Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China/Archive 3

Foreign Policy leak
I added a paragraph about the leak to Foreign Policy about potentially 640 000 cases in China. Then, someone deleted the whole thing. I wonder what other wikipedians think of this. Should it stay? Should it go? Should it be reformulated?

Here's the the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China&diff=957163752&oldid=957101282

MonsieurD (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sirtywell was correct to remove the paragraph, which was not supported by the source. As noted in Sirtywell's edit summary, the source says "640,000 updates of information", not 640,000 confirmed cases. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you believe no version of the paragraph is viable? Here are other sources (but I think they all refer to Foreign Policy):

MonsieurD (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11632305/china-640000-coronavirus-cases-eight-times-higher-official-figure-leaked-data/
 * https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/chinas-real-coronavirus-case-toll-22033959
 * https://nypost.com/2020/05/14/leaked-data-suggests-china-may-have-640k-coronavirus-cases-not-80k/


 * We can quote Taiwan's health minister on his reaction to the 640,000 cases on the mainland, plus the mainland's response to this news. FobTown (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3934737
 * https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/china-coronavirus-cases-may-be-times-more-than-official-numbers-report-1678915-2020-05-17
 * https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/china-may-have-640000-coronavirus-cases-instead-of-84000-leaked-data-from-countrys-military-run-university-suggests/ar-BB1497dT?li=BBr8Cnr — Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talk • contribs)
 * All of theses sources just link to the foreign policy article, without adding to it or delving into it. No own additional research. On top of that, most of these media outlets are unreliable and of dubious quality. I suggest to just wait till more concrete facts come out surrounding the leak. For now, posting that there are 640.000 possible cases would just be spreading potential misinformation. Sirtywell (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another version of the paragraph may be viable if it follows the Foreign Policy source. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and I believe I've read that Taiwan News is unreliable as well, though I'm not sure. I don't know about India Today, but I'm inclined to doubt its reliability as well on the basis that it appears to have misunderstood the Foreign Policy article in the same way that the paragraph under discussion did. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw that MonsieurD mentioned other sources too. See Reliable sources/Perennial sources: The Sun is an unreliable source, and the Daily Mirror and NY Post are questionable at best. If some version of this paragraph is included, I think it needs to be based on the Foreign Policy source and not these other sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indiatoday.in and Foreignpolicy can be definitely used even if they disagree with your own views. The paragraph as it stood was nowhere spreading any misinformation. Orientls (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy can certainly be used, but the text that was removed didn't follow the source. My views (and yours) are irrelevant—we must follow the sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that confirmed cases have to be confirmed otherwise they are not. Iluvalar (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

New report about WHO officials frustrated at Chinese withholding of data in January
This report by the Associated Press featured in this Guardian article should be included somewhere, I think. MonsieurD (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"2020 China coronavirus lockdown" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 China coronavirus lockdown. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
You have to include the controversy regarding the chinese numbers being inaccurate. there is controversy that these numbers are incorrect and reported by the chinese AUTHOTARIAN government. Because Even the WHO doesn't know what the actual numbers are 2409:4073:396:3B8F:A96C:7801:CEF:E396 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ There is already a subsection about this. See COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China for the existing material. — MarkH21talk 07:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

About the "Controversies and criticism" section
In the current version, the length of "Controversies and criticism" section is about 5400 words, while all other contents in total are 9500 words. This article is about the pandemic, but more than 1/3 is spent on how western people think how China was handling it instead of the pandemic itself. Looking at the articles on the pandemic in other regions, this is very unusual. I don't think this is still in the proportional range.

Some of the content is also self-contradictory. The "Information sharing" says "China's scientists have been praised for rapidly sharing information on the virus to the international community, and leading some of the world's research on the disease", while this section says, for example, "While by a number of measures, China's initial handling of the crisis was an improvement in relation to the SARS response in 2003, China covered up and downplayed the initial discovery and severity of this outbreak".

