Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 3

TheGuardian.com ran a live blog on 27 Jan reported ^[1] that Chinese users on twitter (twitter is blocked in mainland however obviously some of them managed to squeeze through the Great Firewall of China) has spotted the Hubei governor Wang Xiaodong during live streaming of a press conference, misspoke the number of face masks produced in Hubei on no less than three occasions. It's not a quite edifying scene^[2]. Some of the comments from Chinese users on twitter pointed out that for a province of 60 million people, 1.08 million masks produced in a whole year are only sufficient for 1/10 of the population of Wuhan (the capital, population of 11 million) to wear all the masks for a single afternoon. Swoopin swallow (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for contributing. While the page is in need of reorganization in that section, (any interested contributors are welcome to participate in the ongoing discussions at "#Criticism section" here above), this reads out, as far as the Guardian reports it, more as just a gaffe and not particularly relevant for addition on its own merit unless the story later develops further. Sleath56 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. As to the incompetence of the press, CCTV news reports ^[3] (local time 18:55, 28 Jan) the first confirmed case in Germany as a German national who worked in Shanghai, recently returned to Germany, infected by the virus and tested positive back in a Bavarian hospital. While in the TheGuardian report ^[4], the German worker, according to the head health officer from Bavaria, did not travel to China; he was the first confirmed case of human to human transmission in Europe. The 33 year old German worker on 21 Jan attended a lecture by a Chinese colleague who arrived in Germany on 19 Jan, the woman left for China on 23 Jan. The Chinese woman felt ill and sought medical treatment after landing in China but soon afterwards she was tested positive. It is the German worker's woman colleague who works in Shanghai not himself. Handling of information by both the state TV and government officials does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Swoopin swallow (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Something in the Chronology section is causing horizontal scrolling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing:. I edited a lot this section today. Is it better now ? Yug (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW Why is it removed? Nickayane99 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99:, if you talk about {{2019 coronavirus pandemic data}}, it was never removed. But a bug prevented it from working on Mobile for few hours. Should be ok now. Isn't it ? Yug (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lots of room for it in the article. Please restore ASAP. -- @137.69.117.204: 2020-01-28T16:29:21‎

Hello, if you are talking about the yellow horizontal bars diagram ({{2019 coronavirus bar data}}), we just moved it in the more relevant section. Can you scroll the aricle an see it ? Are you on mobile ? Yug (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is really just for a one-letter typo I noticed. Under the photo captioned "People queuing outside a Wuhan pharmacists to buy face masks and medical supplies", the word "queing" should be spelled "queueing". I've been noticing a lot of minor typos and grammar issues lately on this article, so I guess just be careful y'all. Blank2nowhere (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

i'll fix. Admanny (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The recovery numbers are actually shockingly low. So I don't think they reflect an intention to spread propaganda. I would definitely include those numbers and carefully track. Kim99 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are now 4 confirmed cases in UAE. Please update the table of confirmed cases. (Source) Sesved (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Goldsztajn (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to update the number of cases Nannynann (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's add a section on the chart for the people who have healed, as far as the information that we can find allows (perhaps provide an asterisk which states that the information about who's been healed has been collected given the most available information). We have a column for those who have been infected, those who have been killed, but what about those who have been healed? There is legitimate data out there that depicts this information, and I think that to include it in the chart would desensationalize the situation, by including a section for such occurrences alongside the causalities and the general afflicted. Or perhaps the healed column should be omitted, because this is a serious disease and people shouldn't sleep completely easy on it? People should read Wikipedia and not see any available information about those who have been healed, and this should spread a kind of pathos up the chain of command to whoever's job it is to find a cure or take the right precautions? I do not think that's the general function of Wikipedia, to spread ethical propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YelloJello33 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this and was about to set up a talk section about this. So far the stats for those who have recovered are only on the Timeline/Chronology article. It is extremely unfair and biased to leave out this information on all related articles, especially on this main one. Nebakin (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea. It has been brought up here numerous times before, but in my opinion the "healed" category is inherently dubious, abstract, and lacks the multiple sources necessary to support its creation. A 'healed' category has also never been used in previous epidemic pages on this wiki. It seems most proposals for this idea stem from the "healed" category on the primary Mainland China source- DXY. It's inclusion there seems suspect and almost seems like a PR tactic. --Charsum (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is present on another article and should be listed here as well, the source is actually from CGTN too, which has been widely used in all Wuhan virus outbreak related articles. In fact, the recoveries are not only present in China itself but also Thailand and/or Japan and was reported by their respective medias. Nebakin (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the "healed" category, you can call it something else if you think that the word "healed" is too abstract or something, but I was relaying the idea.

YelloJello33 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)YelloJello33

As someone who prefers for this article to be about providing legible information to the general public about an ongoing epidemic that could affect them, whereas the virus article is about discussion in terms of medical literature, does anyone else support the idea that the paragraph quoted should be moved to the virus article? Or further into the main body?

Tsukide (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Edited to insert a title. Tsukide (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the fifth paragraph, isn't it? I think the actual fourth has merit of being moved into the body, though I'm also agreeable to holding off on that until the epidemic calms. Sleath56 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody remove Sweden from the map? ^[1] Znuddel (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article states that the virus is contagious during the incubation period, yet the citation given for this clearly states that more data are required in order to make a determination on that subject. 2001:56A:F975:3D00:DC0:D3FF:377:AE53 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done added the following: it remains to be determined if it is contagious during this time robertsky (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time. To - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it might be contagious during this time 2600:1702:37F1:3F80:E416:604D:356D:8E7B (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done added the following: it remains to be determined if it is contagious during this time robertsky (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)JMonkey2006 (talk)

I don't think so, as these jurisdictions have their own health systems, immigration and reporting. It may also give a biased political point of view. We do not have to follow the political bias of WHO/UN. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep them separate: they have their own health systems, Taiwan is under a different administration, and we have separate figures to report. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Something like this is what I have in mind.

