Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 36.76.229.147 (talk) at 00:23, 14 February 2020 (→Page move referendum: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 11 February 2020 (NCOV)

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: Speedy close. Do not keep reopening the same move request every few days—it is clear that it will take longer than that for consensus to emerge. Changing the suggested title slightly by removing "2020" and using unusual capitalization does not change the fact that it's the same discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak – This title about the virus is very disturbing. Stating "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is almost saying Wuhan citizens are the one that caused the virus on purpose. Stop users from using the speedy close/snow clause to cutoff voices. After reviewing there 2 reliable sources that had the stable name currently as 2019 Novel Coronavirus.[1] [2] Regice2020 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

____


Reply Updated move request, @Doc James: @Goodtiming8871: and @Sleath56: responses on the previous move request gave me a better hint for a stable name and those point makes perfect sense.Regice2020 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Regice2020:, I share the similar view with you on this, but I'd like to remind you pinging only people in your same view could violate WP:CANVASS. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinbenlv: Thank you for bring that issue to my attention. I am only crediting some users who made good point which led to me on requesting a stable move request. No intent to force a bias vote as many times they have voted against anyways. Regice2020 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep this discussion open. The first MR Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 was intended to be a "temp" move, and I don't see the consensus there. and the second MR was no consensus. New information has since emerged as the WHO, Whitehouse and China health authorities are giving it new name. Please do not close when a name is in some of the arguer's favor while other people disagree with this. Please kindly wait for a consensus to emerge. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JHunterJ: the mover of Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 to help us understand why the original consensus was interpreted as such. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has complained about the outcome of that previous RM for nearly a month. At this point it is the status quo. You have no grounds to challenge it as improper at such a late date. Especially given we do have a RM that closed as no consensus less than a week ago. Your behavior, in creating a copy-paste move deliberately in order to forum-shop the RM to AfD, is disruptive and inappropriate. I suggest you disengage. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What inappropriate is the name of the article and users try find way cut off "Supporters" voices when a current stable name set by the CDC and WHO. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks the title should have the year, and the "where and what." It's currently fine: it's the outbreak of a coronavirus in Wuhan that occurred from 2019-2020. The proposed title is only refers to the virus, and does not make clear any of the specifics. If there theoretically was another outbreak of 2019-nCoV after this one, that title would not be precise enough. If anything even "2019-20 Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak" would be better although that isn't concise. Nobody is putting the blame on people from Wuhan, it's just where the outbreak started. Ev3commander (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't we at least say that it may go by different names. For example, China's National Health Commission recently called it Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia or NCP. This apparently was mainly to remove the stigma involving the fact that the current coronavirus outbreak isn't just in Wuhan. Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding Closure Note

This completely false saying it same rm discussion. Name came from the source and was not the same as the previous requested moves. A good clear source that was actually provided for a name change. Regice2020 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to engage in tendentious editing by attempting to wriggle through gaps and technicalities (e.g. "oh but the year in the title is different this time!"), this issue may eventually end up at WP:ANI. While it is preferred that users can be trusted with being sensible so that we don't end up with everything under firm lockdown, a decision may be made to enforce a hard time limit on future move discussions if such behaviour continues. This is clearly disruptive behaviour, please desist immediately. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare: The seem to be harmful? - The move request was unbias action in good faith and this questioning about the recent move request . I am not sure if this is threat or this is that thing in WP "were you sorta shit talk to others while we cant sorta shit talk back". Anyways, you guys can go ahead figure how fix the page. Have nice day. Regice2020 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You started a RM discussion to "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak" a couple of hours after the previous RM had closed. Then two days later, you started another RM discussion to "2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak", essentially the same title but with different years and capitalisations. Have you reflected on how this appears to other editors? --benlisquareT•C•E 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the suggested title comes from the source and it completely different. 2019 Novel Coronavirus is the proper name as stated in the soruce. Regice2020 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak" is not "completely different" from the name suggested at the last two RMs, "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is not same as 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. It has different character counts and these rm are pressured discussion cut off came from somewhere. Regice2020 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a read of WP:Stick Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to his talk page, Regice2020 isn't new to continuing dead discussions over article reverts. [1] 204.186.241.170 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Regice2020

Not sure I am not sure if your comment above to was a attempt to disrupt considering you been blocked in 2017 and was given final warnings 2 more times in 2019 for disruptions after the block. I believe i moved on about this issue after my comment above. Regice2020 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you trying to remember a past for each other? If Regice2020's claim is true, then it is older than what is happening in this month. If 204.186's claim was true, then... maybe stop pls? --46.39.248.32 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

out of date claim about non virulent vectors

Four individuals in Germany later confirmed to have the infection, may have contracted it from an infected but asymptomatic colleague.[115]

