Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Iran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Persian calendar/Gregorian calendar

@Leshawna boxi: I did some copyediting (minor improvements) to this edit. You most likely mis-converted the Hijri dates: see Solar Hijri calendar#Solar Hijri and Gregorian calendars and look at the external links for some suggested convertors.

Comment: it's obvious that there is a huge under-detection/underreporting of cases: 6 deaths implies that in any other country, there would be about 300 (plus or minus 100 or so) lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. Boud (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

For tidying up automated translations: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus; coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the disease. Boud (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahmad Amirabadi

The claim of Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani mentioning that "the COVID-19 death toll was 50 people from Qom" repeats for 5 times in the article. I am going to remove duplicated ones. On the other hand, I am against mentioning it into the lead which is the place for accurate and important information not questioning material.Saff V. (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: can you explain that why did you keep duplicated material in the article?

The claim of Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani mentioning that "the COVID-19 death toll was 50 people from Qom" repeats for 4 times in the article:

Lead :Member of parliament for Qom Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed on the 24 February that the true number of COVID-19 deaths was 50 in Qom

Timeline: He denied parliamentarian Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani's claim that 50 people had died in Qom from COVID-19.

Timeline, Note of table :Member of parliament Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed 50 COVID-19 deaths in Qom as of 24 February.

Censorship claims: Amirabadi claimed...that the true number of COVID-19 deaths in Qom was 50 Saff V. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: The part I added is necessary, it doesn't make sense if it isn't there. There are however two are places added by somewhere else which are not unnecessary - the second mention in Timeline (the paragraph about 25 February), and the note in table (it is not official statistics, therefore should not be given there, otherwise all kinds of claims may be added). You deleted the wrong part. The lead is a summary, therefore it doesn't really count, but you can remove it if you don't think it is important enough to be in the lead. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the two unnecessary ones. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think if we want to remove the claim of Amirabadi from the lead, the balance of all pov s would be broken. Am I right?Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We'll see how the situation develops. The mention in the lead can be shortened in the future - at the moment the claim and the minister's reply occupies half the lead, and such prominence given to one single claim may be unwarranted when other facts may need to be mentioned in the lead, for example how the government deals with the outbreak and the impact of the outbreak. I'm not saying that it needs to be deleted, just trimmed so that the claim is not given excessive weight. Hzh (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Now we have three different sources consistent with about 200 deaths nationally and around 20,000 cases (consistent with the lower range case fatality rates of around 1%): Amirabadi (multiply by four for other cities), BBC Persian, UToronto group. I restructured much of this part of the content. The idea is that the intro of Non-government estimates is a summary of the two sections - cases and deaths - and that the 2nd paragraph in the lead is a condensed summary of that summary. Boud (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I focussed on content and sourcing rather than elegance - some copyediting could make the new version smoother. Boud (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO visit 25 Feb

A WHO team plans to visit Iran on Tue 25 Feb. It will presumably tell the Ministry of Health that 12/0.02 = 600 and that if there really are 50 deaths in Qom, then 50/0.02 = 2500; and that in places with more thorough testing, the naive case fatality rate is 0.01, giving 1200 or 5000 SARS-CoV-2 infections, respectively. Add in the spread in the virus beyond 24 February that is likely from the so-far undetected-but-should-have-been-detected cases, and the number of infected (and deaths) in Iran will very likely catch up to close to the Hubei levels if Iranian authorities implement WHO recommendations fully. Boud (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of people are skeptical with the official numbers released by the Iranian government. If the case fatality rate is really between 1%-2% like in other countries, then 15 deaths imply about 700-1500 infections in Iran, not the paltry 95 it is claiming right now. Sad. Titus III (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual fatality rate in China is almost twice as 1%-2% rate. Currently hovering at 3.6%. Since China has a very being sample by far, maybe the case fatality rate aught to be adjusted. This epidemic is a totally unknown territory for the world given that this virus is NOT what we have seen before or NOT like anything we have seen. It is best we have a wait-and-see approach for all countries equally than passing judgements so early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoane Mogosoane (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Elham Sheikhi,an Iranian footballer is alive

Elham Sheikhi, an Iranian footballer didn't die and is not the same as Elham Sheikhi who died from the virus.are two different persons.. Be careful about the violation of wp:BLP.Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

flu or sars?

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/2/29/iranian-mp-dies-of-coronavirus-as-tehran-dismisses-rumours should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Again duplicated material

It seems that the following material are duplicated. Even as I explained here, one of them doesn't support by provided sources. Anyway I think, as wp:weight demanded, we should keep one of them. @Boud: and @Hzh: Am I right?

• Prior to the official announcement of 5 cases of SARS-CoV-2 and 2 COVID-19 deaths in Qom, Islamic Republic authorities had not provided any specific data on suspected cases of COVID-19 in Iran, insisting that there was no COVID-19 in Iran.

