Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China/Archive 5
Latest comment: 1 year ago by TarnishedPath in topic Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment
 | This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Restore barbox statistics 4 April 2022
Would it be possible to surface the Wikipedia-standard barbox under the Graphics section? e.g.:
China is currently the only country without a standard barbox showing the case/fatality data on their main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesterpa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
Split away of COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China (2019-2020)
The issue was raised already back in October 2020 that this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. I think the best solution is to make a separate article on the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China (2019-2020). This seems to include more than half of the current content of this article. This article can then be a shorter overview of the 2019-2020 peak with a link to that separate article, and then go into more detail on the subsequent low-incidence period, as well as recent developments, which have different statistics and government response etc. than the 2019-2020 period. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support but keep the article, split most of it into new article named 2020 COVID-19 outbreak in mainland China as most the article now describes the initial outbreak and its outcomes. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved corresponding information to a new article under that title, and kept summaries here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: there was a move discussion on COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei, initiated by Jtbobwaysf and closed by 力 where I had suggested a move to 'COVID-19 epidemic in Hubei. It looks like we now have two articles about the outbreak, which was in Hubei, but mostly Wuhan. I think Jtbobwaysf's proposal makes more sense now. LondonIP (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- With the current developments, I think there is a high risk of a new wave in Hubei, including Wuhan, as part of the outbreak in China overall. That new outbreak could still fit into COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei, but if it becomes inconveniently long, there may eventually need to be a separate article on the 2019-2020 COVID-19 outbreak in Hubei, similarly to the move above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we need a new article for a new wave? We have one article for the two separate outbreaks of SARS in 2002 and 2004. I think this is very confusing as there is also a discussion on changing mainland China to China and then there is the issue of the outbreak term, which limits the scope to the article epidemic in Hubei, or Wuhan. LondonIP (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree there is no need to create more articles and no need for WP:CRYSTAL. The subject of this article is really the virus outbreak in Wuhan, there was no notable virus outbreak in Wuhan, and I mean notable in the terms of wikipedia, of course there were virus cases in Hubei as there are everywhere else in the world. We have articles to cover the rest of the world, and some notable cities, but again Wuhan refers to the perceived and notable (notable aka WP:NOTABLE) origin of the virus. There is no notable origin of the virus in other cities, regardless of where the virus actually did originate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we need a new article for a new wave? We have one article for the two separate outbreaks of SARS in 2002 and 2004. I think this is very confusing as there is also a discussion on changing mainland China to China and then there is the issue of the outbreak term, which limits the scope to the article epidemic in Hubei, or Wuhan. LondonIP (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Compared to the west, what happened in 2020 in China was not a notable topic. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 3 April 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus whether the article currently convers Hong Kong and Macau. Further discussion required if the scope is to be extended to include the two territories. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China → COVID-19 pandemic in China – It is well settled that the primary topic of "China" is China. I gather that this article uses "mainland" in the title to distinguish Hong Kong and/or Taiwan, but Hong Kong is mentioned repeatedly in the article, so it's really just about China. BD2412 T 06:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Makes sense to me. The title should reflect the article content, and I see no reason why we should not cover these other special administrative regions (Hong Kong, Macau) in our discussion of China. But, for the record, we should not discuss Taiwan as this is not an acknowledged part of China by the international community.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It is reasonable to expect a person looking for information on the pandemic in Taiwan or Hong Kong to search for that instead.Esolo5002 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – this article doesn't really cover Hong Kong and Macau. The two territories are only mentioned a few times, usually in the context of their relationships with mainland China (e.g. border closures). There is virtually no discussion of outbreaks in Hong Kong and Macau or the measures that have been taken within the territories to control COVID-19. If we want to make the article cover Hong Kong and Macau too, that would mean a significant rewrite and lengthening this already very long article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, we don't have to lengthen anything to "cover Hong Kong and Macau" because subtopics can have their own articles. By comparison, the fact that we have separate articles at COVID-19 pandemic in Alaska and COVID-19 pandemic in Hawaii doesn't require that COVID-19 pandemic in the United States should really be at COVID-19 pandemic in the continental United States or the like. Secondly, we already have subtopic articles for places in "mainland" China, such as COVID-19 pandemic in Xinjiang and COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing. That is how we distribute content to avoid bloat. Notably, Hong Kong gets much more coverage in this article than Xinjiang. The proposed move merely acknowledges this reality. BD2412 T 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Outbreaks in Xinjiang actually get more coverage than outbreaks in Hong Kong in this article. An outbreak in Hong Kong is mentioned only in passing (in the context of a related outbreak in Shenzhen), because this article is focused on mainland China. Moreover, Xinjiang is covered implicitly by this article's broader discussion of the COVID-related policies and impacts across mainland China. That discussion doesn't cover Hong Kong or Macau. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, since it may not be obvious: it makes sense to cover mainland China separately, because the COVID-19 situation in Hong Kong (including the government response, impact, and reactions) has been very different from the situation in mainland China, possibly due to the separate governance systems. I think an informative combined article would have to contain a lot of information along the lines of "In mainland China, ... , while in Hong Kong, ... , and in Macau, ... ." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The same thing could be said about the COVID-19 situation in Hawaii compared to the rest of the United States, but that does not cause the sort of overwhelming of information that you raise as a concern here. We have extensive experience in dividing articles across subarticles. BD2412 T 17:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The same thing could be said about the COVID-19 situation in Hawaii compared to the rest of the United States
– not really. A "COVID-19 pandemic in the continental United States" article would not make much sense, because broad statements about COVID-19 that apply to the continental US generally apply to Hawaii as well. Of course there is state-specific information, but that is true for each of the other states just as it is for Hawaii. Hawaii does not exist in a separate governance system from the rest of the United States the way Hong Kong does with respect to China. There are comparatively few broad statements about the COVID-19 pandemic that apply to all three of Hong Kong, Macau, and mainland China (other than statements that apply to other countries too).
- If you feel that having a combined article is important, I wouldn't be opposed to creating it as a new article (COVID-19 pandemic in China, maybe) covering Hong Kong, Macau, and mainland China, while keeping this article for information specific to mainland China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- A disambiguation page would be good enough for that purpose. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Don't think that would be necessary. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- The same thing could be said about the COVID-19 situation in Hawaii compared to the rest of the United States, but that does not cause the sort of overwhelming of information that you raise as a concern here. We have extensive experience in dividing articles across subarticles. BD2412 T 17:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, we don't have to lengthen anything to "cover Hong Kong and Macau" because subtopics can have their own articles. By comparison, the fact that we have separate articles at COVID-19 pandemic in Alaska and COVID-19 pandemic in Hawaii doesn't require that COVID-19 pandemic in the United States should really be at COVID-19 pandemic in the continental United States or the like. Secondly, we already have subtopic articles for places in "mainland" China, such as COVID-19 pandemic in Xinjiang and COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing. That is how we distribute content to avoid bloat. Notably, Hong Kong gets much more coverage in this article than Xinjiang. The proposed move merely acknowledges this reality. BD2412 T 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think "China" is simpler than "mainland China", because different readers may have different definitions of what mainland is. GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Mainland China" is a widely used term with a standard definition; see Mainland China for details. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support exactly as proposed, exactly per nominator. Red Slash 03:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I find the argument that Hong Kong is technically part of China, and that the article COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong is similar to a US state article such as COVID-19 pandemic in Alaska, to be convincing. I don't see any problems with making this the "parent" article of some other COVID-19 pandemic articles such as Hong Kong and Macau. I don't think we necessarily need to add anything about Hong Kong and Macau to this article, since readers can find those articles via the navbox. By the way, we will likely need to rename Template:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, and add Hong Kong and Macau to it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- By the way, we will likely need to rename Template:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, and add Hong Kong and Macau to it. Why? What for? What's the point to do so? 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The timeline of transmission, epidemiology, impacts, responses and strategies of Chinese government and Hong Kong local government are very different . Merging them will not be beneficial in understanding how the pandemic unfolds in those areas and would serve no purpose other than having a very long article with very segregated sections for mainland and Hong Kong and Macao as result. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is just proposing a rename, not a merge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the proposal is for an expansion of the article's scope, to cover Hong Kong and Macau in addition to mainland China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- No expansion of the article scope is necessary. COVID-19 pandemic in China redirects here; anyone searching for that title is already getting this as the outcome. It may conceivably be possible to write a separate, encompassing article at that title, but the discrepancy can be resolved more easily with a page move. BD2412 T 00:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the article currently doesn't cover Hong Kong and Macau (except in passing as they relate to mainland China, the same way the article mentions places like Myanmar and South Korea). So if the proposed title is to be accurate, that would mean an expansion of the article's scope. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Compare this to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. That article makes two passing mentions of the pandemic among Alaskan natives (although not specifying in Alaska) and one mention of Hawaii in a reference. By this reasoning, the article should be titled COVID-19 pandemic in the Continental United States, but having the broader title does not require that coverage of every subtopic be included. It would also be kind of odd to brush this off by saying "broad statements about COVID-19 that apply to the continental US generally apply to Hawaii as well", as if Hawaii were not an island thousands of miles from the rest of the country. BD2412 T 01:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- The difference is that the material in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States article applies to Alaska and Hawaii (and California and Texas and so on). The material in this article is mostly specific to mainland China and generally does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau, so the proposed change in scope would require substantial changes to the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that Hong Kong and Macau are not just two more provinces – they have separate legal systems under the one country, two systems framework, and their covid policies have been different from mainland China as a result. The same cannot be said of Hawaii and Alaska, which are two US states like any others and are not semi-autonomous like Hong Kong and Macau. The comparison is a red herring. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. The United States is a federal system, with fifty independent states. The differences between the laws of any two U.S. states can be much greater than the differences between, say, the law in Beijing and the law in Macau. We have some U.S. states that are almost completely banning employers from mandating COVID-19 vaccinations, and other states a few hundred miles over requiring that employers mandate such vaccinations. Each state has decided for itself what the priority for availability of vaccines would be, and each state has had different consequent outcomes in vaccination rates. The red herring is the idea that the situation in the U.S. is less diverse than the situation in China, when it is actually much more diverse. BD2412 T 01:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- What you're saying applies to all 50 states (which all exist within the US federal system), not just Alaska and Hawaii. In contrast, Hong Kong and Macau have an autonomous status distinct from China's provinces. The distinction between mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau has no parallel in the United States, so the comparison is not useful. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, you would agree that they are part of China, yes? BD2412 T 02:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. That's why I oppose this proposal: the proposed move would imply an expansion in the article's scope, leading to a more complicated article for no benefit that I can see. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- What specific changes to the article would be necessitated by the proposed title change? The lede already describes China as a whole, rather than a subset of the country. BD2412 T 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies in advance for the wall of text, but you asked for specifics. The lead is written somewhat imprecisely, and parts of it don't apply to Hong Kong (for instance, local transmission and local restrictions continued in 2020 in Hong Kong even when they had largely stopped in mainland China). In the body, the "Education" section would need to be split into subsections or qualified, as Hong Kong and Macau have separate education systems. The "Economy" section would need modifications, as it is focused on mainland China and, for example, only mentions the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges and not the more important Hong Kong stock exchange (which is not in mainland China). The "Lockdown and curfew" section would need to mention Hong Kong, as its trajectory with respect to lockdowns has been different from mainland China. The "Further outbreaks" section would need to be expanded to cover Hong Kong, which for a long time had more significant outbreaks than mainland China. The "Government response" section would need to be modified, as Hong Kong and Macau have had distinct government responses from mainland China, and the figures in that section only include deaths in mainland China, not in Hong Kong. The "Immigration control" section would need to be modified as it only covers restrictions on travel to and from mainland China, and doesn't cover travel to Macau and Hong Kong from other countries. (Hong Kong and Macau have separate immigration regimes from mainland China.) These are the things I saw after one quick look through the article, but there are surely others that I've missed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, in order to conform to the proposed title, the article would need to say, "local transmission and local restrictions continued in 2020 in Hong Kong even when they had largely stopped in mainland China", and would need a qualifier in various sections saying, e.g., "Hong Kong and Macau have separate education systems", "lockdowns in Hong Kong had different trajectories than those in mainland China", and "Hong Kong and Macau have separate immigration regimes from mainland China". BD2412 T 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I objected the move. Should it be better that a new article COVID-19 pandemic in China be created and cover these informations? 90% of this article is about the first wave in Hubei anyway. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Don't think that'd be needed. A redirect, which is the present setup, is good enough. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I objected the move. Should it be better that a new article COVID-19 pandemic in China be created and cover these informations? 90% of this article is about the first wave in Hubei anyway. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, in order to conform to the proposed title, the article would need to say, "local transmission and local restrictions continued in 2020 in Hong Kong even when they had largely stopped in mainland China", and would need a qualifier in various sections saying, e.g., "Hong Kong and Macau have separate education systems", "lockdowns in Hong Kong had different trajectories than those in mainland China", and "Hong Kong and Macau have separate immigration regimes from mainland China". BD2412 T 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies in advance for the wall of text, but you asked for specifics. The lead is written somewhat imprecisely, and parts of it don't apply to Hong Kong (for instance, local transmission and local restrictions continued in 2020 in Hong Kong even when they had largely stopped in mainland China). In the body, the "Education" section would need to be split into subsections or qualified, as Hong Kong and Macau have separate education systems. The "Economy" section would need modifications, as it is focused on mainland China and, for example, only mentions the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges and not the more important Hong Kong stock exchange (which is not in mainland China). The "Lockdown and curfew" section would need to mention Hong Kong, as its trajectory with respect to lockdowns has been different from mainland China. The "Further outbreaks" section would need to be expanded to cover Hong Kong, which for a long time had more significant outbreaks than mainland China. The "Government response" section would need to be modified, as Hong Kong and Macau have had distinct government responses from mainland China, and the figures in that section only include deaths in mainland China, not in Hong Kong. The "Immigration control" section would need to be modified as it only covers restrictions on travel to and from mainland China, and doesn't cover travel to Macau and Hong Kong from other countries. (Hong Kong and Macau have separate immigration regimes from mainland China.) These are the things I saw after one quick look through the article, but there are surely others that I've missed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- What specific changes to the article would be necessitated by the proposed title change? The lede already describes China as a whole, rather than a subset of the country. BD2412 T 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. That's why I oppose this proposal: the proposed move would imply an expansion in the article's scope, leading to a more complicated article for no benefit that I can see. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, you would agree that they are part of China, yes? BD2412 T 02:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- What you're saying applies to all 50 states (which all exist within the US federal system), not just Alaska and Hawaii. In contrast, Hong Kong and Macau have an autonomous status distinct from China's provinces. The distinction between mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau has no parallel in the United States, so the comparison is not useful. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. The United States is a federal system, with fifty independent states. The differences between the laws of any two U.S. states can be much greater than the differences between, say, the law in Beijing and the law in Macau. We have some U.S. states that are almost completely banning employers from mandating COVID-19 vaccinations, and other states a few hundred miles over requiring that employers mandate such vaccinations. Each state has decided for itself what the priority for availability of vaccines would be, and each state has had different consequent outcomes in vaccination rates. The red herring is the idea that the situation in the U.S. is less diverse than the situation in China, when it is actually much more diverse. BD2412 T 01:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that Xianggang and Aomen are not part of China? They are inalienable. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Compare this to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. That article makes two passing mentions of the pandemic among Alaskan natives (although not specifying in Alaska) and one mention of Hawaii in a reference. By this reasoning, the article should be titled COVID-19 pandemic in the Continental United States, but having the broader title does not require that coverage of every subtopic be included. It would also be kind of odd to brush this off by saying "broad statements about COVID-19 that apply to the continental US generally apply to Hawaii as well", as if Hawaii were not an island thousands of miles from the rest of the country. BD2412 T 01:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the article currently doesn't cover Hong Kong and Macau (except in passing as they relate to mainland China, the same way the article mentions places like Myanmar and South Korea). So if the proposed title is to be accurate, that would mean an expansion of the article's scope. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- No expansion of the article scope is necessary. COVID-19 pandemic in China redirects here; anyone searching for that title is already getting this as the outcome. It may conceivably be possible to write a separate, encompassing article at that title, but the discrepancy can be resolved more easily with a page move. BD2412 T 00:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the proposal is for an expansion of the article's scope, to cover Hong Kong and Macau in addition to mainland China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is just proposing a rename, not a merge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question: Isn't this a chicken-and-egg problem? If title says China, then article can feature HK and Macau. If article doesn't feature them, then title should say mainland China. Which has priority? CurryCity (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is not a separate article at COVID-19 pandemic in China, but virtually all China topics in the encyclopedia are at "Foo in China" titles, rather than "Foo in mainland China". BD2412 T 00:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right now the article is mostly mainland with scant mentions of HK and Macau. Are you saying we plan to turn this into some sort of a parent article and potentially cover more about those two territories? CurryCity (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it actually needs to cover more about the territories than to point to the subtopic articles on them and note the raw fact that differences exist. A comparable situation would be Education in China, which primarily covers mainland China, with a hatnote that says "This article is about education in mainland China. For Hong Kong, see Education in Hong Kong. For Macau, see Education in Macau". BD2412 T 05:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those articles may better be renamed. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it actually needs to cover more about the territories than to point to the subtopic articles on them and note the raw fact that differences exist. A comparable situation would be Education in China, which primarily covers mainland China, with a hatnote that says "This article is about education in mainland China. For Hong Kong, see Education in Hong Kong. For Macau, see Education in Macau". BD2412 T 05:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hong Kong and Macau are just two cities. China has over 600. They're relatively notable cities, but at either title I don't think these cities would "feature" at this level of summary style. CMD (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Hong Kong has had twice as many cases as China, and almost twice as many death cases. Meanwhile neither Hong Kong nor Macau is designated a city according to the administrative hierarchy. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is not a separate article at COVID-19 pandemic in China, but virtually all China topics in the encyclopedia are at "Foo in China" titles, rather than "Foo in mainland China". BD2412 T 00:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mx. Granger's and Sgnpkd's arguments. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whelp, I just learned how "China" and "Mainland China" are two different topics. And now that I know more about them, well ... unless first the contents of COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong and COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan are added first merged into this article, the current article title is the correct article title. Notwithstanding merging the contents, another alternative would be to turn COVID-19 pandemic in China into something similar to a broad-concept article that lists all three articles. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ... looks like COVID-19 pandemic in China was at multiple points previously a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- This one didn't put them right. The two territories aren't part of that by definition. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ... looks like COVID-19 pandemic in China was at multiple points previously a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It is established that China is the common name for the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan, are entirely separate countries, both of which claim sovereignty over all of China. Therefore use of the term "mainland China" is misleading, as if China was a unified state covering both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China and this was just a geographical difference. JIP | Talk 01:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @JIP: Not sure if you've read the rest of the discussion, but the main concern here is not Taiwan. The concern is Hong Kong and Macau, which are uncontestedly part of China, but not part of mainland China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hong Kong and Macau, with a combined population of about 8 million people in a country of 1.4 billion. BD2412 T 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 7 million in the former case (as opposed to 1.4 billion) but has had twice as many cases reported, and twice as many death cases. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the key word there is "reported". BD2412 T 05:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Reported" is not the key word. Hong Kong has had far more actual COVID-19 deaths (and cases) than mainland China, particularly in 2022. There's a massive difference between the situation on the mainland and in Hong Kong. This is a real difference, not a side-effect of reporting. In fact, it's widely expected that Hong Kong's official counts have been much less complete than those of mainland China over the past few months, because Hong Kong's health system was overwhelmed by the last wave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The stark difference in reported case numbers per capita is a good example of how the trajectory of the pandemic has been very different in Hong Kong compared to mainland China, which is part of why it makes sense to cover mainland China in its own article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The concern is Hong Kong and Macau, which are uncontestedly part of China, but not part of mainland China.
That very much depends on whether the word China is used to mean Mainland China, which is very often the case, especially in financial matters, international trade, the academia, sport events, journalism, et cetera. 210.0.147.83 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the key word there is "reported". BD2412 T 05:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 7 million in the former case (as opposed to 1.4 billion) but has had twice as many cases reported, and twice as many death cases. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hong Kong and Macau, with a combined population of about 8 million people in a country of 1.4 billion. BD2412 T 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @JIP: Not sure if you've read the rest of the discussion, but the main concern here is not Taiwan. The concern is Hong Kong and Macau, which are uncontestedly part of China, but not part of mainland China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mx. Granger. The article is about the response in mainland China, and would have to be significantly rewritten to focus on all of China. Contrary to what some editors have suggested above, this is not comparable to the differences between different US states. If you want a US analogy, it's more like the difference between American Samoa and the 50 states. Yes, they're part of the same country, but they're run very differently. The policy difference between Hong Kong and the mainland is so large that over the last few months, Hong Kong, with just 7.4 million inhabitants, has had many times more COVID-19 cases and deaths than the entire mainland, with its 1.4 billion inhabitants. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Both factors are relevant. Different magnitude in the number of cases reports wrt size of population and in the number of deaths, and different reporting mechanism, among other differences. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even if this page is going to be renamed, whether its scope should or shouldn't be expanded has to be decided separately with the implications in mind. Yes in many if not most cases, China is synonymous and is in fact the common name for what's precisely Mainland China (aka. the Chinese mainland, or, if the contexts are clear, simply "the m/Mainland"). But as part of a title the word China is not unambiguous. In many cases it's too ambiguous to warrant its use as part of article titles per the common names principle.
