Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

All-cause death charts

I added all-cause death charts but they got reverted. I find the arguments for revert spurious. All-cause death charts are published by multiple reputable organizations including EuroMOMO, mortality.org (HMD) and U.S. CDC. These are some of the most revealing charts about the pandemic. The added size is not a problem: the reader only sees the charts. The charts are no more "raw" than all the case and death data included in the Wikipedia, and they provide an important context and proportion, unlike all the case and death charts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Just because something has been published somewhere doesn't mean that it must or should be added to Wikipedia. Specially when these edits are a virtual copy-paste from primary sources without any context being given at all and with little to no encyclopedic value. If the argument is that "this data is reported by X", then you can of course add a link to X to the article. But the purpose of having 30-50 kB worth of out-of-context data tables is not clear at all. Impru20^talk 18:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

All-cause charts are very valuable since they show that people are not dying merely with covid but probably also due to covid. And they show the deaths in proportion of normal mortality. I find them extremely valuable and I saw other people find them valuable. Which portion of WP:RAWDATA do the charts violate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As for "virtual copy-paste from primary sources": the data being plotted have to come from somewhere but this type of chart is published by EuroMOMO, mortality.org (HMD) and U.S. CDC. How do the charts differ in this regard from the carts of cases and deaths present in WP articles? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As for "data tables": we are talking charts that take very little space, not data tables. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

These implications, rather than the full data sets themselves (still not explaining we does Wikipedia need those), could be useful if sources for those are provided. But these are not within the data tables you have added (which have been directly extracted from primary sources), nor are these directly and unambiguously extracted from the data charts either. The portion of RAWDATA that it violates is clear: You say that "this type of chart is published by EuroMOMO, mortality.org (HMD) and U.S. CDC", and Wikipedia policy states that Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Now, if you hint at some unsourced conclusion you reached on your own from these data sets, then it's not just a matter of RAWDATA violation, but also of WP:SYNTH.

30-50 kB worth of wiki markup space is not small. Sure, that's not readable prose, but that still does not mean you can randomly add massive amounts of data into articles just for the sake of it. Impru20^talk 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The added charts do not violate "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" since that statement makes no requirements; there is nothing that can be violated in that quote.

Anyone can reach any conclusion from the charts they want; I push no conclusion on the reader. I show reality in manner similar to what reputable sources are doing.

As for "randomly add massive amounts of data into articles just for the sake of it": that's incredibly rude, after I explained above the supreme utility of this kind of chart.

Key question: How do the charts differ in the key regards from the charts of cases and deaths present in WP articles? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have argued (not just in this talk page, but in mine and yours as well) that you are adding those because they have been published "by EuroMOMO, mortality.org (HMD) and U.S. CDC". That's a textbook case of adding data just because someone else has published it. If that's the purpose, then you can add a link to those websites in this article so people can go from here to there and take a look at those, but there is still no explanation as to why should Wikipedia include the full datasets.

Anyone can reach any conclusion from the charts they want; I push no conclusion on the reader. I show reality in manner similar to what reputable sources are doing. This is not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia does publish conclusions. Just not ours, but those reported by reliable sources. Is there any meritable conclusion available from all these data sets in any reliable secondary source? Yes? Then by all means look for it and add it here, as that would have a much higher encyclopedic value than the full dataset. No? Then it's just pointless to add some data that no one cares enough to explain. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not include generic, unexplained datasets of information just for others to interpret them. We publish interpretations of encyclopedic value that have been validly reported by reliable sources. That's what RAWDATA is all about.

As for "randomly add massive amounts of data into articles just for the sake of it": that's incredibly rude It's a mere description. Adding 50 kB of data because you find it "of supreme utility" is an incredibly good-faithed edit, but that doesn't mean it abides to Wikipedia policies nor that its inclusion is fortunate. You may find it useful, but that doesn't mean it's actually useful under Wikipedia standards.