• According to some letters published in the media – the credibility of which was denied by the government – Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement.Saff V. (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The two paragraphs refer to the same event, so merging them into one paragraph makes sense. Just delete the wording but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement, and reword the rest of the sentence - it says "some letters", but is there just one letter? Also just say that the government said the letter was a fake rather than its credibility was denied. Give the dates for when the letter was written if known (also the publication date seems confusing) and government denial. Hzh (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: All right, the best solution is merging. Yes as sources (1 and 2 ) say there was just one letter. The photo of the letter shows that it was written on 12 February 2020 and it was denied by officials on 16 February (4 days later). Unfortunately, I can't understand what is your idea for merging the material. I wonder if you provide the suggested material for merging here? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I can try to give a suggestion on how to rewrite the paragraph, the problem is that I can't read Persian, so can only rely on Google to translate to get a rough idea of what is said in the sources. The dates also come out strange in the translation. I'm not sure what was "published on Tuesday, 18 February 2020" that was mentioned in the article, is this the same letter or another? I'll give the suggestion later, but it would need to be checked, because as I cannot be totally sure what is said in the sources. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion, but check if this is what the sources say - The government of Iran had insisted that there was no COVID-19 in Iran before 19 February 2020 when the first cases were announced. However, a letter purported to be from the office of the President dated [12 February 2020?] that circulated on social media suggests that the Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths many days before the official announcement. Government officials said that the letter was a fake. Another letter dated [18 February 2020?] also circulated on social media; it was signed by Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli and sent to Health Minister Saeed Nemaki to request that the announcement of coronavirus outbreak be delayed until after the parliamentary election to avoid a low turnout of voters. The government has also denied this claim. Hzh (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the section should not be titled "Censorship claims" since it isn't really about censorship but about not releasing true information. Hzh (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: thanks for suggestion, i will check it asap! I thinks that “claims”would be better than “ censorship “ because that information was announced but some people or media think that they are not true. It isn’t called censorship!Saff V. (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion and I'm sure it can be worded better, although I think it may be clearer (if my understanding of the sources is correct) than the current version which is confusing. I'm not sure how to title it, but I think it could also be merged with the previous section on government response or another section. Not sure if it's useful, but here's Kamiar Alaei claiming that political decision had caused the outbreak because it coincided with the anniversary of Iran's revolution and the parliamentary election - [1]. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: Thanks again for providing the text, I just remove the data of letters to make sentences shorter. I think that the content of letters is more important than the data. Do you agree with replacing it with to the first paragraph of censorship section?The government of Iran had insisted that there was no COVID-19 in Iran before 19 February 2020 when the first cases were announced. However, a letter purported to be from Ministry of Health to the office of the President that circulated on social media suggests that the Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths many days before the official announcement. Government officials said that the letter was a fake. Another letter also circulated on social media; it was signed by Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli and sent to Health Minister Saeed Nemaki to request that the announcement of coronavirus outbreak be delayed until after the parliamentary election to avoid a low turnout of voters. The government has also denied this claim.Saff V. (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, I'm not sure if the people who denied the claim need to be added in the last sentence, but you can decide. It can also be reworked if someone else objects to the edit. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: what is your opinion about merging the "censorship claims" into the "government response" with the title of "denied claims"?Thanks, do you mean that i shouldn’t replace above material to the article?Saff V. (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You can replace the first two paragraphs in the "Censorship claims" section with the text above. Maybe we can leave reorganizing the article (merging sections) to another time. This sentence Neighbouring countries Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain announced that it recorded their first coronavirus cases from people who came from Iran. can be deleted or moved to the international spread section since it doesn't seem obvious that it should be in the censorship section. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Both cases were done! Thanks for your helpful contribution!Saff V. (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Al-Jazeera reporter

@Hzh: I think that the following material doesn't add more ifo to the article. It is just the saying of one reporter. Are we allowed to give this weight on saying of one reporter?!

• On 24 February, Al Jazeera English attributed public scepticism of government transparency to citizens remembering that the government had denied, for three days in January 2020, having accidentally shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.Saff V. (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right that it is the opinion of one reporter. I would remove it for now, if there are more substantial sources, perhaps with authoritative figures saying the same thing or there is conclusive evidence that it is true, then it may be added. Hzh (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Provinces Map

Is the map of infected provinces really needed? I mean, it's all red. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Should saying be updated?

@Hzh: I removed the saying of the official of WHO that was old because the updated saying of them (The World Health Organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that "the WHO has its “own mechanism” for checking facts and has not seen problems with Iran’s reported figures".) was included into the article. But it was reverted bacuase removed material have well sources. Can you leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now I find out that the material was removed because of peice opinion sources. I am sorry bother you. The issue is solved.Saff V. (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

International spread and travel restrictions

It seems that "International spread and travel restrictions" section contains the largest volume of the article, although there are more important sections in comparison with "International spread and travel restrictions". For instance, "Pakistan closed its borders with Iran" repeats 3 times in the section. On the other hand, the reliability of some sources in the section is questionable, for example gulfnews and civil.ge. @Boud: and @Hzh: what do you think about that?Saff V. (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The spread from Iran is an important issue, and the relative volume of text is to some degree a side effect of Iranian attempts at censorship: there may well be more RS info on the effects of the Iran outbreak on the outside world compared to the outbreak in Iran itself. But it's also a real thing: there's a big section in the Italy article on the role of the Italian outbreak on the rest of Europe (and beyond). And this will be useful in the long term for people who wish to analyse the spread. In five years' time (even sooner), there will be many people (researchers, students) who wish to understand the history of the spread. Modelling of epidemics in general, and this pandemic (for talk page discussion we're allowed to say that) in particular, will build on the collection of this sort of information.

But of course redundant info can/should be condensed - right now, per the text, we have several countries closing their borders on 23 Feb and then a second time on 24 Feb! Decoding "exact" information from the sources can be difficult, especially since "closing a border" is not done instantaneously and is open to interpretation. Probably 23 Feb would be a reasonable best interpretation, assuming that the info is extracted correctly from the sources, although I haven't checked them.

• Gulf News is a well-established UAE English-language newspaper and is WP-notable. It presumably self-censors for criticism of UAE key policies (or UAE human rights violations), but there are few countries where mainstream newspapers do not self-censor to some degree from criticising government and dominant corporations (while repeating ad infinitum that they're proud of their journalistic freedom of speech). So I think it would pass RS by Wikipedia standards (if we were strict, we'd have almost no sources at all).
• Civil Georgia is also WP-notable, though with very few references, and probably a less well-established reputation.
• I do see one source that is definitely unreliable ;) as a source for Wikipedia - "2020 coronavirus outbreak in Sweden", Wikipedia, 28 February 2020, retrieved 29 February 2020.

Overall, go ahead and remove redundancies, but I think it's important to give clear edit summaries and links to WP:X guidelines so that newer Wikipedians don't feel that their work is being unjustifiably destroyed and so that they can learn more. Boud (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: thanks for your exact response. I will be careful about giving clear edit summaries. Anyway, I never said that the section is not important, I am just going to say that as wp:weight asked, we have to give appropriate weight to each section. Therefore, I have two suggestions, it doesn't matter WHEN each country decided to close its borders, so we can remove the dates! Second, isn't it better to separate two subjects, International spread and travel restrictions? @Hzh: please leave a comment, Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue is with checking the sources. For example both the mentions of Pakistan on 23 and 24 February are sourced to reports dated 23 February 2020, therefore they are obviously referring to the same event on 23 February. Pakistan has also denied stopping flights to and from Iran - [2]. A source is needed for Georgia, and all the content in that section need checking and tidying up (remove duplication, adding sources and remove any unverifiable claim). Hzh (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed a few things, if you noticed any more, feel free to adjust them according to source. Hzh (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that separating out the spread from Iran versus travel restrictions would probably be good (if someone's willing to do the work). The topics are not completely unrelated, but the travel restrictions are probably mostly "shutting the stable door after the horse has already left" and sourcing the relationship is probably not easy from regular, more serious mainstream media sources, which tend to say "A happened and B happened" and the reader has to interpret the relation if s/he wishes to. Separation would also help make this more of an encyclopedia article by subtopic rather than a rather journalistic timeline. Boud (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article is just listing events in multiple sections at the moment. The article can probably be reorganized better, but that is the issue with many articles on the outbreaks in other countries as well. We can probably think about how to organize the article better later. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What happens when hit tens of thousands of cases

