Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Michael Gove has to do with the facts stated by British scientists that China underreported coronavirus statistics?[3] I would say you are the one who needs to read WP:CIR. See [4][5][6]. It is fair to say that there is unanimous agreement over doubting China has been deliberately underreporting the statistics. Info had been added by Vgy7ujm and you have already tried to remove it enough times [7][8] even after getting reverted two times by Horse Eye Jack. Since Jaedglass has also brought some new information,[9] I would strongly recommend you to stop with these attempts now. NavjotSR (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the lead

@MarkH21: Your recent edits [10][11] were not representing the sources properly. Statements by scientists, health experts, professors, government expert, etc. cannot be attributed to "US and UK government". Furthermore the doubts over China's claims that it has controlled the coronavirus is not only doubted by the DW source but also FT and WashingtonPost. Orientls (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"China's claim of coronavirus victory in Wuhan brings hope, but experts worry it is premature"[12], "Don't lift quarantine measures too fast: government expert"[13] - both exists on the lead and support the wording. Orientls (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree with attribution like "news outlet", since they are the only ones who are reporting, but restored other changes and improved paragraph for better context.[14] Orientls (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Two things can be true at once. Every national leader would benefit from blaming Chinese under-reporting. The Chinese numbers also beggar belief. China reports 2 deaths per million. Italy and Spain report 400 per million.70.181.191.109 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Measures in Spain, Italy and China were completely different. It is completely logic that the evolution of the epidemic is different. Quarantine and lock-down measures in China were much more strict and broad than in Italy and Spain. Yes: confinement measures work. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

San Diego IP, you do know the reported deaths in Wuhan (2,579) are about 233 per million, and that reported deaths in mainland China outside of Hubei are 120 total (about 0.09 per million)? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading scale for Hubei in map

 You are invited to join the discussion at commons:File talk:COVID-19 attack rate in Mainland China.svg. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Guangdong Province announcement

• (in Chinese, English, and French) "One World, One Fight In Solidarity We Stand for the Building of a Community of Common Health for Mankind". Guangdong Province Office of Foreign Affairs.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Origin

Is it worth mentioning the US thinks the virus is natural, but originated from the Wuhan lab?

"There is increasing confidence that the COVID-19 outbreak likely originated in a Wuhan laboratory, though not as a bioweapon but as part of China's attempt to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States." Fox reported.

"U.S. Embassy officials warned in January 2018 about inadequate safety at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab and passed on information about scientists conducting risky research on coronavirus from bats, The Washington Post reported Tuesday." 70.181.191.109 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree about inclusion. There is no need to wait anymore now. I added about it here. NavjotSR (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post piece is in the opinion section. Any claims deriving from it must be attributed to the author. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Peppering multiple lead paragraphs with content on censorship

The Chinese government has undoubtably engaged in censorship during their national epidemic. Wuhan doctors were warned by authorities not to spread rumors when they tried to inform one another about the appearance of another SARS-like pneumonia [15]. A UToronto lab has reported that China has censored messages on WeChat [16].

This component of the epidemic in China currently represents 1 of 9 sections we have written on the topic in the article body. However, The content appears twice in the lead: as the first sentence of the third paragraph (citing for instance this NYT article [17]), and then again in the middle of the last paragraph (citing the same NYT article as if it's a new source).

The content should appear at the end of the lead, mirroring our article structure. The content is also misleading as currently presented: the duplicated reference and content on censorship, when added to the middle of the lead just prior to the national government's response, suggests that this was their early national policy to the outbreak. However, we don't know that that's the case. -Darouet (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Censorship is normal in China and we can't pretend that China was accurately attending the concerns about coronavirus when we are describing their timeline. They have admitted somewhat as well.[18] This is why a mention along with the notes about them addressing the virus are important. Orientls (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Believability of Chinese reports?

Recently, China increased the number of dead in Wuhan from 2579 to 3869, an increase of 50% -- literally.[19] It looks like someone took the old number, got out his calculator and multiplied by 1.5 to create the new number. How much credence should we give any numbers coming out of China?
—WWoods (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

They did not simply add 1,290 deaths; municipal authorities discovered 164 doubly-counted or non-COVID-19 related deaths that were previously included and accounted for 1,454 extra deaths, which nets to +1,290. See this Q&A.

