Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

RfC on map of infected cases

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus to replace the "Greater China" map and that a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. Jabo-er, the discussion starter, proposed a map of mainland China as the replacement, while Furfur proposed a map of the PRC (i.e. Mainland China + Hong Kong + Macau) ten days later. All editors who supported replacement have either expressed their view on which of the two maps they prefer, or been notified of the new option. There is slightly greater preference for the map of mainland China, though supporters of replacement generally state they are fine with either. feminist (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Which is better, a map of Greater China or a map of Mainland China?--Jabo-er (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per discussions above (#Image of Map and #Greater China map), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096.

User:Ratherous kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak.

• 
• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to give your arguments rather than attacking a blocked sockpuppet. That would be more productive to the discussion. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your second map has already violated NPOV as stated in #Image of Map: Indian controlled disputed land is in exactly the color of India in that map while PRC-administrated disputed land are in a different shaded color, thus unbalanced.

For the issue you mentioned, Greater China has no such ambiguity - few people (I've never heard any) would call South Korea a part of Greater China. Please give some source about the ambiguity you mentioned. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Indian controlled dispute land - the updated map is neutral on this part now. Thank you for pointing it out. On the other hand, since "Mainland China" is in the table of confirmed cases, readers can refer to a Mainland China map for a breakdown by provinces in Mainland China, where most cases are reported. A map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan does not serve a clear purpose here, because "Greater China" is a coined term that serves economic and cultural purposes. If a map of all infected areas is expected, then a map of East Asia ( Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan + Thailand + Vietnam + South Korea + Nepal) would be preferred over one excluding some countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No one can explain why a map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan (but not + Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam) makes sense. It is only here because no one else has produced a more proper one.

Sadly, I have also removed File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.gif, which is itself a very good animation, for violating NPOV as it depicts Taiwan as part of China rather than a claimed territory. On the other hand, counting the cases by province in Mainland but by the whole country of Taiwan is an inappropriate comparison - only the infected Taiwanese cities (Taipei, Kaohsiung; first-level administrative division in Taiwan) should be coloured.

• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the reason why Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW makes more sense than Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam is the former four all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. While Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam don't have that property. If you are so enthusiastic, you can actually make a map of Novorossiya + Northern Cyprus + Islamic State + Saharawi + Somaliland, but it simply doesn't make sense. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• • That is only true about TW. Macau and HK do not claim to be all China, only Taiwan does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabo-er (talk • contribs)
    • Macau and HK do claim to be China. They don't necessarily claim to be the only part of China or the representative of China. They just claim to be China. For instance, you claim to be human doesn't mean you claim to be the entire human race. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• How about a map of "East Asia", including the subdivisions of Chinese provinces (or other national subdivisions) depending on the data available? This would bypass the territorial NPOV issue. A viral epidemic doesn't care much about territorial claims: it's enough for one carrier to pass a border and propagate the infection. Boud (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map I would go for either a map of China broken down by province and a map of East Asia or just a map of China broken down by province. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The animated map in question does not even mention China, it is merely a colored version of an existing Wikimedia Commons map (standard/latest go-to blank province map of China) and has been restored. It took a lot of work to produce and does not make any political suggestions. prat (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please be advised that the original map had Taiwan drawn in a different outline color. This was not visible under the previous coloring. With the new coloring (see image talk page) as requested, it is more visible. I believe this matter can now be fully put to rest. prat (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Dear prat, I really appreciate the great effort that you have made in creating and updating the animation and taking actions in response to feedbacks — despite the inappropriately threatening tone in the message you left on my talk page. I hope more Wikipedians can work to resolve disputes like what you did. That said, I still propose a map of Mainland China by province or a map of East Asia would be more relevant and NPOV choices that bypass the irrelevant territorial disputes, as User:Boud suggested above, and look forward to a community consensus on this issue. --Jabo-er (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Including Taiwan violates NPOV. Ythlev (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map remove File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.webm as it is POV (like why does the PRC map also show Taiwan without any explanation?) It also doesn't serve a purpose as the grouping is arbitrary. For statistical purposes, mainland China is represented separately with provincial level number. I prefer having one map of mainland China (divided by provinces) and another map of the standard world/territories with numbers in each.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is: Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thats wrong in so many different ways... At this point your contributions are starting to feel more tendentious than here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would you please point out in which way is that wrong? It is just a routine universal practice applied by the international communities, such as sovereign states, international organizations, etc. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Your practice, by separating all provinces of China, sounds also good. But that needs major works to be done. However, separating all provinces sounds a bit China centered, as the only other practice I've found is maps published in the US which separated all US states by treating them equal as sovereign states. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is relevant as it has the highest cases and is the origin. For the rest, a world map with country/territory is sufficient. On Wikipedia, we follow how major news reports are reporting it (like maps at [1]). The term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It's not useful for defining geographical boundaries.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @DreamLinker: All "major media" you quoted are from the western bloc, which has the tradition that media can draw their map against their governmental stance, thus doesn't reflect the fact that all governments, such as the Holy See, considers these four area the same state. Also, please kindly show any reliable source for your claim "the term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I used the map from Singaporean media which is not in the "western bloc"(which was a cold war thing anyway?). "Greater China" is a political term for a geographical area whose definition varies. Like some people consider Singapore to be part of Greater China. Others don't. Even our Wikipedia article mentions this. So there is no point in using it because (1) It is not a well defined country/territory and (2) It's geographical area is ambiguous. On the other hand, we have clear definitions of Mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan, which we use.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is probably more relevant as long as this is mainly in PRC and Taiwan is de-facto governed separately. But I don't think either way is a big issue, if there is a better map (up to date, graphics) with or without Taiwan with a license, then inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan is a minor issue in relation to the map being up to date. I also suspect a China specific won't be relevant for long as this is spreading world wide and fast.--Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder what the detailed Wikipedia policy about de facto governance: is Northern Cyprus included in a Greater Cyprus map? Is Islamic State drawn differently from Syria? Could you please quote the corresponding Wikipedia policy concerning this issue? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is. But even if there is policy for geopolitical issues, I don't think it is relevant for health and epidemics. Viruses don't respect borders. We should be illustrating on a map according to what demonstrates the epidemic best. If Taiwan is part of the epidemic and illustrates the point, it should be in. But the same is true for North or South Korea. Xizang (Tibet) so far has been so far not so affected, so inclusion on the map is not so important. This is about health and people, not politics.--Eostrix (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Eostrix: If you really considered geopolitical issues are irrelevant, you wouldn't ask for a mainland China map instead of a greater China map, as virus doesn't care the geographic borders what's the point to exclude Taiwan from it? For North and South Korea it's a totally different issue, as both side recognize the other side to be a UN member on Sept. 17, 1991. Before that date, they were one country as recognized by the world, as all states in the world recognized one and only one of them to be the representative of Korea, until 1991. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions – the underlying locus of this dispute is the political bias that is brought by the choice to use Greater China rather than Mainland China, which could imply endorsement of the PRC's territorial claims over Taiwan. Using a map of East Asia would not require that much of a zoom-out and would retain the benefit of also knowing what's happening in Taiwan. Jancarcu (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This whole discussion is nonsense. First, if the concern is Taiwan NPOV, then fix the reference map I reached for when creating the visualization on commons instead of hassling people who are contributing to current articles with high levels of effort. Second, it appears there is already a consensus in that design to render Taiwan differently, a difference which is visible on the current version of the animation after the colors were enhanced. Third, the map doesn't say anything about being China, it's just a square-looking area around the epicenter. The frame of reference is the caption, which currently reads "... in China" but did not yesterday. That is a quick fix. prat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Can you post the map you used as a reference? Its entirely possible you just started with a bad map. You have to be careful with images on commons as they aren’t required to meet high standards of accuracy or verifiability. On a side note given that the map's title is "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China” saying that the only place "being China" is mentioned is in the caption is disingenuous. The description also states "Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading across China from 2020-01-25.” Wouldn’t you have written both those things yourself? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  I am sure Dear prat, a long-contributing Wikipedian and an administrator, will understand the discussion here serves the purpose of improving the article in respect of the Neutral Point of View policy. Nothing in the discussion so far is intended to undermine the contribution of you and other fellow Wikipedians either here or on Commons. First, File:China blank province map.svg is not a bad map. It's useful when showing administrative divisions in PRC's point of view with its claimed territories shown differently, but in an article of the epidemic, an NPOV and more relevant approach would be to show a map of Mainland China broken down by province, as "Mainland China" is a statistical unit of the infected cases. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide the link of such a consensus either here or on Commons for us to refer to, as the folks commenting here appear to provide some useful thoughts that can contribute to the consensus. Third, the filename "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China" is implicative, so is the fact that it's a square-looking area around the epicenter that excludes many countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions Absolutely Agreed. Please also note that all daily statistics released by the Chinese Health commission ( http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtm ) also include Taiwan and those Taiwanese figures need to be excised from the China overall total which is released daily at that location. First we need a proper map though. Wikimucker (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map. Replace with: Mainland China excluding Taiwan; or replace with a map of South-East Asia, including other countries in the region. -Mardus /talk 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Replace or relabel the map as East Asia. This prevents any unnecessary political rhetoric warring on Wikipedia. Additionally this virus has now spread well beyond China at this point with notable cases in Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Krazytea(talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China or broader region (i.e. East Asia). There is no such country as "Greater China" and the coupling of Taiwan with the PRC seems to be POV-pushing. Citobun (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China as current map does not respect npov (for Taiwan) and is even non-POLA (for colored parts in India claimed by China). Fleet ch (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The India part is rendered with lighter colours to show disputed territories. Being widely accepted by the Wikipedia community (see China. India, Ukraine, and Russia), it should be nowhere surprising and doesn't violate WP:POLA. Akira CA (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep the map with Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as part of China by the United Nations. And apparently, Wikipedia treated Crimea as part of Ukraine in all maps, despite the fact that Crimea is not under Ukrainian control, as did in the cases of Moldova/Transnistria and Georgia/Abkhazia. We should not have double-standard here. Taekhosong (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• UPDATE. Someone has removed the map. This is ridiculous. I have asked for the commons file to be renamed without the word 'China'. The open source code that generates the map now uses the term 'greater china regions' instead of 'province'. Can we put this political crap to bed now, please. prat (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the 'China' mention in the caption, and in the description on both the GIF and WEBM versions of the media, and restored the animation. prat (talk)

Still has Taiwan as part of the PRC though. If you want to insist on using this map just take Taiwan out and the political crap ends immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The reason why a map of PRC should be included is that it has 98.50% of current cases. If Taiwan's 0.11% of world cases should be included, it may as well be a world map.50.237.218.250 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is currently no mention of the PRC, China or any toponym whatsoever. I have again reverted someone else's caption change to yet again remove the word China. This does not assert anything and is therefore NPOV. prat (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but thats ridiculous, this would be *extremely* confusing to viewers. I note that there is clear consensus to make it a map of East Asia and/or a map of China, this map is neither. What is it a map of? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You just intentionally side-stepped Pratyeka's argument, with nakedly bad faith that is characteristic of your "discussion" style. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Chiang Kai-shek on Daqiu in Wuqiu, Kinmen with a map of China

I think it's time to assume good faith. Horse Eye Jack's argument is defensible because even though the map does not mention the word "China" and has undergone stylistic adjustments to increase neutrality, the map's overall shape still looks like the chicken-shaped territory claimed by the PRC, complete with Taiwan as the second drumstick. Jancarcu (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Greater China includes the Outer Mongolia region, hence I have added a mention that the map excludes Mongolia to this page. cf. the picture of Chiang Kai-shek and his map on Wuqiu Island in Kinmen on the Greater China page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Without even mentioning the case of Taiwan, it is, to say the least, "surprising" to see, on this map, coloured regions on the territory of India... It's totally non-npov. Fleet ch (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Singapore is considered part of Greater China by some as well, hence it could be a valid candidate for inclusion in this map.

some analysts see the Greater China concept as a way to summarise ‘the linkages among the fair-flung international Chinese community’, thereby incorporating Singapore and overseas Chinese communities in their usage of the term (Harding 1993, 660; also see Wang 1993).[2]