Key question: How do the charts differ in the key regards from the charts of cases and deaths present in WP articles? These are related to the actual pandemic, show its actual evolution at different levels and are provided context throughout the whole articles. Yours include data from 2015, 2014, 2011 or 2002 (depending on the country, because they're not even comparable in your own datasets) that is entirely unrelated to the pandemic, just for "others to reach their own conclusions". That's the key difference. We could also conduct some deeper research and publish all available data for all-deaths worldwide since 1960, 1950 or 1920. We could also make a comparison of all-cause deaths between this pandemic and WWII, the 1918 flu pandemic, or the Black Death pandemic in the Middle Ages. But... what would be the point for it? Impru20^talk 19:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You still have not quoted anything from WP:RAWDATA that the charts violate. As for "it is entirely unrelated to the pandemic", that is obviously untrue as I pointed out: the pandemic makes itself visible in these charts. I believe I would be able to show that EuroMOMO and mortality.org made changes to their website and charting specifically in response to the pandemic; I can quote a mainstream media article that shows all-cause death charts in relation to the pandemic but you could also easily do it yourself; and I believe U.S. CDC set up they all-cause death charts specifically in response to the covid pandemic. So no, it is very obvious that the all-cause deaths are related to covid pandemic, and this is not my invention but rather there are multiple organizations seeing it that way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I find revert rude and unnecessary: other editors should be able to see what is being discussed in at least one of the articles where you removed the very useful charts and I explained as much in the edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've quoted WP:RAWDATA multiple times. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. But I can also quote: (1) To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.; (2) 'Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.; (3) Wikipedia articles should not be: (...) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Can quote more if required.

you could also easily do it yourself No, add it yourself please, with the proper link, so we can actually check what does that source say and if there's any salvageable conclusion there that we can add here.

Also, you've replied fairly quickly (5 minutes) to have read my whole reply and then making your own reply to it, considering that you were also busy editing Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Spain in the meantime. More attention and respect to what others say would be helpful. Impru20^talk 19:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not exempt from WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You were warned multiple times to stop edit warring, considering that your edits were disputed and that a discussion was ongoing. That's rude. Impru20^talk 19:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's try one thing at a time: "it is entirely unrelated to the pandemic", true or not? All my arguments against rejected or not? Do you need me to link to EuroMOMO and the other websites? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how this reply of yours relates to anything that has been stated above. You've been told how your edits are against Wikipedia policy, because just finding something "useful" is not enough for its inclusion here. You have still not clarified how the direct inclusion of this data adds any encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Impru20^talk 19:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Outdent) I failed to quote exactly; the actual quote is "Yours include data from 2015, 2014, 2011 or 2002 (depending on the country, because they're not even comparable in your own datasets) that is entirely unrelated to the pandemic, [...]"; how is data from these years "entirely unrelated to the pandemic? I maintain that multi-year weekly all-cause death charts are related to and illuminate the pandemic; do you dispute that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Data from 2002 is related to a pandemic in 2020? How so?

I maintain that multi-year weekly all-cause death charts are related to and illuminate the pandemic; do you dispute that? That would be your own synthesis of data, so yes, I dispute that. Impru20^talk 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with data from 2014-2019; do you dispute that data from 2014-2019 illuminate the covid pandemic? Have you seen https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke or you are just pretending to be funny? Have you even read anything of what I've quoted above? Just which part of Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful has not been understood? Impru20^talk 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read everything. Do you dispute that data from 2014-2019 illuminate the covid pandemic or do we agree on this one? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand what Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful means? I can tell you either "yes, I dispute it" or "no, I do not dispute it", to no avail: none of that would help the fact that these edits were against Wikipedia policy (the one whose violation you required me to quote, which I did a couple times, and which you now seem to entirely ignore because the quoted text doesn't fit your purposes). Whatever I or you may think about this data is not a concern, because original research and synthesis material have no place in Wikipedia. So please, stop this game and please respond the question on why should Wikipedia include these full datasets. Impru20^talk 20:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to deal with one point at a time, so please answer my question since it relates to a statement that you made. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(The charts are neither my original research nor my synthesis but that I would like to discuss separately. Let's try one point at a time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC))