THIS is not so. The paper has been corrected / withdrawn OR at least that case is no longer considered as evidencing this claim. IT should be rewritten in the ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is hard to find if it was called that Austinstar08 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should rename it to 2019-ncov outbreak Aaawerftyh6jum (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 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: Speedy close with no viable consensus. This is due to a preponderance of equally valid arguments coming from both sides. This close should be regarded as without prejudice and does not imply that a new RM may not be opened later on. This close is primarily intended as a time save for editors, as current discussion seems unlikely to aid in resolving issues. The new name will either shortly be accepted or rejected in lay and research literature, as such Wikipedia should not act as a vanguard for it. It would be advisable to wait at least 7 days before opening a new RM.
(non-admin closure) Carl Fredrik talk 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → COVID-19 outbreak – Hi, I am proposing to rename the page to COVID-19 outbreak as that is the official name given by the World Health Organisation today. I would like to get your views. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The encyclopedic article name should always reflect the official name. The various nicknames given to the outbreak should all redirect to "2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak". (though I don't mind COVID-19 outbreak either). Futhermore, the "2009 flu pandemic" article is usually known as "swine flu", so this article would be better being renamed "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" since "flu" or "influenza" is the disease name of swine flu. The usage of a city to refer to the epidemic is prejudicial (as per the comments by WHO) and is usually avoided by the medical community except to necessitate dialogue. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SomethingNastyHere:I do not think "COVID-19" is common yet. Not a lot of common people refer to it as that. They still use the word "coronavirus" when talking about it. Before the Deputy General of WHO named the virus as "COVID-19", he said "Now onto the coronavirus". Also, I have met children and adults who still use the word "coronavirus" when referring to it, not "2019-nCov". "Novel coronavirus" is both the non-insulting, scientific, culturally-neutral and common name. "Novel Coronavirus" fits the article title naming policy. :"2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak" sounds too technical. "Wuhan coronavirus" is the common name. CDC and WHO and www.gov.uk still have not used "COVID-19" yet. "COVID-19" is not a common name, so it should not be used. Also there is a lot of numbers to remember. Also, what does COVID even stand for? CDC and WHO and www.gov.uk all use "Novel Coronavirus" as of February 12th, 9:27A.M. (Pacific Time). So I strongly oppose changing the name. 2600:1700:1150:6A10:511B:E94F:D340:A5E4 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, etc. We aren’t the medical community and we don’t solely serve the medical community (and for the record, most of the medical community won’t be using this silly name, just researchers and pedants). We also aren’t WHO’s press desk. We aren’t bound by WHO’s “official naming” any more than we’re bound to any other organization’s unique “brand identification” (see MOS:TM). The comments that the current title somehow causes prejudice are concerning, of course, but WP:NOTCENSORED still governs our work here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can use and can edit, but using deliberately non-transparent article titles (i.e., willfully avoiding the COMMONNAME, which is what the above are asserting we should do in following WHO’s example) is in direct conflict with this mission. It turns us more into the encyclopedia that only niche experts and pedants care about. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry for the multiple comments, but I just wanted to point out that the WP:NCE uses places to refer to outbreaks within that locality. So an article about the "Diamond Princess Outbreak" would refer to the outbreak within the confines of the ferry, or the "France chalet outbreak" would be about the outbreak at the chalet. NOT the epidemic SomethingNastyHere (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd argue that there isn't one COMMONNAME for the epidemic and that redirects solve these problems. Furthermore, the term Swine Flu is more widely known than 2009 flu pandemic, but the latter is used rather than the former. Wikipedia is censored and has its biases, so I would also argue that it's silly to bring up the idea of WP:NOTCENSORED. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that a title that is not the most common name should affect the readability of the article in any sort of way. Redirection pages exist as well. Rethliopuks (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Wuhan coronavirus" is not the common name. In my view, opposition on those grounds is a false proposition as "Wuhan coronavirus" has never been the most commonly used and if we wanted to go by the most COMMONNAME used, it would be "China virus". It is not the common name and thus WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable in that regard and in fact states: " When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Sleath56 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is the COMMONNAME. Your misuse of Google Trends here is pretty weird. Of course the phrase “China virus” is going to be very common, probably more common than “Wuhan virus” given that’s not the COMMONNAME. It’s a phrase used in many sentences/headlines. “New China virus kills 1000” does not mean the name of the outbreak is “China virus”.
    And your own policy citation is self-defeating: You say that when there are multiple fairly common names, another may be used if one is problematic—you’ve not only failed to show that the current name is problematic (and the last RM concluded that there was no consensus for this), this new alphabet soup the WHO has proposed (they have no authority to dictate this sort of thing) is decidedly NOT the most common name.
    Once again, all the questions apart from whether we must use the WHO’s meaningless, obscure terminology were already discussed ad nauseam in the prior RM, and the conclusion was that there was NO CONSENSUS. All the discussion above and below asserting that the current name is problematic for reasons other than the “official” status of the WHO terminology should be collapsed. We’ve been appropriately speedy closing all these discussions, rightly. The only change that might require a reexamination is this neologism. And as I’ve concluded, we should not use it. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You expended so much digital ink into your rebuttal that you didn't even have the time to conduct a search to see the context of the utilized word. "China virus" is a COMMONNAME and used as a noun by RS by the same merit of "Wuhan coronavirus". The proposition of it being merely 'phrasing' is easy to shoot holes through just by substituting words in your own argument: “New Wuhan coronavirus kills 1000” does not mean the name of the outbreak is “Wuhan coronavirus”. I don't see it as anything more than cherry-picking to say only one of the two is valid. Nonetheless, your digression is rather trivial as "China virus" is not the only term that surpasses, "nCoV" has as well. Sleath56 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are (1) The status quo doesn’t require defense right now because there has already been no consensus that it’s inappropriate, and (2) all the RSes in this article that use the COMMONNAME “Wuhan coronavirus” outside of headlines in a nominative manner are a testament to the fact that you’re wrong. You are using faulty methodology. I pointed this out. Your aggressive posturing about “digital ink” is unhelpful and frankly comes off as threatening. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whataboutism on 'aggressive posturing' is frivolous when the sprit of your OP essentially consisted of normative labelling objections as "misuse and faulty." If you read my response again, you ascertain my point in summary. Plenty of articles use "China virus." Plenty of articles use "nCoV." In titles alongside article bodies, with "China virus" observed as noun in equal merit to "Wuahan coronavirus." It's basic cherry-picking to say only "Wuhan coronavirus" has been used in a 'nominative manner,' not that such a nebulous criterion is relevant to this discussion. WP:COMMONNAME is clearly not applicable here, as by any non-selective standards "Wuhan coronavirus" is not the common name. Sleath56 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see "Wuhan coronavirus" and "China coronavirus" as an even more direct comparison. The current title by all measures is not one that WP:COMMONNAME is applicable to. Sleath56 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rethliopuks: Just because it is "official" does not mean it is used officially by the CDC, WHO, or www.gov.uk or common people! It is just a long jumble of letters and numbers, and is unconnectable to the coronavirus at first sight. It is like the name of a Star Wars robot! We should not use a jumble of letters and numbers to name a virus! We are becoming computers, who speak in 0101 binary code! We already have molecular formulas and hexadecimal numbers and military airplanes and robots and vitamins! Not a virus! 2600:1700:1150:6A10:95E9:1208:DA0C:BA1F (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -The name "COVID-19" was given as the Researchers have been calling for an official name to avoid confusion and stigmatisation."We had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or group of people, and which is also pronounceable and related to the disease," the WHO chief said. "Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatising. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future coronavirus outbreaks" By keeping the current name of Wuhan Coronavirus is very racist and insulting to the Chinese people as it creates the stigma that the citizens of Wuhan are responsible for the virus and hence lead to more xenophobic attacks towards the East Asians and South-East Asians. Furthermore, in the future, the city of Wuhan may always be associated with this COVID19 disease outbreak especially when people google Wuhan and this is the top results they are getting about the disease outbreak rather than about the city itself. Hence confusing the people searching about the information of Wuhan city.220.255.71.13 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@220.255.71.13: Then can't you use "Novel coronavirus" instead? "COVID-19" is too complicated, and does not follow the article title naming policy. 2600:1700:1150:6A10:95E9:1208:DA0C:BA1F (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Avoid stigmatization and use a neutral and official name.--Efly (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is the official name, whilst "Wuhan coronavirus" is not and has never been the COMMONNAME to merit its retainment, which has been surpassed overall by "China virus" and surpassed recently by nCoV. 1 Sleath56 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.  --Lambiam 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I would prefer "2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak". Otherwise COVID-19 names the disease (instead of the virus) and comes from an authoritative source. This is what I wanted people to wait for in my opposition to previous renaming attempts. EMS | Talk 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral/Wait: A new name is being debated for the 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease page, and that discussion is leaning towards "Coronavirus disease 2019". I am now loath to move this page to "COVID-19 outbreak" as it is getting more obvious that this page will need to be moved again from that name too. However, a move from the current name to something without "Wuhan" is getting more advisable as time goes on. EMS | Talk 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I opposed all previous moves primarily requests on the ground that it wasnt appropriate to change the page until the official name came out. Since it now has its the appropriate time to change the name. Obviously we need to keep a mention of "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” in the lead as the more common but problematic name, preferably in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would prefer that we kept a date in the title to maintain consistency across similar wikipedia pages, buts its not a dealbreaker for me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have been waiting for a permanent, distinctive official name, and WHO delivered one that's even easier than "coronavirus". COMMONNAME has its limits; I'm reminded of a string of attempts to rename the Madidi Titi to Golden Palace Monkey). MagteiContrib 18:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny you should cite that Madidi titi naming dispute. That’s exactly what WHO is doing. Trying to give us “Golden Palace monkey” because someone prominent is now calling it that. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Giving us a more neutral option. Golden Palace Monkey was biased by money, Wuhan by (several paragraphs about this already). --MagteiContrib 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The argument that the Wuhan title is somehow inappropriate or biased is foreclosed by the previous RM. There was no consensus that the page title is inappropriate for all the “several paragraphs” you claim (what paragraphs actually establish this on a Wikipedia policy basis?). All that’s changed is this new name that nobody is using yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don’t just change page titles for what we assume will be the COMMONNAME at some point in the future. Argue all you want that this is a better title, but the claims that the current title is somehow improper or problematic have been determined to have no consensus. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support correct name. Starzoner (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WHO leader announced the COVID-19 name on an unreliable source - Twitter, but also at a press conference; the mainstream media reports of the press conference and the tweet consider the information to be serious, so we're OK in terms of RS's. But it's rather ironical that WHO itself still says "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak" on its website. So WHO disagrees with WHO (which can probably be better understood by differentiating between who is WHO versus who is WHO); pedantically speaking, we should have the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (per WHO)/COVID-19 (per WHO) outbreak, for NPOV. Boud (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WHO name, so will be used internationally and persistently. Can redirect from colloquial names where necessary. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For medical based articles the common name is not routinely used but instead the scientific or recognised medical name - hence myocardial infarction not the redirect heart attack (which redirects to that), pneumonia not chest infection (which goes to a disambiguation list). The relevant guideline is WP:NCMED. In UK the term Wuhan-coronavirus has been replaced by 2019-Novel-Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) while awaiting an agreed official name - see '2.1 Nomenclature and characterisation' at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-background-information/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-epidemiology-virology-and-clinical-features (and yes the web link keeps to the same original phrasing so that doctors can preserve links they may have already bookmarked) David Ruben Talk 20:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NCMED also says we should use the name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. A WHO press conference and tweet are not “recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources”. No evidence has been provided that any recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources use this phrasing at all. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per my comment a few lines above: mainstream media present at the press conference and/or reading the tweet judged these as valid; those mainstream media count as secondary sources with a (reasonable) reputation for fact-checking. There's also the WHO official script. Moreover, this is an issue of the name, not of claims of treatments or vaccines, and WP:NCMED is a guideline to be taken with common sense. It's reasonable to assume that medical researchers publishing in peer-reviewed journals will follow the official WHO naming recommendation. Boud (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's reasonable to assume that medical researchers publishing in peer-reviewed journals will follow the official WHO naming recommendation. This is why WP:CBALL exists. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Predicting that reputable scientists will tend to follow standard scientific standards on a name convention in this situation is a conservative assumption. Anyway, since we're wikilawyering here: the second half of the first sentence of WP:NCMED is also relevant here: rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.[2]. "2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus" is a lay term; "2019-nCoV" is a historical eponym that has been superseded. I rest my case. Boud (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded. See the bolded part. It refers back to the first half of the sentence as a threshold requirement. We must have something that is the most commonly used phrase in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. The part you’re quoting is completely irrelevant to the present discussion, but I’ll also point out that (1) reliable sources use the phrase, (2) the phrase has not been superseded in the sources. What you’re arguing is that WHO’s ivory tower pronouncement is binding upon us. It is not. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • My only objection to the current name was that it named the virus and not the disease. But until today, the disease lacked an official name, and the current name was more than good enough in the meantime. The disease finally has an official name. That is what myself and (I believe) a lot of other editors were looking for. Maybe the WHO is an "ivory tower" to you, but for the rest of us it is an authoritative source whose lead we are happy to follow until and unless it becomes obvious that something better needs to be used. EMS | Talk 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Retaining "Wuhan" in the article name is informative for the user as it tells us where the virus came from.86.161.82.215 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 1) The current name will be retained as a redirect if the article is renamed. 2) The first paragraph of the article makes it clear that this disease originated in Wuhan, China, and hopefully will always do so. EMS | Talk 21:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The media has been making efforts to not even use the Wuhan portion, and just calling it coronavirus outbreak, so the article name isn't approraite anymore anyway. Calling by the now officially designated name will help confusion going forward. Angryapathy (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per WP:DESCRIPTOR, this should be "2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak" Holomanga (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support moving to "2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak" instead. If that title is not used now, I am sure this page will soon be moved again to that title. (Note: I have already declared support for the move as requested above. Even that is a better title than the current one.) EMS | Talk 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Support withdrawn. Even this suggestion is becoming OBE. EMS | Talk 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment talking about official names, the official name of sun is Sol (solar system, solar calendar, solar energy), and official name of earth's moon is Luna (lunar eclipse, lunar missions), and earth's official name is Nova. Currently, the common name for this virus is "novel corona virus". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, etc. This common name includes the Wuhan moniker. Keep Wuhan. Keep Coronavirus. That's how normal people refer to this thing. XavierItzm (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, as the virus is commonly referred to by the name of "Wuhan Corona virus". Once news articles and media start reflecting a change in name, perhaps the name can be changed on Wikipedia as well but as of now, to change it is premature. Zaragossa (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How bad is the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak likely to get? - New Scientist. Boud (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The word "coronavirus" should appear in the title per WP:COMMONNAME policy, it's the most recognizable name for the disease. There is currently also a discussion in the talk page of the COVID-19 article regarding its title. I would support the use of the long form of COVID which is "coronavirus disease", so to have "2019–2020 coronavirus disease outbreak" or something similar, with or without "Wuhan". --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am in favour of revisiting this in a few months if then, on balance, the name used by the public/media has changed. For now it has the correct name. Wikimucker (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The decision made by this RM, especially of the objection on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME should bear in mind the established consensus of the RM on the virus page whether to move that to "Wuhan coronavirus": The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to the suggested title, though there is a significant level of dissatisfaction with the current title. Moving it to "Wuhan coronavirus" or a variant of it is resoundingly unpopular particularly later in the discussion, with large numbers of editors pointing out multiple documented issues with over-enthusiastically naming diseases after places. While it's clearly a common name for the disease, it is neither the common name, nor is it officially used as the name by official organisations. Sleath56 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close similar title as the previous rm. There currently not stable page name and i would considering waiting until end of March 2020 to see what happens. Regice2020 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Coronavirus is the common name Benica11 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Otherwise oppose, although i would support move to Global Xinfection 89.206.119.197 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak would be a better choice, as used here https://globalbiodefense.com/2020/02/11/new-mapping-tool-lets-you-scroll-through-covid-19-coronavirus-outbreak-timeline/  — Jojoyeet@lk 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. This is the most commonly used and recognisable name. That could change in the future. Wikipedia doesn't use official names solely because they are official. Citobun (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's absolutely not the "most commonly used and recognisable name". See Google Trends Sleath56 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: It's got a name now, but how many people know about it at this time? Not many. If you go out on the streets, you'll most likely hear people call it the coronavirus and not "Co vid 19". Yes things like this should be formal, but then for convenience purposes, we'll use the simple non-complex term. Can I Log In (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wait to see if this name is picked up media and independent sources (ie not WHO members) so that we can tell if "COVID-19" becomes a common name. Even if used our article, titles for outbreaks normally use the year it happened in eg "2020". And we should also consider not using abbreviations, but full names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term 'coronavirus' is supposed to be used as an overreaching term for the Coronaviruses family. Like SARS and MERS, both diseases are called the 'SARS outbreak' or 'MERS outbreak', not the Guangdong Coronavirus (SARS) or the Saudi Arabia Coronavirus (MERS). Using the correct term COVID-19 would be the best course of action for Wikipedia, and would follow the wishes of the World Health Organization to not have the virus based of a geographical location. Foxterria (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the one to tell you this but MERS stands for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. However, since in the first sentence of the article it states the disease as an epidemic, the name should be moved to 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus epidemic.