Acaly (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t see the contradiction. Both appear to be true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Chinese Foreign Ministry response to controversy regarding Africans in Guangzhou
To what extent should the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs's response to the events described in the "Targeting of Africans" section be covered in the same section?
 * 1) To a greater extent than the text below
 * 2) To the same extent as the text below
 * 2a. The text below, without modification
 * 2b. The text below, without the direct quotes
 * 2c. The text below with other modification / completely different text
 * 1) To a lesser extent than the text below
 * 2) To no extent

Suggestions are welcome. Feel free to participate with other options. 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC); modified statement ( implied Yes = 2a, No = everything else) 21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC); clarify lettering 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * 2a strikes me as concise, 4 is just a no-go, per WP:BALANCE, as African Union diplomats have contacted their resident PRC Ambassadors, who are answerable to the PRC MoFA. The back-and-forth as described by MarkH21 is covered by multiple RS based in third party nations in relation to the AU and PRC. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2a, inserted at the beginning of the current fourth paragraph of the subsection. The subsection currently only very briefly touches upon the response of the Chinese government to the internationally-covered controversy in a half-sentence subordinate clause in the third paragraph and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. It's WP:UNDUE and would not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources to omit the Chinese government's response from the course of events described in this section.This subsection depicts the whole back-and-forth as reported by RSes:
 * Initial reports from local African media
 * Chinese government/ambassadorial attempts to dismiss the events as "rumors"
 * Widespread international coverage and questioning/outrage from African diplomats
 * A Chinese government response, including blaming the US
 * Chinese officials making visits and giving reassurances.
 * Omitting the Chinese Foreign Ministry compromises coverage of the event. — MarkH21talk 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC); !vote reflect new RfC statement 21:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1c, covered to a greater extent and using completely different text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We need to cover the foreign ministry's statement in some form. The proposed text (2a) is fine, a modification (2c) would be fine too. 1, 2b, or 3 could work too. and anyone else who doesn't like this version, it would be great if you could propose what you think the paragraph should look like. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2a, Please note some editors may see it (The quote) as a violation of NPOV. -Kylie Take a look &#124; What have I doneBlue question mark (italic).svg ? &#124; Talk to me 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'To no extent' Even in its reduced form, it is NPOV and redundant. FobTown (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To no extent - I see you meant Targeting of Africans section. I think you may add "Chinese government condemned these racist incidents and accused US government in spreading rumors about the racism in China", or like that, but there is already mentioned that China's government responded well. No need to cite long text from newspaper with names of China's officials and departments, but it's, of course, on you and how other editors would respond, if you wish to add this. Anyway, it's strange survey, I think. If you edits were removed, you just discuss the removing without any survey, if you wish. PoetVeches (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 2a - There are four paragraphs on this issue. If the issue is going to be covered in this depth, there's really no argument for omitting the official response of the Chinese foreign ministry. Omitting it would strike me as a breach of WP:NPOV. The proposed text is fine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: This RfC is an offshoot of the "Repeat removal of government response" section above. — MarkH21talk 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC format, we already appear to have consensus that the existing text is poor and gives much too much weight to an unreliable source (e.g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs)... What we lack consensus on is what exactly to replace it with and whether to keep *any* part of the quote. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what the proposed modifications here is for. This RfC will help determine consensus on what we can replace it with. Suggestions can certainly be made in the RfC. Also note that there isn't even consensus from the previous discussion as to whether we can include even two sentences on the response here (on the basis of there being too few words on other country's responses, although I think that is an argument for expanding those responses rather than removing this one) — MarkH21talk 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The way the RFC is currently set up its a yes/no vote on the exact text proposed at top, there is no room to modify that paragraph within the bounds of the current RFC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily have to be "Yes"/"No", one can !vote with whatever their position is (e.g. "Quoted text without ____") . But I can add options if that alleviates the concern? — MarkH21talk 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that someone has already voted we can't modify the current RFC in such a massive way, we would have to start a new one.