Country Confirmed Cases

China	                 1 995
   Mainland China	         1 982
   Hong Kong	                     5
   Macau	                     5
Taiwan	                     3
Thailand	                     7
Australia	             4
Malaysia	                     4
Singapore	             4

Please ignore display issues.

--JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Erm. No. Thanks for the effort though. This may truly start a political debate of whether Taiwan is part of China or not. Let's just treat CN, HK, MC, MO, TW as separate territories alongside with other countries and territories like we always do. robertsky (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

well isn't taiwan officially controlled by the republic of china? 39cookies (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was the table removed? Quvsn (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bring back the table!! GoofyNoah (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the table Nickayane99 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are we referring to China as Mainland China. While I understand this term in a geopolitical sense, it has no place on a page for international virus outbreak in a list comparing countries. Please see List of countries and dependencies by population for appropriate naming and listing by country and dependencies. If an exceptional circumstance requires an exemption, it should be stated. Otherwise the term China should simply refer to the mainland and the two territories added to the list, with Taiwan as a separate nation. Krazytea(talk) 01:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add "cases" and "deaths" labels to the top of the table? I can't because the page is "protected to prevent vandalism". Kr8gz (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue of including flags in the infobox describing which areas have been affected has led us into a situation with personal attacks on both sides with editors being blocked for edit warring. We need an RfC to resolve this issue and create a consensus.

Should the infobox in the article that provides numbers on areas that have been infected by the coronavirus include flags or not? Chess (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_status_of_outsidechina_patients/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This may be true, but these kinds of posts are not reliable sources. See if you can find a regular academic or news report on the subject. There are possible reasons for this, eg only testing severe cases or the deceased in China, severely affected patients not travelling, death rate not as high as you might believe... (OR) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick scan of the first half dozen references used, show that they are all news source based. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reddit might not be the most reliable source on this topic. But given that travelers are typical younger and healthier, and that most people who died in China are the elderly, this would make sense. --I-Love-New-York-1982 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about reddit. This is about the references used in the reddit post which are reliable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Then link those references directly. --Charsum (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What would be the point of relisting 15+ references? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

I found this information about 3M ramping up production worldwide to meet the demand due to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Accessible here:"3M sees coronavirus boosting demand for face masks, as China projected to return to growth"

What do you think about placing this information on the article?

FranciscoMMartins (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Criticism What do you think of the criticism section? There was an edit to demote it from level 2 to level 4, in other words to bury it. I think the section is of much interest and should not be buried.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Information on the subject seems scarce (not a surprise), but because of how important this is and China's record with covering up diseases, I think it should stay. --Colin dm (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"other words to bury it." Let's keep this within WP:GF.

It's wholly inadequate and there used to be a comment flag regarding its critically underdeveloped status before that was removed. On its own, as the criticism is wholly laid onto the Police and Government authorities, it fits under Domestic Response as I've appended unless criticism further develops past that Jan 20 declaration. Unless criticism reaches far more substantive degrees, which may become the case in the future, some Weibo commentators and an incident of withholding camera footage feels like WP:UNDUE to merit its own top level section. The governmental response under that heading along with the potential for insertion of contrary views, such as that by the WHO in praising transparency (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZM1G9), will create a clumsy read under such a heading.

Reorganizing the section will keep it in line with cases such as:

• See Ebola virus disease#2013–2016 West Africa
• See 2009 flu pandemic
• See Kivu Ebola epidemic

Sleath56 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I first started this section and I will definitely expand it. It may not have a lot of content right now but it will certainly expand. Beyond censorship on the press and social media sites, there have been tons of criticisms on insufficient medical supplies and patients overhauling hospitals. Colin dm said information in this section seems to be scarce because here's China, and of course it would be scarce - but the truth is the exact opposite. Most criticisms are in Chinese and a surprising amount is from Chinese media. I suppose I'm the only Chinese speaker here so the real problem is, souces are already here but no one writes about it.

Censorship is important but for some reason, most western media have become too full of it. I suppose half of the NYT's coverages are about censorship and mismanagement from the central government's level instead of things like face masks shortages and skyrocketing food prices. I will keep working on Chinese sources in the coming days as foreign outlets seemed to have suffered from a kind of ridiculous-sounding difficulty, which is to send correspondents on-site - I can tell that the BBC failed from a video they made, and several have scaled back or moved to their regional headquarters in Beijing instead of staying in Wuhan, as the authorities locked the city and they probably don't want to die in China themselves. There are many quality journalism produced by Chinese media, especially after censorship eased these days.

Speaking of English sources, Caixin and Sixth Tone are good sources as they are relatively liberal, and they are subsidiaries of credible Chinese media, although no one heard of them. Xinhua is the go-to source for official stuff, Global Times is nationalist and conservative, China Daily is more neutral. CGTN remains close to the government yet its TV programs are relatively liberal as well. Be aware that official Chinese English-languaged media also use Xinhua's news pieces a lot. The South China Morning Post, despite having China in its name, is a Hong Kong-based newspaper, did a lot of good stories on China, and doesn't care about China's censorship. Plus, people in Hong Kong criticised their government a lot as well. These are all good sources to start with.