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Commonname. In reality, the name should be 2019-20 COVID-19 conoravirus outbreak. Note that the common name is conoravirus outbreak, not "Wuhan" conoravirus outbreak. Obviously, the commonname is wrong since conoravirus is the name for the family of viruses. Therefore, the name should be 2019-20 COVID-19 conoravirus outbreak. However, I can still support the current choice. 73.223.80.43 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. The current one is the most commonly used and informative name. COVID-19 is also misleading because the main outbreak is in 2020. Lysimachi (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very little mention in media internationally or from WHO that is is a Wuhan coronavirus, it has gone beyond Wuhan ~ Ablaze (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Give it another week for things to settle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose I strongly oppose changing the name! The name has not been changed to COVID! WHO is still using the 2019-nCov name! I checked at February 11th at 11:48 P.M. Show me the source! I dont see it! Guys you should not be gullible with fallacies! See here! WHOand CDC both use "2019-nCOV as of February 11th, 11:51 P.M. (Pacific Time). Also, this quote from www.gov.uk at February 11th at 11:51 P.M. (Pacific Time): "2.1 Nomenclature and characterisation WHO recommends that the interim name of the disease causing the current outbreak should be “2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease” (where ‘n’ is for novel and ‘CoV’ is for coronavirus). This name complies with the WHO Best Practices for Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases, which were developed through a consultative process among partner agencies. WHO is also proposing ‘2019-nCoV’ as an interim name of the virus. Characterisation of 2019-nCoV is ongoing. Initial information shared by China and WHO indicates that 2019-nCoV is a beta-coronavirus that is genetically similar to SARS-like coronaviruses obtained from bats in Asia." Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-background-information/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-epidemiology-virology-and-clinical-features. Guys! COVID must be not real! 3 offical organizations from 2 countries, including CDC and WHO, United States and United Kingdom still call the virus "2019-nCov"!! COVID must be fake! Don't be gullible! I don't see "COVID" anywhere!! 2600:1700:1150:6A10:E895:3573:388A:C940 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment The biases of the Wikipedia community are showing here yet again (and no I am not Chinese). The name of the disease is COVID-19. Convention has shown that previous epidemics are named after the disease and not the virus (e.g. 2009 flu pandemic), with the location referring to the disease in a specified locality (so, the community should use the title "Diamond Princess outbreak" to describe the COVID-19 epidemic within the ferry.) I am strongly opposed to keeping the term "Wuhan" within the title as tradition in the political and medical community is mostly against referring to epidemics by a person or locality. Furthermore, the COMMONNAME is usually not used to refer to epidemics either, such as the article for Swine Flu being called 2009 flu pandemic. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still strongly oppose! The name is too complicated, and does not follow the article title naming policy! WHO and CDC and www.gov.uk still use "2019-nCOV" and don't use "COVID-19"! Common people, like my neighbors and friends dislike "COVID-19". What kind of a person uses a long jumble of letters and numbers in front of the word "outbreak"? That is just weird! I rebuke all support votes with this comment! I hate saying "COVID-19" to other people. "COVID-19" does not follow WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:NATURALNESS! Other news articles and the "2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" Wikipedia article does not use "COVID-19"! 2600:1700:1150:6A10:95E9:1208:DA0C:BA1F (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@203.217.187.35: Just because it is used by other websites does not mean it is common and recognizable. So, "COVID-19" does not follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. 2600:1700:1150:6A10:95E9:1208:DA0C:BA1F (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Feinoa: I strongly oppose changing the name to "COVID-19", because it does not follow the article title naming policy, and especially because it does not make sense at first sight to someone who is not experienced in science, so it does not follow WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. 2600:1700:1150:6A10:95E9:1208:DA0C:BA1F (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I would suggest "Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak", which a) is just what COVID-19 stands for and expands the acronym, b) includes the word "Coronavirus", which is its WP:COMMONNAME, and c) isn't going to need changing if the outbreak continues into 2021 (SARS lasted for 2 years). "2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak" can of course be a redirect. Smurrayinchester 12:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of the move to COVID-19 as per the WP:COMMONNAME - Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. SARS, MERS, even H1N1 were all novel coronaviruses. It causes significant confusion, and the current name is an extremely ambiguous name. I am happy with anything involving COVID-19 - as probably already discussed this is the syndrome so I would suspect COVID-19 outbreak would be accurate for this page. I would then create a new page called COVID-19 which describes the clinical syndrome. --Almaty (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am one of the editors that has contributed somewhat to this article. I am making one generic comment to cover all three article pages, with a general "support" to all the moves except in terms of the technicalities of the name... I consider the name of the virus to be "SARS-CoV-2" so precedence would suggest that the name of the virus article should be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". The WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "coronavirus" and "novel/new coronavirus" which make for unencyclopedic article titles and should remain nothing more than placeholder names... The disease is called "COVID-9" so similarly the article should be "Coronavirus disease 2019". The usage of the word "novel" should be discouraged as per comments above... The outbreak article should be "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" (similar to the Zika virus outbreak) or as suggest in other comments "2019-20 COVID-9 outbreak" (similar to the 2009 flu pandemic as suggested elsewhere). I disagree that the name would confuse people because the vast majority of people are either going to be confused with "coronavirus" (in which case the Simple English Wikipedia would help) or they would be able to deduce what it means. There are numerous WP:COMMONNAME that can be used so I think that all of them should redirect to a more formal name... Putting together all these arguments, which aren't related to the arguments about whether a virus/disease/outbreak ought to be named after cities, I am against the usage of the word "novel" in article titles and supportive of using official names across the virus, disease and outbreak articles. I also disagree that there is an established WP:COMMONNAME out there and this Wikipedia article may in fact be "forcing" the "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" onto society. Tsukide (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is a tendency to be too hasty in renaming article, we should really wait and see what happens next. We see the same situation with 2019 novel coronavirus where a temporary name was adopted as the article title, which quickly become obsolete now that there is a new official name. Hzh (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except that RM failed and the point of contention many made in that RM was to wait for the official name. This is that official name. Renaming articles doesn't mean the new name is set in stone for all time, the virus page has been through several RM in the same time. Sleath56 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was first named Wuhan coronavirus, someone changed it novel coronavirus, only then was there a proposal to move it back. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which precisely supports my point that article names aren't set in stone and not supportive of the objection here to the RM. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/disease-gets-official-name-death-toll-now-1-112-virus-update
  • Oppose The name is not recognisable enough and Wuhan is its most common name, albeit informal. The official name can be simply added to the description e.g. 'also known as' or 'officially...' etc etc. User:imp dean (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2020 (GMT)
  • Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:ACRONYMTITLE. The common name is still "coronavirus", not COVID-19. Why not move to "2019-20 coronavirus disease outbreak" instead, since COVID-19 is just an acronym? --Alextgordon (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a sensible suggestion, but people are just too keen to change the title quickly, jumping on the latest term used without considering if it is appropriate. Perhaps a discussion first on which title to use would have been more appropriate, otherwise we end up with endless page move discussions. Hzh (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2019–20 COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. Wuhan outbreak is not used by any reputable media. It's not accurate, as the virus has spread to many other regions. The media refers to the issue as coronavirus outbreak. Since we need more specifity, COVID-19 should be added. 73.222.81.151 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article has 542 references and not a single one has "COVID" in the title. Lots of them has Wuhan. Christian75 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of an argument is that? The RM decision is based on universal RS not just RS cited in the article. The page title is "Wuhan coronavirus" so editors looking for references may naturally already be pre-selective towards RS that use that term when searching. Furthermore, if that's the quality of the argument, then a Ctrl+F will show far more cited references on this page use "Novel Coronavirus" instead. Sleath56 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: WHO just released Situation Update 23 with a new title: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report – 23. CDC has posted a notice on all nCoV pages indicating the name change. NHS has changed its page to "Coronavirus (COVID-19)". - Wikmoz (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (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.