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's only one !vote besides myself and in an obvious way, the RfC can be modified so that this is clear. I haven't even added the RfC tag yet, and your responses were so quick! — MarkH21talk 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whats the core question here? Are you asking whether the exact text above is good, whether the information included in the text above should be all be included in some way on the page, or whether all of those sources are appropriate for our use here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Primarily the extent of the coverage, with the quoted text as a barometer of extensiveness. Secondarily, if a clear consensus emerges that the text itself is acceptable, then that's a bonus. I hope that's clear?The RfC should be judged on the number !votes, with the letter !votes only coming into play if Option 2 is the consensus. One can discuss the extent of coverage while also raising suggestions about the wording. — MarkH21talk 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a baseline example for extensiveness? Its not doing any actual measuring itself. The whole thing is terribly confusing and I’m now more confused about what you want than when we started. This whole counting numbers and then counting letters thing is weird, I still feel that we’re trying to shoehorn something (consensus editing of a paragraph) into something (an RFC) that was never intended for that purpose. All our terms are vague as well, neither coverage or extensive makes a ton of sense in context and its unclear what you mean by “extensive” (is that length, style, direct quote vs summary, number of sources, quality of sources, or level of detail in summary of reliable sources?). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant a baseline example, for comparison. By extensiveness, I mean length and level of detail. The formal !voting isn't what's important though, just the reasoning and what you believe should be written and what shouldn't be written. I think one can judge consensus from that, with the numbers just as an aid. — MarkH21talk 21:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese foreign ministry is not a reliable source, their viewpoint is not among the "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been reported by reliable sources like ABC News, I didn't mean to imply that the Chinese Foreign Ministry is a reliable source on the issue itself. — MarkH21talk 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I completely agree that we need to include a summary of the Chinese response as covered in reliable sources (the section would be incomplete otherwise). I just worry about us legitimizing something we shouldn’t be, WP:FRINGE definitely applies to the second half of that quote. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think in the proposed text, it's clear that the only statement being made is that the Chinese Foreign Ministry blames the United States, rather than lending any credence to the actual content of the quote. — MarkH21talk 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why a quote and not a summary though? Its the quote itself which appears to be problematic. If we just had a summary like “and cast blame for the incident on the United States" I’m still unsure why we need a direct quote here when we have descriptions from reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The quoted wording, which is also what ABC News used, illustrates the extent & verbal force with which the Foreign Ministry is making accusations, precision which is somewhat lost with cast blame for the incident on the United States. I suppose that whether that precision is needed is up for debate; I'm leaning towards keeping the precision. — MarkH21talk 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ABC has a much longer quote, "At a moment when the international community urgently needs to work together to fight the pandemic, the US side is making unwarranted allegations in an attempt to sow discords and stoke troubles," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on April 13. "This is neither moral nor responsible. We suggest that 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.” if precision is what we’re after why cut the quote down in such an imprecise way? I also note that with no mention of widespread anti-Black racism in China or the how widespread Chinese propaganda is we aren’t really summarizing the ABC piece accuracy are we? If precision is the goal then we need to take TNT to that original paragraph. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * widespread anti-Black racism in China The ABC source cited makes no mention of the degree of anti-Black (specifically) racism, so I will just assume that this is more polemic. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of balance, right? I think these short embedded quotes are a reasonable level of precision, whereas long quotes like that is overkill.I'd be for including more of the ABC article on the other issues. But whether we should include other parts of the article, regarding anti-Black racism and Chinese propaganda, is outside of the scope of the RfC, focused solely on the inclusion of the Chinese government's response. — MarkH21talk 22:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is to what extent we should cover the information in the WP:RS and less than RS given so I'm confused how its outside the bounds of the RfC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the information specifically about the Foreign Ministry responses. The ABC News section about anti-Black racism is about the general issue, not the Foreign Ministry response. — MarkH21talk 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "b" in "1b" here? I guess I need to clarify the lettering more. Sorry for the confusing format. — MarkH21talk 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that I think it should be covered to a greater extent than in the example given but using completely different text than the current example which I feel is poorly written and not up to wikipedia’s quality standards. I’m guessing I did something wrong and the letters only apply to #2? I took a second look and changed to c but that doesnt seem to have helped the confusion any. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it’s my fault! But your !vote is clear in what you mean. Do you have a particular suggestion for what the completely different text would look like? E.g. what additional details would you include about the Foreign Ministry response? — MarkH21talk 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence needs to be modified, it seems like there was an attempt to avoid copying directly "On Sunday, as international pressure mounted, the foreign ministry in Beijing issued a statement saying the country attached “great importance to the life and health of foreign nationals” and rejected all “racist and discriminatory” remarks.” but we got causality (“in response”) that doesn’t appear in the source. The two soundbites are also related to each other in a way (added rather than stated) not found in the sources. I’d also like to see the quote at the end extended to the same extent as in the ABC piece but with some of the substantial coverage from that piece summarized after it. I think we also need to dump the two foreign ministry sources, they serve no purpose as far as I can tell. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Foreign Ministry refs give the full text of the original statement, should a reader want to read it, and further verifies that they actually issued those statements. — MarkH21talk 02:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Going back to Horse Eye Jack's earlier point, the presented quote is being problematic since it is precise to a selective part of Zhao Lijian's statement rather than accurately summarizing/paraphrasing his entire statement, and ending up the flow goes off onto a tangent rather than tie the preceding paragraph (complaints) and following paragraph (acknowledging complaints). And overall that selective part is redundant as it is WP:UNDUE since the preceding paragraph also accused Western media of spreading rumors. FobTown (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The half-sentence while Beijing initially attempted to deny such reports as "rumors" and "misunderstandings" spread by Western media in the preceding paragraph is about earlier statements by Chinese diplomats, not the Foreign Ministry statements after widespread news coverage and diplomatic pressure. — MarkH21talk 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So doesn't add anything new as Zhao Lijian decided to repeat what Chinese diplomats said earlier. FobTown (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It shows that this is still the Chinese government position after the emergence of widespread coverage & diplomatic demands. — MarkH21talk 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In general on wikipedia we prefer to tell (summarize) rather than show (let quotes speak for themselves). Its the opposite of a lot of types of writing but this is an encyclopedia not an academic paper. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thus we should bring in a third party to summarize the Chinese government position and African reactions, such as Eric Olander's view that "China was struggling to respond to the crisis because the usual tactics of dismissing allegations as “rumours” do not hold up in the face of video and photographic evidence on social media. Furthermore, the accusation that western media is behind this also isn’t gaining much traction, because the vast majority of the news coverage about the crisis is taking place in Africa, and not in the US or Europe. The problem here is that the Chinese are using a technocratic approach to respond to a hugely emotional issue for Africans who feel betrayed and disrespected by the sight of so many migrants being forced to sleep on the streets and endure maltreatment by landlords and local authorities". While Olander's quote is long in its present form, it does summarize the events and a trucated version can be used intead of Zhao Lijian's statement. FobTown (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of summarizing the Chinese Foreign Ministry position via ABC and its quotes, you’d rather not mention the Chinese Foreign Ministry response at all and insert a long quote from an interview with a podcast host on the same day? — MarkH21talk 00:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course Olander's quote would be truncated but it makes reference to both sides of the dispute, taking into account both the Chinese Foreign Ministry and Africans' responses. FobTown (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t really understand your !vote. Your !vote option says that we shouldn’t mention the Chinese Foreign Ministry response at all, but your !vote says that one could add a brief mention (i.e. Option 3).Also, there was a lengthy discussion before this RfC, which is a standard method of resolving disputes. — MarkH21talk 20:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Probably, it's my bad English as second language in guilt :) PoetVeches (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. My question though: do you think that the Foreign Ministry response should be entirely removed or should it be briefly mentioned? Your !vote suggests the first but your words suggest the second. — MarkH21talk 21:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is because you would not add option number 5: "or other else opinion". So I had this "or other else opinion", if you very want to mention China government response, you may write this, but very in short. But if you don't write nothing about China's government, it would even better, because the article looks already overloaded with details and too long, and difficult to read. Try to write in short. PoetVeches (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s exactly what Option 3 is: a shorter mention than the quoted text. — MarkH21talk 22:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to balance out Option 3, you would have to add something like the following: "US state department accused the Chinese officials of “xenophobia” towards Africans, and said the abuse and mistreatment showed how “hollow” the China-Africa partnership was." But it is simpler and better just to entirely omit the Foreign Ministry response. FobTown (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In order to balance out the Foreign Ministry statement, you would have to add something like the following: "US state department accused the Chinese officials of “xenophobia” towards Africans, and said the abuse and mistreatment showed how “hollow” the China-Africa partnership was." But it is simpler and better just to entirely omit the Foreign Ministry response. FobTown (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The above was in response to ‘s !vote and has been moved down to the appropriate “Discussion” subsection. — MarkH21talk 01:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Post-RfC
4 editors support coverage with the exact text quoted (1 of which also is okay with other levels of coverage), 1 editor supports more coverage with different text, 1 editor supports less or no coverage, and 1 editor supports no coverage. That’s pretty clearly consensus for coverage at the same level of coverage as the given text.Nevertheless, I’ve opened a formal request for closure since you both dispute that there is consensus. — MarkH21talk 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not a clear consensus even when you construe the numbers like that, better to get it formally closed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