If the scope of this article were to be expanded, which I would oppose, possible implications are that all articles and all statistics about the coronavirus would have to be revised to incorporate data about dependent territories as part of their respective sovereign powers. E.g. Bermuda's and Gibraltar's pandemic situation covered by the respective paragraphs or sections of the UK, Puerto Rico's and American Samoa's part of that of the US, Aruba's and Curacao's that of the Netherlands, and Greenland's and the Faroes' that of Denmark. Currently the WHO, Wikipedia and practically all printed and online sources don't do so. Not even the Chinese ministry of health and office of information have ever done do. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: This article does not cover Hong Kong nor Macau, which both have substantial differences in COVID policy and completely separate medical systems compared to Mainland China, which is the topic of this article. Unless somebody wants to merge COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, COVID-19 pandemic in Macau and COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan into this article (which would undoubtedly immediately turn into a political shitshow), the current article title is correct and should not be changed. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Kinda nonsense. Even if anyone wants to do so it's wrong to do so and would never ever be a justification to change the title of such articles. 210.0.147.83 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Opppse per Mx. Granger. 210.0.147.83 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support. Taiwan is part of China. Xizang is part of China. The Nansha Qundao are part of China. Clear and simple. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support because article's titles should concisely describe what the article is about. This article is frankly about all of China. Red Slash 15:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: I have created a supertopic article at COVID-19 pandemic in China
Pursuant to the stalemated move discussion closed yesterday, I have created a separate broad-concept supertopic article at COVID-19 pandemic in China. It may benefit from some tweaking. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you included Taiwan in your fork article is itself dubious enough. And you haven't actually explained why a redirect or a disambiguation page can't do the same thing. 218.255.11.72 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well said. The fork article should be undone. 219.76.15.140 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- What's so dubious? Bd2412 is apparently doing the right thing. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for recognising China's sovereignty over Taiwan province. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Using CGTN
Hi there, I just have a query about whether we are allowed to use China Global Television Network (CGTN) for referencing Chinese daily cases, recoveries, and deaths. There has been a surge of cases in mainland China in late March and April 2022, which has been covered by CGTN and other Chinese media. I am aware that CGTN was deprecated in 2020 on the grounds that it promoted Chinese state propaganda including airing false confession. This creates a problem for reporting on COVID-19 related events using Chinese sources. Just wanted to get advice on the best course of action. Andykatib 23:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are plenty of unbiased, third-party sources. 210.0.147.83 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- CGTN is state propaganda? Are you kidding? 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022
 | This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a plot of total Covid-19 cases across Chinese provinces between 2020-01-23 and 2022-06-01 in a map format. Wikipedia doesn't let me upload it here bc. of the edit restriction. K-14289 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022
| | This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ERRATUM NOTICE 1: Typographical errors found on the article that requires immediate correction on extended-confirmed-protected edit request upon proofreading notice.
Before: On 31 May, Shanghai began to start lifting its strick lockdown measures, allowing people to return to work and malls and shops to re-open in "low-risk" areas. In some neighborhoods and districts, residents were ordered to stay home until mid-June after completion of rounds of rigorous testing.
Corrected: On 31 May, Shanghai began to start lifting its strict lockdown measures, allowing people to return to work and malls and shops to re-open in "low-risk" areas. In some neighborhoods and districts, residents were ordered to stay home until mid-June after completion of rounds of rigorous testing. DP24 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Done 💜 melecie talk - 03:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Apparently there is a consensus that we don't know how many people die
Since the statistics of the Chinese government are not reliable, we shouldn't say that only 78k people died. In fact, the number is probably over a milion [1]. I think we should create a "number of deaths" section and replace the 78k number with "see below". Aavalente92 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary, independent, medically-trustworthy reliable sources to back up that assertion? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023
| | This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "December 2022–January 2023 surge", please link to the new article Airfinity. Thanks. 2A00:23EE:1998:5351:8DB6:79B1:F92C:6E5F (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo 03:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)