Later: If you still doubt that the question is relevant, it very much is: if we assume for the start that data from 2014-2019 illuminate the covid pandemic, we can observe that the charts for these years are every bit as relevant to the covid pandemic as the charts already included in the article and that no specific reason why the latter can be included while the former has to be excluded was stated. Let us keep comparing the already included charts with the charts I added and see that if the former are fit for encyclopedia, so are the latter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been asking you to explain the purpose of your inclusion of this data in Wikipedia since the very beginning of our discussion. You still haven't replied to this ever since, other than saying that all of this data is valuable/useful/etc. (a claim which by itself wouldn't justify its inclusion, as I quoted you several times from WP policy). You claim "you want to deal with one point at a time", but there's just one point that matters here, and it's the purpose of inclusion itself. I'm not saying that all of this data is unsalvageable. It may or it may not. What I've questioned is the actual purpose of adding all of this into Wikipedia, and your own replies only confirm the impression that this has been added just for the sake of it, without a throughout analysis of whether it does constitute encyclopedic content or not. We can work out proper ways to depict the information you intend to include once we solve that, but just a personal perception that something is useful does not justify the inclusion of 50 kB of data.

My literal statement was that "Yours include data from 2015, 2014, 2011 or 2002 (depending on the country, because they're not even comparable in your own datasets) that is entirely unrelated to the pandemic, [...]". If you are intent on arguing that it's related, then you better provide sources to analysis or research from independent, reliable sources claiming if and how it is related to the pandemic in each country. That'd be truly encyclopedic-worthy content. What you cannot pretend is to throw the full datasets into the articles without any context or verifiable analysis because you think they look nice or "of supreme utility", then claim that it should be up to everyone else to interpret these the way they see fit. For that, a link to the datasets would be enough without us being required to clutter the article with a generic set of data. Impru20^talk 20:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question? Let us first find whether the charts are relevant to the covid, and then proceed from there to other points of contention. Why a block of text instead of anwering a simple question? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

But let me preempt one thing: as for "the purpose of your inclusion", my answer is above starting with "All-cause charts are very valuable [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

For the reader: this conflict started with Special:Diff/972371485 with the following edit summary that I found inane: "(Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 40 KB (!!) worth of decontextualized, generic and hardly-discernible data (which is listed as preliminary in the source itself!) is not useful at all. No one will be able to understand what is meant to be said with all of this. The issue of excess deaths can be addressed with much more reliable sources in a couple lines of text without requiring for us to increase the article size by 20% full of useless data". That edit summary bases the notion that the above editor thinks the charts are useless, and first we need to figure out whether they are relevant and useful (contrary to the quoted edit summary), and if we get that, we can proceed to further questions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And I would like to ask the above editor to restore the charts in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom temporarily during this discussion so that other participants can see what is being discussed; for some reason, the charts do not get rendered properly in the revision history. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Let us first find whether the charts are relevant to the covid, and then proceed from there to other points of contention." Let me quote it again: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. There are no other "points of contention". Provide analysis from independent, reliable sources on these data so that we can see how much of it is of encyclopedic value and in which areas. If you can't because these don't exist or because you think that all the data should be referenced so that people can make up their minds themselves, then let's work out for the most professional way to add a link to these data sets into the articles. But you have been already told how and why a mere transclusion of the full charts have no place here under WP:RAWDATA and I won't be repeating it for a nineteenth time.

On your answer to the purpose of inclusion, where you reference a previous comment of yours (which I quote): "All-cause charts are very valuable since they show that people are not dying merely with covid but probably also due to covid." Yes, and that's your own opinion of it. If that is the answer to the purpose of inclusion, you only keep confirming that it is in breach of WP policy. Impru20^talk 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And I would like to ask the above editor to restore the charts in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom temporarily during this discussion so that other participants can see what is being discussed. That's not how consensus-building works in Wikipedia. Participants can check what is being discussed through the page's history. Plus, this is not an issue of "looks" but of the quantity of material being added (which can also be checked through the wiki code added in this diff, as well as in the amount of wiki markup space that was added). Impru20^talk 21:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the above editor is refusing to answer a simple question. I am not sure where to go from there. The utter relevance of these charts to covid should be a matter of common sense, but the above editor refuses to admit the relevance. But let me quote https://www.mortality.org/ (Human Mortality Database): "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the HMD team decided to establish a new data resource: Short-term Mortality Fluctuations (STMF) data series. Objective and internationally comparable data are crucial to determine the effectiveness of different strategies used to address epidemics. Weekly death counts provide the most objective and comparable way of assessing the scale of short-term mortality elevations across countries and time." --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I replied your question. That you did not like the answer is a different issue, but you should really stop deliberately ignoring everything I say to depict a different picture of things, because that's neither polite nor constructive. I told you "where to go from here": to provide independent, reliable sources to analysis of these datasets so that you could justify whether any conclusion extracted from these could have some encyclopedic value, but you have repeteadly refused to do this.