--Techyan（Talk） 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Techyan: Appreciate the response and editorial initiative. My issues with the section remain nonetheless. As it is now, it is hard to claim the section maintains WP:NPOV as an top level section. One, while media criticism of authority actions should be absolutely documented here provided it passes WP:UNDUE. The caveat is that in an developing situation like this however, it’s easy to find plenty of voices with a variety of such allegations and concerns and WP:PROPORTION fall into mind here to not bloat such a section.

Titling criticism as a top level section bears validity if such views are largely predominant or unanimous. This is not generally the case in epidemic articles, as official response is rarely so inept it attracts universal condemnation throughout the whole process without any contrary views. As it stands, there are many RS that hold positive commentary on elements of the authorities conduct in the matter, in particular from voices of medical authority. Such RS include that by WHO, which is far more relevant for WP:RS/MC than any ordinary media allegations, such as I’ve provided here: 1. Additionally to demonstrate the point of contrary reactions are political commentary such as those by Germany, who approve of the authorities’ ‘rapid management.' and 'praised their transparency'. 2. With the existence of such RS/MC, it is inappropriate to dedicate a section wholly under the title of “Criticism”.

These situations are largely reactive, the meaning can be demonstrated through the new point you've added on the Wuhan festival is definitely of far greater merit than anything yet documented in the section. The criticism directed to that event is worthy of documentation here, but the subsequent governmental response in closing further festivals as the epidemic developed should also be narrated as a follow-through case. This makes for a very clumsy section if inserted into the current state.

The solution as often adopted by other associated epidemic pages as cited, has been to file such reactions under a “Response” section, often a top level section. This allows for the capacity to add RS/MC responses (whose addition would be a priority in any circumstance), like WHO’s which indeed have not been of criticism, to balance concerns of WP:UNDUE and also satisfy WP:NPOV.

I see two means by which this can be achieved:

• 1) As this current page has already developed its own Responses sections, it would be appropriate to organize this through that direction as a result. I believe this is the most feasible and efficient manner.
• 2) Reorganize the sections to accommodate for a top level Responses section. While this may act as a compromise and indeed bring this page to equivalent styles in other epidemic articles as I've cited, the concern I hold is that the 'Prevention and Management' top section is already well developed to a degree that transporting away the Response sections from there may damage that area's coherency.

Sleath56 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is very important to be highly critical of ourselves, because it will help improve our responses to re-occurrences. This will save lives and potentially billions of dollars. This is a higher priority than concerns about NPOV. From the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission:

anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases ... will be nailed on a pillar of shame for eternity.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are exactly referring. It may be of benefit to reiterate what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. We document non-original information that satisfies relevance and notability utilizing secondary and reliable sources. Eschewing WP:NPOV as a secondary priority is a false proposition as that policy is one of Wikipedia’s WP:5P and is not a suggestion for editors but compulsory. It is “non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” Sleath56 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me restart that then. NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion I had with Techyan, which you’ve responded to, lists the issues of the titled section in its current top level form. You’re welcome to fully engage in that discussion directly. Sleath56 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Another tidbit to express my opinion: We are all this together. It benefits all to be highly critical. Bringing up NPOV seems arbitrary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the section is ignorant at best, and possibly with intentional conceal of information in itself. One most likely reason for observing infections outside China but not in other provinces within China is because between province travelers do not receive the same level of medical checks/control as between country boarder travelers do. In fact there was no body temperature motoring when you travel across provinces, just like traveling between states in the US or traveling between countries within Europe. Why did I say this second paragraph itself is intentionally concealing information? Because the above explanation was already given in a reference cited within the paragraph, yet it was not mentioned at all. And now even the reference has been deleted (reference link: https://www.hk01.com/議事廳/424736/武漢肺炎-坊間調侃-愛國病毒-地方有否-瞞報-疫情) 193.54.67.94 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That is good info. Should add it as a counter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

With reference to a better source for "Wuhan police interviewed eight residents..." (First para; 2nd sentence), I've been trying to find articles for this. I've made an edit to add a reference for an article in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/24/coronavirus-fears-rise-chinese-cover-up-40-million-lockdown/), however, this article seems to suggest a much earlier date (or they have conflated this with another earlier issue). So the Telegraph may not be an adequate source, at least not without another reference next to it. The ref. for the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/health/virus-corona.html) covers this the claim (about the eight being questioned) to a certain extent, but does not support the date of 01.01.2020. Also, it’s not entirely clear whether the 8 people were punished, or just interviewed. The wiki sentence being looked at currently states: "with none ultimately being detained or punished". But there is a BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50984025) that states that the eight had been punished. Not sure what to do. I could add the BBC article as well?SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. The lack of clarity in the sources makes this entry rather hard to trace. Normally, I'd call preference for an English source just for the clarity, but the BBC only nebulously cites "Wuhan police". The point about "with none ultimately being detained or punished" was lifted from a machine translation of the original Sina source, which credits: On the evening of the 21st, Hu Xijin revealed that relevant persons in Wuhan had contacted him to explain the situation. The source said that the public security department had invited the eight citizens to investigate, and the process was very friendly and polite, and none of the eight citizens were detained and punished.. While it's not my preference to rely on a machine translation (or if a Chinese speaker could verify), the Sina article appears to identify the source for the report, so I would say to leave as is for now. Sleath56 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: I've undone the change as the CNA article cited is a rip in that section of the BBC one already discussed by @SpookiePuppy. I'm not sure why you keep making unilateral changes without consulting ongoing discussion in Talk even though you started the thread. I'd be happy to add a reworded caveat showing that there are conflicting sources but you need to clarify in Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was discussed here. Don't know what you mean by keep making unilateral changes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: On 1 Jan, the official Weibo account of City Police of Wuhan, Ping'an Wuhan issued^[2] a statement in a weibo post^[3] that Our police staff have investigated the matter, subpoenaed all the eight persons flouting the law, all of them been dealt with. (公安机关经调查核实，已传唤8名违法人员，并依法进行了处理。) Swoopin swallow (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a strong clarification. Adding a comment about conflicting sources seems unnecessary with this, and I think this, in conjunction with the BBC article as a secondary source in English, can supplant the claim about them 'being unpunished' in the earlier article entirely. Sleath56 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thanks for the edit summary explanation, but Talk is a better place for it. I've reverted the edit to unify the #Local Criticism section, as I believe it merits a discussion here beforehand. The weight of criticism has been largely focussed on the local response as of yet, so at the present moment, an independent section on that area should stand as it is substantive enough on its own. The reported increase of central censorship fits under Management#Domestic response as that area is already structured around the central authorities management tactics, including censorship, particularly per the extant opening paragraph of that section. The point about the tactics to skirt censorship is the only new element, so it's been incorporated there. Sleath56 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

