Jump to content

Talk:Endemic COVID-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TTK Ciar (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 28 January 2023 (Added vote to oppose merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

India

Someone please add this. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Xoltered (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental problem

This article doesn't really tell us much about the endemic "phase" of this outbreak; it is mostly an assemblage of ignorant things politicians have happened to say at one time or another. A re-think is needed. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion in the context of the WP:PILLARS or WP:COPO? I don't understand the praxis of your statement... any edits in mind? SmolBrane (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an epidemiological subject, it needs to be based on MEDRS sources. As it is, it doesn't convey much "accepted knowledge" about what the "endemic phase" is (other than a politician soundbite). Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also included in the "political responses" and "national responses" categories, as well as the medical responses category. Deferring to MEDRS would be a POV issue. If politicians allegedly misuse the word 'endemic' it needs to have sourced commentary to suggest such, we cannot make that presumption. Very few additions to this article have been reverted.
Tedros is not a politician according to his wiki bio and his words were pretty clear("[we've] never been in a better position to end the pandemic/we can see the finish line"). I think more academic and medical commentary would be beneficial but there currently isn't much of it--it's not surprising that rigorous MEDRS sources are lagging; it takes a while to do the science and it's likely to be backward-looking. SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The head of the WHO's view is WP:DUE, it's true. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of material is about "living with COVID", but this phrase doesn't necessarily mean the disease has entered an endemic phase. Rather, "living with" can just be a strategy or approach to dealing (or not dealing) with COVID-19 as a pandemic. I've chopped some material that talks about "living with" without talking about "endemic". Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally split from the Living with COVID article, which was then merged back into this one. So that's why there is content surrounding Living with COVID. Not disputing your edits here--I have reviewed them--just offering some context as a new arriving editor at this article. Your experience as an editor is noted here. SmolBrane (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had an article Living with COVID-19. There was a failed attempt to rename it Endemic management of COVID-19. This article was started. The content of Living with COVID-19 got here copied here anyway. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the history. I've no objection to the concept of "living with COVID" being discussed on Wikipedia (in an appropriate way, cognisant of WP:MEDRS etc.). It is a concept that overlaps with endemicity discussions, but it is a distinct concept, not a synonym. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a fair amount of content that made no mention of endemicity. The material was about reducing or ending public health measures, including discussion of "living with" COVID. The article still has a fundamental problem if people use it as a dumping ground for coverage of how countries are reducing or ending their public health measures. This article is called "Endemic COVID-19": it should only be about evidence that COVID-19 is or will become endemic (which requires WP:MEDRS sourcing), or about politicians/public health officials explicitly talking about treating COVID-19 as being endemic. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this article can't find a sensible way forward, I would support deletion under WP:POVFORK. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a 'dumping ground' in the sense that we are building an encyclopedia. I invite the attempt to delete the article, I think it would be an enlightening process. SmolBrane (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a double merge might work. The endemicity content could be merged to COVID-19 pandemic (where it would make the article not any bigger because there is already a section for this); the shopping list of what happened in certain countries could be merged - where not already there - back into the articles for each nation. Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground: it is, of course, highly structured and we have a host of policies about how to structure content into different articles. A bunch of out-of-context quotes about different places moving towards an endemic context does not seem like a very sensible structure. It may be seen as violating WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH. As per Bon courage, what each country is doing can go in the articles for each nation. The endemicity content is covered in COVID-19 pandemic. So, what is this article doing? What in this article actually ties together these disparate (and sometimes desperate) snippets from different countries? Where is the WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing? I invite editors to improve the article (in a manner consistent with POVFORK, SYNTH and MEDRS). Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Etrius ( Us) 02:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll grab this review. What is the purpose of this page? It reads like a future class article and is frankly all over the place in terms of what is considered "endemic". The discussion here exemplifies the rather fundamental issues with this page. I can also see a verification needed tag and a number of 'dated statement' tags.

Copy-vios

  • Nothing notable

Prose

  • The lead is noncompliant with MOS:LEAD. It needs to be abundantly clear that this is a hypothetical phase of the Covid pandemic.
  • On 14 September 2022.... how does this related to an endemic?
  • Is endemic equal to removing Covid restrictions? I would argue that equating the two is just WP:OR.
Half of these countries don't even mention an 'endemic phase', instead its just a watered down version of X county and the COVID pandemic.
  • A 2021 article in The Lancet called restrictions.. Undue weight, entire section feels almost like WP:POV pushing.