• 7 March: reports over 2000 cases and more deaths.
• 9 March: The second country will hit over 10000 cases, first being China.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.244 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Most content in the International reactions section has little to do with International reactions

The first paragraph is about Iranian medical importers having trouble finding banks to process payments for medical equipment due to sanctions and a claim that a right-wing lobby is pressuring companies not to do medical trade with Iran. I don't see why this should be under "international reactions." These seem to be preexisting policies rather than reactions. Furthermore, a right-wing lobby isn't exactly a significant international body. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Israeli journalist claim

The view of Zvi Yehezkeli seems noteworthy. I don't understand the specific reasons why that passage was reverted. El_C 16:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, how is a random non-expert Israeli journalist claim noteworthy. If it's even noteworthy it would have been reported in English or in other news outlets not in primary sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no English-language requirement for noteworthiness. And Zvi Yehezkeli is not a random non-expert Israeli journalist — he's the "head of the Arab desk at Israeli News 10." Finally, these are not primary sources: Maariv and Arutz Sheva are secondary sources. El_C 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Head of the Arab desk at Israeli News 10 makes him nothing special here. He is not an expert in the matter both articles in these sources are written by him thats what I meant by primary. If we are going to include every politician comment from around the world we would eventually have a 1 gigabyte article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes him an expert, is what it makes him. And he is not a politician. His view was made public in those two secondary sources — so no, not primary. Your argument is flawed in the several ways I outlined above. El_C 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make him an expert. He is not an expert per his Wikipedia article. His views should not be in this article, because nothing makes him special than a random politician from let's say Saudi Arabia. Should I add comments from a random Iraqi journalist? Because I have one-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does make him an expert — it's what he does for a living. Repeatedly calling him random does not make him so. If the view of an Iraqi journalist of a similar position were to be published in several 2ndry sources in Iraq, then yes, that expert's view would also be of note. El_C 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

He is not a subject matter expert, he has absolutely no medical background to be spewing such speculation, and neither he nor the sources are particularly notable (at least not outside of Israel). It may help to make a paradigm shift to put things in perspective - consider if the head of the Israel desk at Iranian News 10 wrote the same thing about Israel. Even if there are many Iranian news sources running with the story, it would not belong on the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Israel page. If the story would get picked up by major international news sources, that would make it notable, but until then, I don't think it is. Also, I think the animosity between the two countries is also a factor - a news source from a neutral third party country caries far more weight than that of an enemy country. Of course, this goes both ways, and applies all over, not just here. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: fair point. El_C 09:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Recovery numbers.

The chart's recoveries seems to be WP:OR. The official Irani source does not provide recovered numbers. And 7 march recoveries are set to higher than 5 days prior total cases. Elk Salmon (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mohamad Ahwaze, original research and reliability

Taking a look at the article, this part came to my attention: Iranian authorities have arrested a journalist, Mohamad Ahwaze, for filming activities inside a hospital where he accused the government of mishandling and hiding the true number of fatalities amidst coronavirus outbreak; the regime has also been accused of not doing quarantine despite rampant outbreak.

Please note that:

1. First of all, the person in question is not arrested. The twitter account is continuously posting. Last update? 25 minutes ago. None of the sources cited claim that he was arrested. This is original research.
2. He does not even live in Iran, he was based in Sweden as of 2017 according to Reuters.
3. He is not a journalist "journalist". And according to the Reuters link above, he is also called a political activist and was jailed in Iran for two years. But he is not just a peaceful/non-violent "political" activist, rather he is a member of the group that claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack. This article published by a peer-reviewed journal, mentions that:

There are numerous social media outlets that are run by or for Ahwazi Arabs. There are also famous Twitter hashtags including "Ahwaz rebels" (#الأحواز_تنتفض) and "We're all our Uprising in Ahwaz" (#كلنا_إنتفاضة_أحوازنا) that document political resistance and activism against the Iranian regime. Europe-based Muhammed Majid Al-Ahwazi is one of the most famous Ahwazi Sunni activists. Al-Ahwazi is closely connected to the Saudi government and has a program on the Saudi-run Al-Ahwaz TV, which is described in more detail below. Al-Ahwazi's Twitter account has over 270,000 followers (twitter.com/mohamadahwaze), and his feed highlights and chronicles the injustice inflicted against Ahwazi Arabs... It is important to mention here that the discourse used by Al-Ahwazi reflects his pro-Sunni ideological belief. For instance, he refers to Iran as Persia (pre-Islamic Iran) and categorizes it as the enemy, while Saudi Arabia is the friend.

— Al-Rawi, Ahmed; Groshek, Jacob (2015). "Arab Iranians and Their Social Media Use". CyberOrient. 9 (2). American Anthropological Association and the Faculty of Arts of Charles University. ISSN 1804-3194.

The sources mentioned for this part, are the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya and the British tabloid Metro. Does anyone find these two sources reliable here?

Final words: Has Iranian government arrested people for publishing videos? Yes, they did, and there are sources. How should it be reflected in the article? I would say not this way. —Pahlevun (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate content

The article cites the same story twice:

1. BBC Persian Television estimated, from Iranian hospital sources, a total of 210 COVID-19 deaths in Iran on 28 February, which Iranian authorities denied.
2. On 28 February 2020, BBC Persian Television reported 210 COVID-19 deaths in Iran, citing sources in Iranian hospitals. The Iranian government denied the claim and reiterate the official number at 34, which was one sixth of the BBC's estimate.

I remove the first, for the time being. Pahlevun (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong number

The second column of 23 Feb 2020 must be 15 instead of 14. محمد اعمی (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Research by Ashleigh Tuite et al.

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

And when you click on what does this mean?, it says:

Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community. We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.

I think we should consider the above.

Plus, the sentence starts with "A University of Toronto group of researchers", which is not right, because out of these six researchers, three are affiliated with a company named BlueDot, and out of the other three affiliated with University of Toronto, one is also a paid consultant to the company. I think we should correct that too.