Censorship, propaganda, and police response

Recovered from archive at: 1 @FobTown: Missed your previous comment as the section here was archived. I think overall, we've arrived at a largely agreeable view on the section as the material contentions of it are very minor. I do have some points of order. Note that Mackenzie's comments are already within the #Criticism section and that I've removed it from here due to duplicative entries. The UN diplomat's opinion isn't largely notable because of WP:DUE DUE and more especially because it's an anonymous source. Additionally, the flow of the section is fine as is. My edits are to maintain chronological flow as this is an ongoing event and its the most neutral way to display the section. Reordering them otherwise leads to potential WP:SYNTHESIS and makes it difficult to incorporate new entries. I would have liked to put the censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang after the 30 January Supreme Court entry per chronology, but the current form of the section which in my view should be de-editorialized makes it difficult to excise. Sleath56 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why just have a few quotes from officials, when there are plenty of specific examples of how state media has been publishing "gushing reports" of the central gov't response, including speedy hospital construction and lock down of Wuhan? As said earlier, both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side in international media articles discussing the overall way that China's information operates, basically propaganda and censorship go hand-in-hand in a regime's attempt to control what citizens are allowed to hear and forbidden to hear. The Lunar New Year's Eve gala is also another example of the state media's selective coverage to promote or marginalize topics, so this constitutes another example of censorship. The "Criticism of Local Response" touches a bit on censorship and state media which is fine, but the main purpose of that section was to analyze the power dynamic between central government and local government.
At the moment unless new developments happen in censorship/propaganda, it is fine to keep censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang in the censorship paragraph for now.
I did lump the Supreme Court and Human Rights Watch opinions together since they are too short as standalone paragraphs, however I left the content unchanged.
I'll agree to reduce the UN diplomat's quote in Censorship as the full context of it goes in WHO response, however the UN diplomat's opinion is anonymous likely as they feared reprisals. In addition while John Mackenzie's viewpoint might be duplicated, it helps to complete the narrative for each section he is included, where the central government wasn't being forthcoming with the WHO nor its own citizens. A similar argument for having Steve Tsang quoted several times until I could find replacement sources. FobTown (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side". This is WP:SYNTHESIS unless you can find considerable RS who explicitly support the notion of a "two-pronged censorship tactic." It may be obvious to you and me that is what it is but unless a notable amount of RS depict it that way as a 'grand strategy,' it cannot be phrased in such a way. As I've said earlier: I've accepted many of the points you've made on the premise of "positive coverage" such that I believe it is relevant to the topic of censorship. However, the underlying point of an encyclopedia here which is WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." While positive coverage is a part of it, the clear majority focus of RS is on the actual censorship and police actions. Incidents like the detainment of a citizen in Tianjin are very notable examples of this that have become diluted because of the scope of the section. I think what has already been said about positive coverage is a satisfactory enough summary and that WP:PROPORTION should be brought in mind here. The section is on Censorship and Police response, but there is very little on police response and I oppose further expanding it when there is such a lack of latter entries at the present. The focus should be to summarize the CCP's tactics and highlight the egregious that have been reported by RS such as the revelations of police incidents of detainments and other police actions, which haven't been covered almost at all despite the section being dedicated half towards police response.
The way in which the section is being reshuffled away for synthesizing the whole of it into one editorialized passage is making it difficult to add new information. The censorship of reactions to Li Wenliang should be on the bottom as its the most recent, but the way in which the section is structured now has it added bizarrely in the middle of an already large paragraph. I'd encourage you to stop restructuring the section away from the chronological. This is a developing event where such a method is the most expedient, and also it hinders the efficiency of including new entries if article flow is otherwise.
Additionally, I'm not sure why the passage "including Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist from Wuhan Central Hospital, who posted warnings on a new coronavirus strain akin to SARS, later in December being warned by Wuhan police for "spreading rumours" for likening it to SARS" is being removed. It was added to give structural context to the picture, of which was your insistence that the picture of the police document remain in the #Censorship section instead of #Response where a passage on Li Wenliang has already been established. Sleath56 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the right spot: @Sleath56:, your recent edit removed/broke a reference and started a paragraph in the middle of a word(!), in the middle of a sentence. I'm hesitant to try and bash it back into shape, and I'm hoping that you can sort it out. pauli133 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pauli133: Done. Thanks for the heads up. It's a challenge to juggle the retainment of new entries of merit and also restore the section's chronological structural flow when that's also repeatedly changed as well. Sleath56 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone kept adding Li Wenliang to multiple places over and over again. If it is you, perhaps you should stop doing that, one single person should not have such prominence in this article, and all references to the person should be kept in one place. Hzh (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: The entire passage on the Wuhan police in #Censorship is essentially duplicative to that in #Criticism of local response but argued as necessary in being doubly included here previously by another editor. The picture of the police document, which I moved to the latter section as that is where the context for Li Wenliang is developed was also contested by the same and moved to the former. As such, the note on the individual was appended doubly in the section here as an attempt to provide immediate context. The policy on a single person not having such prominence is already broken by the entries on Steve Tsang's opinion in both sections. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Hzh (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Appreciate the feedback. That's essentially my position as well, but discussion has only been between myself and another editor since throughout, so I was unable to establish any agreement on it. The third opinion you've provided should be enough to highlight the merit of those benefits. Sleath56 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The positive coverage does have significant RS too, and why just restrict it to quotes when there are instances to make it complete? Many RS have noted both censorship and positive coverage efforts. And in no way does expanding positive coverage diminish specific incidents like police detainment for online posts. While I considered spinning off positive coverage into its own section, the quotes from officials mention refer to both positive coverage and censorship which I would rather not duplicate.
Aim was to collectively categorize all types for each paragraph, rather than just do a pure chronological sequence of events. FobTown (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the problem isn't not mentioning 'positive coverage' so long as RS cover it, the problem is synthesizing it as some two-pronged tactic in the section if considerable RS do not explicitly support that notion. The issue was dropped earlier, but now that it's been resurrected, the problem of directly quoting secondary sources is that the section should summarize, not quoting entire sentences from a secondary source which more zealous editors could construe as plagiarism. Quotes should be reserved principally for the place of primary sources (eg. Xi Jinping, Steve Tsang) with the secondary source providing context for how RS perceive or interpret the primary source quotation.
On organization, please stop from reordering it while the event is still ongoing. I admit I didn't see much of the problem to be forceful about maintaining this issue until the Li Wenliang entry came and had to be bizarrely incorporated in the middle of the section when it should rightly be displayed as the most recent entry on the bottom. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the point stated explicitly that it was a two-pronged tactic of positive coverage and censorship. How about noting that many international publication articles mention both positive coverage and censorship? Xi Jinping's directive "to strengthen the guidance of public opinions", among other official quotes, can be construed as supportive of both positive coverage and censorship. Will tone down the direct quote from secondary sources.
Agree with the point that Li Wenliang would have its own paragraph since it was a new development. I figured out that older/lesser events would get reduced into 1-2 sentence mentions.
The WHO officially commended China's handling of the crisis and so that remains as the lead, but its not unanimous among everyone and we don't want to jump everywhere around the article to find scattered criticism. FobTown (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the entry on Steve Tsang, one person's theory should not narrate and set the framework for the entire section when other RS already talk of the same thing well enough, especially when its duplicative. See discussion above. Additionally, adding "Propaganda" to the section title is obviously not NPOV, I'm not sure why you resurrected this when its been discussed days ago.
The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased Steve Tsang's quote and moved it to the end, as it bridges to the next part which is censorship measures. FobTown (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it wholesale per above. The problem is no longer a matter of paraphrasing, its due weight as addressed above that other editors have opined as a concern. Sleath56 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor was specifically referred to the duplication of Li Wenliang being mentioned twice; this is okay as the details of the social media reaction to his death goes in Censorship and Police Response, while the details of his arrest and investigation go under Criticism of Local Response. But you can't take that editor's opinion as a blanket consensus to eliminate everything that you think is a duplication.
I don't think we go exclusively to #Criticism of Local response to find criticism on the WHO. I've found further information to expand the criticism under the WHO section, particularly as it applies to WHO director-general Tedros's approach to engaging China, which some have justified while others have attacked.
The positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) appears nowhere in the article which means that it isn't duplication so restored it. 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Stop. Reread the discussion above. It's quite explicit that two editors are contesting its addition here and not without valid reason that has already been stated and unaddressed. Your explanations for keeping it are at present by not addressing the concerns despite the notification that a third opinion has been provided.
My statement on the WHO being a section for official response is not a mandate for you to further expand it in the area of concern. The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Neither is a university professor's opinion relevant for insertion there. Sleath56 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the other editor specifically referred only to the duplication of Li Wenliang.
Only you are contesting the positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), and your rationale for excluding it doesn't make sense especially if you replaced it with the Cyberspace Authority quote.
Reduced Mackenzie's blurb. FobTown (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness. It's not a long discussion, I don't see what is particularly obfuscating you here.
Per @Hzh:: The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Sleath56 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point, as that editor only complained about Li Wenliang, and both him and Steve Tsang was rectified.
But positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. FobTown (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted what's been said quite explicitly and there's nothing obfuscating about it. As said, when two editors have contested your point, it's a sign for you to explain the merit of its inclusion here instead of blanket reversing the section to your preferred style under one word edit summaries like "xenophobia". I've already listed many concerns with it above: As said, there is no need to frame the section under the theory of a single person when numerous RS already make the same points he is making, nor is it WP:DUE weight. From a substance standpoint, there is no difference in the two states, so I'm not sure what your point is for continually changing up the section like this.
The same applies to your edits to the WHO response. That section is meant for official responses. The three edits entries you made are a university professor's opinion, which is not relevant; an anonymous UN, I'm not sure if you understand not all UN officials are WHO officials; Mackenzie is the only entry that holds some merit, but who by his the very RS that quote him cite him as a lone voice in his theory within the WHO, meaning this is WP:FRINGE. If you want to expand the section to include criticism, then by WP:PROPORTION, support for the WHO's response would necessitate inclusion, which would bloat the section unnecessarily. Sleath56 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with your "xenophobia" section and didn't want it to be lost in your edit warring.
The other editor is not talking about positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), plus positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. If anything, you are forcing the reader to an obfuscated section in #Criticism of Local Response, when it wasn't even mentioned.
Steve Tsang has been dealt with.
The WHO has justified its response with support praising China, we just need to see the other side of that which is criticism. And its not WP:FRINGE as others have the same viewpoint too that the WHO is too beholden to China, while criticizing and justifying that approach in order to get cooperation from China. FobTown (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the agreed exclusion on Tsang, first of all. I think we need to retrace the philosophies of our edits here, to further any continued constructive collaboration.
I think through looking at my version of the #Censorship section, you can see that I've principally highlighted direct and notable actions such as the Li Wenliang censorships and the specific government censorship tactics that have been declared. The point throughout has been to organize it with a mind towards WP:SUMMARY. To explain, the concerns I have with in enforcing the exclusion of the Tsang passage isn't because suddenly receiving 3O means your view is irrelevant, but because I consistently felt structuring the section through his personal government theory is unnecessary, its not WP:DUE to frame a section like that, especially when the various RS argue the same. The problems with the specific hospital entry I've held is that it is a minor incident, could be construed to be more of a mistake by the RS you've cited since the hospitals were already build fast by the same RS, and is an unnecessary detail to further the idea of the government's desire for positive coverage when the CAC entry explicitly states the government's demand against "negative stories".
The point of the #WHO response section is to keep a concise area for readers to see the official WHO responses to the outbreak as it doesn't have a place anywhere else. The section should indeed be expanded, but that should be through the inclusion of more recent WHO statements. Mackenzie is the only entry of relevancy as he is a WHO official, but when it's stated that he cited his opinions in an unofficial capacity and when the RS call him the "lone voice," it brings up concerns of WP:NPOV which indeed says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Sleath56 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Change number of recovered patients in Russia from '-' to 1. Source: https://t-l.ru/coronavirus 95.25.14.153 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change it from "-" to 2. Source: https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3238895 This website belongs to the 'Russia' TV channel. 93.81.123.101 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a great source. It needs to be some kind of link to a specific entry rather than a news feed. (I'm not familiar with Russian media so I don't know whether t-l.ru is a WP:RS in general, but that specific link is not okay. Ideally it would be a proper article, rather than just a snippet. For now, not done, pending better source. If Russia has an official WHO case reporting document (with the figures directly, not requiring reader analysis) that might work. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data is now updated with data superseding the above, as 2 have recovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Plz change 4 21120 11220 Austinstar08 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed map caption. If that's not what you mean, please write your request in full clearly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I’m not mistaken, I think he’s referring to the format? As in whether it should be U.S. (mm/dd/yy) or U.K. (dd/mm/yy), although I don’t quite follow which version he’s actually proposing. In any case, as it is currently (dd/mm/yyyy) conforms with everywhere else in the article, so I don’t really see much of an issue.82.34.69.170 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics changed definition: SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases or COVID-19 confirmed cases?