More information Location, Cases ...

COVID-19 pandemic by location^[1]

	Location	Cases	Deaths
	World[a]	779,178,934	7,115,203
	European Union[b]	186,984,090	1,271,056
	United States	103,436,829	1,238,678
	China[c]	99,381,761	122,398
	India	45,056,221	533,849
	France	39,060,935	168,207
	Germany	38,437,953	174,979
	Brazil	38,042,729	704,045
	South Korea	34,571,873	35,934
	Japan	33,803,572	74,694
	Italy	26,969,918	198,523
	United Kingdom	25,118,508	232,112
	Russia	24,901,467	404,290
	Turkey	17,004,726	101,419
	Spain	13,980,340	121,886
	Australia	11,861,161	25,236
	Vietnam	11,624,000	43,206
	Argentina	10,119,594	130,850
	Taiwan	9,970,937	17,672
	Netherlands	8,657,553	22,986
	Mexico	7,630,870	335,111
	Iran	7,627,863	146,837
	Poland	6,843,822	121,221
	Indonesia	6,830,274	162,059
	Colombia	6,404,346	142,817
	Austria	6,083,792	22,534
	Greece	5,867,249	40,254
	Portugal	5,671,684	29,663
	Ukraine	5,555,510	109,937
	Thailand	5,450,663	35,000
	Chile	5,410,530	64,497
	Malaysia	5,329,836	37,351
	Belgium	4,908,331	34,339
	Czech Republic	4,887,551	43,995
	Israel	4,841,703	12,707
	Canada	4,819,055	55,282
	Peru	4,533,838	221,072
	Switzerland	4,492,050	14,170
	Philippines	4,173,631	66,864
	South Africa	4,073,188	102,595
	Romania	3,604,081	69,095
	Denmark	3,453,741	10,012
	Singapore	3,006,155	2,024
	Hong Kong	2,876,106	13,466
	Sweden	2,787,365	29,496
	New Zealand	2,668,236	4,538
	Serbia	2,568,005	18,057
	Iraq	2,465,545	25,375
	Hungary	2,240,890	49,124
	Bangladesh	2,052,280	29,531
	Slovakia	1,889,897	21,401
	Georgia	1,864,337	17,151
	Republic of Ireland	1,749,952	9,782
	Jordan	1,746,997	14,122
	Pakistan	1,580,631	30,656
	Norway	1,552,355	5,732
	Finland	1,518,764	11,466
	Kazakhstan	1,504,370	19,072
	Lithuania	1,448,911	9,931
	Croatia	1,371,705	18,806
	Slovenia	1,366,923	9,914
	Bulgaria	1,341,082	38,778
	Morocco	1,279,115	16,305
	Guatemala	1,255,709	20,206
	Puerto Rico	1,252,713	5,938
	Costa Rica	1,242,945	9,396
	Lebanon	1,239,904	10,947
	Bolivia	1,212,187	22,389
	Tunisia	1,153,361	29,423
	Cuba	1,113,834	8,530
	Ecuador	1,082,356	36,064
	United Arab Emirates	1,067,030	2,349
	Panama	1,045,742	8,839
	Uruguay	1,043,278	7,696
	Mongolia	1,011,489	2,136
	Nepal	1,003,968	12,034
	Belarus	994,102	7,118
	Latvia	977,804	7,741
	Saudi Arabia	841,469	9,646
	Azerbaijan	836,510	10,353
	Paraguay	735,759	19,880
	Cyprus	718,930	1,364
	Palestine	703,228	5,708
	Bahrain	696,614	1,536
	Sri Lanka	672,812	16,907
	Kuwait	667,290	2,570
	Dominican Republic	661,103	4,384
	Moldova	656,463	12,290
	Myanmar	643,401	19,494
	Estonia	617,861	3,440
	Venezuela	552,751	5,856
	Egypt	516,023	24,830
	Qatar	514,524	690
	Libya	507,269	6,437
	Ethiopia	501,339	7,574
	Réunion	494,595	921
	Honduras	473,076	11,114
	Armenia	454,903	8,785
	Bosnia and Herzegovina	404,289	16,419
	Luxembourg	401,679	1,000
	Oman	399,449	4,628
	North Macedonia	352,093	9,991
	Brunei	350,550	182
	Zambia	349,892	4,078
	Kenya	344,162	5,689
	Albania	337,234	3,608
	Mauritius	332,300	1,074
	Botswana	330,699	2,801
	Kosovo	274,279	3,212
	Algeria	272,440	6,881
	Nigeria	267,237	3,155
	Zimbabwe	266,436	5,740
	Montenegro	251,280	2,654
	Afghanistan	235,214	7,998
	Mozambique	233,935	2,252
	Martinique	230,354	1,104
	Laos	219,060	671
	Iceland	211,293	186
	Guadeloupe	203,235	1,021
	El Salvador	202,077	4,230
	Trinidad and Tobago	191,496	4,390