You also provide a link (and a quote) from HMD, which is one of the primary sources you already mentioned throughout the discussion, but once again it does not show the encyclopedic value of adding the whole datasets into the article (for instance, that source also shows data for death rates, births, population sizes, life expectancy, etc. Should those be added to the articles as well, or it's you the one cherry-picking what should we use and what not, which data has a connection to the pandemic and which not, or which degree of connection under your own intepretation is enough to merit inclusion, etc.?). Again, a clear violation of WP:RAWDATA and WP:SYNTH.

Finally, you resort to using "common sense", which is nothing else but your own perception of it, which may be different to what others see as common sense (as a suggestion, you should avoid exhorting another editor to "just use common sense". That can be taken as uncivil). Impru20^talk 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Outdent) Let me post one of the charts for Spain so that others know what is being discussed.

Weekly all-cause deaths in Spain, based on mortality.org data, stmf.csv[1]:

mortality.org indicates the data for 2020 to be preliminary; above, the last two weeks available from mortality.org were excluded to prevent the worst effect of registration delay.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common sense is not common is an essay and has no force. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Back to the subject: the editor did not admit that the chart is relevant and valuable; if we had that, we could proceed to the question whether it also belongs to an encyclopedia. The relevance is not only obvious but also traced to mortality.org above, and I ask the editor again to admit that the chart is relevant to the covid (possibly not to encyclopedia) so that we can move further. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for adding this info. As it's illustrated by the edit, this is almost +20 kB in wiki markup size, and it's not the only table being proposed for inclusion with no further context whatsover; thus clearly contravening WP:RAWDATA (which despite not being an essay -unlike the one about common sense- is not being taken seriously by this user either). On the "common sense" issue, note that I was making a suggestion about how to avoid being taken as uncivil in discussions. Cheers. Impru20^talk 21:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I ask the editor again to admit that the chart is relevant to the covid (possibly not to encyclopedia) so that we can move further. Excuse me, but talk pages are not forums for chit-chatting. If the charts are not relevant to Wikipedia (and you yourself hint at it), then the whole discussion is moot. That's why it's the core issue. With all due respect, but whatever you may personally think of the charts or of their alleged value to your personal conclusions is not of our concern. Impru20^talk 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly evaded the question. Let's see how far we can get on another point: The size is moot; if size is a problem, 1) we could reduce the number of years included to, say, 5 years, which would limit the usefulness but also provide at least some service; 2) I could create a file on Commons, much larger than the size discussed; to wit, File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg has about 1 MB. The size, if a real problem, can be easily solved. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The article has an all deaths chart in it ..... [2]. It looks fine to me and is relevant. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 22:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg does not show individual years, only averages, which is much less revealing and also more processed. But let's have a look: how is it that the article can contain File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg; that is, why don't all the above arguments about synthesis, original research, etc. not apply to File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg? The chart is traced to https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths; is that not also "primary source"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ânes-pur-sàng: Something like what you link seems much more straight to the point and focused on the pandemic itself, could be put within the context of sources given in the article and would also be much more manageable (by a great deal). I'd favour something like this being done in a country-by-country basis, actually, if sources on analysis of these could be found (however, I'd say it would be fairly easy to find sources on analysis about excess deaths during the pandemic than what was the original topic of this thread).

I'm going to ignore Don Polansky's replies from now on unless there is anything new to say; otherwise, I defer any reply to what I've already stated in all of my comments above. My point has been made, really, and repeated again and again over the attempts to deliberately create red herrings away from the truly conflicting point. No, issue is not whether the original charts can be made smaller or whatever value a user may think on their own that these may have, but on a WP policy issue which, so far, is being refused to be addressed. Let's make this discussion constructive. Impru20^talk 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That is very convenient to ignore me, coming from an editor who has been extremely repetitive above. But there are new points: 1) above, why is File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg okay in light of all the arguments by Impru20, that is, what specific sources meet Impru20's requirements on sources and support File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg and 2) below, mortality.org does not look like a primary source, which challenges Impru20's dismissal of mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be really intent on explicitly refusing to even read my comments, do ya? I'd favour something like this being done in a country-by-country basis, actually, if sources on analysis of these could be found Literal quote from the very comment you are replying, containing the literal answer to question 1. Question 2: A source mirroring another or limiting itself to reproduce the datasets from another (without any additional information, context or analysis on those) is also regarded as a primary source. Secondary sources are those that contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. This is not what mortality.org is, and you are very aware of this, so please stop going around in circles.

