole concept of physical distancing is to prevent mass gatherings until either herd immunity or vaccination occurs, period. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That is literally in the article and, thus, can be cited. You've been warned. -- Veggies (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not present in the WaPo article. And still no condemnation of Jaedglass's false assertion that I am blocking edits with citations to western news sources. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the article myself. That passage is in the article. Don't call real-world people bigots on Wikipedia. That's all. -- Veggies (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Veggies, User talk:CaradhrasAiguo is simply stating their own personal opinion trumps independent journalism, and further suggests that the Chinese government revoke a western journalist's visa, which is something that the Chinese government has done to silence western journalists. Again, I think that there is credible evidence, which as come out recently, that the Chinese government has been misleading the world with respect to their fatalities, and believe that topic should be addressed, and in a section more prominently than it has been to date. User talk:CaradhrasAiguo seems to be coming from a personal perspective that anything which casts a negative light on the Chinese government must be wrong. Editors of a Wikipedia should be more neutral than that, and I would raise this with moderators to ensure that the page is not written to reflect the views of a particular government.Jaedglass (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:CaradhrasAiguo please don't issue threats on my personal page again. I am a long-time editor on Wikipedia, and I will continue to push back on your repeated assertions that the Washington Bureau Chief is a "bigot," as well as your claim that by citing a Washington Post article, I am "perpetuating" falsehoods. Again, I am an entirely neutral observer of your complaints against several other editors, and as noted before, if you're not happy with my finding the views of Veggies more meritorious, I am fine invoking Wikipedia's mediation protocols.

User talk:CaradhrasAiguo you again left a threat on my personal page, and I will not be bullied into following your directives. My aim to ensure editorial neutrality within this article, and you were already having arguments with other editors, when I offered my views that your approach to the content of the article would not ensure neutral view of an important aspect of this story. I have change the quote "spreading falsehoods" to "perpetuating" falsehood, but that only underscores you accused me of extending and carrying information - that while published in the Washington Post - you believe are "falsehoods," based on your personal opinion. And your further voiced your personal opinion that this journalist should terminated from her job and removed from China. If you want to complain further, please see a moderator.

Yes, this should be in the lead. We are going to need an RfC I think to see what the consensus is. Adoring nanny (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In the lead

@MarkH21: Your recent edits [8][9] were not representing the sources properly. Statements by scientists, health experts, professors, government expert, etc. cannot be attributed to "US and UK government". Furthermore the doubts over China's claims that it has controlled the coronavirus is not only doubted by the DW source but also FT and WashingtonPost. Orientls (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Orientls: There are multiple different aspects of the edits, including the copyediting (which I'll add back since I assume those at least were uncontroversial). Otherwise:

1. Per MOS:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. This isn't in the body of the article, so it should not be in the lead until it is.
2. The United States intelligence officials and the United Kingdom government have expressed doubts over the accuracy that I wrote came directly from the cited Business Insider article that said: US intelligence, the UK government, and some Wuhan residents reportedly say China has underreported its coronavirus cases and deaths. That's the most specific that any of the cited articles get, besides the various experts and locals, health experts, or individual doctor. Just writing Experts have doubted... is literally a given example of WP:WEASEL.
3. Which expert specifically called Li's claims as premature (which is currently in quotes in the lead)? That's only in the title of the Washington Post article, which does not attribute "premature" to anyone. In fact, the article doesn't mention any experts in the actual text in relation to doubts of the no-new-domestic-cases claim besides received with suspicion from experts.

But it's somewhat moot, because this should not be in the lead until the content is actually in the body. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:GA or WP:FA that you need to remove information only because it is not existing in the sections. Still, MOS:LEAD? More information exists at 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Undercounting of cases. Do you have any reliable sources written by the experts rejecting that China has intentionally underreported the statistics?

"China's claim of coronavirus victory in Wuhan brings hope, but experts worry it is premature"[10], "Don't lift quarantine measures too fast: government expert"[11] - both exists on the lead and support the wording. Orientls (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

An article doesn't need to be a GA or FA to abide by the established consensus at MOS:LEAD and WP:WEASEL. That's established consensus for all articles.

Whether there are reliable sources for a counter-argument is irrelevant; I'm not arguing about the actual merits of the claim.

The point is that this specific content is not in the article body (the undercounting subsection does not contain these specific claims), the experts are not specified in any of the references (at least not beyond US intelligence, the UK government, health experts, and one doctor), and there is a mis-attributed quote (the references don't support the quote experts have... described them to be "premature", there is only the title of an article but experts worry it is premature; there is a difference). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Although Chinese Premier Li Keqiang reported on 24 March 2020 that the spread of domestically transmitted epidemic has essentially stopped and the outbreak has been controlled in China" is not found on the article body either. Now if we go by that calculation then we will have to remove that as well from the lead, but I don't support removing that. NavjotSR (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The entire paragraph should go, by MOS:LEAD, until it is added to the body. This is the long-standing established consensus. If you want to change MOS:LEAD, feel free to open an RfC there.