Concerning what should put in the article from the source, I am currently reading the source and will post here my suggestion, in case I had any. Pahlevun (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is what I have drafted after carefully reading the paper (with an emphasize on Findings and Discussion):

In a preprint paper pending for review on medRxiv journal, Tuite et al. estimated that as of 25 February, c. 18,300 infections (95% confidence interval: 3,770–53,470; best-case scenario: 380-5,320 cases) could have occured in Iran, based on known exported case counts and air travel links between Iran and other countries, the latter compiled from the data in the past. They concluded that Iran is likely to experience an "epidemic of significant size", while lack of identified cases in countries with close travel ties to Iran are because the cases are "likely being missed, rather than being truly absent".

Compare it to the current version:

A University of Toronto group of researchers led by Ashleigh Tuite analysed travel statistics from Iran. Based on the known SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UAE, Lebanon and Canada that originated from Iran and assuming that the outbreak had started six weeks earlier in Iran, they estimated on 25 February that about 4,000 to 53,000 (95% confidence interval) Iranians must have been SARS-CoV-2 positive. The authors commented that even by making the optimistic assumption that all cases were detected in all relevant countries, their 95% confidence limit only dropped to 1,800 to 5,300 cases, still well above the official estimate of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases

The text above, not only is not written in the academic tone, but also misses one of the two main conclusions of the paper: "This is concerning, both for public health in Iran itself, and because of the high likelihood for outward dissemination of the epidemic to neighbouring countries with lower capacity to respond to infectious diseases epidemics. Supporting capacity for public health initiatives in the region is urgently needed". —Pahlevun (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Arrival date"

February 19 was not the (unknown) date it arrived. It was the date of the first positive test. An important distinction as the virus was likely already spreading in the country at that point. --Calthinus (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Some sources" paragraph

SharabSalam - you reverted reliable sources from the article 1, 2, 3 times. You first say this is "Undue", and then say that this is already repeated in the body, but it's not. That edit provides more sources that say the Iranian government did not say the truth to the Iranian people (not just the US State Department). The lead is also supposed to summarise the article. Please provide a valid reason before reverting again. Barca (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That should be removed from the lead for the same reason you can't include such a thing in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in US. Iran believes US is not showing the true statistics, too. Lead should include the main points of the article and it is not the place for pushing some certain POVs. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

First you should have pinged me. Second, don't add some sources and a US official said "quote quote", they can't all be saying the same quote. This is bad editing. Also, this isn't lead section stuff. If it was a lead section stuff then the whole article body can be added to the lead section. Also, next time write a neutral section header in the talk page and don't mention my username in the section header.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are more sources here than the US official, so this is not WP:UNDUE. Ypatch (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is the lead that serves a summary of its most important contents. We have in the lead that non-Iranian-government sources stated estimates of the numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 deaths that were much higher than official values. So what is the reason for repeating that claim in words of Hook or others. it is clearly undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated charts

There are currently 3 charts in the articles, two of them give essentially the same information. I would remove at least one of them. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many sources about this online, so it is WP:DUE. I agree it should be included. Barca (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Iranians licking shrines?

I checked all the sections on this article but it doesn't seem that there is an appropriate place to mention some devout Shiites licking or coming into close contact with shrines to take in the coronavirus into themselves.

• Middle East Monitor article
• Al Arabiya article
• Metro UK article

Any chance of including this? I believe it's notable enough to be added on here, especially since it improves the chances of the virus spreading. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say so. It went quite viral. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

​I see the pun you made there. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

please read this article, you can find out that it not notable enough. Iranian goverment determin a punishemnt for who lick shrines and called this action as an untrue.Saff V. (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I can't read Arabic so I can't attest to its stated notability, but if 3 different news sources (all of which appear to be notable in their own regard and seem reputable) say that it happened, I would consider it notable myself. The Iranian government can say that it's untrue but the videos are still making the rounds online and is spreading virally. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You with just 600 edits in Wikipedia need to be familiar more with WP:RS. None of the three sources are mentioned at WP:RSP. You can see that Middle East Monitor] is not reliable enough. In other hand, every day lots of videos are uploading on Instagram or tweeter, you should now that Wikipedia is not a newspaper to write about fake news. A man who did such unconventional acts was arrested. In addition, such Wikipedia:Fringe theories have no place in Wikipedia.Saff V. (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Saff, I would advise you to stop keep mentioning the amount of edits users have made as if they're inferior / unknowledgeable. You have made tons of edits, yet you recently got banned to edit in People's Mujahedin of Iran, and got very fortunate to not get topic banned in Iran-related articles, so clearly the amount of edits doesn't seem to indicate how well someone knows the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A few days late here. My question wasn't whether or not the event actually happened (as primary footage exists), only if it was notable enough to include in the article. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Saff points out that the government specified a punishment for those licking shrines, but ironically that demonstrates its notability. At least mention of the punishment should happen.--Calthinus (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the WP:DUE would be the determining policy for whether or not that merits inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Every day lots of videos are uploading on Instagram or tweeter, we should note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper to write about fake news and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.Saff V. (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What has fake news and fringe theories to do with the shrine licking? It's a well established fact that happened and even went viral. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 What. ...but it isn't fake. There's actual concrete evidence of this which happened. Again, it was just a matter of if it was notable. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is a piece of fake news, Washington post did it. despite the reliability of sources support that news (for example Al-Arabiya as a BIASED sources), Wikipedia is not a newspaper which is demanded Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project. So it doesn't matter how notable it is, for a subject like this article (coronavirus in Iran), we have lots of news such this one (licking shrines), we should notice that routine news reporting is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.Saff V. (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jamaran Tehran 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Risk maps are original research?

The risk maps here and here currently come without any source or further explanation, and appear to be original research. I suggest to either add a thorough explanation to the file descriptions regarding how these maps were derived (in a way that shows that they are not original research), or to remove both images from the article.Renerpho (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also, what it even means is... opaque. --Calthinus (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of cases vandalism?

I suspect that the edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Iran&oldid=945989100 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Iran&oldid=945989625 are vandalism, they report abnormally high numbers compared to previous numbers (46000 and 49000 vs 14991 cases, 4500 and 4550 vs 853 deaths), and they are not sourced (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iran/ list 16169 cases and 988 death at time of writing this). Can anyone confirm this? 178.157.255.214 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Atleast ufficially there is NO confirm about this huge numbers, so definitively should be removed ASAP or atleast, cited in a proper paragraph as unofficial figure (given a minimally credible source, that is probable exists). Those edits seems to be meant to attack actually the iranian leadership. Cleary, Iran is not happy to say how big are the losses, but seeing how many politicians are infected or dead it's clear that is a real huge and nasty pandemic. Having said this, we are full of countries that openly are lying like the deathtoll in Germany (less than 0,1%), or the openly undervalued and understimed epidemic in US and UK, both countries simply don't want to accept the nasty conseguences of the epidemy (see what said Johnson government about 'herd immunity'). Not much better are Spain and France, only in those later days finally they are starting to act like Italy did several weeks ago. Even in Italy, there are politicians and doctors TODAY (17th march 2020) that are openly claming a number of cases and dead atleast 5 TIMES the official figure, that are already terrible. We in Italy have atleast 1,000 sanitaries infected. This is about today national news (RAI TV), not cospiracy websites. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Someone added a tag to the page about the lead needing a rewrite and I fully agree, the question is though, what would be the best way to rewrite it? Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 08:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be a summary of the article. Right now it is much detailed than it is a summary.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion.