Factually, all the answers you seek can be found within my comments above... but you must read them to find those. Unless you keep raising further unrelated points and concerns to keep refusing to address the primary (and only true) concern of this discussion, which was your data tables violating RAWDATA and NOTEVERYTHING (again: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject). As a result, ignoring you until you are actually willing to engage constructively in the discussion is not "very convenient": it is a necessity to ensure that a constructive result can be achieved. Cheers. Impru20^talk 22:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let us for the purpose of the argument assume that mortality.org is a primary source and have a look at the quoted Wikipedia:No original research: 1) "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I took the material found in the source and placed a chart made from it into the article; I did not put analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis into the article. And I used mortality.org as a reliable source on the relevance of the data and the chart to the covid pandemic, by quoting "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic [...]" above. Therefore, I did not engage in original research, and that is the point of the quoted policy. With the above Impru20's interpretation of the policy, I do not see how any chart could ever be included, and therefore, I ask again which specific sources support File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg, or if not that file, which specific secondary sources support any covid-related chart; since, descriptive charts are not "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On another note, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html is an example of a secondary source that has a chart similar to what I provided, but I do not consider NYT to be a reliable source, unlike mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh Lord, you really seem intent on not hearing anything that you're being told, do you? The concern is not whether the source is primary or secondary (though it being primary does not help). Let me quote WP:RAWDATA from one of my comments above: (1) Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. But I can also quote: (1) To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.; (2) 'Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.; (3) Wikipedia articles should not be: (...) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Your charts are excessive. Your charts had no context. Your charts were confussing. You were asked what the purpose of your charts were, and you said (several times) that it was because you found them of supreme utility, which by itself is not a valid enough argument for including them here. You've been told this again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and you now getting to oppose all charts because yours won't be accepted is not a solution. On the NYT source you bring, it is from April and revolves around deaths on New York City, but it does provides an analysis for those (and it, not the charts, could be of encyclopedic value)... for New York City. is not even one of the article you edited lmao. So what? Are you telling us that this supports your claim of adding +50 kB of tables into all COVID articles on Wikipedia? It doesn't seem so. Impru20^talk 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Correcting myself since I saw you did edit the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City a couple days ago ([3]). Seems fun because it was a way simpler edit than what you intended for other articles (only a 3 kB table with limited data, rather than the massively-large and random charts you added in other articles). You did not give it any context though, but it could be given one through the NYT source you give. Impru20^talk 07:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(After e/c) We have: 1) mortality.org being possibly primary source being all right provided I do not insert my own analysis and the like, and thus 2) no original research as pointed out; 3) no problem with size as argued above (and yet we read "adding +50 kB of tables" above, again); 4) relevance of this kind of chart or data to covid established by reliable mortality.org and less-than-reliable NYT. Above we read "Your charts are excessive. Your charts had no context. Your charts were confussing", but that is mostly an assessment of the above editor based on their sense, common or otherwise, which only goes to show that without applying sense, common or otherwise, we get nowhere; my sense is the opposite of the above editor: the charts take little visual space when rendered, are illuminating and not confusing. Certainly the editors of the NYT article did not find this type of chart confusing and the number of years included excessive: their chart[4] starts in year 2000 and ends in year 2020. Now whether this kind of chart really should be in an encyclopedia is open to discussion, I admit; my position is that as long the charts showing absolute numbers of covid-coded deaths are included, it is vital to also include charts that show these deaths in context and in proportion, in relation to normal mortality levels and in relation to mortality peaks occuring in the past. What I just said is open to discussion, but it does not require a secondary source; in fact, even mortality.org cannot tell us whether this belongs to an encyclopedia, merely that it is relevant to the covid pandemic. The NYT source refering to other place does not detract from NYT's supporting the utility of this kind of chart; the above editor seems to insist on analysis and interpretation for each country, but that is exactly what I do not want to do, and what policies do not force me to do; after all, the daily new death charts do not require any textual analysis inserted below them, and I do not see why they should. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Now this is openly disruptive and a deliberate attempt to ignore the points of fact being discussed. You yourself acknowledge that this may not have a place in Wikipedia, so what's the whole point of your insistence on these charts? my position is that as long the charts showing absolute numbers of covid-coded deaths are included, it is vital to also include charts that show these deaths in context and in proportion No, it is not. There is no correlation between the charts already included and the ones you intend to add. If you try to argue that there is, you must provide sources for analysis (thus, secondary) making such a correlation and how it applies in each country (since you are adding these charts to many countries) as per WP:RAWDATA, not make it yourself out of thin air because you like the way the tables look or you are a fan of these data. Wikipedia does not care about your personal thoughts on the matter or what do you think about those.

