Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in China
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mx. Granger in topic Flawed
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Taiwan
editShould Taiwan be included? It appears to be a de facto sovereign nation not ruled in any way by China, so I am leaning towards removal. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is there for completeness. It is noted at the beginning of the section that China still claims Taiwan as its territory (and, conversely, it might be noted that Taiwan still claims all of China as its territory). The wording can be clarified, but the section should remain. BD2412 T 06:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "completeness"? 218.255.11.72 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the event that an editor comes to this title looking for information about Taiwan—which still officially claims to be the legitimate goverment of all of China—they will find an explanation of the relationship (along with an outline of the COVID-19 situation in Taiwan). BD2412 T 17:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as Taiwan's claim over China. They don't exist as a country. They are a province owned by China. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- How do you feel about the South China Sea? 2600:8804:6600:45:7927:917D:671:1641 (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "completeness"? 218.255.11.72 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some of our islands are illegally occupied by our neighbors. They will have to leave sooner or later. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps this article would be better merged into "COVID-19 pandemic in Asia" 2600:8804:6600:45:7927:917D:671:1641 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Taiwan can be mentioned, like how Donetsk and Luhansk are mentioned in COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine. The actual COVID situation in either of those is not included in the Ukraine article though. This does not imply that Wikipedia thinks they are part of Ukraine or not. It's just the de facto situation. I think it would be better if Taiwan just gets mentioned and readers can follow links to the Taiwan's article to see the situation in Taiwan. Taiwan's official name is Republic of China and it claims all of China, but apparently China on English Wikipedia refers to PR China and China almost always mean PR China nowadays. Why would you expect people willing to know an explanation of the relationship on a COVID-19 article? Sun8908 Talk 04:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- No. They don't exist. There is no more Republic of China since 1949. They had been exterminated. Taiwan Province should be covered in this article because they are our province. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BD2412: any ideas? (and how to deal with this Chinese patriot) Sun8908 Talk 13:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- My idea is to keep the article pretty much as it is. I have subheaded the administrative regions to clarify the political distinction. BD2412 T 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is there anything wrong to be patriotic? 101.78.152.74 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- My idea is to keep the article pretty much as it is. I have subheaded the administrative regions to clarify the political distinction. BD2412 T 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The word province is missing after Taiwan. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Revert to redirect
editIt's pointness to create a fork article in place of a redirect, other than supporting some irredentist claims. This entry should be reverted to a redirect. 218.255.11.72 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It would be inappropriate to redirect an exsiting "China" topic to a "Mainland China" topic; this would imply that Wikipedia has taken the position that Hong Kong and Macau are not part of China. BD2412 T 17:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Xianggang, Aomen, Taiwan, Xizang, Xinjiang, Nansha Qundao, Diaoyudao, etc. are all inalienable parts of China. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with 218.255.11.72. 219.76.15.140 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't a claim or so-called irredentist claim. Please accept the truth. Wake up. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2022
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following at the start of the article:
Excess deaths
editThis article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64300190 based on official data suggests an excess death rate of 0.19 people per 1,000 or approximately 268,000. It does not specifically quote those numbers, I assume more details and analysis will follow though... worth noting on this article??2404:4408:638C:5E00:E09C:F553:5069:71FB (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Flawed
editFirst, "Based on retrospective analysis published in The Lancet in late January..." gosh, I guess the authors expect people to guess WHAT YEAR they're referring to! Just wow. Second, NOTHING about vaccines!! Their parochial approach (to vaccines) has been widely criticized, btw. 174.130.71.156 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @174.130.71.156: Thanks for pointing out these problems. I've added the year and some information about the vaccination campaign. If you're interested, you're welcome to suggest specific changes using Template:Edit extended-protected. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)