In late February 2020, non-Iranian-government sources stated estimates of the numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 deaths that were much higher than official values. Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed on 24 February that the number of COVID-19 deaths was 50 in Qom.[6] BBC Persian estimated on 28 February, from Iranian hospital sources, a total of 210 COVID-19 deaths in Iran.[7] Iranian officials denied Amirabadi's[6] and BBC Persian's estimates.[7] The World Health Organization's director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that "the WHO has its 'own mechanism' for checking facts and has not seen problems with Iran's reported figures".[8]

Should be changed to:

Some non-Iranian-government sources estimates of the numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 deaths are much higher than official values. They have accused the Iranian government of censorship and mismanagement. However, the world health organisation says that it has not seen problems with Iran's reported figures.

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree. You know, information was added based on the daily news.Any way I agree with the suggestion material by user: SharʿabSalam. @Hzh: , i wonder if you leave a comment. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed the lead with some adjustments, see if that is acceptable. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the lead looks much better now because of Hzh's effort and the suggestion of SharabSalam.I really appreciate! Anyway, the third paragraph could be written more briefly. For instance, just mentioning the name would be enough and there is no need to mentioning the post. @Pahlevun:, @Hzh: and @SharabSalam: can I ask you to leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to mention all the people infected in the lead? Pahlevun (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually not!The lead serves a summary of its most important contents. Saff V. (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed the titles and adjusted the text, see if that is acceptable. It may not really necessary to give all the names, although it might be worth mentioning the most important ones. We'll how many more casualties there will be first. Hzh (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks perfect. I have no point to add.Thanks for effort!Saff V. (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it important

It was mentioned in the article that Neighbouring countries Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain announced that it recorded their first coronavirus cases from people who came from Iran on 24 February. In the next paragraph, we have that On 25 February, a family of four Iraqis who had returned from Iran was confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases were also reported on the same day for people who had arrived in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman from Iran.

Is it important to mention the second or third person from other countries who infected with the coronavirus by traveling to Iran? Is it enough to report just the first infected persons from other countries?

so that I suggested this paragraph which includes “On 25 February, a family of four Iraqis who had returned from Iran was confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases were also reported on the same day for people who had arrived in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman from Iran.” changes to According to the report of Oman’s Health Ministry, there are two Omani women who visited Iran and now infected with the coronavirus.(source.) @Hzh: Any idea?Saff V. (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to change the 25 February entry. There are also a lot of mentions of Gansu, perhaps they could be trimmed and just add one final total number. Hzh (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I applied changes. That's a good point and I will check it.Saff V. (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The second infected case in Lebanon was reported in the article. Please note that only reporting the first case or the total number of persons infected by traveling to Iran is enough.Saff V. (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

gravesites, add?

Satellite images show new sections of graveyards in Iran the size of an American football field near where coronavirus infections emerged. While Iran’s government has not released an official death toll for Qom, the spiritual center of Iran’s ruling Shiite clerics, Iranian authorities began digging a pair of trenches for victims days after the government disclosed the initial outbreak. Iran’s Health Ministry officially said that 429 people have died from COVID-19 in the country.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/iran-coronavirus-outbreak-graves

X1\ (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If enough reliable sources are talking about this, then saying what is happening in other articles is not a fair reason to remove. Barca (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not add it? MS 会話 13:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Already added. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is WaPo's video: Iran is building a massive grave for coronavirus victims on YouTube published March 13, 2020; add this? X1\ (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

YouTube is not RS!Saff V. (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: The Washington Post is WP:GREL per WP:RSPSOURCES. X1\ (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

please see the "Satellite imagery from Qom cemetery" section. what do you want to add exactly?Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If this yt video is not embedded in an existing WaPo RS, add it in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran#Satellite imagery from Qom cemeter next to the related WaPo. X1\ (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. X1\ (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Censorship?

There was a line, with source, mentioning an Iranian journalist having been arrested for taking and spreading a video showing body bags in an Iranian hospital. That line and the related link has now disappeared...--2.36.88.109 (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Read Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran/Archive 1#Mohamad Ahwaze, original research and reliability for the reason it was removed. Pahlevun (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO "five times higher"

So the WHO said that the cases and the deaths in Iran are much higher than reported and they said before that there is nothing wrong with the Iranian reported figures. These are not contradictory, this means that there are a lot of people who have not tested or dont know that they have coronavirus. Here is what the WHO official said "The number of cases reported could represent only about a fifth of the real numbers. The reason was that testing, as is the case even in some wealthy European countries, was restricted to severe cases". Here is a study that says the U.S. official reported numbers are way lower than the actual number of cases[3]. Are they saying there is a problem with the U.S. counting?. So can we just protect this article? I thought they have protected all coronavirus articles why didnt they protect this article?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A good point, in this sentence However, the World Health Organisation says that it has not seen problems with Iran's reported figures,[16] although later a WHO official indicated that only a fifth of the cases may be identified in Iran due to testing being limited only to severe cases initially, as was the situation with some European countries, the word of "although" is not supported by the source.Saff V. (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it is fine. It's not "however", it's "although" which doesn't suggest that there is a contradiction.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Blogs

As wp:BLOGS demands, news blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, So I removed the source and material refered to it.Saff V. (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Saeed Aganji is a random journalist. I think its a waste of the article space to add what he said. Especially since the article is about the pandemic and not the politics, Iranian government and all that stuff.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair reasons are needed for reverting

@Ms96 , YOu just with 220 edits in English Wikipedia need to study wiki policies more carefully. I explained my reason for removing the material in edit summary "is n't supported by the source". But you reverted it with no reason. You have to know that only mentioning "disruptive edit" is n't enough. The WP:REVEXP asked editors to provide a valid and informative explanation for reverting.