	Maldives	186,694	316
	Uzbekistan	175,158	1,016
	Ghana	172,843	1,463
	Namibia	172,557	4,110
	Uganda	172,234	3,632
	Jamaica	157,681	3,634
	Cambodia	139,326	3,056
	Rwanda	133,274	1,468
	Malta	125,377	1,119
	Cameroon	125,325	1,974
	Barbados	109,141	593
	Angola	107,487	1,937
	Democratic Republic of the Congo	101,010	1,474
	French Guiana	98,041	413
	Senegal	89,440	1,972
	Malawi	89,168	2,686
	Kyrgyzstan	88,953	1,024
	Ivory Coast	88,434	835
	Suriname	82,525	1,406
	New Caledonia	80,203	314
	French Polynesia	79,451	650
	Guyana	75,784	1,312
	Eswatini	75,356	1,427
	Belize	71,499	688
	Fiji	69,047	885
	Madagascar	68,853	1,428
	Jersey	66,391	161
	Cabo Verde	64,550	417
	Sudan	63,993	5,046
	Mauritania	63,891	997
	Bhutan	62,961	21
	Syria	57,423	3,163
	Burundi	54,569	15
	Guam	52,287	419
	Seychelles	51,899	172
	Gabon	49,069	307
	Andorra	48,015	159
	Papua New Guinea	46,864	670
	Curaçao	45,883	305
	Aruba	44,224	292
	Tanzania	43,655	846
	Mayotte	42,027	187
	Togo	39,564	290
	Bahamas	39,127	849
	Guinea	38,594	468
	Isle of Man	38,008	116
	Lesotho	36,140	709
	Guernsey	35,326	67
	Haiti	34,979	860
	Faroe Islands	34,658	28
	Mali	33,236	743
	Federated States of Micronesia	31,765	65
	Cayman Islands	31,472	37
	Saint Lucia	30,254	410
	Benin	28,036	163
	Somalia	27,334	1,361
	Solomon Islands	25,954	199
	United States Virgin Islands	25,389	132
	San Marino	25,292	126
	Republic of the Congo	25,234	389
	Timor-Leste	23,460	138
	Burkina Faso	22,231	400
	Liechtenstein	21,649	89
	Gibraltar	20,550	113
	Grenada	19,693	238
	South Sudan	18,873	147
	Bermuda	18,860	165
	Tajikistan	17,786	125
	Monaco	17,181	67
	Equatorial Guinea	17,130	183
	Samoa	17,057	31
	Tonga	16,992	13
	Nicaragua	16,877	245
	Marshall Islands	16,297	17
	Dominica	16,047	74
	Djibouti	15,690	189
	Central African Republic	15,493	113
	Northern Mariana Islands	14,985	41
	Gambia	12,627	372
	Collectivity of Saint Martin	12,324	46
	Vanuatu	12,019	14
	Greenland	11,971	21
	Yemen	11,945	2,159
	Caribbean Netherlands	11,922	41
	Sint Maarten	11,051	92
	Eritrea	10,189	103
	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	9,674	124
	Guinea-Bissau	9,614	177
	Niger	9,591	315
	Comoros	9,109	161
	Antigua and Barbuda	9,106	146
	American Samoa	8,359	34
	Liberia	8,090	294
	Sierra Leone	7,985	126
	Chad	7,702	194
	British Virgin Islands	7,661	64
	Cook Islands	7,375	2
	Turks and Caicos Islands	6,935	41
	Sao Tome and Principe	6,771	80
	Saint Kitts and Nevis	6,607	46
	Palau	6,372	10
	Saint Barthélemy	5,507	5
	Nauru	5,393	1
	Kiribati	5,085	24
	Anguilla	3,904	12
	Wallis and Futuna	3,760	9
	Macau	3,514	121
	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	3,426	2
	Tuvalu	2,943	1
	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	2,166	0
	Falkland Islands	1,923	0
	Montserrat	1,403	8
	Niue	1,092	0
	Tokelau	80	0
	Vatican City	26	0
	Pitcairn Islands	4	0
	Turkmenistan	0	0
	North Korea	0	0
[a] Countries which do not report data for a column are not included in that column's world total. [b] Data on member states of the European Union are individually listed, but are also summed here for convenience. They are not double-counted in world totals. [c] Does not include special administrative regions (Hong Kong and Macau) or Taiwan.

Close

Please update {{2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and {{2019 coronavirus pandemic map}} as needed.