POV issues
The "Response by the Central Government" section sounds like it is repeating a number of Chinese government talking points. -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly think so. A rather well-balanced selection of sources are used (ranging from Bloomberg to New York Times and Nekkei Asian Review) and from a quick skim of the section, it looks like your POV edit got rid of the only neutral point of view violation I could immediately see. I hope you don't mind, but I also replaced the POV check template with POV section in the relevant section. ItsPugle (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2020

 * 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. This request has now been open for a month and there is simply no consensus to be had here. There is perhaps a slight consensus for "not moved," but the difference between that and "no consensus" is immaterial. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

– To the vast majority of people, China means China, not Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau. The principle that "China" is someone going to be confused with these other regions or be confusing enough that China is not the primary topic, directly contradicts established convention. This article is the primary topic for the article namespace COVID-19 pandemic in China. This move would also mean that a hatnote would be established to COVID-19 pandemic in China (disambiguation), as per the RM for the current COVID-19 pandemic in China page. ItsPugle (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China → COVID-19 pandemic in China
 * COVID-19 pandemic in China → COVID-19 pandemic in China (disambiguation)
 * Just to clarify, this is what the hatnote could look like:
 * This article is about the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. For the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau, see COVID-19 pandemic in China (disambiguation)
 * This article is about the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. For the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan, see COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan. For Hong Kong, see COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. For Macau, see [[COVID-19 pandemic in Macau
 * Of course, there is always other options for hatnotes. ItsPugle (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly prefer one title over the other, but I don't think the hatnotes are necessary either way. They are not topics to expect at either title. CMD (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and perhaps speedy close. This move was proposed a few months ago, with strong consensus against moving. Has anything relevant changed since then? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this isn't that four-month old RM. Let's let this one run its course, hey? ItsPugle (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only difference is the site-wide conversion from 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to COVID-19 pandemic. Dispense with the pretense that there are any substantive differences with the March move request. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing stops the consensus from changing, even if you believe there has been no change. Just as the world changes, so does consensus. A three-month difference is more than enough time for there to have been a change in the consensus, and you trying to snub out this discussion isn't hugely collaborative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The most relevant naming convention, arguments and geopolitical realities (between the four divisions of Greater China with ISO 3166-1 codes) have all not changed since the last move request here. The above appears to be an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPping a supposedly different consensus; dislike the previous move outcome, try to randomly !poll a different sample of editors to obtain a different result . I have advocated for an absolute move request moratorium at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, forestalling unproductive move stunts here is no different. So please stop it with the "The world can change" philosophizing . Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I have merged the request at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in China since it is causing the request to be on the "Possibly incomplete requests" and both discussions should happen at the same place.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers! ItsPugle (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per latest failed move request and last general discussion at WT:NC-ZH. This article, again, does not cover non-mainland developments or case counts. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion on the that naming conventions page appears to me to not necessarily have a particularly strong consensus, and advocates for a case-by-case basis. As I said, a much simpler and less disruptive option would just be a hatnote.
 * Doesn't matter, it is the most relevant naming convention, and if the closer closing admin had believed that the oppose !votes had any worthy arguments, they would have mentioned in the close. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that interpreting a closure message based on what it doesn't say is particularly valid. You message didn't address the primary topic policy, so therefore with your reasoning, you agree that the current "mainland China" article is the primary topic for "China"? I'm yet to see any widespread adoption of the practice of providing evidence against ones own decision in a RM closure notice. ItsPugle (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, unless China is somehow moved to Mainland China. Subtopics follow the naming convention for their supertopic, per the examples in WP:CONPRIME. BD2412  T 03:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The China article doesn't just cover mainland China, it also covers Hong Kong and Macau. In contrast, this article's scope is limited to mainland China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, in this case there is no functionality to be gained by us using “in mainland China” over “in China” and we stand a lot to lose by confusing people. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the country name and per WP:ASTONISH. The standard is for articles to be at the country name without particular qualifications primarily used for discussing specialised territories. Hence articles are at "in China" or "of China" regardless of whether they include Hong Kong or Macau. There's no good reason why Covid 19 should be a special case exception. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument was not accepted in the April RfC at WT:NC-ZH, and the invocation of WP:ASTONISH is unsourced hyperbole, given ample usage in RS (Lancet 1, Lancet 2, Bloomberg dashboard, Reuters, Time, The Wrap) of mainland China for precise geographic delimitation. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * An additional consideration (although not policy) is that this article, apart from the article mainland China itself, appears to be one of only three articles to use in mainland China or of mainland China as a delimiter. You can see this in search (once you ignore all the redirects). Compare that to 4,473 other articles that use in China or of China as regional references. COVID-19 pandemic in China is the place where most editors would expect this article to be found. ItsPugle (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support* No other country's COVID-19 page has "mainland" in the title. I understand that "Chinese mainland" and the unfortunate "Mainland China" are common terms but they should be only used in specific situations, usually when comparing the 'mainland' provinces with HK, Macao and sometimes Taiwan. Otherwise, it's just unnecessary and arguably offensive as it subtly suggests that it isn't part of "China". Wiki pages for other countries with autonomous territories are in the format of this proposed change. For example, "COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom" and "COVID-19 pandemic in Gibraltar". The introduction of the article should include something along the lines of "China (excluding the SARs of Hong Kong and Macao, and Taiwan). The first human cases of COVID-19 were identified in Wuhan, Hubei, in December 2019.". JMonkey2006 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In many other articles when the title is named using the country's name, the statistics of autonomous territories are usually included. For example, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, and French Guiana, Guadeloupe in COVID-19 pandemic in France. On the other hand, this article only covers the cases and deaths in mainland China. PE fans (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy closure by . Nothing has changed in three months and the following arguments are still valid: Message formatting changed by ItsPugle and collapsed by JHunterJ to make replying more clearcut as to where the copied block ends and this discussion continues PE fans (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Importing other people's comments on a different proposal with a different reason, especially when those editors may have changed their mind or haven't engaged in this discussion, is hardly appropriate. Please just mention your key objections, instead of copy-pasting a previous discussion. And with your call for a speedy close, there's enough of a discussion and debate here to not warrant one. ItsPugle (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the change from "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to "COVID-19 pandemic" makes it a different proposal. Please read WP:LISTEN carefully. You can't ask other people to repeat the debate just because you suspect that they may have changed their mind. PE fans (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposal, because the cases in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are seperate. It's just China, confirmed cases, recoveries, and deaths are different from them. Rdp060707 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the previous move discussion. Mainland China is a widely used term, everyone knows what it means, no need to do away with it here. 2601:18A:C781:4100:9C1A:B1A3:DB8E:F979 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — 2601:18A:C781:4100:9C1A:B1A3:DB8E:F979 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support COVID-19 pandemic in China → COVID-19 pandemic in China (disambiguation) per WP:CONPRIME, Neutral on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China → COVID-19 pandemic in China; as an alternative, COVID-19 pandemic in China could then be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China with a hatnote pointing to the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution to me—keep this article at its current title but turn COVID-19 pandemic in China into a redirect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as comments above in usage of confusion with WP:NCCHINA. ApprenticeFan   work  02:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support renaming. Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. can be summarised in the article. Plus the proposed title is WP:CONCISE. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is already very long. I don't think it would be manageable to expand its scope in the way you're suggesting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. HK, Taiwan, and Macau isn't mainland China. Dede2008 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I like JHunterJ's proposal. cookie monster  (2020)  755  05:23, 4 August 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020
1.64.207.181 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Note: Article content removed from talk page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (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. Please do not copy article text to the talk page and make changes, because we cannot see what changes need to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
1.64.207.181 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
The Chinese government has worked to censor and counter reporting and criticism about the crisis and portray the official response to the outbreak in a positive light. They have also provided humanitarian assistance to other countries dealing with the virus. News outlets have reported concerns that the Chinese government has deliberately under-reported the extent of infections and deaths.