As I mentioned above the edit is n't supported by the source, Can you show me the sentences says that "Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement"?Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The exact text you mentioned is naturally not in the source, it would have been WP:C-P otherwise. However, it clearly says that "Qasem Janbabaei, the deputy health minister, ... denied the authenticity of a letter published in the social media signed by him, in which 35 people are confirmed infected and 4 are declared dead, and asserted that "not even a single positive SARS-CoV-2 case has been reported so far". So it needs nothing but common sense to draw a simple conclusion: "According to some letters published in the media – the credibility of which was denied by the government – Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement", the exact sentence in the article. Also, please carefully read WP:PING. For any interested user, the mentioned letter is available here. MS 会話 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: the answer of Ms96 is original research, is n't it?Saff V. (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I would prefer the word "authenticity" to "credibility", but that's a minor point; aside from that, what part of the content is not supported by the source? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: sources (1, 2, 3) don't support this part: Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement..Saff V. (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition there was just one letter no letters!Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was one letter. Aside from that, the sources are clearly saying that according to the letter, the author, a deputy health minister (or equivalent) was making the President aware of the presence of Coronavirus. What part of that, I ask again, is not supported by the sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There were actually more than one letter. In another one, signed by the interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, he urges the health minister Saeed Namaki to postpone releasing any information related to the outbreak until after 2020 Iranian legislative election in fear of low turnout. [4] MS 会話 07:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: i answered it yesterday. Also I repeated again, sources doesn’t say that “Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus but denied the presence of the virus”.Saff V. (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• El C I feel like I'm not getting through here; could you take a look? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Very simple, it does not support "Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus but denied the presence of the virus", but does support "According to some letters published in the media Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February". MS 会話 19:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

if you are sure, please provide the persian sentences that they confirm sources support above material ( according to the letter iranian officials were aware ... but denied).Saff V. (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you have problem with "but denied" part, right? MS 会話 08:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I explained my problem for 2 or 3 times! Please provide persian sentences that u think support mentioned material ( iranian officials were aware of exact number of people inflicted by virus but denied it before announcing). @El C: I don’t know how many times I have to say the mentioned material isn’t supported by cited sources. And there is no fair objection ( it seems to be OR).Saff V. (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Vanamonde93, Saff V., Ms96. I'm afraid I'm unable to tell what's what with respect to the source (aside from the English in the url) since I can't read Farsi. El_C 15:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Translation (Google translate with minor edits):

The Ministry of Health, insisting that there were "no cases of coronavirus" found in Iran, called the letter published on social networks by the ministry's deputy medical director about Corona's entry into Iran "fake." Deputy Minister of Health Qassim Janbabai says a letter recently released about Corona's entry into Iran is "fake" and "no case of the virus has been detected in the country so far."Mr Janbabai told IRNA on Sunday, February 16, "A letter recently published in the social media which which is signed by me, in which cases of coronavirus are reported to the president is fake and its publishers will be prosecuted." He explained that the letter was fake, the Department of Health has never had directly sent letters to the president, and all correspondence "was done through the ministry's office." He also said the letter number, the signature of the deputy treasurer, and the phone number included in the letter were incorrect and fake. In a letter posted on social media to the President of Iran, it is reported that in Iran "35 people have been identified with the Corona virus and four have been killed." The Iranian Ministry of Health has announced that the ministry's security center is demanding serious and legal prosecution of publishers of the "fake letter" and is pursuing the matter.(Some irrelevant issues about China deleted here) Previously, Iranian Ministry of Health officials denied any concealment of information about Corona. Alireza Raisi, the deputy head of the Iranian Ministry of Health, recently dismissed rumors that the Ministry of Health was not providing the evidence about the arrival of the disease in Iran and the death toll from the disease, saying: "If Need to be secretive, why was the Ministry of Health announcing the flu deaths weekly? "(Also some irrelevant issues here) Kianoush Jahanpour, head of the Iranian Ministry of Health's Information Center ... said that there had been no cases of the virus in Iran so far.