1 confirmed infection in Germany (Bavaria)

Official statement by the Bavarian Ministry of Health: https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmaßnahmen-laufen/ 77.183.92.215 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

URL changed: https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmassnahmen-laufen/ 77.183.92.215 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

Acording to this: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, Ivory Coast seem to be infected. Can we list them to the template? Neutrinium 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus case on Brazil confirmed by Health Ministry

Here's the link^[2] for the news containing the info, would anyone kindly add it to the article? 200.233.220.204 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.233.220.204 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, only says that the Brazilian authorities are investigating a suspect case. Rgps (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

UAE

The case reported in UAE is a case of an entire family of four members. According to our criteria of recording individuals, this counts as 4 cases, not 1. https://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302819592 --137.132.213.135 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Japan 8th cases

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09201.html Xinjapanpon (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Woman in 40s. She worked as a bus attendance in Japan with the bus driver diagnosed as 7th case. 2nd indigenous case in Japan. Xinjapanpon (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Yug (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2009 has {{2009 swine flu}}. Let's go for {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}} {{2019-nCoV}}. We indeed start to have enough sub-article to start such panel as well. And it's pretty sure we will need more sub-article in coming months.

{{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}} Yug (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We can start populating the template with individual country sections from the other sub articles on the various countries' cases and responses. robertsky (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes ! We need to redirect the lively flow of editors to the right sub-articles. This will help ! Yug (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Erm... Just realised... There is already one... Template:2019-nCoV robertsky (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Greate ! Merge coming ! Yug (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done! Let's spread and improve {{2019-nCoV}}. :D Yug (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Yug (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, everyone!

I just wanted to tell you that I'm available to translate information from English>Portuguese and Portuguese>English [more slowly than EN>PT].

Also, I have been putting information and links about the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak on my portuguese user page, you may check it here and use it freely of course: Usuário(a):FranciscoMMartins/Rascunhos.

Because I have just registered my account yesterday I cannot edit this article, either in the English or Portuguese version. But I am indeed interested in collaborating with both Wikipedia communities :)

Keep up the good work and have a nice day! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @FranciscoMMartins: the section #Geographic diffusion could be an easy start to translate. Do you want to give it a try ? Only the text as of now, it's good enough for a newbie ;).

First, check if the portuguese wikipedia article needs this section. If it does, then translate it there pt:User:FranciscoMMartins/2019-20 Wuhan virus ;) Yug (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! @Yug: You are awesome! I have only been editing on Wikipedia for two days but the feedback has been only good and from super nice users :) I shall do it as you say, I'll check with the community on the portuguese wikipedia if the the above stated section is relevant to it or not. While it is discussed I'll be translating the text on the page you created for me. Thank you very much Yug, have a good day! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead paragraph says the case fatality rate of this is 2.2% whereas the link to the John Hopkins website says (at the time of writing) that 132 have died and 110 have recovered. This looks like a case fatality rate of 55%. What’s going on here? Mike Young (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC) CFR is deaths/confirmed. 146.88.44.13 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CFR is deaths/confirmed cases.JuanTamad (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page [Case Fatality Rate] says “for example: Assume 9 deaths among 100 people in a community all diagnosed with the same disease. This means that among the 100 people formally diagnosed with the disease, 9 died and 91 recovered. The CFR, therefore, would be 9%. If some of the cases have not yet resolved (either died or recovered) at the time of analysis, this could lead to bias in estimating the CFR.”

Is this wrong? What term do I use for the probability of surviving if you get the disease?

If your definition is correct, then I think it needs explaining. It makes people think they have a 2.2% chance of death if they get the disease when they have a 55% chance. This is a big deal. Mike Young (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

not a simple calculation early in an epidemic. On Wikipedia, report estimates from reliable sources I’d say. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707560/ JuanTamad (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mike, you're on the right track, but the piece that is missing is that the 100/9/91 example means that the outbreak is over -- all 100 have been sorted into the "recovered" or "died" bin. Right now we have, roughly, 110 recovered, 132 died, and like 6,000 "don't know yet". Lots of the older cases are still sick, hence not "recovered" but are not in serious condition, so I believe they are included in the denominator for the fatality rate, so the rate does accurately answer the question "What are the average chances for someone with a new case?" Hope that helps... cheers Chris vLS (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Problematic political wording in the second lede paragraph - "including in every province of China except Tibet". Last I heard, Tibet's political status was still a matter of controversy. My suggestion for rewording is not nearly as informative, but I will toss out as an alternative "almost entirely within greater China." And, if you do want a specific mention of Tibet, then add "Tibet is not currently affected." This avoids an outright declaration of Tibet as a province of China, but also does not negate it. (Viruses don't respect politics, but debatable political situations don't usually vanish because of viruses.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree 173.200.98.210 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

not needed but... Some may not like it, but Tibet is in the health administration of China. To avoid loss of information but yet not be too verbose, instead of "except" use "but not": "including in every province of China but not Tibet". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary and the discussed sentence doesn't seem provocative in any case to warrant bringing up such a discussion. However, in any case, Tibet is an internationally recognized political province of China.1 For a comparison, Catalonia doesn't similarly require having such caveat considerations despite its own secession movements having been far more topical in recent years, as its nonetheless a political component of Spain. Sleath56 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's start by saying that very technically, "Tibet Autonomous Region" is not synonymous with Tibet, or with what China considers to be Chinese Tibet. The size differences are significant ... which is specifically relevant for its use in the lede and something we will want to pay attention to in the references as new epidemic updates become available.

When considering exact wording of a Tibetan location, international opinion of Tibet's status becomes relevant. Since we are English-language WP, we might want to keep in mind that there are more English-language speakers in India than in the US and UK combined. Given the active Tibet-related border issues between China and India, this is one place where we do want to be careful with NPOV.