China last week amended its guidelines on prevention and control of the coronavirus, saying that only when asymptomatic cases show clinical signs should they be recorded as a confirmed case. However, it is not clear if the government data previously included asymptomatic cases. - I thought I saw this stated the other way around yesterday. Can anyone find other sources on the Chinese medical authorities' definition(s), when they changed and in which direction they changed?

If only symptomatic cases are included, that means that they are COVID-19 confirmed cases, not SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases, which is a critical difference in meaning.

If this were changed last week as stated literally above, then the drop in the daily numbers of new cases is partly artificial. Boud (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC) (quote fixed Boud (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The orders from the top were to bring the figures down, so the figures are reducing. Anyway until we have reliable sources analysing and discussing this we don't have stuff to put in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Finding good sources is my main point here. (I fixed the quote above - a sentence was incorrectly attributed to me.) A secondary point is whether or not we should warn readers that the meaning of one of the key statistics we're listing may be unclear, e.g. at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases and Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province. I guess there has long been discussion in the main article (and to some degree other related articles?) of the likely total numbers of infected in China, including the asymptomatic cases, being at least a factor of two to three higher, so probably it's reasonable to wait for better sources. Boud (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wuhan" is not the COMMONNAME

The article itself rarely uses the term "Wuhan" to refer to the outbreak. It mostly used terms such as "the virus", "the coronavirus", "the outbreak", "the epdiemic", "the pathogen", etc... and I have rarely personally encountered the words "Wuhan coronavirus" being used together, usually because using the term "cornoavirus" alone should be enough to tell people what it is. The word "Wuhan" is only used to distinguish it from flu or other COMMONNAMES.

Generally, the location is used in epidemics to refer to the epidemic within that locality. So for example, "2020 Hong Kong COVID-19 outbreak" would refer to the coronavirus outbreak within Hong Kong, or "2020 Diamond Princess cruise outbreak" would refer to the disease within the cruise ferry, hence "2019-20 Wuhan outbreak" would refer to the disease within Wuhan only.