And we can do without the WP:NOTFORUM violations, given the preponderance of WP:MEDRS sources above which are based on NHC-reported numbers. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that correction of errors and revision of reporting criteria is a common thing in countries that were hit hard: the United States CDC revised their reporting criteria to include thousands of deaths that were not previously included ([20]), France updated their reporting criteria twice (one to include cases in nursing homes, the other to report separately probable cases), Spain is in the process of standarizing reporting criteria for every region and it will correct the whole series retroactively. --MarioGom (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The criteria may change, but also the obvious : There were deaths before full test capacity. The data everywhere in the world is just getting more messy. And for those who still live under a rock : China stopped ramping up tests on feb 4. They never hit the plateau like other regions did. I'm not saying it's bad or anything like that. They were actually pretty open about it. Iluvalar (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There's alot of talk about this revision, but when dealing with large numbers and uncertain death cause this is no so unusual.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

6 day delay, add?

• China didn’t warn public of likely pandemic for 6 key days April 15, 2020 Associated Press

X1\ (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

X1\: What would be the exact text to be added? This falls in the category of "accusation of delayed response" which exist for many (most?) countries and might be due weight if the right in-text attribution, NPOV and balance is given. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what TQ your quoting, MarioGom? What about in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Response by the Central Government?

Or possibly in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Propaganda?

X1\ (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

X1\: Sorry, I didn't mean to quote a comment, I have edited my comment to use quotes rather than {{tq}}. I think adding it as "Propaganda" would not be NPOV. As it would mean that Wikipedia assumes that an alleged delay in action would be a propaganda action. Maybe Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Chinese government and/or 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Controversies and criticism? --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the Propaganda section would likely be inappropriate unless more RSs provide more backing for that designation.

Your sections suggestions seem appropriate. The reason you needed to ask What would be the exact text to be added? is I left it open, as I don't often edit here; but this appears significant in the sequence of events. There are various other RSs on this too. X1\ (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The disease originated in China. It's most effective if an outbreak is detected at the earliest and contained. There was a delay of almost a month before human to human transmission was confirmed. People voicing concerns were silenced. They didn't put out information on time. Even if one argues it's not purposeful it's willfull negligence which in this case is nothing short of a crime. China has incentive to restrict flow of information as well and they actively engage in that practice. And the fact that China is a well connected country as well. By the time things became clear, plenty of people had travelled by air all over the world. Other countries didn't prepare early enough thinking it's a local issue in China. If the authorities were efficient much less infected people would have travelled abroad meaning less exposure for the rest of the world. Even after that the Govt of China didn't disclose information on time. All these had direct consequences on the number of cases. Hence it's fitting to be referenced in the main text. and further elaborated in Response section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejose1 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

New lockdown in Harbin

I can't do it without an account, but someone should write about the new lockdown in parts of Harbin, Heilongjian. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-harbin-china-s-new-wuhan-

-and maybe a general section on the current status of lockdowns would be nice. 87.164.239.21 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about Harbin. I agree that more details about lockdowns (and other containment measures) are needed in the article. I've had trouble finding good sourcing, unfortunately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bild editorial

To try to resolve the ongoing disagreement about whether to include the Bild criticism of international aid, I've replaced the quote with material from more reliable sources (the New York Times and the Carnegie Endowment) that makes roughly the same points (that the Chinese government is using aid as a geopolitical tool). What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've self-reverted to allow for discussion at WP:ANEW and here. I would greatly appreciate other users' input on these edits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The original reason why I mentioned Bild's criticism of international aid was because the initial editorial "What China Owes Us" (which some mistook as Germany sticking China with the bill for pandemic damages) drew a strong rebuke from the Chinese embassy in Berlin, otherwise I would have ignored it like Fox News. FobTown (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarification is helpful. I don't really think that's significant enough to mention here (that's far from the only Chinese diplomatic mission to be involved in a minor spat like this recently). I can live with mentioning the incident, but in that case the focus should be on the editorial that drew the embassy's response, and the response itself. How about we briefly summarize the controversial editorial and indicate the embassy's response? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no further response, I have implemented the proposed compromise. If anyone disagrees, please join the discussion here and don't edit-war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. The problem is that the proposed compromise leaves out the essence of Reichelt's Trojan Horse accusation, so I suggest Reichelt's quote below:

Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" that was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, responded by criticizing China's aid saying "I suppose you consider it a great ‘friendship’ when you now generously send masks around the world. This isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse. You plan to strengthen China through a plague that you exported. You will not succeed.” FobTown (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

That long quote would be WP:UNDUE weight. You said above that what was relevant about the Bild incident was that the first editorial drew a response from the embassy—the current description in the article covers that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that your Bild blurb has nothing to do with the section "International Aid" as you completely omitted Reichelt's Trojan Horse quote: The German tabloid Bild published an editorial critical of the Chinese government titled "What China owes us", which drew a rebuttal from the Chinese embassy in Berlin.[350][351]

I can place the Reichelt's Trojan Horse quote as part of a paragraph in "International Aid", most likely after Jorge Guajardo's quote, rather than having it on its own in order to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. FobTown (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that quoting Reichelt's "Trojan horse" comments is WP:UNDUE weight, regardless of whether they're a paragraph on their own or combined with other material to make a longer paragraph.

I agree with you that there's not a direct connection with international aid. We could solve that problem by removing the material in question or moving it to another part of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This should avoid the WP:UNDUE weight, by being placed as part of the last paragraph, while also expanding upon the congressional report.

A U.S. congressional report released in April concluded that "the Chinese government may selectively release some medical supplies for overseas delivery, with designated countries selected, according to political calculations."[336] Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" for the pandemic's cost to Germany which was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, suggested that China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks, saying "this isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse".[350][351] FobTown (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is still undue weight—please self-revert. If you want to expand on the congressional report, that's fine, but do it with high-quality sources like the ones I suggested earlier. I am really baffled as to why you keep trying to include this low-quality source.

Could another editor please weigh in on whether we should quote this editorial from a low-quality tabloid source? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have placed notices at WT:WikiProject COVID-19 and WT:WikiProject China to solicit input on this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Amidst an ongoing discussion and without consensus, you’ve reinserted precisely the content that you were given a final warning at AN3 for edit warring over. Self-revert immediately. 15:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Self-reverted. MarkH₂₁, thanks for taking sides right away. FobTown (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Asking that everyone follow the edit warring policy and not insert their preferred version amidst a discussion with disagreement is not taking sides. Let the discussion run its course, using dispute resolution if needed. This applies to all parties. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Granger, the main dispute is over WP:UNDUE weight, but I can't cut the Reichelt quote any further or else it would lack context for the Trojan horse assertion.

I don't call it Bild low quality for this incident, since Reichelt got into a dispute with the Chinese embassy, and this spat (the original Bild editorial and Reichelt's rebuttal) received worldwide attention.[21][22][23]

The main point of Reichelt's inclusion in the "International Aid" section isn't the back-and-forth dispute (which was mentioned in passing) but rather the Trojan horse and Imperialism description of the masks aid. FobTown (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's undue weight to cover the "Trojan horse" claim at all. Why would we quote a tabloid editorial when we have much better sources available covering the same issue? (The Chinese embassy response is possibly an argument for briefly mentioning the "What China owes us" editorial, but not the "Trojan horse" editorial.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think its undue weight, its crucial context to why the PRC reacted the way they did... Its not everyday we see this sort of spat between a second rate publication and a superpower. Isn’t the PRC angry about a series of inflammatory pieces not just one of them? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I do however agree with Mx. Granger that we can probally find a better home for this information than the "International Aid” section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: To clarify: the "Trojan horse" editorial was published after the Chinese embassy statement, so the embassy statement was clearly not reacting to that editorial. I've already indicated that I'm okay with mentioning the "What China owes us" editorial, which is what prompted the embassy response. And yeah, "International Aid" is probably not the right section to cover this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Arent the Chinese still pissed about this? I was under the impression this was an ongoing incident. This article covers all three [24] as one incident. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether the Chinese government is "still pissed", and I imagine you don't either – let's stick to what the sources say. The source you linked suggests that the Chinese government hasn't responded to the "Trojan horse" editorial, or at least hadn't responded when the source was published. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me our problem here is that we have an unreliable party (Bild) and a highly unreliable party (Chinese Government) going at each other so we need to rely on third parties even more than normal, if we decide that the conflict is notable enough to be on wikipedia we should decribe the full extent of the conflict and not just part of it. If we decide that the conflict is not notable enough to be on wikipedia we of course will cover none of it. Does seem like this conflict was notable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There’s a limit to the extent that anything should be covered by WP:PROMINENCE, right? There’s no way one covers the full extent, so to speak. The conflict is worth mentioning, but shouldn’t the focus of this discussion be on whether the specific quote is due prominence?