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative Your statement is divorced from reality. Singapore is not considered by any reliable metric a part of the Sinosphere, let alone a part of the geographically contiguous "Greater China" bloc, which strictly refers to territories historically under the fold of the Chinese imperial state and its later republics. If Singapore is a part of the Sinosphere, then so are Malaysia and Indonesia by virtue of having large ethnic Chinese populations. Your insistence on pushing ethnonationalistic agendas on other articles has been a cause for concern with other editors, and this statement of yours does not inspire confidence in your ability to remain an NPOV editor on Wikipedia. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map with one of the People's Republic of China, showing the territory they actually control. There is no country called Greater China, and it is incredibly annoying seeing the stupid "disputed" tag on the map for more than a week. If the current map is used, "... in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan" is a neutral discription. But an article about a disease is not the place for disputes about the political status of the island of Taiwan, neither is it the place to try to force through terminology that noone uses IRL. Wikipedia is made for its readers, not its editors. And the man on the street will refer to these areas as the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep map, either with caption to state "across Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan", or none at all per Pratyeka. The definition of mainland China is not contested anywhere, and its usage is mandated by relevant naming conventions. The issues with South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh that Fleet ch are tertiary to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is the current status, there is no need to do anything. I consider this issue resolved. prat (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map This map needs to be replaced. It’s absolutely taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province. If this were a political neutral map of “Greater China”, the map should include Singapore and the Republic of China’s administrative divisions, to make it uniform with the PRC’s provinces. Taiwan/ROC does not have provinces, but instead counties and major municipal divisions that should have been included on a non-political map. It needs to be clear that the Chinese government does not and cannot represent the people of Taiwan, like some might assume with this map. Eclipsed830 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Eclipsed830 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Replace map with map of mainland China. The reason there is a map for China next to the world map is the much higher density of cases in China, with 98.6% of all cases. The "China" concept that makes the most sense in that reasoning is the PRC-controlled "mainland China". The caption should say "mainland China"; Taiwan should be gray. (Note that China has 60 times the population of Taiwan and 1000 times as many 2019-nCoV cases.) Danstronger (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Replace map Current version is misleading. --Irony of prudent premise (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Misleading and violate NPOV to include Taiwan, as is using "Greater China" since it is not a country, introducing it would be an attempt to add an extra dimension to the article where it is not needed nor appropriate. Hzh (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of discussion and actions to date

A concern was raised regarding NPOV because Taiwan was not visually distinct from China in the original map. This has been resolved by changing the map colors. Taiwan is now visually distinct, as with other disputed areas. Subsequently, in addition, the following actions have been taken: remove any mention of China from the caption, remove any mention of China from the file name, remove any mention of China from the file description, rename variables and files in the generating software from 'provinces' to 'greater-china-regions'. This has been a substantial effort. The current situation is that there is no suggestion, implied or otherwise, about Taiwan's relationship to China. The true reason it is included in the current animation is simply that the map I sought on Wikimedia Commons had it included (as with other disputed areas), and that the data source had it included. I am not going to put in any more effort to remove Taiwan, since it would (a) reduce the information conveyed; and (b) waste more time. I consider this discussion concluded. Please close the RFC. prat (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian region claimed by China, is colored in this map. It is not Mainland China, not Hong Kong, not Macau, and not Taiwan. Moreover, this light green colour does not correspond to anything in the legend. 165.225.95.70 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was done to make Taiwan visually distinct. It still varies by shades of pink like other provinces of the PRC. --haha169 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The outline was made lighter; it's a somewhat subtle difference. Jancarcu (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it took me a minute to see it and I knew what I was looking for. Hard to imagine that a casual observer would catch on to the fact that there are multiple countries depicted on the map. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Which map are you talking about? I see the animated map in the lead and the China map next to the world map on the "areas affected" section. Both maps have Taiwan colored in the same scheme as Chinese provinces. I've cleared my cache. --haha169 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You’re gonna laugh when you see it, [3] zoom in on Taiwan and then look at the borders (you have to zoom in, its basically impossible to see otherwise)... Taiwan’s borders are medium gray and China’s borders are dark gray. Obviously it still implies a relationship even if the border is a different shade of gray, I’m kind of at a loss at to where prat is coming from. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for pointing that out to me. But still, the fact that the island still flashes pink at times is ridiculous; besides, the island shouldn't even be in the map in the first place. I don't think any impartial observer would consider this map to address the concerns brought up in this RfC. --haha169 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Replace map (I am talking about the static map, the above "Summary of discussion and actions to date" is a personal summary by user:Pratyeka): I count much more "replace" than "keep". I would support a new map, without Arunachal Pradesh in India and without Taiwan. These territories can well be depicted as "claimed by the PRC" but not colorized as if they were actually party of the PRC. The current map tries to promote a biased view, which I find truely unacceptable for an epidemiological map. I could create and upload the new map. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the scoping that you laid out Furfur. Would you be able to make a map, that would be very helpful! --haha169 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Replace map. Agreed with User:Furfur. Fleet ch (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep map. I don't think Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan violates NPOV, since Mainland China is defined without controversy. Peterwu2019 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter, your argument doesn't make any sense. Mainland China is defined without any controversy, so why does that mean Taiwan can be included in the map without controversy? The basics of the matter is, Taiwan is included in a map of the epicenter of the disease (China) without being a part of China or having any significantly more number of cases than other neighboring East Asian countries that would merit its inclusion --haha169 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

PRC and ROC claim each other, so including Taiwan can't be a problem, I think.. So I'm not certain. Maybe replacement can be a way to fit NPOV. But other These territorial disputes are really a problem. Welcome to share your ideas again. thanks. @Haha169 Peterwu2019 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is also problematic because certain locations claimed by the PRC on the mainland, like Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, are actually controlled or claimed by India. Furthermore, the choice to include Taiwan could imply an important link between Taiwan and China to an inappropriate extent.Jancarcu (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, realistically the only way I can think of to make a map that fits NPOV is one that uses the boundaries of the actual controlled territories of the PRC. There are two maps that need to be changed. --haha169 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Land area that is outside PRC control should be treated the same otherwise it is pushing a particular POV. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Ozcloudwarrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Number of 2019-nCoV cases