It is also worth noting that the Iranian officials reported the first confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections on 19 February 2020 in Qom (This is actually the first line of the article) El_C You decide.MS 会話 16:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ms96, I tend to agree. Saff V., what is your response? Does the above satisfy you? El_C 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: thanks for attention.IMO, none of the translated sentences say directly that According to some letters published in the media Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February. It is just the original research of the user, actually the last sentence of Ms96!Saff V. (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Saff V., Vanamonde93, and El C: I am a bilingual. The source starts with saying two officials from ministry of health denied any letters being issued by the minister of health on the true statistics of affected people. A fake letter appeared in social networks and it immediately faced official denial. Should it even be mentioned? How should the WP:DUE be applied here? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  Whether something is undue weight is an entirely different argument to whether it is original research. I have no opinion on the former question. You folks can debate that till kingdom come if it pleases you. Saff V., however, is insisting that the disputed it is original research, and he is quite incorrect in this understanding. Saff V., you really need to recalibrate here. Our text makes it clear that the letter's authenticity is disputed, but its contents are not in question; the minister's own statement supports our version of what the contents were. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the first time something plausible has been denied by the regime. The shot down of a civil aircraft is a good recent example. It should stay imo. @Ladsgroup:, could you perhaps help with the translation of the source? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence in WP:UNDUE reads as such: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The user who is trying to insert this material should explain how a paragraph should be dedicated to this 'minority view'? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should to apply wp:weight, actually this news was published yesterday: The World Health Organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that "the WHO has its “own mechanism” for checking facts and has not seen problems with Iran’s reported figures". source Saff V. (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I suggest removal of the whole paragraph per UNDUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest you to be very careful and avoid making such edit by any means. It was Saff V. who "vandalized" the article and removed a relevant, well-sourced section, essentially "lying" that it was not in the source, and wasted much time of several users by insisting that it was my OR in this meaningless discussion, then you say it is a "minority" view (based on what? 3 sources are already there and a lot more could be found), etc. I take these as a disruptive pattern of contribution. The discussion is over and although I did my best to refrain from further escalation of the issue so far, your next steps with this regard will surely not be tolerated. Thanks MS 会話 19:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your current sanction is partially because of your recent comment. This type of conversation is a clear example of personal attack and I strongly recommend you to avoid repeating it in future. A fake letter was published (it's so simple to make such a letter) and it faced immediate denial by Iranian senior officials. Such fringe theories have no place in Wikipedia. You have not provided a reliable neutral source addressing the letter. I will remove it if there's no fair objection against it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, avoid making such edit by any means. If you keep only the Iranian government's claims, this is obviously not NPOV. If you think BBC and other sources provided are not neutral, raise the issue in WP:RSN. You could also ask for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Also, my "sanction" was because I called Saff V a liar. Let others judge. MS 会話 08:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not favoring keeping Iranian POV, only. I am asking for removal of fringe theories. Anyway, you also need to say how it is counted as "Charges of censorship". Your repeating of "liar" can bring you longer sanctions. This is a disputed content for which YOU need to build consensus, not others. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that calling anyone "liar" is not good for anyone, but I also think there is lots of "wikilawyering" and "misundertandings" going on here in favor of a POV. This is not going to help the talk page discussions or the article. Barca (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh, Pahlevun, and SharabSalam: A fake letter appeared in social networks and it immediately faced official denial. Should it even be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry? How should the WP:DUE be applied here? Can we say it's fringe theory? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because this is a letter that appeared in social networks without any source and cant be verifiable. Meaning its a rumor (WP:NOTRUMOR). It could have been photoshopped or anything. I disagree with HoI, this is not the same as the Ukrainian plane, there is no government or a reliable source here. There is an unverifiable paper from unknown source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the section 'Non-government estimates' was exploited for POV pushing and that part with that certain tone was added for the same reason (Simply, those fake letters were not 'Non-government estimates'). In my opinion, the fact that these fake news were published during the pandemic in Iran is noteworthy and important (as it is internationally), but the way they are put in the article is more important. An article by BBC Monitoring, investigated the letters and concluded that using an image verification tool also shows basic manipulation techniques were used to create it (It also includes more about conspiracy theories and other falsifications). I rather removing that part fully, and creating a new section for these misinformation based on quality sources like the one linked above (excluding sources like Al Arabiya English). Pahlevun (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The BBC did not mention those letters, but a different one, so that is irrelevant. The letter that says Rahmani Fazli told Namaki not to release information on the virus until after the election is mentioned here - [5]. I see no problem with adding them if there are independent sources for them. Hzh (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the first confirmed case in Iran was officially announced on 19 February, two days before the election took place [6]. So first of all, ironically the thing did not happen. Plus not only Al Arabiya English is not a good source, but also it does not even confirm the authenticity of what has "circulated on social media" (indication for the quality: publishing a story about something it is not able to confirm). And BBC does mention that False or misleading medical advice, fake letters [plural] or remarks attributed to senior officials... have appeared on Iranian social media and messaging apps in recent days and there is absolutly no need for eximanations of those letters one by one, the amount of fake news is as much as "WHO has been forced to dedicate nearly half its time in Iran to fighting fake news" (per Poynter Institute [7]). Keep in mind that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Pahlevun (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That particular letter was circulated more than a week before the BBC report, so it is not "recent days" being referred to. Poynter also does not refer to that letter. In any case, I remember many reports around the election time that mentioned that the government officials knew about coronavirus but chose not to release the information (searching for them now is difficult because they get buried under tons of other reports on the coronavirus). I guess you would also exclude Radio Farda as source? Hzh (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Hzh, it seems you are missing my point, to make it clear, I would ask you to answer these questions:

1. Can you name a source that has confirmed the authenticity of the letter in question (or any other of those fake letters)?
2. What is the relevance of those letters with 'Non-government estimates'?

–Pahlevun (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

1. You can ask the same question, since you asserted them to be faked, where are the sources confirming that the letters mentioned in the article are faked? The BBC didn't mention those specific letters, and the one who claimed they are faked is the Iranian government, who also famously claimed that they did not shoot down the airplane.

2. That is just a matter of how you title the section, and that part was under a different title earlier. You'd have to ask the person who changed/removed the title, who happens to be you - [8]. It could have been moved out of estimates section if you want, but you decided to remove the title completely. Hzh (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hzh, We should not include rumors from unverifiable and unreliable sources. The source for this paper is social networks like Twitter, Facebook etc.

If the WP:Dailymail published something and then some news outlets reported what the Dailymail said. They attributed to the Dailymail. We don't include the content because the Dailymail is considered unreliable in Wikipedia even if other news have covered what the Dailymail said. This case is similar. These few sources are attributing to this letter that is unverifiable and published in an unreliable source which is social network.

Another reason why this should be removed is because it is making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires multiple high quality sources and we only have one source here which is social networks who published the paper and it is not reliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether the claim is true or reliably sourced is not that relevant here, but that fact that the Iranian government has responded to the claim is, and that is reliably sourced. We don't really make judgement on any particular dispute without clear evidence, just giving what has been said when it becomes a dispute or controversy. The only argument against it is WP:WEIGHT, whether it is important enough to be mentioned. Hzh (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Another example of a claim - it was mentioned in the article that Mahan Air continued flying to China after the outbreak in Wuhan, but that was removed (I can't remember why, but I think the claim may be that it was unreliable). Arguably, that could actually be included because it was later used by Mike Pompeo to attack Iran, and many sources reported that. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Methanol deaths

Resolved

 – Added to timeline. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing a section where this can be added, as some people have drank themselves to death from assuming that methanol is a treatment for COVID-19, which it absolutely is not. Those lucky enough to not die remain sick. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Never mind, just added to the Timeline section. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Missing new developments

The infections and deaths in Iran have dramatically slowed this week. Can this be covered in the article please? And what was done to achieve this result? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What was done to achieve this result is very simple, it is called artificially manufacturing numbers. Iran is the hardest hit country in the world with well over 200,000 cases and 10,000 deaths, but you won't hear this from them of course. --Pesqara (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this is mistaken since the government is warning of a second wave with increasing numbers. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

But the present isn't covered. At deaths doubling every 10 days, Iran is right now doing the best among all the hard-hit countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it hasn't slowed dramatically, you just have to look at the increase in the last few days. The previous doubling was around 8 days, so slight improvement, but not dramatic, certainly not when you look at the last few days - daily new cases doubled in 5-6 days. Iran's statistics is also a bit meaningless, since they include only those tested, but they only tested a fraction of cases because they don't have enough test-kits (one-fifth according to a WHO official). This is true not just for Iran, but also for the statistics of many countries. Many deaths are counted as being due to something else such as influenza, and not Covid-19. Hzh (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about deaths, not cases. And, the source I gave is The New York Times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the first sentence you wrote. Deaths haven't decreased dramatically in any case, it's been steady for nearly two weeks. Also as noted already, deaths from Covid-19 are not always counted as such in Iran. Hzh (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• can I know which edit you are talking about?Saff V. (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The claim of Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani

This claim of the member of parliament is duplicated 2wo times in different sections of the article. What I would like to say that the first one which was mentioned in "Timeline" doesn't appear necessary. Any objections?