Catalonia is not the question here, because it is not directly connected (via three rail transfers not requiring international visas) to ground zero of a new epidemic. Comparing Catalonia with Tibet, technical "autonomy" notwithstanding, is rather like comparing apples and oranges.

(Slight historical digression) For one thing, according to the International Commission of Jurists, Tibet was independent between 1912 and 1951, before China invaded with troops in 1950 and followed up with actions which fit all the textbook definitions of genocide and continue to raise questions of human rights. (No Crimea-style referendum here.) For another, the UK-India/China border disputes involving Tibet still have not been resolved. (India and China ended up in open war over this in 1962.) For a third, there is no Tibetan document acknowledging Chinese authority more recent than after the Chinese invasion of 1950-51. (The broader mess goes back to the 13th century.) For a fourth, a previous Chinese government signed documents agreeing that Tibet would never become a province of China. (Granted, before WW1 (1912), but the same document continues to be at the core of the India-China border dispute to this day.) In fact, India has currently completely backtracked on its earlier (1952-2003) agreement that Tibet was Chinese, and will no longer say that Tibet is part of China. In contrast, both the US and the UK officially agree with China on this matter, although actual US actions have often been mixed. Nearly all of this has occurred within a single lifetime of where we stand today; two lifetimes if we include the original UK negotiations. (end digression)

While Catalonia's issues deserve their own mention in their own way, again, they are not relevant *here*. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A moot point, as Tibet has now been reported to have a confirmed case. "Authorities in China also reported the first case of the Wuhan virus in Tibet, previously the only region to have avoided the virus. "1 Sleath56 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to the current version of the lede. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep politics out of this, please. This is a disease outbreak. Not politics. If the Chinese and world health organizations are reporting Tibet as part of China, then this article should follow them.--Eostrix (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You might want to think about that statement a bit more. When citing reliable sources, it is important to consider exactly what those sources are reliable for. This is not one-size-fits-all, nor is it an either-or. It is entirely possible for a source to be considered absolutely reliable in one field but not another. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In the subsection Concerns of Underreporting, the reference for the second line currently has a tag for ′failed verification′. The line in question is: "Many of those experiencing symptoms may decide to self-quarantine at home instead of going to a hospital due to long wait-times and cramped conditions." I think the an additional, stronger source could be: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html This NYT article mentions underreporting, then goes into the more detail: "Relatives of patients say that some hospitals, strapped for resources as they deal with an influx of patients, are turning sick people away or refusing to test them for the coronavirus." It doesn't fully speak to the claim, but it might get us closer. The only issue with this source is that the article is no longer available (unless a subscriber). I checked for an archived copy using the Wayback Machine, but there doesn't appear to be any captures that reflect the current version of the article (but there are a number of captures). SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suspected case in Denmark: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/dansk-patient-undersoeges-for-coronavirus-havde-vaeret-i-udbruddets-epicenter 188.228.48.155 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: false positive Goldsztajn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I found those :

• Gisandata map : here
• BNOnews tables : Tracking coronavirus: Map, data and timeline Nickayane99 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh god, this is a nice catch. I report it to the team working to keep this data up to date on {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}}. Thank you Nickayane99 ! Yug (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi just reporting that Template of the 2019 coronavirus, in Geographic distribution section of the article is missing Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template.BigRed606 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

BigRed606, can you tell us more ? are you on mobile ? Can you put a screenshot somewhere online and share the link ? Yug (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://share.icloud.com/photos/06Bu7NCDBlfwAdKpicGbFudbQ BigRed606 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• https://share.icloud.com/photos/0neZ-Zh73mLX-9LwQlwvhv3vgBigRed606 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Compared to Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World https://share.icloud.com/photos/0pAr8gzpbZFrQ3-TPw2ytFyxwBigRed606 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh snap ! Can someone debug that {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}} wikitable ?? It's 1 am here I go to bed. Thank you BigRed606 ! Yug (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a class which doesn't display in mobile because navboxes are omitted there. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The way we currently calculate fatality rate is very wrong. We are using current death to the confirmed case count. Confirmed case aren't in same state of progress, somes of them could be infected since 1 day, other since 20 days.

Fatality rate should be calculated from people dead vs (dead+Recovered) but this would also give bad rate (63,85 % Fatality Rate for 106 / 166.). Actually, fatality rate can only be calculated if we have a good way to be sure of the total quantity of infected and quantity of death wich we can't have.