Also keep in mind that the onus is on inclusion, rather than exclusion, per the WP:ONUS section of WP:V.

For the record, I do think that these undercounting concerns should be mentioned in the "undercounting" subsection of the article, and probably then in the lead as well. However, the lead must summarize what is already in the article body and not have the aforementioned WP:WEASEL and mis-attribution issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is on you because you are removing and modifying content by providing lousy reasons. Why you are edit warringto remove that piece now? You have not provided any justification for disputing the text so far, nor you have any evidence that the text is "WP:WEASEL and mis-attribution". All of this has been already addressed. It makes no sense why you are still ignoring the information supported by the source. NavjotSR (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because WP:ONUS really couldn't be any clearer: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. That's a Wikipedia policy.

Observe that experts declare... is literally one of the bolded examples of WP:WEASEL, which is awfully similar to Experts have expressed doubts.... A list of other justifications is given a few comments above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• The mentioned paragraph in the lead does not summarize the content of the article. Please, see 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Undercounting of cases and improve if necessary before adding that paragraph to the lead. Current lead version gives an impression of expert consensus, which is far from reality (see the linked section). --MarioGom (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There is unanimous consensus among experts that China has intentionally underreported the cases. If there isn't then why you are not providing reliable sources to counter it? NavjotSR (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • That recent news reports say that (mostly unspecified) experts raised concerns that China has intentionally underreported cases, and that nobody has added an RS refuting the claim, does not mean that it is unanimous consensus. It's a fallacy that the absence of counter-arguments implies truth, especially when the initial reports are recent. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I am not saying we need to state that there is "unanimous consensus" on article, but that is exactly how it currently is. No reasonable dispute exists, from WP:RS. You removed content from lead because it was not "in the body of the article, so it should not be in the lead until it is", but now the content is in body of the article so why it is not on the lead? BTW, your tagging here is dubious unless you are expecting us to cite the names of those health experts. That would be WP:UNDUE. NavjotSR (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
        • The cited references don't demonstrate a unanimous consensus, just concerns raised by small groups of government officials and scientists. It's possible to be more specific about who "health experts" are without naming dozens of individuals. In particular, the reports so far have been vague in identifying experts and have not named prominent medical groups.
          The paragraph still has specificity issues on who raised concerns, and I'm not the only editor who has raised this issue. Based on the discussion above this subsection, it also seems that there is existing dispute between editors on whether it should be in the lead and a call for an RfC (i.e. there is no current consensus on whether it should be in the lead). I would support a brief sentence mentioning the concerns at the end of the current last lead paragraph (adding the full paragraph back would be undue WP:PROPORTION given the balance of the article), but an RfC or finding more specific references are both good ideas. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
          • If there is no reliable source disputing the information then there is clearly unanimous consensus among the concerned observers. See JPost article. You are clearly underestimating this issue with your comments like "small groups of government officials and scientists" which reeks of blatant WP:POV pushing. There is no need to write about "who "health experts" are" since there are many. See This source cites Frank Ulrich Montgomery, Deborah Birx, [this source] cites Adam Kamradt-Scott, this source cites Neil Ferguson. Are you still asking "who" are the health experts? The last paragraph of the existing lead is not the correct place for adding the sentence about under-reporting. It needs a separate paragraph which can include "The government has worked to censor and counter reporting and criticism about the crisis, and to portray the official response to the outbreak in a positive light," which exists on lead right now. NavjotSR (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
            • The cited references in the paragraph named a total of two people, and you just named another four. That's a small group of people, distinct from say the WHO, the CDC, or large organizations from which a unanimous consensus would arise, so hold off on your accusation of POV-pushing (which is considered a personal attack). The sources so far do not demonstrate unanimous consensus among experts.
              The statement needs to be attributed to origins specified by RSes, so something like Health experts including Neil Ferguson and Deborah Birx have expressed concerns... would be appropriate. But the lead needs to summarize the main points of the article in balance, per MOS:LEAD. Dedicating one-sixth of the lead to a subsection of a subsection of one of the nine sections of the article does not satisfy WP:PROPORTION. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
              • Do you really want me to search up whole internet only for countering your baseless WP:WIKILAWYERING aimed to WP:CENSOR reliably sourced content? Why you are disputing the information and also downplaying the extent of criticism without providing any reasonable rebuttal? It is far too clear that you are engaging in WP:POV pushing and also WP:IDHT now. NavjotSR (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
                • I wouldn't say that we need to exactly restore the same paragraphs which you have removed and moved to section, but at least one sentence of that past paragraph is enough. I have restored the most important one here. The "24 March" announcement did seemed a little bit trivial for the lead. Orientls (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@NavjotSR: Your baseless accusations of wikilawyering, censoring, POV-pushing, and IDHT are firmly within the realms of WP:NPA. You have been warned twice now, stop.