  0–9

  10–99

  100–499

  500–999

  1000–9999

  >10.000

I have uploaded a new map without Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and the small border areas in Himachal Pradesh, all claimed by the PRC. The map includes a new color scheme (with >10.000 cases). Please feel free to discuss it and to make suggestions for improvements. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This map looks good to me! I support replacing the current one with Fufur's map. The next question is what to do with the animated one. --haha169 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Good map, I strongly support the replacement. Personally, I consider it preferable to completely remove the dashed borders of both Aksai Chin (claimed by India) and Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China), because this information has nothing to do with the coronavirus epidemic. Fleet ch (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support replacement with this map. It covers the areas where the PRC exercises sovereignty and not others, and so reflects the areas covered by the statistics being reported by the PRC government. I approve of the dashed lines along the lines of control in the contested areas: That is NPOV and reflects the political reality. EMS | Talk 17:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Very clear and informative, thank you for taking the time to improve the map. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support replacement Furfur’s map reflects the real truth.Xiaoxuang (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support replacement Furfur’s map looks good to me also, I strongly support replacing the current map with this version. 82.34.69.170 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment:. As a Chinese mainlander,I feel quite frustrated by the comments above, although I am OK with both versions. I will not vote this time, but there is something I hope you can reconsider.

It seems most of you guys assume that the picture maker, who, as far as I know, is a quite low-key contributor who have never involved into any NPOV conflict so far in Chinese Wikipedia community, has certain intention to imply Taiwan as part of China. I am afraid of whether I will also suffer from the discrimination like here, that is, if I did something "wrong", I would be criticized by the community for something what they think I were up for, even if I am doing something with a good will, especially when you notice that I am from China.

The allegations here are not so true to me, as the notion of Greater China is like a long-time convention in Chinese Wikipedia as a way to temporarily settle down the controversy. Few really consider Singapore as part of the concept, since it is too faraway and quite different. I am skeptical about the preconception that English speakers have much more knowledge and wisdom than Chinese speakers over the issues related to China and Taiwan, two Chinese speaking regions. I hardly saw a problem like this in Chinese Wikipedia, as people in both regions have to respect each other's claims, although they disagree with each other, as one of our NPOV rules requires.

I also doubt whether this opposition of the use of Greater China could last long, as there are many Chinese contributors, who are not at all included in this talk, will still be uploading maps with the Greater China template as a convention. I do not believe English Wikipedia has people who are so knowledgeable and enthusiastic about all China-related topics that they can draw all the maps on their own, or else they might have to adapt every map related to China in case of any NPOV controversy. I believe it could be a sort of censorship if you keep removing China-related maps with the excuse of NPOV. This could hinder the knowledge sharing cross-Wikipedia.

Insisting on the point that Taiwan is totally not part of China may drag Wikipedia into the same neutrality problems that London School of Economics was facing last year over the sculpture of The World Turned Upside Down, where Taiwan and China were colored differently and there is no Palestine State. In the LSE case, students finally agree to redraw the map according to the UN's version. But you might be just lucky this time, because there is not as many Chinese students as at LSE here, but in the long run, the neutrality of Wikipedia could be undermined if we keep ignoring the thoughts and voices from Chinese-speaking communities. They have their claims and China has its own claims like India and Taiwan, which should not be a truth too hard to be respected.

Sorry, I cannot make really quick response here, as I will be busy these days. Hope you can read this through and consider my humble two bits. --34Unionist (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You misremember the The World Turned Upside Down (sculpture) conflict, LSE decided not to alter the colors of countries on the globe and added an asterick and a plaque to explain the conflict. I think you will find if you look at reliable reports of the incident that the attempt by Chinese students (who were opposed by students of all nationalities, not just Taiwanese) at LSE to quash artistic freedom is remembered as an example of overseas censorship of Chinese issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@34Unionist: There are two things wrong with the original map that has been identified that really should not be controversial at all. First -- the fact that Arunachal Pradesh is colored is confusing to an average viewer on the first glance. This is not a question of China's land borders, it is a simple fact that Arunachal Pradesh did not report any cases on the state level, so any color is misleading. The new map that Furfur created acknowledged the disputed territory using a dashed line, so this is NPOV.

Secondly, regarding Taiwan. There is no land border so it is difficult to fix the problem the same way as above by using dashed lines. However, the fact remains that the coronavirus has up to now been primarily an epidemic in Mainland China and not in Taiwan. So from a scoping perspective, there is no good reason to include Taiwan.

原图有两个主要错误，实际上根本不应该引起争议。首先，原图中的阿鲁纳恰尔邦是黄色的，意味着阿鲁纳恰尔邦报告了州／省一级的病毒病例数据，实际上没有这种事，因此任何颜色都具有误导性。Fufur提供的新地图使用虚线确认了有争议的领土，这就复合了NPOV规定。第二，台湾这个问题。大陆和台湾中间没有陆地边界，因此很难通过虚线以与上述相同的方式解决。但是，新型冠状病毒到目前为止主要是在中国大陆的流行病，而在台湾目前还是控制住了。因此，从范围界定的角度来看，真的没有好理由把台湾包括在内。--haha169 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha169: I agree that if I am to draw such a map, I will try to be less controversial as possible, but this does not mean that I can ask others to comply with my rules and more importantly, this also does not mean that if they do not comply with what I believe, they have some "unpleasant/hideous" intention, which is a serious accusation that could be discriminative against those from China and related regions. I 100% agree with Furfur's proposal but I just feel uncomfortable about the implication about "some intention" behind the map.

Second, I said I am OK with both maps, but I doubt English Wikipedia community can continuously rule out the Greater China maps, as they are widely used in and beyond Wikipedia. Also, in this article, a great number of figures are made by Chinese Wikipedia users. Assuming they have some intention and rejecting their figures also blocks the information sharing cross-Wikipedia. Not many English users can read Chinese papers and websites and make enough maps to replace the Greater China maps. Rejecting Greater China maps is fundamentally a censorship that blocks free expression. Also, please note that in the original map, the color of controversial land is already different from the color of Chinese provinces. Nobody disrespects Indian or Taiwanese claims, so both the lands are separate from Chinese provinces, rather than, as China claims, part of some province, or else there should be no different colors and no McMahon Line that China does not admit at all.