Also, it’s a Bild editorial, not even a Bild article right? Both sides are highly unreliable, it’s not really important who’s more unreliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Trojan Horse / Imperialism response quote and original editorial is notable as other sources have picked up upon it being "out of character" for German media which is usually not jingolistic while German politicians are passive-aggressive.[25] It also expands upon the paragraph of the congressional report suggesting that aid is a political calculation. FobTown (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the importance of the quote is that it demonstrates German jingoism or something similar, it would be better suited to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany article rather than here. As I said previously, if we want to expand on the political calculations in Chinese aid, that's fine with me—but let's do it with more reliable sources like the New York Times, as I suggested above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This would be equally relevant on both China and Germany pages. I'm all for adding the New York Times too, but Bild's position is another worldwide view on political calculations of China's aid. FobTown (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, FobTown, I don't think this reasoning is coherent at all. You say we should include the Bild quote because it is "another worldwide view on political calculations of China's aid." Obviously we should not include quotes from all publications worldwide that have commented on political considerations in Chinese aid—if we did, this already long article would balloon to several times its current size. We must have some selectivity in which sources we quote. There is no reason to report this particular tabloid editorial's views on international aid when substantively similar views can be found from higher-quality sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case its not the question of whether the Bild editorial/response was of high quality or not, otherwise other sources wouldn't mention Bild and nor would Bild have caused a dispute with the embassy.[26][27][28] And furthermore we want more than just USA sources on political calculations, of which in this case a normally-not-so-vocal German source actually stands out, in fact it was noted as the toughest response from any news organization or politician in Germany. Imperialism & Trojan Horse is also another observed viewpoint on aid too.[29] FobTown (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just on the last claim that in this case a normally-not-so-vocal German source actually stands out: the general German media is not generally vocal, but Bild is not a normally-not-so-vocal source. It’s a tabloid that is "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism", and this is an editorial from a single journalist (i.e. the opinion of a single journalist and not a regular news article) published by that tabloid. It’s certainly a normally-vocal source.