Statements on Wikipedia must be attributed. This is purely a matter of verifiability, precise attribution, and proportion (part of WP:NPOV); not whether you or any other editor personally believe that there is a unanimous consensus among medical experts. — MarkH₂₁^talk

I don't see any NPA here. But I would add that in general, we attribute only when the content in question is likely to be challenged by a equally or more reliable source. But that is not the case here. Orientls (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Orientls: I’m fine with the one-sentence summary, as you have added. Doesn’t it make more sense for the sentence to be at the end of that paragraph though? It follows in the same theme as the sentence beginning with The government has worked to censor and counter reporting and criticism... — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I see the current paragraph to be fine since we have to fit those sentences about xenophobia and propaganda as well. Orientls (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I just meant a re-ordering of the last paragraph in the lead, moving the now-first sentence of the paragraph to be the last sentence of the paragraph. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with attribution like "news outlet", since they are the only ones who are reporting, but restored other changes and improved paragraph for better context.[12] Orientls (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That edit was confusing, since it didn't restore anything while the edit summary said Restored newest updates. It undid this edit about the terrible wording fear upgraded, as well as undoing this edit about using News outlets reported [...] instead of Concerns were raised [...], so it restored old language rather than the newest version.

The issue is that Concerns were raised [...] is weak passive language. The replacement describes exactly what you said, that the news outlets reported it. It doesn't say that the news outlets are the source of the concerns themselves. It's not inaccurate nor misleading, and it's better than nothing until we find RSes that give better attribution than just health experts. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that we are going to expect anyone except "News outlets" reporting on this matter this soon, other than the scientific facts for which journals are available. But academic papers, books, etc. are not going to be written right now about the underreporting. That is why I find "News outlets" to be unnecessary. You need to find other way to address it. Also, why you removed "With the increasing reported cases of infections," before "Fear..."? This existed in the previous version and is good for providing context. Orientls (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Any claims in the lede about deliberate under-reporting of the epidemic in China should be attributed specifically to whoever is making the claims. The current wording about "news organizations" is vague, and lends an air of authority to claims that are actually being made by specific people and organizations. Some of the most prominent accusations are coming from the Trump administration, Michael Gove, and others with a strong political interest in claiming that they were caught unaware by the virus due to Chinese under-reporting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The line under Context: "It should be kept in mind that the Covid-19 rapid test manufactured in Peoples Republic of China only had sensitivity of 30%" should be removed

I mean it's not inaccurate but it's misleading and it definitely isn't the cause for the lower numbers.

Only Spain bought those 30% ones that weren't even signed off in China by their government, so unlikely they're using those kits everywhere.

Epicity1123 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right. The sentence as written was impermissible original synthesis. I've removed it from the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Orientls and CodeSlashh: The Spain testing kits story has been refuted above, stop persisting with their re-insertion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Are there any sources in english describing what the method for evaluating recovery is in these numbers? Is it recovery from symptoms or testing negative? And which tests are being used? 72.15.124.196 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, patients in China are discharged after two negative nucleic acid tests, taken at least 24 hours apart, and indications of clinical recovery, including resolution of symptoms, according to the National Health Commission (NHC).
— Reuters, 3 March 2020

The criteria might have changed to be stricter since then. --MarioGom (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibility of under reported cases

There is a possibility that the numbers in China are much higher than believed.

For example several news sources claimed 42,000 asymptotic cases were excluded from the reports for confirmed cases. Not to mention some claims of China only reporting cases where people died after diagnosis.

I’m not trying to promote any conspiracy theories or spread misinformation but, we know that China isn’t a very reliable source on matters.

So I think we should add other sources on the number of cases. CycoMa (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion above. China isn't the only one, and the more I am reading the more I think this needs to be in the main article, or possibly as a split-out article. Risker (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• • I think addressing the challenge that asymptomatic cases represent in controlling and accurately modelling the pandemic would be a good idea, either in this page or the main page. CharlieWilloughby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see a section called 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Undercounting_of_cases on the article. But we need to mention on lead as well and this should be done soon. CodeSlashh (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The reporting coming out of China suggests a significant under reporting of Covid-19 deaths by the Chinese government. Given these facts, the tardy response of Chinese government officials, and the number of deaths in Italy and Spain, the idea that China suffered so few deaths is implausible. As such, I think this section needs to be far more prominent in the article.Jaedglass (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide WP:RS on deaths under-reporting that do not mention the "3,500 urns in Wuhan" conspiracy theory or political actors in the U.S. government (as opposed to, e.g. NIH / CDC)? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Crisis management in China and Italy/Spain have been extremely different. Expecting the exact same transmission rate would be quite naive. Anyway, feel free to suggest reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: I see Jaedglass has provided the Washington Post story that uncritically regurgitated the "social media users calculated 42K deaths from 3,500 urns" conspiracy theory. The inherent problem with this calculation, is that Vice admitted "seven crematoriums in Wuhan have been handing out over 3,500 urns per day since the restrictions were eased." This represents an obvious backlog...how can the crematoriums be possibly handing out urns during the complete lockdown of the city? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo: Sure. I know about this story and it could be due somewhere in the article with clear attribution. There is a lot of speculation around the story: the underlying source is dubious social media users, where the urns were used is dubious, the extrapolation is dubious, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Also note that we are extremely careful with COVID-19-related rumors and hoaxes circulating in social media. I don't think China should be an exception. --MarioGom (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources the Washington Post is a WP:RS. Arguments can be made to edit the language used to better summarize the text but arguments to exclude the source entirely based on reliability will have to be made on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and only after achieving consensus there can you then make that argument here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither MarioGom nor I are arguing for excluding the WaPo entirely, in all circumstances; referring to WP:RS/N is a typical red herring. We are arguing that this particular article should be excluded on the grounds we mentioned above. As a comparison, would you argue that the pernicious WaPo "Russian hackers infiltrated Vermont's power grid" story back in Jan 2017 be presented without qualification, giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe, disproven theories? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As always more weight would be given to more recently published pieces, like this one entitled "Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation” [13] and any retractions should be noted. When WP:RS mess up they own it, thats one of the things that makes them reliable sources. If the WaPo issues a retraction or publishes another story on the subject you are more than welcome to edit the article based on that retraction or more recent story. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant tangent on WaPo