On 26 July, China saw its highest number of daily cases since March.

1.64.207.181 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases in Mainland China
Number of deaths is missing. All others countries have shown this value in the graphic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.79.36 (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020
confirmed_cases = 84,951 deaths = 4,634 recovery_cases = 79,895 active_cases = S191001 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede
The lede is excessively long and overly detailed. Please find ways to prune details and move them into the relevant article sections. I've done some of this work where it was obvious how to do it. Jehochman Talk 12:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead and the article as a whole do give the impression it hasn't been updated since a long time. The lead (too long to be read on a cursory look) says nothing about the situation since July, and elsewhere at least some updates are added non-chronologically, where chronological order could be expected, and thus hidden. In all, the article does not give a correct impression of the current situation. –LPfi (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 leaks
CNN has an interesting report on revelations from leaked documents showing initial mis-steps in China's response: see here:

I haven't got the time to add this to the article at the moment, but this definitely needs incorporating here. -- The Anome (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Wuhan Files" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wuhan Files. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020
dsafsaddddddddddddddddddddddd — Preceding unsigned comment added by F-15 strike eagle 75 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Initiated rewrite
I've initiated a rewrite of the article, beginning with the "Early response by Wuhan" section, which I've renamed "Initial outbreak". My plan is to write a chronological overview of the first wave of the outbreak. Currently, the article jumps around chronologically, and a lot of key information is missing. It will take time to bring all the information into chronological order, remove unnecessary details (e.g., which apartment blocks some of the early patients came from, or what the officials who closed down Huanan Seafood Market told vendors), and fill in missing aspects of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article definitely needs work, so I'm glad someone is getting to it. It needs more information about virus control measures and is generally weak on developments after February. Ultimately we may want to consider splitting this into multiple articles. Over on zh.wikipedia, they have a broad overview/timeline article, separate articles about reactions and effects, controversies, infection data, and specific subtopics like the Xinfadi Market outbreak. We may not want that many articles (and "controversies" articles aren't usually a great idea per WP:CSECTION), but we might consider splitting by subtopic or time period. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there's almost no information about the post-lockdown phase of the pandemic in China. My idea was to add an overview of post-lockdown developments after I finished reworking the overview of the first wave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I have rewritten the lead, although there should be some more citations. I am sorry, since the lead and the whole article were initially written by me. I have planned to edit this article that I created, but I was too busy in the past year and unfortunately will not be less busy in the coming months, although I will try editing this article whereas possible. --HNlander (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the rewriting of the lead
Hi all, I have rewritten the lead. I noticed that in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, the lead starts with "The COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom is part of the worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." and then summarised the overall impact of pandemic in the region. So my summary to the paragraph is that mainland China was the first to experience and pass out of the pandemic. It was also the first to identify the virus. Maybe what I failed to mention was that it was also one of the first to provide vaccines.

Then I wrote following a time sequence, saying that the virus was under control since March and lockdown was eased since, despite sporadic cases leading to massive testing. Then all the "sensitive, or hard-to-say" part related to criticism towards the governments in the last paragraph, since I don't find such a paragraph in many other similar articles, including COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Maybe it is up to you guys to decide how to rewrite this.