Convention has previously shown that the community does not use COMMONNAME as well. The [2009 flu pandemic] is not situated at [swine flu] for example. Conventions in the political and medical community are that people and localities should not be used to label a disease or epidemic except when referring to the disease within that locality (or for necessity).

SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus and the article should be situated there.

COVID-19 is the official name of the disease and the article should be situated there.

2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic is how convention would suggest that this article should be labelled.

The COMMONNAME could be many things, including terms that use "flu", "new sars", etc... and it's not specifically anything to do with "Wuhan".

SomethingNastyHere (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that that WHO took so long to name the disease was because of avoiding any stigmatisation of geographical areas SARS - Unfortunate acronym similarity for Hong Kong SAR. MERS - the Saudis took significant offence. Ebola - that river in the Congo is forever tainted. Irrelevant to wiki guidelines but gives context to this. Wuhan indeed isn't the common name. As stated in the related move discussion, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. SARS, MERS, even H1N1 were all novel coronaviruses. It causes significant confusion, the current name is an extremely ambiguous name. Of course agree with this page being "COVID-19" --12:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
H1N1 says it's of the class Insthoviricetes, not Coronaviridae, which SARS-CoV-2 is a member of. Their most common evolutionary link, per the articles, is that they are both Riboviria (and not retroviruses). Boud (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-

Support The way article is being written. It almost like blaming Wuhan for purposely causing the outbreak. Wuhan name should be removed without the use of RM. It just bad. Regice2020 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there 15 or 20 confirmed cases in Australia?

http://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert

" As at 06:00 hrs on 12 February 2020, we have confirmed 15 cases of novel coronavirus in Australia: 

   5 in Queensland
   4 in New South Wales
   4 in Victoria
   2 in South Australia

5 of the earlier cases have recovered. The others are in a stable condition"

Does that mean that the 5 cases are not listed as current confirmed cases?

935690edits (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that the 5 recovered are out of the 15 cases. So 10 still have the disease. There would have been news if new cases were detected, and there has been no news for a few days. I am trying to update the map of Australian case numbers, so I watch out for new cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ECDC definition of "Confirmed cases" clearly includes asymptomatic cases: "irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms". There doesn't seem to be an Australian permanent agency like the ECDC or the US CDC known to Wikipedia - Department of Health (Australia) seems to be the closest. The search led me to the quote above. For consistency of terminology, see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Statistics changed definition: SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases or COVID-19 confirmed cases? above for a strongly suspected confusion in the Chinese official figures, where "confirmed 2019-nCoV cases" appears to have meant "confirmed symptomatic cases only", although the definition appears to have evolved (hopefully the virus isn't evolving too fast) last week. We could at least clarify the terminology in the non-China cases, where in many places the terminology and standards are clearer.
The Oz Dept of Health definition is here: in this pdf - "Confirmed case - A person who tests positive to a specific 2019-nCoV PCR test (when available) or has the virus identified by electron microscopy or viral culture, at a reference laboratory." This is clearly independent of symptoms. It's a "confirmation event", if we want to be pedantic. It's independent of whether someone has symptoms or not, and independent of whether s/he later recovers (or dies).
So to answer the question: the definition would imply that the 5 recovered people are part of the 15 confirmed cases.
I've started a talk page section at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not? to try to collect sources for the definitions in various countries. Boud (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the convention be to include active, asymptomatic, and recovered cases in the confirmed cases running tally as reported by the local officals? Then a separate breakout for each sub category? By removing the recovered case counts from the confirmed case count we lose the measure of the maximum extent in that region. Jtreyes (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

I have found valid source for the first passage in Quarantines. Please replace the "citation needed" template with the citation[1].
`oooCJ (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Technology Review: Meet the Chinese crowdsourcers fighting coronavirus censorship

This information may be helpful to include, I don't know the topic well so won't attempt to do it myself

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615124/coronavirus-china-wuhan-hong-kong-misinformation-censorship

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John Cummings!
Firstly I would like to thank you for your great contribution/idea! :) I agree with you. I have red the article and it is indeed helpful to understand the situation.
It would be a great add to this article and perhaps even more to this article on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.
My only "fear" is that even though this article is from a trustful source [I believe] we still need more sources to coroborate it.
What do you think about it? Thank you! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

What about the American who died from coronavirus on Sunday that makes the non Chinese death count 3 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC) 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That American died in China, and so is included in the count for China. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given official disease and virus, driving consensus on a possible new name

There is a move discussion going on already. Any opinions/suggestions can be presented, and will be welcome there. On a personal note, I think "2019-20-21 deadly corona thingy pandemic" is the best one. But i have a slight doubt that other editors wouldnt agree with me. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2020 (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.

Hi editors on this page, there are two new information regarding names

  • WHO released the official name of the disease to be Covid-2019
  • International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses recognizes the virus to be SARS-Cov-2

Before filing a MR, I guess it's better that we have a thorough discussion on what a better name looks like

  1. 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) name 1
  2. 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak name 2/current
  1. 2019-20 Wuhan outbreak of Covid-2019
  2. 2019-20 China outbreak of Covid-2019
  3. 2019–20 outbreak of Covid-2019
  4. 2019-20 pandemic of Covid-2019
  5. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak from Wuhan
  6. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak from China
  7. 2019-20 Covid-2019 pandemic
  8. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak
  9. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak from Wuhan
  10. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak from China
  11. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 pandemic
  12. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak

What are other better names do you think?

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a move request on this above, so please join the discussion there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (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.

More Efficient Voting Process for Debate in Changing the Name of this [Retracted] Article

Ok, is there anyway just to create a poll or something just to see who is in the majority. "Commoname" vs "Actual Name"Dannelsluc (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not 'work' with a majority rules paradigm; please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Your calling the article Godforsaken implies you are SO unhappy with the outcome that even your spiritual guider is not on your side. Please chill and accept that there was No Consensus reached at this point in time (perhaps its just too early), and the potential for a new RM debate will begin on February 20, where your comments will be welcomed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a less formal discussion about what the future name should be. Otherwise we get a formal proposal, some suggest other alternatives, and some oppose, but a conclusion is not reached. We could break it into several parts: do we include the year of the "outbreak"? Should we say outbreak, epidemic or pandemic? Is there an actual official name? What is the common name? What is the most common name? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

choropleth (the pretty map) paints a sensational picture

1 person that 1500 miles away from me yet in the same country doesn't warrant this sort of visualization. Can you remove this world map thing until it actually means something. Jawz101 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't include recovered patients stats?

While mentioning confirmed cases and confirmed deaths why don't you guys include recovered patients stats? 196.195.73.231 (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2020

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus epidemic – In the introduction to the article it states that this is an epidemic, and the title should reflect whether or not its an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close this early? We can be sure this proposal will not be supported. Please hold off on proposing moves for a few days to see if an official title becomes popular. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The outbreak is listed as such, not as an epidemic, on the WHO information page available here. It seems to me that any move should wait until such authoritative sources are updated themselves, to ensure accuracy. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, something has to be an epidemic before it can be a pandemic. A pandemic is simply an epidemic that spans more than one continent. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to change the name of this disease

Someone changed this url https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641


With the title "A 44-year-old male is confirmed as the second person with the 2019 novel coronavirus acute respiratory disease (2019-nCoV) in the Philippines. He passed away on 1 February 2020."

To

Philippines, World Health Organization (1 February 2020). "A 44-year-old male is confirmed as the second person with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Philippines. He passed away on 1 February 2020.pic.twitter.com/5a5tPWtvpc". @WHOPhilippines. Archived from the original on 2 February 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.