The above is clearly contradicted by stories such as this, and again, no addressing of the concerns MarioGom and I raised. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Are you seriously citing a 2008 article from ThinkProgress, a defunct fringe political website? I addressed MarioGom’s concerns with them as I share many of the same concerns. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC) They cited quotes from articles / editorial op-eds published by the WaPo itself. ThinkProgress's political leanings, and, for that matter, MMFA, are irrelevant, and yet another ad hominem. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC) I made no mention of "ThinkProgress's political leanings.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Also you’re impugning WaPos editorial board which is separate from the actual management or editing of the paper. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC) You did precisely that with "Fringe political website" ([14]). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have edited the paragraph, adding an additional source (South China Morning Post) that provides more context and provides further insight about dates ([15]). The Washington Post clearly states that these figures come from social media users. This required clarification in the text to avoid misrepresentation of WaPo's report. --MarioGom (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit MarioGom, we don’t want to make it seem like Wikipedia or The Washington Post are making a statement thats attributed to a third party and your edit cleared that issue right up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Estimates sourced to speculation on social media are extremely dubious. I find that they're given too much weight in the article already. We should give more weight to academic studies of transmission in China, rather than dubious speculation by social media or anonymous statements sourced to US intelligence agencies. I'll take a look myself for academic studies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

hospitalizations, intensive care

do we have a time series of hospitalizations and intensive care patients for china? W!B: (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I think User:NavjotSR is right and the lead needs a re-write [16], but I think we should some sort of discussion specifically about the lead first. Certainly there are lots of places where the current text does not measure up to the MOS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS? Let me know what are the issues. The lead I have written came after I carefully read this section and made sure to include only high quality reliable sources. NavjotSR (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:MOS, the relevant one is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Its also generally best to wait until a talk page discussion has either been closed or WP:Consensus has been reached before implementing changes proposed there. Again I like your edits, but I think if we’re gonna take on this mammoth lead we should do it systematically. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Barron's analysis

On 13 February, Barron's reported that China's coronavirus data was not mathematically credible: "A statistical analysis of China’s coronavirus casualty data shows a near-perfect prediction model that data analysts say isn’t likely to naturally occur, casting doubt over the reliability of the numbers being reported to the World Health Organization". Specifically, the cumulative fatalities time series fit a simple mathematical formula with an R-squared of 0.99, whereas real-world data, according to a statistician quoted in the article, rarely produces an R-squared as high as 0.75

This is big time bullshit. Cumulative deaths in Spain fit an exponential curve with R-squared ~0.995 and Italy fits with ~0.988. Do you know if there is more recent time series analysis? Barron's speculation could have made sense on February 13, but it clearly does not match today's evidence at all. --MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As of today, cumulative deaths in the US fit an exponential curve with R-squared 0.997. Hopefully we can find some papers with proper epidemiologic analysis. --MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I also call into question the reliability of this source to make the extraordinary claim that real-world data [...] rarely produces an R-squared as high as 0.75 or that this is casting doubt over the reliability of the numbers being reported to the World Health Organization. The author of the column is specialized in markets reporting. The cited statistician is not specialized in epidemiology or science, he is specialized in markets. Market data rarely fits any kind of model too well, but epidemiologic data does. --MarioGom (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. MarioGom (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm removing the paragraph per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No source given for the "Government reprimands" section

Two pieces of information in this section is likely inaccurate:

1. "a group of doctors from Wuhan Central Hospital, led by Dr. Ai Fen, launched an alert on a "SARS-like coronavirus""

No source given. In fact, to be precise, the alert is literally "SARS coronavirus" instead of "SARS-like coronavirus". This can be verified in wiki: Ai_Fen. The reference[14] used by page Li_Wenliang includes the original photo for the alert.

2. "Eight of these doctors were arrested on charges of spreading false rumors"

No source given. And in fact, there are sources at Li_Wenliang showing that at least one of them is not arrested or detained, but admonished/warned, with the original photo for the warning letter. The current page itself also says they are warned, in the "Censorship, propaganda, and police responses" section. It would be appropriate to use "admonished/warned" and cite appropriate sources.