What I deleted was the details of how the virus was discovered. I only included the time it was first reported, published and identified. The controversy part-about censorship-was in described in the second paragraph describing the early stage of the outbreak in China. Although I do believe some names should be included, e.g. Li Wenliang. But the original text didn't include it.

--HNlander (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing some of my concerns, but per WP:BRD you reverted my reversion too soon, even before I had the chance to reply. One thing I would like to mention here is how materials are presented in the article should not be based on the way other articles are written or arranged. Instead, they should be in proportion to the prominence of materials published in reliable sources. See WP:WEIGHT. Normchou   💬  — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Haha, I am sorry for that, but I have a lot of things in the to-do list actually. Yes, I agree, but I don't see a clear reason to go against my edits. 1) There should be no doubt that mainland China is the first to experience the pandemic. All the early outbreak in Wuhan section proves this. 2) The post-lockdown period of China is still lacking, so I agree that there might be some problems to directly say China is one of the first to pass out of it in this article particularly. But this doesn't mean there ain't enough sources to prove it. There have been a lot of sources to prove this in the unedited lead para, which I included in the reverted third paragraph. 3) The fourth paragraph. Tbh, this is actually quite "of-Chinese-characteristics", widely present in China-related articles, but I agree this should be important due to the overwhelming importance and existence of the government in China. But I am not good at editing this, so I just put everything about the government systems, such as censorship, etc., here.


 * I think it might be more helpful if you can refer to what I have missed to include, or if you can point out what I suggest an improper weight specifically or if you can discuss the weight of specific topics. Thanks. --HNlander (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a second paragraph about the early stage of the outbreak in China, how it escalated to a WHO International Public Health Concern. Obviously, the local government's' role was mentioned in the first place. Wuhan's role as a transportation hub and the Chunyun period needs to be mentioned, since they are the primary drivers of the escalation. What happened in the period is also included.--HNlander (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that the lead should be a summary of the most important points covered in the article, not what an editor thinks is "obvious". See MOS:INTRO. I would suggest other editors to chime in and evaluate the changes that have been made so far. Normchou   💬 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.--HNlander (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Needs a good copyedit (I can try to do this sometime soon), but broadly speaking the new versions of the first two paragraphs seem okay to me.
 * Overall the lead is very repetitive – for instance the Hubei lockdowns are covered in both paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, and censorship is covered several times (in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and alluded to in 6). We should try to rework the lead so it's less repetitive and doesn't jump around so much. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The new versions of the paragraphs may need better sourcing as well – for instance, do we have a source for the claim that control measures "significantly delayed early spread according to epidemiology modelling"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi actually I only edited the first two paragraph since the rest was reverted, which is the reason why it is a bit repetitive. I have mentioned the sourcing problem in the edit history, and will try fix that soon. --HNlander (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the Hubei lockdown, I think it is too detailed in the third paragraph, which mostly can better be removed. As for censorship, I think it is noticeable that the censorship was initially a just local government temporary measure, before the central government tried to control the narrative. So I think the two censorships are a bit different, because they were done by different entities. So, it may be reasonable to be mentioned twice. I will try to source these later.--HNlander (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably reasonable to mention censorship twice in the lead, but I think not four times in four separate paragraphs. Thanks for your work to improve the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, I deleted one sentence in your rewrite and gave my reason in the edit summary. I also added materials with references in the article elaborating why I made this decision. Normchou   💬 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

references are empty/ do not work
None of the reference links work, and in the reference section there is just a link to a template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.236.89 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. This is yet another sign that the article is too long, and we need to either cut it down or split it into multiple articles. One idea would be to split out a sub-article about the government response and another sub-article about the pandemic's impact. This article could then become a broad overview with links to the sub-articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've solved the immediate problem of references not being displayed by splitting out Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, following the example of other articles like Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. The article is still longer than it should be, though, and I still think it's a good idea to split out sub-articles about government response and impact. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021
Mainland China was the first region to identify the disease and its pathogen, the point of origin of the pandemic in Wuhan, the first region to impose drastic measures, including lockdowns and face mask mandates, in response to the outbreak. Jwalker207 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. – robertsky (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)