But for whether the response to the rebuke to the editorial should be quoted, it does seem slightly out-of-prominence to quote the opinion of a single journalist in the subsection about international aid within the international relations section. Generally, international relations sections shouldn’t devote too much prominence to responses outside of official channels. Perhaps another section, maybe the Controversies section, would be more appropriate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm never quoting straight from www.bild.de but instead from other sources mentioning the editorial/response. Going back to the beginning, the original concern of including the whole quote was WP:UNDUE so how was that not addressed by carefully truncating it? FobTown (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"otherwise other sources wouldn't mention Bild and nor would Bild have caused a dispute with the embassy" – the editorial that drew the response from the embassy is already in the article. I don't really think it should be, because this is a very minor incident in the huge scope of COVID-19 in China (and the incident didn't even take place in China!), but I agreed to mention it as a compromise to try to resolve this dispute. But I strongly object to the idea of quoting another editorial, which didn't get a response from the embassy, from the same low-quality source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Do appreciate the compromise attempt but the initial editorial was about human rights & surveillance so it didn't fit in International Aid. The response was an answer to the embassy rebuke, and other international sources have mentioned the Bild response in suggesting that the aid is suspicious, indeed one source even suggested that Bild's response was also pushback against China's propaganda effort.[30][31] Of course the reception to aid would not take place in China but rather the host country that receives it, hence that is why we have the Mexican ambassador, Italian PM, Congress! The truncated quote is a fair compromise that not only gets out the viewpoint without WP:UNDUE, but also provides a European perspective towards having a worldwide view on aid political calculations (just a quick blurb on the Congressional report isn't enough, while have plenty material in the Propaganda section.) FobTown (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep giving different reasons for including this quote that don't have much to do with each other—it feels like you're throwing things at the wall and seeing if any will stick, so to speak. Now you say we should include the quote to provide "a European perspective...on aid political calculations". We already present European perspectives on international aid in this article; I don't see why we specifically need a European perspective on one particular aspect of the aid. That said, if you want to include a European perspective on this particular aspect, I don't object—but please find one from a more important or higher-quality source than a tabloid editorial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, we could quote this statement from High Representative of the European Union Josep Borrell, which I found in less than 10 minutes of searching. What do you think of that as a compromise? If not, you can keep looking for other sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Josep Borrell statement can be added the the "Propaganda" section, and there is undoubtedly some overlap between International Aid and Propaganda. However the Congressional report and Bild response go further than propaganda/narrative by citing political calculations and Imperialism, respectively, and such topics fit better in International Aid. [32][33][34][35][36] For instance, The Federalist has quoted the Bild response, a editorial in Welt am Sonntag, and the former head of MI6, in suggesting that Germany and the UK are hardening their stance against Chinese influence.[37] FobTown (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Granger, how would you edit the following paragraph so it still contains the essence of what Reichelt says in his response: A U.S. congressional report released in April concluded that "the Chinese government may selectively release some medical supplies for overseas delivery, with designated countries selected, according to political calculations."[336] Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" for the pandemic's cost to Germany which was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, suggested that China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks, saying "this isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse". FobTown (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Josep Borrell statement does talk about international aid, but if you don't want to include it, that's fine with me. As I've said many times now, it is undue weight for us to include the "Trojan Horse" tabloid editorial. I've already edited the paragraph to include what you said was the key part of this incident (the original editorial and the response from the embassy), and that's what's in the article now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The more we discuss this, the more convinced I am that this minor incident is just not significant in the broad scope of this article. I think the best option is to remove Bild from this article altogether. We can still discuss the incident in the article about Bild. In this article, let's use high-quality sources for commentary on Chinese aid. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bild response has been quoted several times so its of sufficient significance, as opposed to being just another Fox News, so quality of Bild wasn't an issue for those other news organizations. And the Bild response is the relevant part to the International Aid section. FobTown (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If we add Joseph Borrell plus the Bild "Trojan Horse", that would be less undue weight, how would you add truncate Borrell's statement? FobTown (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this has been mentioned in a few other sources is a reason to discuss the incident in the Bild article. But it's not a reason to quote a low-quality source's views on international aid in this broad article. Maybe the best resolution would be to cover the Bild incident in the Bild article (where we can go into more detail) and cover the views of higher-quality sources in this article.

In this article, if we include Borrell's statement instead of (not in addition to) the Bild quote, we could say something like

High Representative of the European Union Josep Borrell said that Chinese aid was part of "a global battle of narratives" about the pandemic, adding that "China is aggressively pushing the message that, unlike the US, it is a responsible and reliable partner."

How does that look? I'm also open to alternative phrasings. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The more I think of it, Borrell's statement is more appropriately propaganda rather than international aid. It is a better idea to quote The Federalist instead for Imperialism and political calculations.[38] FobTown (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, quote Bild as reproduced in The Federalist. It seems this discussion is going nowhere. I'm starting an RfC, see below. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Bild editorials