Ppwwyyxx (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Undue edits

Donkey Hot-day made large edits [17] by claiming he is providing "due weight" what seemed to be more of WP:FALSEBALANCE given the heavy dependence on opinion pieces and misrepresentation of sources. Horse Eye Jack had reverted those new edits but DHD happened to restore again without discussion. Orientls (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been endorsed by CaradhrasAiguo; discussion is warranted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day, Horse Eye Jack, Orientls, and Mopswade: The back-and-forth on these edits (DHD 1, HEJ, DHD 2, Orientls 1, Mopswade, Orientls 2, Mopswade 2, Codeslash) is ridiculous and also losing edits in between, requiring further fixes. Please stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies Mark for removing your edits, I was just going to replace them when you did that for me. I think a mass removal of 6000 bytes of information, with the claim that is is removing "false balance" is quite a thin argument, and would definitely warrant prior discussion. Mopswade (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Orientls: The edit here removed my change, as opposed to restoring them which seemed to be the intent based on the edit summary. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mopswade: Your inability to take responsibility for your reverts is disruptive. Anyone with understanding of WP:RS can easily verify my argument. If you have no reasonable dispute then at least avoid edit warring. Orientls (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You are all edit warring, and in the process have somehow lost even old edits like this one as well as intermediate edits like this one. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the edit warring has stopped now, after dragging in what seems to be a sixth editor. As far as I see, there is nothing egregiously wrong at the time of CA's version apart from some grammatical issues, with opinion pieces provided in large numbers and not written in Wikipedias's voice. Although I am not in the mood to revert the latest changes, I would think that such a large removal of information, endorsed by other editors, and not responded by the original reverter, would warrant some specific scrutiny on individual points, targeted edits, or at least some discussion, instead of a sweeping removal of information, some/all of which which may merit a place in the article. Mopswade (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This feels to me like a very flimsy argument, perhaps an ironic attempt at censorship too. Per WP:SOURCETYPES, academia are the most preferred sources. I cited Stat & the very renowned Nature Journal, & many others from reputable outlets or journalists. Here, another one from Nature, a couple more from the renowned Science Journal, & a couple others from the prestigious Lancet that I could also add to support my additions on 'effectiveness' & 'control'. Oh, another one from The Verge, too. All from some cursory google searching. They outnumber the political news & magazine outlets cited here to warrant removal of this content for "due weight".

I only saw 2 opinion pieces in my previous citations, & one of them was by a medical director who referenced a scientific study. All of the sources are no less reliable than what's cited in conflict of it (Barron's is a sister newspaper to WSJ, & the FAIR piece only cited scientific reports (regardless, even if the latter was removed, one of the science reports can replace it, which means the statement I added would still warrant inclusion). Your proof for undue weight? It does not seem to exist here. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We already added "WHO praised the effectiveness of measures taken in the country", then why you have to mention sources telling how China did something that other countries are not doing? It seemed unnecessary repetition. Their analysis is not exactly recognizing the "effectiveness of the response". A source which is dedicated to "challenging media bias since 1986" is actually reliable for you? You removed mention of British scientists and significantly lowered the presence of sources alleging China of underreporting. Your sources[18][19][20] don't support your claim that "analysts" say situation in China has been controlled. In fact they say that cases are still being reported but low in number. For all these reasons your edits had been reverted. Orientls (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Nature news and opinions articles are not the same as academic papers published in Nature. The Science articles are also news not academic papers. The Lancet piece is a media release about an academic paper but not an academic paper itself. You also do appear to be incompletely or misleadingly summarizing the sources, hard not to do when its such a strong statement and there are so many sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

They all convey that China's 'contained', 'beating', 'slowed' the outbreak, or had effective measures taken, and do not reference under-reporting in any way as a major issue. Either way, the wording can be changed to another with similar meaning, & your argument focusing now on semantics for removing reliably sourced content does not hold water. Yes, you also provided no cited reasons for the unreliability of FAIR, & including health experts along with British scientists is redundant (but fine, let's humor that anyway). You're clearly trying to push a POV that the consensus is China's under-reported cases, & only China thinks they've beaten back/contained/implemented effective measures in the outbreak, which is not supported by many reliable sources. Your pushing of WHO praise as enough (when there's already a well-sourced criticism section on WHO in another article) also shows irrelevant bias. I'll be re-adding the edit if you have no substantial arguments against my sources.