On your concerns: 1) and 2) Original research is your consideration on your own that all of these charts are useful for inclusion in Wikipedia. They are not. You must provide sources for independent analysis that tell us how this data is being relevant and is being used for each country; those sourced analysis would have encyclopedic value, not these charts on their own nor your own thinking that these are "of supreme utility". 3) Problem is WP:RAWDATA, which once again you ignore. 4) That alone does not show "relevancy". The NYT analysis could be relevant for the New York City article. Not the tables. And not for other countries for which, so far, you have proven unable to provide any further data.

This I say is a reiteration of what has been said throughout the discussion already, which you seem openly unwilling to address, instead once again resorting to massive red herrings of unrelated stuff. You have been told what to do and how. You don't doing it is your call, not me. Also, the one arguing for "common sense" was you, not me, so do not manipulate the discussion, please. Cheers. Impru20^talk 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The above shows the general problematic pattern of claims that any argument must not be original research, where in fact it is only the content added that must not be original research. Surely editors can make original analysis as to whether and what policies apply. This problematic pattern runs through the discussion above. I am repeatedly asked to trace the obvious to secondary sources, which I do not think is a reasonable request; I need to trace added content to reliable sources, primary or otherwise. Despite that, I even provided secondary source NYT to support relevance.

As for "You yourself acknowledge that this may not have a place in Wikipedia, so what's the whole point of your insistence": That's obvious: I admit that it is open to discussion, while taking the position that it is good encyclopedic content. Kind of obvious.

There is no problem with WP:RAWDATA; the editor repeatedly talks of data tables and such when in fact we are discussing charts, which makes his arguments inapplicable. In fact, covid-related articles do often contain large and suspect data tables (and I mean data tables); and these do not contain any analysis, just data.

As for "You must provide sources for independent analysis that tell us how this data is being relevant and is being used for each country": as is yet to be demonstrated. Why would a particular kind of chart be relevant to New York City (NYT source), and not to other regions? That makes no sense to me.

As I am again and again trying to address things said by the above editor, I keep on finding arguments that I find weak, as per my above posts. I shall try to focus on the substance being discussed as far as possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly, this discussion got protracted and largely repetitive. I may need to consider to disengage and let other people chime in with their argumentation, but let us see. It is up to the reader to decide who ignored whose points and who addressed the points properly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the "above editor" (I will start addressing you as you address me, if you will) is either unwilling or unable to engage in constructive discussion. He claims that Surely editors can make original analysis as to whether and what policies apply. Well, no. WP:RAWDATA is crystal clear both when it refers to any data (independently on its form of presentation, so the issue of tables/charts presented by the above editor is moot) and in its literal meaning: (1) Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (2) To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.; (3) Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.; (4) Wikipedia articles should not be: (...) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. I'm seriously unable to comprehend what is not being understood from here. This is WP policy, not some editor's petty qualms. The above editor was repeteadly asked about the purpose of the data being added, to which he has only replied with his own considerations that he thinks these are useful/valuable/adjectives-of-the-sort, something that RAWDATA explicitly forbids. I've attempted to look for ways to make this much more manageable since I cannot see what's the purpose of adding the whole dataset rather than a mere link redirecting to the main page, and no answer has been given. But there is no way for "original research on the interpretation of policy", really, that's an invention of the above editor to (once again) refuse to abide to the policy at stake.