Should this article cover editorials from the German tabloid Bild? If so, should the article only mention the editorial that drew a response from the Chinese embassy in Berlin, or should it also include a quote regarding Chinese foreign aid from another editorial in the same publication? See above for prior discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do not include (or at most only cover the first editorial) – this brief spat between a tabloid and the embassy in Berlin is a very minor incident in the broad scope of this article. If it is included, we should just mention the first editorial and the embassy's response. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to quote the second tabloid editorial (from a source "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism") regarding international aid. (Of course, there is no problem with quoting higher-quality sources, diplomats, or officials regarding Chinese foreign aid, which is what I've suggested doing in the discussion above.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do not include also noting the WP:RS/P comparison of Bild to The S*n. A minor tit-for-tat compared to the massive epidemic control efforts, adverse economic impact (and associated reduction in greenhouse emissions), among others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include - the Congressional report and Bild response go further than just a brief spat, as some commentators have suggested political calculations and Imperialism, respectively, and such topics fit better in International Aid. [39][40][41][42][43] For instance, The Federalist has quoted the Bild response, a editorial in Welt am Sonntag, and the former head of MI6, in suggesting that Germany and the UK are hardening their stance against Chinese influence.[44] Note that I never quoted directly from bild.de and never had to. At this point when the Bild editorial and response is being widely quoted by others, it is not a question of whether Bild is high quality or just a tabloid. FobTown (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The original criticism that Granger raised about the Bild response was that it was WP:UNDUE but I have shortened it. However, substituting the first editorial not only doesn't resolve WP:UNDUE (the proposed content is of a similar length and has its own paragraph) but it simply doesn't belong in International Aid. FobTown (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

'Wuhan CDC' in 'COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China'

Pavessey (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Paragraph 1 of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China

'Wuhan CDC' should be "Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Center_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention (So as not to confuse with the US CDC and make it absolutely clear.) Thanks for the fantastic article by the way. Regards Peter

That sentence is talking about the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, not the national Chinese Center for Disease Control, right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeat removal of government response

@FobTown: Why don’t you want to use the talk page to follow up, as requested? You removed the official government response again on the basis of

because its a separate paragraph to him alone, while the other quotes are paraphrased and placed as part of a paragraph

Zhao Lijian is the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. It’s the government response, not an individual’s response. It’s like removing statements made by the White House Press Secretary on behalf of the current administration because it came from one person.

It’s absolutely due WP:PROMINENCE to add the Chinese government’s response to the controversy, and two sentences isn’t overgrown. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly undue weight to give a full paragraph to Zhao Lijian's statement alone, while the other quotes from African officials are paraphrased and placed as part of an earlier paragraph. Furthermore, Zhao Lijian's assertions were already stated in the earlier paragraph: Beijing initially attempted to deny such reports as "rumors" and "misunderstandings" spread by Western media. FobTown (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, it’s a statement on behalf of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. It’s not a single person’s assertions.

The initial statement about "rumors" and "misunderstandings" also wasn’t from Zhao Lijian’s statements, it was from the police and public health bureau in Guangzhou on April 7 (and/or ambassador responses like this April 14 one). Otherwise you would find the quoted words in the referenced Zhao statements: April 12, April 13. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The police and public health bureau are saying essentially the same thing as Zhao Lijian. Further point to note that presenting Zhao Lijian's comments in a separate paragraph actually overshadows the actions of the Chinese officials/envoys in making PR visits and giving reassurances to African diplomats. I actually don't see anywhere else in that section where an official gets an entire paragraph devoted to their own statement, most if not everything is paraphrased. FobTown (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm amazed to come back to this article and find that after a "final warning" at WP:ANEW. and another warning on this talk page, User:FobTown is edit-warring on this article again. @FobTown: Please self-revert immediately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Granger, I only count one revert on this issue. Unless FobTown is under 0RR, that itself is not problematic. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Granger, if you argue that the Bild response is WP:UNDUE, then the Zhao Lijian statement on Africans is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. FobTown (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

One is an official government response to an international incident. The other is a tabloid editorial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The second half of the statement and condemned, "the US had better focus on domestic efforts to contain the spread of the virus. Attempts to use the pandemic to drive a wedge between China and Africa are bound to fail” is a bit much and definitely WP:UNDUE. No need for us to give prominence to crazy even if that crazy comes from an official government mouthpiece. No reliable sources indicate that the US is using the Pandemic to drive a wedge between China and Africa. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote only shows what crazy position the Chinese government has. It’s not an assertion of truth, but the article should definitely cover what the Chinese government responds with.