@Horse Eye Jack: Could you cite a Wikipedia policy on that claim? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." & "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Either way, they are review articles (or at the very least reports) from 'foreign analysts' which was the wording I used (probably one could easily argue experts too), and are certainly as reliable (if not more so) than the news articles cited against them for 'undue weight'. It's not "such a strong statement" either, all the sources added were remarking on the effectiveness of the measures taken (some of them using stronger wording than that). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

One can think they’ve done a decent job of “containing,” “beating,” and “slowing” the outbreak (those are very different opinions btw, it might be wp:synth to actually say they all directly support the statement made) *and* that Chinese data is unreliable, those aren’t now and have never been contradictory positions. I don’t think there is a practicing scientist on earth who trusts Chinese data, nobody who did would pass a peer review in a reputable publication. These are news reports, not review papers btw which are a specific type of scientific paper. They are definitely reliable, but you attempted to make the claim that they are peer reviewed papers and thats 100% Donkey doo. What you laid out here also seems to be an admission of POV pushing, it certainly isnt adressing an actual gap per WP:due which could be satisfied by just a single article presenting the other point of view not shoehorning a dozen WP:Overcites on a statement that they for the most part havent even directly made. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You claim that just because they use the terms that indicate effective measures/response, doesn't mean the Chinese data is unreliable? Sounds like WP:OR & a possible strawman argument, as I wasn't trying to delete sources on under-reporting. Looking closer, the reference for the 'Li Keqiang' section also says: "At present, the spread of domestically transmitted epidemic has been basically blocked, but the risks of sporadic cases and regional outbreaks still exist" which is hardly the same as "essentially stopped and the outbreak has been controlled in China", so that's a wp:synth issue you neglected to mention in the first place. It applies to the DW ref too, which doesn't mention him, & in fact the sentence should not mention him at all b/c as search engine verification shows, that's not what he's saying in sources. So that's fine actually, I don't need to add the 'other analysts state' phrasing in there. But the rest of my edit looks valid enough, so I'll be re-adding those.

But really if you know everything, tell me what would be a "paper reviewing existing research, a review article" or an "article published by well-regarded academic presses" on the coronavirus if the ones I referenced aren't it? It seems to be you who is POV pushing (& also pushing WP:CIVIL, as if you want to make fun of my username, it's also easy to say what you presented here is Horse crap). Citing the essay WP:Overcite without providing evidence (other than out-of-place opinions & rudeness) that any of this doesn't support the wording used & is undue weight needing total deletion is hardly convincing. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If your argument is that there is WP:SYNTH elsewhere in the article and I didn’t comment on it therefore my argument here is disingenuous thats just silly, two wrongs don't make a right. Thucydides411 posted an actual academic paper below, your inability to distinguish an academic paper from a news article doesn’t bode well for you (you appear to still be arguing that your news stories are peer reviewed papers). Please review Academic publishing, Academic journal, etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As usual, you rely on dishonest, irrelevant, & ludicrous strawmans & whataboutery to push your flimsy points. It does not even matter whether they are peer reviewed or not, they are articles "published by well-regarded academic presses" & "review articles" according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I see you provided no evidence that the Science & Nature articles I linked are somehow less reliable than the news outlet sources argued here to warrant their removal. Oh & also on Science's commentary section here, "Commentary material may be peer reviewed at the Editors' discretion." The Nature journalist David Cyranoski, & Science journalists Dennis Normile & Kai Kupferschmidt (the authors of my cited articles) have also published research papers (yes, like the one Thucydides411 cited, thanks for more inane strawman arguments, HEJ). No need to question Jon Cohen either. Rutgers has ranked these people in comparison to the popular literature cited against them, no doubt they deserve the due weight.

So now your last resort is to yell WP:SYNTH at everything, when in fact my edit was simply following WP:PLAGFORM, paraphrasing text with the in-text attribution of "some foreign analysts", which is widely done & accepted on Wikipedia. If you cannot address the actual argument here with logic, then I'll be reinstating most of my edits (& fixing the 'Li Keqiang' synth issue you clearly don't care about). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It is normal to seek better sources when you are making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims while underestimating the prevalent facts. You are still yet to describe that how your sources supported your information. Orientls (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply stating that DHD's wording constitutes WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims does not make them so. Certainly a far cry from the BS analysis published by Barron's which was refuted above. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:NPA, accusing other editors of dishonestly will get you swiftly blocked. You’re arguing against a brick wall, I’m not objecting to the sources I’m just letting you know that you mischaracterized the nature of the sources and that they are *not* peer reviewed academic auricles. Also the plural of straw man is straw men. If you had actually paraphrased the texts this wouldn’t be an issue, the problem is that you didn’t actually paraphrase the immense volume of text you provided... Instead you crafted a rather explicit position and then tried to shoehorn the sources into that position even when they took a slightly but significantly different one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's quite obvious it is you mischaracterising my argument into something about peer-review, pushing your strawman & denying it as usual. Perhaps you should try applying WP:NPA to yourself for once, as it's also obvious you started the incivility with 'Donkey doo' & POV pushing accusations (not to mention your talk page seems to have more frequent disputes than mine, I'm quite safe from being blocked if you're still here). And now you're going for grammar, did you also forget it's addressing not 'adressing', articles not 'auricles', or that's, not 'thats' etc.?