I suggest Fatality rate to be removed untill the epidemy is ended. --Eric1212 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with removing the "Fatality %" column from the cases chart. It's too early to get a reasonable estimate by doing simple division. However, I would support including estimates of the fatality rate in the article that have prepared by professional researchers, the WHO, etc. who are looking at this more closely. Professionals can plausibly have enough details about case progression to make useful estimates of the mortality rate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Dragons flight. Tezakhiago (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed it from the template. The true fatality rate will take a long time to emerge, and the method being used in the table is flawed and borderline OR --Charsum (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not "borderline" completly OR. Fatality rates need to be calculated with the total cases, not only the CONFIRMED cases, based of severe symptoms and whether or not you come from Wuhan. There is still no evidence to even say that the fatality rate is any different from other coronavirus. 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Charsum. The suspected fatality rate must be stated (we cannot claim there is no fatality rate) but very discrete as of now, since it is really not reliable with only one-month-old epidemic and the bulk of cases still in hospital. And there is no reason to showcast it all around in table for each country. Yug (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, we can't calculate it from the numbers of infections and deaths, at least not in today's situation. Removed from the body also. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Data from total infected chart is not possible. Thailand has 1,000+ China has 7,000+ but the total written is only 7,792 76.78.225.140 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source for the Thailand number you suggest. The table says 14. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect vandalism by 75.140.174.50. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Confirmed cases > Hong Kong section there is a video file from China News Service titled 'File:香港确诊两宗新型肺炎个案 机场火车站加强体温筛查.webm'. It's enough to take a glance at the lead of the China News Service article to see that it's a PRC state owned media company run by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Why does Wikipedia relay propaganda content from a media outlet of an authoritarian party? I understand that the Creative Commons license is enticing enough to grab every piece of content from the Internet, but where is the critical approach? This is highly questionable, especially when Wikipedia is very critical about which US news sources it accepts are reliable/trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved the content because it appeared to be a report about the cases diagnosed in Hong Kong. I don't speak Chinese, and posted a note on the Chinese talk page of this article asking anyone who can to provide captions for the video so that it can be translated and understood by others. My intent was not to propagandize. If the report is not of value, or counter to value, please remove it from the article. I did say the source of the news report in the thumbnail under the video so that it is clear who had produced it. Victor Grigas (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting this upfront: I understand, read and write Chinese, as a byproduct of the education policies of Singapore. I am a Singapore citizen and have no affiliations to China. I have watched the video. The content is purely a news piece on how populace in Hong Kong is dealing with the onset of the virus in the society: More people are putting masks on; Station crew disinfecting the areas where a suspected infected was moving about; Measures which authorities have adopted to detect suspected cases, i.e. temperature screening at arrivals; People comparing this to SARS and previous epidemics, and them saying that lessons learned will be apply for this event; Some also expressed confidence in the Hong Kong government in the dealing of this matter; How masks are being sold out at pharmacies and where there are stocks, there is a markup of prices with about HKD30 increase in the prices for masks. If there are propaganda in here, I would say that it is simply portraying how optimistic the Hong Kong residents are at this early stage of epidemic (in the Hong Kong society) in dealing with the virus. robertsky (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what we need: someone who knows the territory. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not this particular video is factual or not doesnt really speak to the larger point that China News Service cant be used as a citation for anything other than the opinion of the Government of China. Its not anywhere near a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a reliability discussion about Chinese news sources in general, and there was no consensus that they should or should not be a reliable source. At this point, in my opinion, CNS can be used as a source, but we editors, especially those who can read Chinese, would have to help to see if the article referenced is a factual piece, or a propaganda spin. robertsky (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The question asked there was "Are Chinese state media sources like Global Times, People's Daily, China Daily, Xinhua News Agency, China Central Television or China Global Television Network reliable sources on the Chinese government perspective?” which is a lower standard than general reliability. There is consensus Chinese sources are unreliable because they have no editorial independence and therefore cant ever be WP:RS, if you think you can make an argument for China News Service having editorial independence go ahead and make it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And where states the consensus? robertsky (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I provide anything of the sort, you however are required to demonstrate that China News Service is a WP:RS if you want to include it as proposed. As I said before good luck establishing editorial independence as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, you provided no proof of consensus. I am merely interested in the prior discussion(s), if any.robertsky (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes and I’m trying to tell you how these conversations all end rather than searching for a hundred different conversations all over wikipedia, establishing editorial independence is the massive stumbling block they all come to. Generally a local consenus is made to simply find WP:RS for the information (generally not too hard) or to limit Chinese state media to attributed statements about the government (for instance information about a new law). Perhaps in this case information about government actions vis-a-vis the virus should be permitted but not the random interviews. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As WP:QUESTIONABLE states, those sources suspected of such can still have limited use, despite them being potentially biased or partisan. If the source discussed here satisfies Verifiability, as Chinese-literate editors have attested above, the use of it to cite an innocuous fact falls within those guidelines. To clarify, the only sources that will be subject to blanket editorial prohibitions are those discussed in the RfC on deprecation or on the spam blacklists. With others, guidelines follow WP:RSP on applicability. Sleath56 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

robertsky has *not* attested that the source satisfies WP:VERIFY although they have argued in favor of using the source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My position is clear. The source can be used. I do not get the argument that because it is owned by the Chinese government, it is not reliable. By that logic, most, if not all of the Singapore media being used as sources should be subjected to the same position, but we have been using them throughout Wikipedia. Why the discrepancy? Because the Chinese media is in Chinese while most of the Singapore publications are in English and editors can't understand the Chinese articles? robertsky (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The logic has little to do with the state owned part, outlets such as the BBC are WP:RS. The difference is the state media of Singapore has a reputation for fact checking and some degree of independence. Media in China doesn't have either and is regular used to spread misinformation and propaganda. Seriously, just peruse Media in China, Propaganda in China, and United Front Work Department (the group directly in control of the media company in question here) and see if you can see were all these other editors are coming from. I am also correct that you have yet to attest that CNS satisfies WP:VERIFY’s very specific criteria, your position is currently based entirely on personal opinion rather than policy or guidelines. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I also note that yes in some situations using a Mediacorp owned paper for an objective take on a controversial Singaporean topic might not be appropriate. For a good general metric of how much undue state influence there is in a country’s media landscape check the Press Freedom Index which Singapore scores reasonable poorly on but on which China scores much much worse. Above only Eritrea, North Korea, and Turkmenistan in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)