This page is a quickfail, and it honestly needs to be seriously reworked. It is just a collection of quotes from different politicians sprinkled with medical experts. This page suffers from serious WP:POV issues as well, giving substantial weight to seemingly random factoids about each country. This isn't meant to scare you off from Good Article nominations, its just my assessment of the page's viability at GA. I recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 for more help. Etrius ( Us) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Finland

@Bon courage: Please clarify what you meant. The small edit contained two claims: 1) the leading Finnish health authority considers Covid-19 to be endemic in Finland (a country), and 2) this is reflected in statements and actions overseen by the Finnish government (valtioneuvosto). Both claims are reported in primary and secondary sources. The subsection Endemic phase of COVID-19#By countries appears to review similar claims by country. What in my edit is irrelevant? Brittletheories (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It contained no relevant article text. You seemed to have fixed that in an improved edit. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter edit brought no additional information. Brittletheories (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore comments from head of the World Health Organization

The content in this edit, containing the recent comments of Tedros Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization which is the authority over whether we are in the endemic stage, should be restored. It is obviously and inherently WP:DUE, and per sources, the end of the pandemic and start of endemicity are precisely the same. I note that the same editor who removed it three times, said earlier on this page just a few weeks ago, The head of the WHO's view is WP:DUE, it's true. Crossroads -talk- 01:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the end of the pandemic and start of endemicity are precisely the same" ← wrong. Bon courage (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources whatsoever - contradicting the ones in the article - stating that the end of the pandemic could be any other outcome? Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. The onus is on editors to provide on-topic material which satisfies WP:V. Not sure why this is being discussed both here and at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we did that - sources in the article show that the pandemic ends with endemicity.
The MED discussion seems to be running out and in any case this matter didn't really get addressed in that discussion. Crossroads -talk- 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did. The way forward now is to progress the merge discussion. Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the WP:DUE nature of the head of the WHO discussing the potential to end the pandemic. I think it could use better phrasing to ensure it's WP:NPOV in the context of the article. I can see an argument that it should be better contextualized that Tedros is not saying "it's almost endemic, no matter what we do", it's an explicit call for action against the relaxation of restrictions described in this article in order to capitalize on an opportunity to reach an end of the pandemic. Pending merge discussion aside. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is important not to refer to any WHO official as "the authority". It is probably OK to refer to a WHO official as "an authority". There is no "the authority" for most statements of fact about science and/or politics. Jaredroach (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are MEDRS

MEDRS nutshell suggests that "medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies" are included. I would encourage editors to assess how many sources on this article are actually MEDRS given that they come from national health authorities in the respective countries. SmolBrane (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are any published "position statements"? Bon courage (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Following the discussion above (#Fundamental problem) and at WT:MED, it's become clear this is a problematic article, with insufficient sourcing available to construct a reasonable article on what COVID-19 endemicity is. What little there is, makes better sense elsewhere per WP:NOPAGE. Hence a double merge is proposed whereby:

  1. The few paras of general/global content are merge to COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase.
  2. Items from the shopping list of country-specific material is merged back to each country's article (where in most cases it already exists anyway). Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support merge as nominator. Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we have plenty of WP:MEDRS on endemicity already in the article, indicating it is a notable topic, and detailing which countries have moved into the endemic phase in one place makes sense, just like all the other pages on lockdowns and other responses that summarize individual countries. Merging this back into other pages would just make them even more oversized and bloated. Considering the extreme detail in which earlier phases of the pandemic are documented on Wikipedia, I don't understand the opposition to a much smaller amount of material about this. Crossroads -talk- 09:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have six journal articles in the article, three of them directly addressing actual endemicity (the remainder addressing “living with covid”, primarily the UK government's response), and none appear to meet WP:MEDRS criteria. This seems a reasonable number of citations to merge into the main pandemic article, especially since one of them is already cited there. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed there would be no adverse size change to the main COVID article from the merge. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the comment about the extreme detail in which earlier phases of the pandemic are documented on Wikipedia, but that's a reason for improving other articles, not a reason to keep this article as is. In other words, an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. While this article may have had good intentions, it is not working. COVID-19 is still a pandemic and it is unclear whether it may or may not ever become endemic, making the title and parts of this article dubious under WP:CRYSTAL. The article is repeatedly used as a dumping ground for reports of public health measures being reduced in various countries: editors keep conflating the removal of public health measures with endemicity when these are not the same; and lumping together disparate policy moves in different places like this is WP:SYNTH. Some appear to want this article to push a narrative of COVID-19 becoming less serious. Material is presented out of context, material is cherry-picked. (For example, under Lebanon, there are quotes from Abdul Rahman Bizri, the head of the National Committee for the Administration of coronavirus vaccines, but there is no context of what anyone else in the Lebanese govt or public health system thinks.) This is all classic WP:POVFORK stuff. News of public health measures being reduced should be presented in the context of articles covering the pandemic or covering the pandemic in different places. Crossroads links to the COVID-19 lockdowns by country and National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic articles and argues this article is like those. It is not. The end of lockdowns should be part of COVID-19 lockdowns by country; other reductions in public health measures should be part of National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that these issues can be addressed easily through editing and through a tiny bit of discussion about inclusion criteria, per the principle behind WP:NOTCLEANUP. For example, only when national public health agencies or ministers make a statement about endemicity would it be included here, perhaps. Individual doctors, or reducing restrictions without any statement about whether this is part of transition to endemicity, would be excluded. Crossroads -talk- 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those suggestions sound good, but I fear would be insufficient. However, feel free to try to improve the article while this discussion is ongoing. I note that WP:NOTCLEANUP applies to a deletion discussion. We're talking about merging here. A collation of even just national public health agencies or ministers making statements about endemicity would still be taking those comments out of context and a violation of WP:SYNTH. The appropriate context for, say, a national public health agency or minister in Lebanon making a statement about endemicity is the full story of COVID-19 in Lebanon, in other words put the material in COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources about whether COVID-19 is actually becoming endemic should be in COVID-19 pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement is false, this is a deletion discussion in disguise. The long content would never be added to the target article due to WP:TOOLONG, this content will always be on a sub-article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect each "COVID-19 pandemic in..." article to cover the end of significant public health measures or other significant policy shifts in that place. Can you show me some examples of anyone citing WP:TOOLONG and refusing such article content? Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Crossroads, he put it better than I could. SmolBrane (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The level of internationally relevant content with good citations that's here but missing from the Pandemic article is minimal, as are the recaps of the national articles, fulfilling WP:MERGEREASONs 3 and 4. The identification of the national articles would perhaps be sufficiently served with a category to navigate through the set, rather than a list article with summary prose. I also echo the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH concerns, and feel that the inability to coalesce over the last six months into a strong article with reliable sources on a single agreed upon topic, instead tying two disparate topics together - "living with covid" government policies, and scientific estimates of how/when the disease would become endemic - suggests a merge is the better solution. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per Bakkster Man rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ozzie10aaaa: I see you added two sources on the COVID-19 pandemic regarding Tedros' recent comments on the pandemic ending("We are much closer to being able to say that the emergency phase of the pandemic is over"). Neither of these sources contain the word 'endemic'. While I definitely think these comments are DUE and provide important updates to our readers, how do you reconcile these additions when they do not use the word? Should they be added to this article? Does your support of merging here include a renaming of the section on COVID-19 pandemic? We need somewhere to chronicle these DUE updates and if it isn't here, it perhaps warrants another article entirely(probably a bad idea). SmolBrane (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes I see your point (BTW the statement was made December 2, you can check the WHO ref to verify), in light of this new WHO statement I therefore
oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense whatsoever. That the WHO is continuing not to talk about "endemic" COVID does not strengthen the case for an article on it. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, this doesn't seem to strengthen the case for an endemic article. If anything, it's an indication that the WHO is even less likely to consider a global end to the pandemic any time soon, just the emergency relating to it.
I think the comment by SmolBrane touches on the discussion of when the term "endemic" should and shouldn't be used, and if there's an alternate term to use in some situations like the Transition to endemic phase section. Probably worth discussing on the pandemic article. However, in this discussion, it comes across to me more as grasping at straws for a reason to keep this article rather than a strong case that's an obvious conclusion from what Tedros said. Maybe I'm off base though, and there's a rationale I'm missing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose COVID-19 pandemic is already WP:TOOLONG so this is really an attempt to WP:BLANK disguised as a merge. Sourcing is fine on this endemic article, per Crossroads. This type of end-run POV pushing is sad. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jtbobwaysf I would argue that the entire article is POV pushing!!! WP:BLANK is honeslty the best outcome this page can hope for seeing the sheer redundancy of the page and its info. I'm a bit surprised this didn't go straight to WP:AFD, and honestly it should. Etrius ( Us) 19:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed that would have been a more direct and honest approach, instead of this proposal to merge content knowing it will be deleted. Many of the votes and comments on this talk page (including yours) in fact reinforce the position that I made that this is a closet delete discussion and not a merger discussion. Thus it should be done in the correct AFD venue as you point out. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too soon and insufficient evidence to claim that it will not become recognised as endemic in many or most parts of the world, so just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises. We have been living with this for nearly three years now, and in some parts of the world it appears to be de facto endemic, whatever politicians might like to think and claim. A summary section in the main article would be appropriate, not a merge. Define the scope clearly, attempt to clarify what endemicity actually means from a scientific and medical point of view, and ditch everything clearly out of scope. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Too soon and insufficient evidence to claim that it will not become recognised as endemic in many or most parts of the world, so just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises. This comes across as WP:CRYSTAL, which would be a reason to merge/delete rather than keep. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Striking per below. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you twist his words. Endemic already has sufficient RS and he is refuting the position that it might in the future not be endemic. He is pointing out that speculating on it becoming non-endemic (when it already has plenty of endemic RS today) would be crystal. You are taking the absurd to a new level by making a crystal of the crystal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain that this is about being non-endemic in the future, but I can agree with the interpretation that he's disagreeing the position above as you describe it, which would not be WP:CRYSTAL. Still not sure I agree with "just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises", but that's much more open to disagreement on interpretation of guidelines like WP:DEADLNE, rather than a PaG concern. I'll strike the above comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Both endemic COVID-19 and its predecessor Living with Covid-19 are uninformative, speculative and full of WP:OR. Does not hold up as a standalone topic. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The first five paragraphs of Endemic COVID-19 are currently full of self contradictions and contradictions with endemic. One concludes that Endemic COVID-19 is currently being used as a platform for political opinions. Jaredroach (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Delete The overwhelming majority of information from this page is in 'COVID-19 pandemic in X Country'. The rest is in Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Honestly, a merge isn't even necessary since this page is largely redundant. As the GA reviewer for this page, I see little long term viability of this page until there are actual sources claiming an 'endemic' stage has been reached. Even then, WP:CRYSTALBALL is very clear on how to proceed in these sort of hypotheticals. If this page is kept then it needs to be redone entirely, this page is rife with WP:OR & WP:POV issues and, frankly, needs to be WP:BLANKED. Etrius ( Us) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesnt merit GA... nomination was pure LOL. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposition

As I indicated above, this page serves a largely redundant function. 'COVID-19 pandemic in X Country' and the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic already include the vast majority of this information. Perhaps we should consider sending this page to WP:AFD since a merge with COVID-19 pandemic would just create more problems than its worth. Etrius ( Us) 03:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion appears to be the de facto outcome of this 'merge' if it were to succeed; AFD would probably produce more input from additional editors. Not sure if another procession of discussion is really justifiable though--might be interpreted as WP:FORUMSHOP. Discussion's been going on for over a week, and the COVID-19 pandemic talk page with its 2k watchers got notified.
The nominator did participate in the prior consideration of AFD in a reply [3]. Not sure why we need to ensure this gets merged in a way that prevents a section from getting bigger, to the point of this diff. Material is likely to grow on this subject rather than diminish. I'm inclined to oppose this suggestion. SmolBrane (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be WP:FORUMSHOP. This proposal should be allowed to run its course. The two ideas are hardly different anyway; either the way the question is the same - should this be an article or a subheading? Crossroads -talk- 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If the earlier concerns about 'de facto deletion' made earlier in the process (11 days ago) had requested it as the appropriate forum to get appropriate visibility, I think it would have made more sense to actively consider. I could see an argument that the change in venue would be unlikely to change the result, and as a proposal from those seeking to avoid deletion it would presumably improve their acceptance of an eventual merge/delete consensus. To do so now, almost two full weeks after discussion was opened, feels like it would result in the opposite impression, even if it was intending to give deference to those opposed to merge/deletion.
Is there an alternate path that could get more feedback and/or closure on the above discussion with no new comments in the past week? Potentially listing on WP:PROPMERGE to seek outside closure? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a pretty easy 'no consensus' close to me. Type 3 mergers according to the page you linked would include controversial and/or difficult closes; doesn't seem to apply here. There is already a backlog over there. SmolBrane (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you may be reading 'no consensus' through the lens of your own !vote, which is of course a big reason why closures happen through uninvolved editors. Fair point on the backlog on PROPMERGE. I'm not sure we need to rush any closure, but maybe pinging WP:COVID again (or an alternate venue) looking for a closer if it remains unclosed weeks after the last comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus I'll try an AfD to widen the input. But I don't think that'll be necessary. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see eleven !votes with 5/6 in favor slightly of support. Looks like clear 'no consensus to merge', I support that we 'keep tinkering' to quote Peter Southwood. Are you pursuing additional input 'through the lens of your own !vote'? No need for these types of characterizations imo. Perhaps I misunderstand the process, but status quo is the precedent and this article's existence was never questioned until now. Better to create articles rather than un-create them when no consensus emerges imo. I've been frustrated with the lack of editor participation in the COVID area before [4] it's not a new problem. SmolBrane (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember what WP:!VOTE says: it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. And the level of policy-backed comments above doesn't look like a pretty easy 'no consensus' close from my experience. See also: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON.
I'm certainly not intending to bend the process towards a favored result. My question above was intending to find consensus on a neutral venue to seek a close (if needed) with those holding the opposing view on the proposal, because I know such a request can be (or appear to be) WP:CANVASSing, and having support from both sides of this dispute is a way to avoid that issue. Without that kind of consensus, I am not going to be seeking closure through a new venue.
On a final note, I don't think this article's existence was never questioned until now is a strong argument against merge. It's under discussion now, and it'll be up to the closer to decide on the merits above, not whether there was any prior warning. I understand the frustration with getting more editors as well, but WP:NEGLECT isn't by itself sufficient justification. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can give it more time (maybe up to a month) and then list it at WP:CR if it still hasn't been closed. I'm not too familiar with PROPMERGE but that's what I figured. Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we will disagree on whose sides' merits are more robust than whose. We are on either side of the !vote! All editors are pretty darn experienced here, except for me.... I just don't see why sympathy needs to extend to folks that have already !voted, two weeks after the proposal began. SmolBrane (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two and a half weeks since the last comment. The article hasn't changed significantly. 6 Wikipedians support merger and have given reasons for their decision: Bon courage as nominator, myself, Bakkster Man, Arcahaeoindris, Jaredroach and Etriusus. 5 Wikipedians oppose the merger. Jtbobwaysf, Peter Southwood and Crossroads have given reasons for their decision. SmolBrane was "as per Crossroads". Ozzie10aaaa initially supported merger and then switched to oppose, but their reasoning makes no sense -- was that an error?