@Orientls Nature notes that "some researchers say that the situation in China is different because its government acted aggressively, using social-distancing measures to slow down the spread and extensive testing and isolating of infected people to stamp out potential transmission sources. This strategy helped the country contain the outbreak.", "The analysis concludes that after containing the virus with the severe lockdowns, 'China has successfully exited their stringent social-distancing policy to some degree'...'So far, so good,' says Andrew Tatem" & "'The extra work allowed them to stop the virus,' says Cowling." Harvard Business Review notes "Much has been written about the practices and policies used in countries such as China, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan to stifle the pandemic.", "what truly characterizes their effective responses is the multitude of actions that were taken at once." & "the approaches of China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, which were able to contain the contagion fairly early." Chandran Nair writes of "successfully containing coronavirus", "competent governance", etc., the article from Helen Branswell of Stat is self-explanatory, NYTimes referenced Francois Balloux saying "they controlled the epidemic" (admittedly that's an article better sourced for other sections) etc. This is all plainly obvious to anyone who knows how to read, but here you are, still pushing undue weight & WP:EXCEPTIONAL 'fringe theories' claims with no evidence provided while blatantly ignoring scholarly & scientific sources. Words & opinions have no meaning here, provide some reputable links to support your claims. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: "I don’t think there is a practicing scientist on earth who trusts Chinese data, nobody who did would pass a peer review in a reputable publication." The Lancet Infectious Diseases is a reputable scientific journal. This recent paper, which passed their peer-review process, uses official data: [21]. This example took about one minute of searching to find. If I were to search for ten minutes, I could compile a list for you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, the peer-reviewed paper I link above directly states that containment measures in China, outside of Hubei province (the study is not about the epidemic inside Hubei province), were likely effective. From the abstract, "Overall, our findings indicate that strict containment measures, movement restrictions, and increased awareness of the population might have contributed to interrupt local transmission of SARS-CoV-2 outside Hubei province." -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We use it because its the only data available on 1/5 of the world’s population, not because we *trust* it. Thats a decent source, but it doesn’t back up the statement "some foreign analysts later acknowledged the effectiveness of the response.” because of the pesky “might” which is the same sort of thing that keeps the majority of the already cited pieces from being appropriate, they say something close to the statement they’re being used to support but they don’t actually directly support that statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, the part about objecting to might have contributed is an unhelpful moot point because focus of the The Lancet study that Thucydides411 cited is strictly epidemiology...it isn't "their place" to ascertain the effects of public health measures. Statnews directly quotes an mathematical epidemiologist as saying containment strategies implemented in China are successfully reducing transmission. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is a strong consensus to back up that statement, I find it WP:UNDUE. Orientls (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the author & Stat News must be somehow undue, even though the statement is supported by journals such as Science, Nature, & others. Deletion based on undue weight only applies to sources of questionable reliability, what you find does not matter if you cannot provide evidence supporting it. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The Lancet Infectious Diseases study (Zhang et al. 2020) is entirely based on Chinese official data, and it got through peer review at a well respected journal. This paper is a counter-example to your claim that no "practicing scientist on earth who trusts Chinese data, nobody who did would pass a peer review in a reputable publication". If you want to then argue about the difference between using Chinese official data as the entire basis for a scientific study and "trusting" the data, then I think you're arguing semantics, and that argument has no bearing on what we here at Wikipedia should do. The Lancet Infectious Diseases uses Chinese official data, and so should we.

@CaradhrasAiguo: Zhang et al. (2020) does make statements about the effectiveness of public health measures. It's an epidemiological study, as you say, but epidemiological evidence can shed light on how effective containment measures are. What the study finds is that the rate of infection decreased over time in the 9 provinces outside Hubei that had significant outbreaks. Here's what the authors say:

We found that the epidemic was self-sustained for short periods of time only (no more than 3 weeks) in provinces outside Hubei that reported a large number of cases,[32] and estimated that, since the end of January, 2020, Rt has been below the epidemic threshold in all studied provinces. This finding is consistent with the gradual decrease in the number of detected COVID-19 cases reported across China and suggests a beneficial effect of the strict public health intervention policies implemented in China. In particular, strict social-distancing measures were implemented in all the analysed Chinese provinces and included close community management (eg, case isolation and household quarantine of close contacts), suspension of public activities, traffic restrictions, and school closure.

-[22]

I'd like to look for other studies, so that we're not just relying on one particular study. However, based on this study, it would be fair to write something like, "Epidemiological evidence suggests that public health interventions in China outside Hubei province helped reduce transmission of the virus." -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes its semantics, almost all academic discussions are. If we’re basing it on the study you’ve provided "Epidemiological evidence suggests that public health interventions in China outside Hubei province might have helped reduce transmission of the virus.” seems more appropriate, lets not turn carefully qualified statements into unqualified statements. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My "unqualified" wording without the word "might" is an almost direct quote from the body of the paper (see the block quote above). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Commentaries in prestigious scientific journals, such as those mentioned by Donkey Hot-day, are good sources of relatively expert opinion. I'd put much more trust in their opinions on medical issues than I would in reporting from major newspapers, for example. Views commonly expressed in those commentaries should be mentioned in the article. For example, this commentary ("From China: hope and lessons for COVID-19 control" by Azman and Luquero) in The Lancet Infectious Diseases discusses the Zhang et al. (2020) paper. Azman and Luquero write,

"Although the true causal nature of these transmission reductions is not addressed in Zhang and colleagues' analyses, it is probably due to the strict government-imposed restrictions on movement of people and social gatherings, widespread symptom screening, testing and quarantine programmes, and the strong emphasis on personal behaviour change (eg, hand hygiene, mask use, and physical distancing) to reduce the risk of transmission."