Third, NPOV is not a censorship that restricts free speech of the people. So, this is why we even allows pseudoscience and fringe theories that are hated by many to have an entry, where we also describe their controversies. About this, thanks for Horse Eye Jack pointing out my mistake about LSE, we can also describe the controversy with an ariel sticker. I think using different colored, and drawing borders that China does not admit already make the map neutral enough, unless the community wants to hold further stances over the ambiguity of ownerships, which in Chinese Wikipedia, we have a clear rule to remain silent on. I really doubt the idea you think you are wiser and more knowledgeable than the Chinese community about these issues and can make a decision for them about their countries. We can solve this problem with an ariel sticker, possibly more explanation, instead of censorship, so why do we need to pretend to have made a decision for an issue that is unsettled and highly controversial?34Unionist (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Furfur's picture successfully solved the first problem (territorial disputes with India). The main problem is whether Taiwan and mainland should be seen as a whole. In this epidemic, Taiwan can't be the part of epicenter, so the important point is whether it should be put alongside with mainland, Hong Kong and Macau. Considering the epicenter, it should be a map showing mainland China, and that's my suggestion. Peterwu2019 (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Ythlev, DreamLinker, Mardus, Krazytea, Citobun, Valentinian, Danstronger, and Hzh: Do you support a map of mainland China or a map of the People's Republic of China (i.e. mainland China + SARs)? feminist (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No strong preference between the two, but leaning toward replacing with a map of mainland China, since the numbers for HK and Macau are reported separately, by separate governments, and are shown separately in the table of cases that appears beside the maps. Citobun (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Lean towards PRC, including the SARs, in which case the caption can simply say "2019-nCoV cases in China". (I hadn't realized "mainland China" excludes the SARs.) Incidentally, I would love to see this map replaced as soon as possible, regardless of how these details are decided. The current pink Taiwan, convoluted caption, and disputed tag are an eyesore, and the consensus for "replace" above seems very strong. Danstronger (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Replacement has already been a consensus, so it should be enforced. Peterwu2019 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not against the consensus here, instead I am happy that you can have discussion over the long-debating issue. But I just want to remind you that hate, conjecture of an evil plot, or any other kind of personal feelings should not be used an excuse to rule out other opinions or expressions. Everything could be an eyesore, including Israel to Muslim radicals, but here in Wikipedia, we should have tolerance to these eyesores no matter whether we like it or not. As far as I am concerned, any act to ignore them will not last long. The point I make here is that the original map should be tolerated, although not the best. Also, to remind Furfur (talk · contribs), please color Hong Kong and Macao gray, if you are to draw a map of mainland China.--34Unionist (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have tried my best to avoid what you say, and really, after the discussion, I changed my mind. It's our pride to make here better. Thank you. Peterwu2019 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually I thought about this a bit more and changed my mind: I think excluding the SARs and saying "mainland China" is probably best. Taking a closer look at how NPOV principle is implemented in the first paragraph and first map of China, it seems the most elegant and NPOV thing to do here is to just say "mainland China" and exclude the SARs, so we have a map of a relatively well-defined area. (I also agree with Citobun's argument above.) Danstronger (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer a map of Mainland China (excluding the 2 SARs) as it is the most relevant here. The outbreak is centred in Mainland China and the reporting authority of provincial level data, is actually responsible for the mainland provinces (and not the SARs, whose data is reported by their respective authorities). Restricting it to Mainland China and provincial level numbers is consistent with the data source and also avoids any NPOV problems.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with either mainland China or PRC. The concern is about including Taiwan, not Hong Kong or Macao, which are not particularly noticeable. The one presented here where Taiwan is greyed-out is acceptable. Hzh (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Repalce the "Greater China" one with "mainland China" Also to remind that excluding Taiwan from China threatens NPOV to the same extent as including it, English Wikipedia should adopt a principle of keeping silent on this (like Chinese Wikipedia) to avoid related disputes. Also, @Furfur: I personally prefer the color scheme of 董辰兴's map (current map). Akira CA (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• The map can include the Taiwan cases whether or not Taiwan is independent country.--hoising (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per response request by @Feminist:: Replace with Mainland China only, per arguments by User:Citobun. Additional maps may be created, that would include all the countries and territories in the map. -Mardus /talk 15:35, 8 February 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.

Further clarification about animated map depicting Greater China

The RfC was concluded with saying that There is a clear consensus to replace the "Greater China" map and that a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. However another version of the map exists in the infobox which does the same (lumping Taiwan along with Mainland China, HK, Macau and reporting for all). I removed the map, but was reverted saying "RfC on map of infected cases" is not about the animated map, which already rendered Taiwan differently and treated China-controlled Aksai Chin & India-controlled Arunachal Pradesh equally for NPOV. Any queries plz launch another RfC". Actually this is not true, because Taiwan is not rendered separately and the data for Taiwan is reported alongside Chinese provincial level data. I would request User:Feminist to clarify this point about the closure.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It is, compare it with Hainan and you'll see the difference, the color and the border line are diluted. Actually this has been done twice! Please be advised that the original map had Taiwan drawn in a different outline color. This was not visible under the previous coloring. With the new coloring (see image talk page) as requested, it is more visible. I believe this matter can now be fully put to rest. Akira CA (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As was discussed above by multiple editors the difference is between light and dark grey outlines and can only be discerned when an editor has booth zoomed in and been informed about what exactly to look for. For functional purposes both maps have the exact same NPOV issue. You appear to be beating a dead horse. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

While the RfC was not started with a focus on the animated map, consensus exists that a map combining the PRC and Taiwan but not including other territories is inappropriate on this article. Absent any consensus that the animated map depicting Greater China should be an exception to this rule, the animated map should be removed. Any editors wishing for the animated Greater China map to be reinstated may start a new discussion to seek consensus to do so. feminist (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Feminist: The consensus to replace the Greater China map with a Mainland China one doesn't apply straightforward to delete the animated map. While the Greater China map treats Taiwan exactly the same like Hainan Province (which violates the NPOV I assume), the animated map by User:Pratyeka has already rendered Taiwan to make it visually distinct. Moreover, it treats China-controlled Aksai Chin & India-controlled Arunachal Pradesh equally (with grey color doesn't change with Tibet/Xinjiang) so does not violates NPOV. Deleting the map need consensus, not keeping it. Quoting the consensus on replacing another map to delete this much more NPOV map sounds like slippery slope. Akira CA (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, there does not exist a consensus to replace the Greater China map with a Mainland China one. There is a consensus to replace the Greater China map with something else (either the PRC map or the mainland China map). Those who supported replacement almost universally supported their !vote by noting that a map combining Taiwan with the PRC violates NPOV. In other words, there exists consensus that a map combining Taiwan with the PRC violates NPOV. feminist (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no, it's not about a map combining Taiwan with the PRC violates NPOV but taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province and imposing the identity of "Greater China" on Taiwanese people. With the rendered Taiwan in this animated map there is no such concern. Indeed The animated map in question does not even mention China. The NPOV disputes on South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh is also resolved. It is much more beneficial to include this informative yet NPOV animation in the article than removing it. Akira CA (talk)