Three main reasons are given for opposition: (1) COVID-19 pandemic is WP:TOOLONG (Jtbobwaysf's main reason and Crossroads' subsidiary argument); (2) that there is adequate WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing (Crossroads' main argument and Jtbobwaysf's subsidiary argument); and (3) a process argument (Jtbobwaysf). On (1), there is already a section on this question in COVID-19 pandemic, so we won't be lengthening that article. The main actual merging of content will be to country-specific articles. (2) has already been dismissed above. Sourcing does not satisfy MEDRS requirements, which states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." (3) is rather beside the point: we're having a discussion; it doesn't matter that much whether we do it here or at AfD. The same points will be raised.

We can drag this out, but the majority support merger and the main arguments of those opposed are mistaken. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to re-add material you removed, adding a primary source because you erroneously thought this wasn't MEDRS [5]. Respectfully I find your arguments unpersuasive. This is a job for WP:CR. SmolBrane (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit there was in line with MEDRS. If you think that an ITV journalist satisfies MEDRS, I suggest you should review what MEDRS says. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't beneficial to draw out the process unnecessarily. Above, Crossroads suggested listing at WP:CR once more time was given. They said "up to a month", and I'm uncertain whether they meant a month from the proposal or a month from the above comment.
I am in favor of listing at WP:CR now, as it's past the 30 days open and 2-3 weeks post-discussion (26 days since the last !vote, 18 days since the last procedural comment) suggested at WP:CR. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SmolBrane in that these arguements by Bondegezou are not persuasive. They are one sided POV arguments masquerading as a neutral uninvolved statements. Relating to WP:TOOLONG and process, Bondegezou actually admits this is a delete discussion when he says "there is already a section on this question in COVID-19 pandemic, so we won't be lengthening that article" which directly contradicts Bon courage's proposal which states "The few paras of general/global content are merge to COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase". I disagree that a discussion of history (dates and figures of when and how countries each decide and announce they will classify covid as endemic) is subject to MEDRS as this is not biomedical information, thus there is no issue with sourcing. This is the typical MEDRS censorship 'we need the WHO to agree that covid in Thailand is endemic, we wont just take the Thai president's word for it because he cant be found in the Lancet'... We dont need a medical journal to relay a statement by a president of a sovereign nation, a standard RS is fine. Please read Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information? for policy on this. Given above, I think better to go to CR and get more uninvolved editors, rather than listening to summaries of involved editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People can list this at CR as far as I'm concerned. I also agree that Bondegezou's summary is not neutral and is not persuasive. 'Deletion via merger' is not appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 00:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at CR. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion via merger is really not cool and I understand that now after reading your comment, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether COVID-19 is endemic in Thailand comes under MEDRS. Whether the Thai President said COVID was endemic in Thailand does not come under MEDRS. The Thai President claiming something doesn’t make it true (that fails RS, let alone MEDRS). I am not saying that everything in this article requires MEDRS-compliant sourcing. My point was that Crossroads claimed the article was MEDRS compliant when it clearly is not. Referencing papers in medical journals is not enough to satisfy MEDRS: MEDRS wants secondary reviews. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing politicians, even high-ranking ones, on medical matters is always problematic. Politicians have made numerous false and stupid statements during the pandemic, from Trump's bleach, to African politicians spreading FUD about vaccines, to China's various unbelievable sets of official statistics. But when a politician says something about "endemic" we include it on Wikipedia because we're trying to get ahead of the "stubborn WHO". What a sorry state of affairs. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and regardless if politicians are medically stupid or not, their actions tend to be historical and thus encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except "stupid" things need to be presented within the framework of actual knowledge, because NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the dispute in a nutshell: public health policy changes are notable, but is this article with the title "endemic" the right location to make note of them? In any case, not much to do now but wait for a neutral party to close. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COVID endemicity isn't differentially unique enough to be separated from the end of the pandemic/flu-like management/return to normalcy in a manner that outweighs the dueness of the end of the pandemic/return to normalcy etc. The objection is too marginal and technical to warrant the nuking of all the due content. The instantiation of pandemic measures didn't come from MEDRS content, and the cessation isn't either. I've been careful to add material that mentions endemicity specifically and I think that's more than enough rigor. SmolBrane (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: As per WP:AGF, may I ask you to retract your comment that my post was masquerading as a neutral uninvolved statements. I clearly indicated that I was an involved editor. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I retract it and apologize as I must have been confused. I dont see where you wrote you were involved, however you did state you support and that makes it clear. This looks like WP:WL. Maybe take this to CR or some other sort of dispute resolution, or nominate for AfD as is the clear and stated goal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic clearly fails to meet the criteria given in Endemic (epidemiology), and there is already a problematic widespread belief that the virus is endemic. Merging these articles would further muddy the waters, furthering this misconception and preventing people holding that view from realizing their error. These articles should remain separate, so that Endemic COVID-19 can focus on hypothetical endemicity and political agendas, and COVID-19 pandemic can remain focused on epidemiology. TTK (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel for consideration

A couple articles on the end of pandemic/downgrade to flu status/related commentary from Israel[6][7]. There are more sources. SmolBrane (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem particularly newsworthy. I quote, "He described the goal as to get to an "endemic" stage of the virus when the disease is spreading at a normal or expected level." Well, yes, that would be the goal. He doesn't say Israel has achieved that goal. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endemic_COVID-19&oldid=1136139199"