They return to the question of the efficacy of the control measures implemented in China later on:

"The trajectory of the epidemic curves in China alone suggest that these measures—some of them extreme—might have led to substantial reductions in transmission as of late March, 2020. China made difficult decisions with complex trade-offs between economic and social consequences and acute health effects on the basis of little historical data. These decisions pave the way for other countries to design responses to COVID-19 on the basis of their experiences. The encouraging results from Zhang and colleagues' study provide hope that rapid control might be possible, although with high economic and social costs."

On the basis of these sources, the article should make some statement about the efficacy of China's control measures. I've started a new talk section (below) about reorganizing this article, because it doesn't clearly explain the course of the epidemic. I would suggest writing a new section about the overall trajectory of the epidemic, and including assessments of the efficacy of control measures in China in that section, as well as the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Three articles on reliability of the data

Using a similarity in two graphs to argue: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/07/chinas-data-reveal-a-puzzling-link-between-covid-19-cases-and-political-events and this one complains about China's changing definitions: https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/. And this one is about the issue of rate of reported infections in general and in various countries: https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/6-of-worlds-coronavirus-infections-detected?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2Kdammers (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Poor organization of article, and little discussion of course of epidemic

The article is very poorly organized, with information scattered across different sections. For example, where do I go in the article to find out the general course of the epidemic? That's a critical (probably the central) subject that this article should cover, but it's barely discussed in the article. It's not discussed at all in the lede. Is the epidemic ongoing? Is it still growing exponentially in China? A reader who knew nothing about the subject would have no idea after reading the lede. There are two good figures in the article that show the course of the epidemic, and three at the very end, but no corresponding discussion of the overall course of the epidemic.

I propose that the article be reorganized as follows:

1. Context
2. Overview of the epidemic (This would cover the phases of the epidemic, and include a few figures showing case numbers over time. It would give a very quick overview of how the epidemic broke out, grew, was suppressed, and the current phase of low-level transmission and partial relaxation of controls, leaving detailed discussion to following sections).
3. Early response in Wuhan (largely the same as now)
4. Lockdown of Hubei and measures beyond Hubei (would include a short overview of "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Hubei" and include material from "Impact beyond Hubei" and "Response by the Central Government")
5. International and regional relations
6. Controversies and criticism (though much of this material could be threaded into other sections)

Anyways, this is just my proposal to give this article more focus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated infobox map

The map in the infobox (and used at the main pandemic article) currently has data from March 24, which is getting pretty old. It also uses a misleading scale (see commons:File talk:COVID-19 attack rate in Mainland China.svg). Could someone who knows how please update it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead mention donations?

I added some information to the lead about donations made from other countries to China to help deal with the pandemic in its early stages, and assistance provided from China to other countries later on. Both parts of this have been very widely reported in reliable sources; to give just a few examples, see these [23] [24] [25] about donations to China and these [26] [27] [28] [29] about donations from China. (These include both government aid and private donations.) The addition seems to have been caught up in an edit war about some other content in the body, so I'm starting this discussion to see if there's consensus for including this in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

1) WP:NPOV does not mean we mention China made donations of testing kits equally alongside Spain recalled (non-state-approved, BioEasy-manufactured) testing kits (per The Guardian). 2) As Granger mentions, these donations are a combination of private and PRC government donations. IMO, simply lumping the two into wording such as China donated... or Spain, the Netherlands, Czech Republic recalled Chinese-made kits is not only omitting necessary nuance but misleading. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems WP:UNDUE because of the reports about the criticism levied on China for donating equipments of poor quality.[30][31] Mentioning all of this will make lead too overly detailed.Orientls (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the two sources you linked seem to be focused on equipment purchased from Chinese manufacturers, so I don't think they're relevant to the donations at issue here. The second source you linked specifically says that "separate material donated by the Chinese government and technology and retail group Alibaba did not include products from Shenzhen Bioeasy." —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Orientls, please read your sources properly; you would not have missed the important details in Granger's comment if you did. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Czech also found China's supplies to be defective. China claimed they donated those but Czech said they had paid for it.[32] Another incident is where Italy was forced by China to buy the items which they had donated to China.[33] Are we also going to add this to the lead? I am unaware if any major country has not made any donations. This information should be better covered in sections and not lead. NavjotSR (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Navjot, your first source mentions Shenzhen Bioeasy, the problem firm that again appeared in Spain's defective test kits, without having to scroll down. You need to fully read your sources. Who's "China" in China claimed? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You are the one with WP:CIR issues since you are giving more weight to Chinese embassy statement which was only made after their pants caught fire. In place of finding baseless loopholes in sources, you need to better come to the conclusion. What happened with relation to Czech, we cannot say China is making correct statements about donations. Heavily dubious info does not belong to lead. NavjotSR (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)