The purpose of this discussion is to determine the consensus reached within the RfC and whether it applies to the animated map, not to re-litigate whether the map is appropriate or not. feminist (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate purpose of the consensus is to determine whether the map is appropriate or not, so if there is a good reason to include it why not? Akira CA (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, although the focus of the RfC was not the animated map, among those who discussed it, there exists consensus (between Jabo-er, Horse Eye Jack, DreamLinker, Fleet ch, Geographyinitiative, and Haha169) that it violates NPOV, versus those who think it does not (Pratyeka and Akira CA). feminist (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

False, CaradhrasAiguo, Taekhosong, 173.68.165.114 also think it does not, and some of Geographyinitiative's argument is considered to be divorced from reality by Tiger7253. Akira CA (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hence I noted this as "in addition" to the consensus already reached that a map combining figures from the PRC and Taiwan, or one that highlights PRC subdivisions but not Taiwan's, violates NPOV. None of the three editors you mentioned make any express reference to the animated map, so their opinions are no more relevant in this context than those who supported replacement of the static map but did not comment on the animated map. feminist (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to attempt resolving the dispute. feminist (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Akira CA (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

On a separate note, the animated map is neither NPOV nor factually correct. Some points regarding the map. It is important to remember that the map is showing data reported by PRC (Source data for map [4])

1. Aksai Chin is greyed out which is incorrect. Sure, it is disputed by India, however the territory is actually under PRC control and they are correctly reporting data for it. The map should reflect the cases in that region. It should be coloured (the disputed border should be shown using dotted lines. However the territory should not be greyed out)
2. Arunachal Pradesh is greyed out and disputed borders shown using dotted lines (which is correct because it is disputed territory not under PRC control and so PRC cannot report data from Arunachal Pradesh)
3. Taiwan is coloured which is incorrect. It should be greyed out since it is disputed territory not under PRC control and PRC cannot report data from there. (Usingh [5] as the source data for Taiwan is incorrect)

The issue here is not only NPOV, but also the factual issue of the data. In any case, the consensus in the RfC was clear that a map grouping Taiwan with PRC violates NPOV for this article.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your claims fails completely as the source of the map is not published by the PRC government but a non governmental organization. It also publishes international cases so PRC cannot report data from there doesn't matter. Akira CA (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no indication that DXY.cn is a NGO. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-governmental organizations (also known as NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, or nongovernment organizations) are organizations independent of any government. And there is no indication of any link with any government here DXY.cn. Akira CA (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes thats a goof description of an NGO, however using circular logic to then call DXY.cn an NGO is bad. Again, I see no indication that DXY.cn is an NGO. However Tencent holding a stake would be a strong indicator that they are not one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Using circular logic is bad, and accusing others for circular logic while using circular logic oneself is even worse. Tencent is a multinational conglomerate holding company, not a government department so can't be the indicator of non NGO. Indeed it only indicates you didn't find any government holdings of DXY. Akira CA (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that all organizations not under state control are NGOs, that is simply not true. In general the term is only applied to non-profits with either charitable or social goals, many WP:RS even apply further restriction on the use of the term. The point about Tencent is that Tencent is a for-profit enterprise, it would be almost unheard of for a for-profit enterprise to hold an ownership stake in a non-profit enterprise. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You contradict your own words Yes thats a goof description of an NGO, which gives the clear definition of NGO as organizations independent of any government. Your above speech is simply fallacy of irrelevance. Akira CA (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NGOs are organizations independent of any government, however not all organizations independent of any government are NGOs. Coca-Cola for instance is an organizations independent of any government yet it is not an NGO. Do you understand now? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Definition implies necessity and sufficiency, and the definition of the term non-governmental organization according to Cambridge Dictionary is An organization that tries to achieve social or political aims but is not controlled by a government. DXY falls into this category, and whether it is for-profit or not is irrelavent. Again, research (or do high school math) before commenting on something you unfamiliar with. Akira CA (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-governmental organizations (also known as NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, or nongovernment organizations) are organizations independent of any government. They are usually non-profit and many are active in humanitarian or social areas; however, NGOs can also be lobby groups for corporations, such as the World Economic Forum. (from Non-governmental organizations) Dude you appear to be beating a dead horse too. Akira CA (talk)