We should not be changing the title like this... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "武漢周圍15市跟進「封城」　湖北只剩「神農架林區」未管制". ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). January 25, 2019. Retrieved 12 February 2020.

Not really correct

"There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures"

There are treatments just

"There are no vaccines and no specific treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures." and followed by a broken reference. We have no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says "There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection. People infected with 2019-nCoV should receive supportive care to help relieve symptoms. For severe cases, treatment should include care to support vital organ functions."
WHat you have added multiple times says "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."
Which is very much different so now Wikipedia is wrong which is unfortunate. User:Whywhenwhohow your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this from the other talk page, the initial inclusion of that sentence weeks ago was by me using a reference from the UK govenment. I have lost the original webpage but a similar webpage still exists:

"In the absence of effective drugs or a vaccine, control of this disease relies on the prompt identification, appropriate risk assessment, management and isolation of possible cases, and the investigation and follow up of close contacts to minimise potential onward transmission." http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-wn-cov-infection-prevention-and-control-guidance

Tsukide (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CDC is a better source. And that only says "drugs" not treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference section

I attempted to simplify the article, by moving citations to a designated reference section. I think it can benefit a lot from this. Unfortunately, there is so much traffic on this article that the reference section is completely broken now. My apologies, but I don't have the time to repair it. Maybe someone can volunteer to have a look. Renerpho (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this may be something to do with a stable article, but this gets edited, reverted, split and updated dozens of times a day. So best to leave the ref text inline. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the slower growth in confirmed cases

Among the news that the Wuhan/Chinese health authorities would be defining confirmed cases through methods other than test kits, it's become apparent that there aren't enough test kits and staff members to continue to both document and treat the ever increasing number of patients. The slower growth might be down to the lack of test kits available, which is why there has been a sudden increase in number of patients today through non-kit identification. It might be reasonable to explain in the opening, or in epidemiology, these two facts, along with information about the lack of staff/kits in developing countries. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/labs-scramble-spot-hidden-coronavirus-infections Tsukide (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two paragraphs on this in the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Epidemiology section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing deaths in the summary

According to the section on deaths, an American and a Japanese person died on the 8th of February, but the death toll for the respective countries still says 0. The article used as a source doesn't mention where they died (at least, I couldn't find it), so it might simply be that the deaths are already counted in the China figure (the sentence used to describe this could be interpreted that they died in Wuhan). In any case, the sentence either needs to be more clear on where they died and, if they died in outside of China, the deaths need to be counted in the USA and Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent "spread" update, please...

Per https://meaww.com/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-can-survive-on-inanimate-objects-for-up-to-nine-days-any-surface-patient, the virus can survive on surfaces for 4 to 9 days depending upon temperature and humidity. I can't seem to update the info. Shir-El too 10:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The article links a study that doesn't mention virus survival time, I think the quote refers to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463 (G Kampf et al., 2020) for that factoid, which was made available on 6th Feb. Not urgent, not entirely new. TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Change Germany Recovery 0 to Germany Recovery 1 in the table

source: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/coronavirus-im-newsblog-erster-patient-aus-muenchner-klinik-schwabing-geheilt-entlassen/25532488.html 195.122.188.71 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done <RetroCraft314 /> 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak vs. epidemic

The Requested move 13 February 2020 WP:RM to change the word "outbreak" to "epidemic" in the title based on the use of the word "epidemic" in the lead caused me to look into this.

I believe we should revise the lead and article to stick with using "outbreak" as much as possible.

What I don't have time for today is to go through each of the places where we use "epidemic" in the article to see if that word is backed up by the citations for that appearance of the word in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

epidemic is used by the WHO as well, e.g. http://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-script-ncov-rresser-unog-29jan2020.pdf?sfvrsn=a7158807_4 along with the term "outbreak". It's just not a pandemic. Tsukide (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Service Announcement in Summary

At the end of the 2nd paragraph in the summary, the article reads: "Anyone who suspects that they are carrying the virus is advised to wear a surgical face mask and seek medical advice by calling a doctor rather than directly visiting a clinic in person." This looks like a PSA to me. Should we remove this, or edit it to something else? DarthFlappy (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be removed. See WP:NOTGUIDE and particularly MOS:MED (especially the pitfalls section). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. I don't think WP:NOTGUIDE really applies. There's an urgent public health benefit to relaying widely-accepted recommendations by public health authorities. If there's a cited authority recommending it then it's worthy of inclusion at least until the outbreak is resolved. These recommendations can (and probably are) saving lives. That should take priority over a policy intended to prevent how-tos and videogame walkthroughs. That said, I think the wording can be changed to more clearly cite the source ("The CDC and WHO advise..."). - Wikmoz (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page move referendum

I would like to propose that page move/name change discussions be prohibited for a 1 month time period. The past several discussions have been inconclusive and yielded no results due to disagreements. We should stop these discussions for a while and wait for it to become known what the "common name" and the extent of the virus will be. The constant requests for similar page moves/name changes are disruptive and are not solving any issues. NoahTalk 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it seems evident the name is problematic, especially as new reporting shows rising levels of xenophobia that can't be attributed to mere caution about the virus. My view is that if we were to recreate this article whole cloth knowing what we know today we would use it's official name, COVID-19, plus some variant of outbreak/epidemic. Being new here, I honestly didn't expect to see such detailed coverage about the epidemic to appear so quickly. So, maybe you could help me understand how Wikipedia normally handles covering emergent events? I'd welcome the discussion on my talk. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. This is extremely key to understanding why we aren’t leaping upon WHO’s terminology (let’s be clear, there can be no “official name” for a disease, which is a process created by nature and not by a human organization), or changing the page title to reflect new developments that are coming every day. Even looking at the most recent move request, the scope of this article is the outbreak in Wuhan that has spread across China and around the world. The outbreak in Wuhan started in December 2019 and is only now (mid-February) being called a pandemic. There was no pandemic until now, nor “official name” until recently, so discussing a pandemic or an official name when describing the developing nature of the outbreak is honestly inappropriate. Once again, we are not a newspaper that focuses on what’s happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but what happened on all the days before tomorrow. This is still true in current events. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one-month moratorium on pagemove discussions. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to give in to these recentist fad-driven name changes and further contribute to our readers' confusion. Naming is not as important as those panic-prone commenters insisting that we immediately change the page name to reflect some advisory organization's whimsical decisions seem to believe. Improve the content of this page if you want to help inform people. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for one month moratorium It feels to me like the reason this title is so contentious is because pro-China editors are trying to right a great wrong and save face. But the reality is that Wikipedia must wait until an alternate name becomes dominant enough to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAMES. Wikipedia is not censored and hosts great deal of . Experienced editors oppose them on policy grounds, breeding conflict and accusations of Sinophobia. Melmann 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one month moratorium for pagemove because if this requested move happens everyday, it will confuse readers as it can be move to someone else. This moratorium needs to applied to 2019 novel coronavirus as well as all articles containing "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. If multiple request move needed, this request must discuss on single talk-page, not multiple talk pages of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a great point. At some level we might want to talk about an RfC on general sanctions for this topic area. It’s become extremely disruptive to have all the discussion focused on naming and accusations of bias/sinophobia, especially against experienced editors whose views are essential to keeping this topic area in good shape. I guess on some level it might seem like an extreme escalation, but I see no better way to keep this topic area peaceful and collegial for what will likely be a controversial area for the next year. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea

There have been news reports of NK having at least 5 dead. Information is through a major source news agency from SK on the by region wiki page. Do we need to add this at least in mention if not to the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=940682841"