It depicts the whole back-and-forth as reported by RSes: with initial reports followed by Chinese claims of rumors, in turn followed by African diplomat questioning/outrage, followed by a Chinese government response blaming the US, followed by officials making visits and giving reassurances. Omitting the Chinese Foreign Ministry compromises coverage of the event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, as MarkH21 demonstrates, the wedge claim is not a standard by which to judge for inclusion. There are numerous examples of U.S. mainstream sources uncritically and unanimously lapping up perjurers to push for criminal wars of aggression. There is an entire section devoted to the disinformation by one higher-ranked official who has 1) publicly suggested "nuking hurricanes" 2) advocated for cleaner solutions to be injected into the human body. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's okay to remove the "wedge" comments, but we obviously have to cover the foreign ministry's statement in some form. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, to clarify, I think it's fine to paraphrase the Chinese Foreign Ministry response (particularly the second sentence). But my point was that a paragraph is due WP:PROMINENCE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In no other part of the article did any other official quote (even from President Xi) get its very own paragraph, as WP:UNDUE trumps WP:PROMINENCE. It is also interesting regarding what MarkH₂₁ selected from Zhao Lijian's statement which is going off on a tangent, as the more relevant part is “continue responding to the African side’s reasonable concerns and legitimate appeals”. FobTown (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t write this paragraph (which by the way, is not about a single quote), I only moved it from Africans in Guangzhou, where だ＊ぜ wrote it in two edits (1, 2).

Also what? What is this statement: WP:UNDUE trumps WP:PROMINENCE? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely WP:UNDUE. There was almost as much written about his justification as there was the discrimination itself. Ghana's foreign minister got two words. Cheers. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There are 8 sentences about the event, not including responses. There are 3.5 sentences about non-China responses/reactions, and 1.5 sentences about Chinese responses. The removed government response was 2 sentences. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone should be reminded of this statistical gem. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are grouping "non-China" responses together. One mid-level official's PR response getting almost as much writing as the responses of all of these countries grouped together was certainly WP:UNDUE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion isn't moving anywhere, so I'll open an RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lead

I am not familiar with this template or usage of it, so apologies if this is a stupid question: why is the lead within the following: {{#ifeq:Summary|Summary| ? It makes it very hard to edit. Acalycine (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Huanan seafood market

After reading this entry I can not discern the validity currently ascribed to the Huanan Market as the origin. By origin, I mean the place where the virus crossed species for the first time, from an animal to a human. What is the current status of Huanan-seafood-market hyopthesis? Is it still the most likely place of origin, or just a place that amplified the outbreak at some point early on? --Forich (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Per the top of this page: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.. Unless you have some editorial comment about the article, perhaps it would be better to read some news articles about your question. Acalycine (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acalycine: I think Forich is asking for a bit more information here on the origins of the virus, like that at Wuhan Institute of Virology#Concerns as source. This isn't really covered at COVID-19 pandemic either. I'm not sure it needs to, but a sentence or two on the current scientific consensus (to my knowledge that it's most likely from the market, with US intelligence investigations towards the lab) doesn't hurt and one could say it's WP:DUE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my request came across as forum-ish. I meant to point out that the current information on the original spread of the virus in Wuhan looks imprecise at this point, because the references to the role of Huanan market are dispersed and, IMHO, could benefit from a summary that reflects its current status, as claimed by scientific consensus. So, along the lines of MarkH21 said. By the way, I did my research before asking this in the talk page, and legitimately could not find the definitive label to put on Huanan Market, that's why I asked.--Forich (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda

It is not neutral to as classify moving stories as propaganda. Every country reports the work of medical staff to lifts the spirits. On the other side, why is Trump's initial neglection and blame-shifting not titled propaganda? --91.142.213.109 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bar graphs

The bar graphs are looking quite messy as dates are becoming harder and harder to read upon daily addition of data. We could instead have a line and dot chart like this:

Or merge the three graphs into one like this:

Any opinions?Shawnqual (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This should be better; I would prefer new cases be separated lest it distort the linear scale. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)