I admit that it is open to discussion Well, then discuss it instead of keeping ignoring it. It's funny that I've been attempting to discuss the policy from the very beginning of the discussion whereas the above editor has ignored to do it. Now he claims that the issue is "open to discussion". Still waiting for the time he sees it right to actually discuss it.

Why would a particular kind of chart be relevant to New York City (NYT source), and not to other regions? That makes no sense to me. It may not make "sense" to the above editor, but that's how Wikipedia works. It's very plausible that excess deaths may have a strong relevancy in one place, and nigh to none at all in other ones. It's also perfectly plausible that not even the whole dataset is useful for one particular place. It must be proven how the inclusion of +50 kB of data is relevant to a particular place instead of keeping claiming that "it's relevant" or "its of supreme utility" just for the sake of it. Wikipedia is not about everything. Not every content one may find on the Internet is suitable for inclusion, and the above editor has repeteadly refused to address any of these concerns, instead constantly engaging on me personally and coming to the brink of outright patronizing in order to avoid answering very simple questions that were formulated from the very beginning of the discussion, which has led to this whole repetitive mess.

I may need to consider to disengage Hope so. I have been attempting to do this for a while already; sadly, to little avail. Let's hope that this is our last engagement here, since everything that could be said has been said already. Impru20^talk 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On another point, regarding arguments from Impru20: it is not obvious that mortality.org (HMD) is a primary source; rather, they get their data from the true primary sources, which are the data collectors in various countries. They take responsibility for publishing curated data and publishing meaningful plotting; they take responsibility for the relevant quote I provided. They are a collaboration of Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, University of California, Berkeley and INED, Paris; they are qualified in what they are doing. I could link to a mainstream media article showing all-cause charts for covid, but mainstream media are not reliable sources, unlike mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Weekly new cases and deaths

How often are the charts updated? And where’s to death info for last week and the cases and death for this week? Smitttttt (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Revised deaths

The figures for deaths has now been revised down by over 5000. The government will report two figures for England, deaths within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 result, and deaths that occur within 60 days with a positive test or beyond 60 days with a positive is they died with COVID-19 on the death certificate. The BBC says "The 28-day limit will, however, be the headline measure and will at least achieve consistency across the UK.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711. I assume that when gov.uk is updated to remove these 5000 deaths everyone will be in agreement that the revised figures should be used across this page as our main figures? Jopal22 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, once the official website changes to the new definition we ought to follow those numbers for consistency. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the comparisons in the graph in the Lifting Lockdown section you will see that the government reported figure comfortably exceeds the ONS figures since the beginning of June—completely opposite to the situation prior to that. That's what's been corrected. If I can find the day-by-day revisions I'll correct the graph. Chris55 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

These data are now available: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths. 2A02:6B61:214E:0:89E3:FFFB:CBE4:2269 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

original date Covid arrived in UK

this is now very out of date with many media reports and longhaul groups showing earlier cases Professor Manderlay49 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to create separate page for Criticism of the UK Government's response

The article is already too long so I think a new wikipedia page needs to be created to accomodate more of the criticism of the governments response to the pandemic with just a link to it in on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that this probably deserves its own page. There will be no shortage of content to include on this that can be reliably referenced as criticism from both sides has been widely reported in the press. The main page could then include at most a couple of paragraphs on this with the main content on individual policies being included in the separate article.Tracland (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There is already an article Government of the United Kingdom's financial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with a criticism section. That article could be usefully moved to Government of the United Kingdom's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and expanded. This would be consistent with other national response articles at Category:National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Capewearer (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this proposal. I would also recommend renaming the article to UK government response to the COVID-19 pandemic or British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for brevity's sake and per consistency with existing articles of a similar nature, e.g. Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Love of Corey (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this idea, but would prefer British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic to be the new name of the existing page. Info should be moved to that page from COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#Government response and a new page created for criticism of the response. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the move to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also think a separate article for criticism of the response is worth doing as there's plenty of information about this topic. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note, I have started preparing a list of all the legislation that has been passed by the UK government in connection with the pandemic. See Draft:United Kingdom legislation connected with the COVID-19 pandemic. Happy for comments on how this can be combined with the proposals above either as a separate article or merged into one of the proposed articles above.Tracland (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)