• Iran's Deputy Minister of Health, Dr.Iraj Harirchi, said that twelve people had died and up to 61 had been infected with the new coronavirus. Parliamentarian Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani s claimed that 50 people had died in Qom from COVID-19, which Harirchi denied.

• Member of parliament for Qom Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed on 24 February 2020 that COVID-19 had arrived in Qom three weeks prior, in early February, that the first death had occurred on 13 February but was not announced by officials, and that the true number of COVID-19 deaths in Qom was 50. Deputy health minister Iraj Harirchi denied giving false figures, and stated that the death count was 12 with a total of 66 infections.Saff V. (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine as it is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight: "Non-government estimates" section

The above-mentioned section has grown too much, to the extent that it currently has more size than the official statistics, and I think it passes the threshold for WP:CFORK. The sources cited are:

Source	Affiliation	Expert?	Notes
Tuite et al.	Uni. of Toronto/BlueDot Inc.	Yes	Preprint (not yet peer-reviewed)
Masoud Pezeshkian	Parliament of Iran	Yes/No	Classified official information?
Radio Farda	U.S. government	No
Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani	Parliament of Iran	Yes/No	Classified official information?
BBC Persian	British Foreign Office	No
Struan Stevenson	Conservative Party	No
People's Mujahedin of Iran		No
Tedros Adhanom	World Health Organization	Yes	United Nations specialized agency
Brian Hook	U.S. government	No
Graeme Wood	—	No
Maxar Technologies Inc.	—	Yes/No	Expert on satellite imagery

As it is evident, there is only one academic source (though not peer-reviewed) and just a source with expertise and international reputation (WHO) to comment on the numbers. Should all these sources have the same weight in the article? Absolutely no. Some can be trivially mentioned together, and some are not even worth mentioning, in my opinion. There are fake news mentioned with too much detail. This not how an encyclopedia looks, this section needs immediate attention. Pahlevun (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CFORK is not what you think it is. I think you are trying to say WP:UNDUE. BBC World Service is funded by the British government but is otherwise independent and not affiliated to the Foreign Office. Hzh (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Fyi, accusing credentialed journalists like Graeme Wood of fake news... might be BLPTALK. Maybe his estimates are wrong. But fake news implies falsification, which is a serious charge if journalism is your profession.--Calthinus (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Calthinus. By fake news, I mean this part: The government of Iran had insisted that there was no confirmed COVID-19 in Iran before 19 February 2020, when the first cases were announced. However, a letter claimed to be from the Ministry of Health to the office of the President that circulated on social media suggests that the Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths many days before the official announcement. Government officials said that the letter was a fake. Another letter also circulated on social media; it was signed by interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli and sent to Health Minister Saeed Namaki to request that the announcement of coronavirus outbreak be delayed until after the parliamentary election to avoid a low turnout of voters. The government has also denied this claim.

–Pahlevun (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun okay, fair enough. --Calthinus (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Hzh, CFORK can include creating sections only for POV purposes. The establishment in Iran is arresting people for criticizing its policy to mitigate the infection and that deserves to be reflected in the article, but the place to mention it is not 'Non-government estimates'. When the section includes sources like this (now removed) that could make people think this section is intended to push POV. Pahlevun (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CFORK - A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. What articles would the section be a fork of? WP:POV is not the same as WP:CFORK. A POV fork is a type of content fork, which means the POV fork must be a fork of other articles, so again, which articles are you claiming it to be a fork of?. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), and where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem can lead as a gate to creating new articles. Anyway, let this CFORK/POV dispute end and get to the point: I have made a number of changes to the section and I think it has improved. I think we should do something about the allegations circulated on social media that originated from an unknown source. Pahlevun (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

MEK

The article is included that Struan Stevenson, a Scottish politician and coordinator of the Campaign for Iran Change, which is backed by the People's Mujahiden of Iran accused the Iranian government of covering up the true death toll, and estimated the death count to be 1,200 in early March, ten times that of the official census while it is wrong! the claim belongs to MEK, not Struan Stevenson! In addition, on 1 March MEK estimated up to 15,000 infected persons in Iran and on 4 March MEK estimated 1200 infected person until the first day of March. for same day, there are two different estimations by MEK!Saff V. (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: and @Hzh: can I ask you to leave a comment?Saff V. (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

MEK is no reliable source and has a long history of spreading falsifications. Pahlevun (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Iranian government has a long history of spreading falsifications--2.36.88.109 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, MEK, whose goal is the end of the current Iranian government, is COI at best. (tbh, so is the Iranian government, but the input of Mohammed Reza Zafarghandi is interesting here and refreshingly forthcoming [[9]]). --Calthinus (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: and @Calthinus: I can't understand if the MEK is not trustable, why that material is included in the article?Does UPI meet wp:RS?Saff V. (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

UPI is reliable, but that is an opinion piece, not a report. Per WP:NEWSORG, such sources "are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Pahlevun (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The used source in the article was written by Struan Stevenson who is Co-ordinator of the Campaign for Iran Change (CIC). It shows that he is not neutral about MEK. (see that:The speakers at the event, organized by the European Parliament Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup, also called for the Iranian regime to be held to account for the 1988 massacre of over 30,000 political prisoners, mostly members and supporters of the Iranian opposition People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI, Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK).) it is against the WP:NEUTRAL.@Hzh: I wonder if you help us to build a conclusion. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue with adding the claims by MEK or NCRI, since they are significant organisations, and a number of sources have repeated their claims, adding it does not mean that the claim is correct, since it is only a claim. the only thing I would say that is that it could be shortened to a sentence. I think also that the non-governmental estimate section can be trimmed. Hzh (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed and moved it. A bit of reorganisation might help to tidy up the article, bits of various paragraphs don't belong to the right sections. Hzh (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in iran

" the holy city of Qom, where the first cases of the virus in the republic began in January"

"director-general of the World Health Organization, said a 45-year-old woman in Lebanon has been linked to the outbreak in Iran."

"while Lebanon reported its first infection — someone who had just traveled from Iran.

Those 3 quotes are from three different articles Please note January Catweasel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Infected Iranian officials

I created this section and moved related material from "time line" section into this section. Unfortunately, I was not able to do it completely. But it is not bad, it provides the opportunity to mention objections if there is.Saff V. (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)