Please do not repeatedly insult me, I haven’t done the same to you. As I must continue to assume good faith I will play ball with whichever definition you choose to cite. You have presented no sources to suggest that DXY "tries to achieve social or political aims” but you may do so now if you wish to. Your choice of bolding confuses me, are you arguing that DXY is a lobby group? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SCMP calls them a "medical networking platform” and a “firm.” No mention of them being an NGO[6]. Technode calls them a online medical giant and says they’re a purely commercial enterprise, to the point that they operate cosmetic medicine spas. Again there is no mention of them being a NGO[7]. TechCrunch notes that they are also known as the Ting Ting Group and calls them a "healthcare company”. Again zero mention of them being a NGO[8]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith is bad, and assuming others has assumed bad faith to you is even worse. My words are intended to discuss the issue better and none of them appear to be insulting you. For DXY, your source decribes it as an online social networking service for China’s physicians and medical professionals, which is a social aim (building an online networking for specific groups of people), which, according to Cambridge Dictionary, classified it as a NGO. To a separate point, my bold is intended to refute your "If for-profit, then not NGO". Akira CA (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I notice we're off the track too far. I suggest to stop this endless discussion irrelevant to the current article. Akira CA (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Again, research (or do high school math) before commenting on something you unfamiliar with.” is highly insulting, especially as you used a whole edit to insert (or do high school math) gratuitously. I’m not assuming bad faith of you or assuming that you aren’t assuming good faith about me. Just FYI lobby groups are non-profit, I think you’re confusing them with lobbying firms which are for profit. I don’t think we’re off track, you just appear to be confused about what a few different words mean. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Feeling like being insulted is highly a personal matter, different from the clearly defined WP:PA. Essentially I don't think mentioning high school math here is any kind of insult. lobby groups are non-profit could you give me where this come from? Thanks for your information tough. Akira CA (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that even lobby groups are non-profit, they are sometimes held by corporations and are still NGOs. So your accusation that "DXY held by Tencent and therefore not a NGO" is invalid. In fact, according to Encyclopædia Britannica some NGOs are for-profit corporations themselves. Akira CA (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Corporations can be *members* of a lobbying group but it would be odd (in many countries illegal) for one to hold a stake in one. The fact that they have to mention that some are for-profit corporations should tell you that the vast majority aren’t. Until you have a source saying DXY is a NGO you’re not really going to get anywhere debating the definition of NGO. All you have to do is provide one source that calls DXY a NGO (or anything even close), I’ve provided three which describe DXY in such a way as would preclude them being an NGO. The line in Brittanica before the one you quoted is "Nongovernmental organization (NGO), voluntary group of individuals or organizations, usually not affiliated with any government, that is formed to provide services or to advocate a public policy.” which DXY/Ting Ting Group as a for-profit conglomerate focused on the healthcare industry does not appear to fulfill. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I pointed out multiple issues with the map which did you didn't address so my claims don't "completely fail". Oh it seems DXY.cn is an online community of Physicians in mainland China, (not Taiwan) and it is partially owned by Tencent. In any case this means the reliability of the data is questionable since it is not even coming from the government. All the more reason to remove this map as it is not reliable then.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

1. The replies for NPOV are on below. 2. Why owned by Tencent make the data questionable? Are you imposing a biased view towards mainland Chinese Physician community? They simply look up news for updating their numbers, not much difference from BNO news. Whatever, shall we use WHO situation reports? Akira CA (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

We use government health authority reports as authoritative primary sources such as [9], [10], [11]. If a reliable news website (with editorial board) is aggregating those reports it can be used as a secondary source as well. However this website is an online community for Doctors (not sure about the editorial oversight) so I don't consider it necessarily reliable--DreamLinker (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

They do have editorial board, here. Akira CA (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you’re trying to make an argument for reliability I think it would be more helpful to start an entry at WP:RSN. The key problem we’re going to run into is that it would be a crime under anti-succession law for a Chinese organization to publish a map which did not include Taiwan as part of China. Heck it would even appear to be against the law to support such a map on a digital encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand you point, the law is irrelavent to the discussion. Akira CA (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

To talk about NPOV, I've already said it's not about a map combining Taiwan with the PRC violates NPOV but taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province and imposing the identity of "Greater China" on Taiwanese people., and yet this map does not even mention China. PRC + Taiwan clearly implies Taiwan is apart from PRC, how could it threaten NPOV? Akira CA (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have questions about NPOV review the section above this one, the NPOV issue is certainly well addressed and a consensus has been reached on it. You might also consider reading WP:NPOV so you have a better understanding of what wikipedia means by neutral point of view. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And what I am quoting—taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province—was from the discussion above and yet this map is not doing so as it does not even mention China. Also, if you don't have the ability to quote what wikipedia means by neutral point of view and illustrate the problem in my interpretation, it's better for you not to mention it. Akira CA (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is what the map depicts. It depicts the progress of the disease in the PRC and provides provincial level numbers. So the issue here is why are we including and reporting the numbers for Taiwan as well in the PRC? Also maps are supposed to be well defined, hence the RfC. If we are including Taiwan here then I might ask why are excluding Japan in this map. What is the criterion for inclusion in this map?--DreamLinker (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The criterion could be what's included in "Table 1. Confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease reported by provinces, regions and cities in China" in WHO situational report, which is the most relavent and authoritative source to the article. Akira CA (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have to mention China to strongly imply that Taiwan and China are one country, this has been explained to you before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19′:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply ROC and PRC are one country but only a relationship (your words), and there is a relationship. WHO and UN set Taiwan as a part of China straightforward while BNO News doesn't list it as "international", all these aspects make Taiwan distinct from Japan, whose sovereign is widely acknoledged by the international community. Ignoring all these factors and comparing PRC-ROC relationship with PRC-Japan relationship to remove the map is false analogy and itself a POV. Completely adopting PRC's viewpoint is POV and the map already addressed it with a different color scheme for Taiwan. It's NPOV enough, so what's the point for removal? Akira CA (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely bro? I'm begging you to readWP:NPOV just once. I also think you’re confusing me with DreamLinker, I never mentioned Japan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed it again and noticed you circumvent WHO and UN, which are considered reliable sources on the issue and count as majority. Clearly your views on the political status of Taiwan put UNDUE weight to the article. Akira CA (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not possible for the views of an editor to "put undue weight to the article.” I think you fundamentally misunderstand WP:UNDUE. What majority are you referring to? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", and removing maps contain significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources contradicts WP:UNDUE. Akira CA (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliability has never been established for the source. A search of WP:RSN for it brings up no results and I see few of the key indications of reliability. As I said before the proper course of action if you would like to claim that the source is reliable (a claim I am contesting) is to make a post on the reliable sources noticeboard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And yet the WHO situation reports include Taiwan as part of the China. So reason for removing the map won't be WP:NPOV but WP:VER, the map is NPOV itself. Akira CA (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Like I explained before, on English Wikipedia, China = PRC and this seems to have been the consensus. Saying "Table 1. Confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease reported by provinces, regions and cities in China" would mean "Table 1. Confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease reported by provinces, regions and cities in PRC". Including Taiwan as part of PRC would violate NPOV.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not on English Wikipedia but WHO situation report. As you've stated (the policy is) Because most English media use China to mean PRC and Taiwan to mean ROC. While I don't necessarily agree, based on the current English Wikipedia rules (reliable sources in English media) I also find it hard to argue against it., question rises when reliable sources suggest China ≠ PRC. Akira CA (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal

The map was again silently removed. First someone added China related words again 'Greater China', then it was removed. Someone who cares can dig through and find the culprit(s). I have put in so much effort to make the map in good faith, it's clearly the most interesting and relevant image for the layperson to explain the situation (and translates very well). The continued removal is such a shame. Honestly, the degree of random political groups mucking with Wikipedia has now exceeded totally pathetic. People are dying. It's a global health emergency. Let people see what is going on. Forget politics, which were not part of the creation of the resource. prat (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not the "most interesting and relevant image for the layperson to explain the situation” NPOV issues aside its average at best. I understand that you are working in good faith, but part of working in good faith is accepting when the consensus is against you as it is here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

There is neither a NPOV issue nor a consensus against you, stop making something out of nothing. Akira CA (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You are warned to WP:AGF and not to deny consensus after the close of an RfC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Additions to response section

Recovered from archive at: 1

@FobTown: Missed your previous comment as the section here was archived. I think overall, we've arrived at a largely agreeable view on the section as the material contentions of it are very minor. I do have some points of order. Note that Mackenzie's comments are already within the #Criticism section and that I've removed it from here due to duplicative entries. The UN diplomat's opinion isn't largely notable because of WP:DUE DUE and more especially because it's an anonymous source. Additionally, the flow of the section is fine as is. My edits are to maintain chronological flow as this is an ongoing event and its the most neutral way to display the section. Reordering them otherwise leads to potential WP:SYNTHESIS and makes it difficult to incorporate new entries. I would have liked to put the censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang after the 30 January Supreme Court entry per chronology, but the current form of the section which in my view should be de-editorialized makes it difficult to excise. Sleath56 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

In the last paragraph of the introduction, reference or mention the recent cover of the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which states "Made in China".

References:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2020-02-01/fears-of-new-virus-trigger-anti-china-sentiment-worldwide

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1178220.shtml

It might also fit in the 8.4 Disinformation section of the article. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The SD Tribune barely mentions it, and I wouldn't think anything with a .cn address is reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this reliable enough then : http://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2020/6/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Still  Not done. I probably wasn't clear with my reasoning. The point I wanted to get across is that this isn't noteworthy enough to include in the article. The only independent, reliable source you've provided was the SD Tribune, which is barely a passing mention. If someone discusses Der Spiegel's coverage in significant detail, then maybe it could be added, but I don't know what your request does to improve the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the explanation. I thought you were making two points: one about the mere mention of it in the SD Tribune article, and the other about the non reliability of sources ending with .cn, and that you came to the "not done" conclusion specifically because of the combination of the two, not because of various cumulative reasons.

I had never thought about non reliability by default of Chinese media but I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia rules about credibility of news sources. I would have taken it not to be a matter of personal preferences, though. EDIT: there happens to be a lot of sources in this article ending in .cn, so it is not clear which ones should be considered independent and reliable, and which ones shouldn't. I am setting the request back to not answered until this point can be clarified. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:845B:9490:1929:437 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There seemed to be a case to include content about racist reactions and smearing of China in this article, so I suggested to possibly add the Spiegel "Made in china" cover. I agree that the cover itself has not been "covered in significant detail" yet though it has been mentioned in at leat one independent, reliable source, and possibly two, which still needs clarification. - 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis's explanation remains true: Despite the cover image, unless other WP:RS make a significant mention of it, it is not notable enough for inclusion. Please refrain from altering the "answered" parameter unless you have new sources to bring forward. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead presently has near the end Xenophobia and racism against people of Chinese and East Asian descent has arisen as a result of the outbreak, with fear and hostility occurring in several countries.[43][44][45][46]. The lead is already very long, and this sentence in the lead quite clearly says that xenophobia has arisen and points the reader to the main article on the topic in this context. New content can be added to that article in an appropriate place. Boud (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Three points from me. First, I agree in general with the comments and explanations made by other editors here, and I think Boud in particular points out that the fact of xenophobia based on this outbreak actually already is being given prominence through inclusion in the lead. Second, I think there is a argument to be made for a subsection giving a brief overview on said xenophobia (probably under "Impacts" at the end of the article) - as I've pointed out below though, I won't be doing that, at least not in the next couple days - sorry (you might try opening a new edit request making my point - or sign up, and come aboard this somewhat questionable enterprise, and go for it yourself :P).

Finally, and I'm not trying to come to "Der Spiegels" defence here, but my interpretation of the image / title+subtitle combination is that "Made in China" here primarily stands for Globalisation, with the fact that virus originated in a Chinese city obviously being an intended point as well, but not as in "The virus that China produced/ unleashed on the world". But I can understand that you and others take issue with it as well! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a section on it, best organized under #Impact or #Reactions, as its notable enough in coverage by RS to warrant equivalent treatment here to the topic of #Disinformation which also has a sub-section (and also a spinoff article too apparently as per today). Sleath56 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times is state-sponsored propaganda. It is in WP:RSP, so it is a no-go. Pancho507 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Death Rate By Region

The death rate is being reported at 2% but death rate is a lagging indicator. Example Wuhan the source of the infection should be the most accurate when calculating death rate. Here we have CoronaVirus Death Rate running at 4.11% on 478 dead from 11,618 cases. This is a very large and oldest sample size and is larger than the sample size that was used on SARS and various other infectious diseases. Without being alarming I think at minimum we should report death rate by Region as many regions are not reporting any deaths. https://ncov.dxy.cn/ncovh5/view/pneumonia 104.158.189.50 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) There are a large number of regions reporting zero or very few deaths. Some have over 1000 cases. This maybe impacting the overall number artificially bringing the death rate down. Of the first 99 patients who had the virus 11 died. This is 11% fatality rate. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.41.87.7 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about death rate recently, and you have very many complicating factors (some of which you point out). To point out the three I think are most relevant (no published basis for this, just my own reasoning):

• Typically with infectious diseases, as an epidemic grows, the lethality goes down. This is due to the fact that the most virulent strains are killing their hosts so quickly that they can't infect that many people (vs longer lasting and "under the radar" lesser sypmtom variants). (So you typically have selection for less lethal variants - evolution at work!)
• Lethality is not a direct function of virulence of the pathogen, but the virulence in combination with the treatment that is provided (to be precise, and the state of the immune system / general pre-infection health of patients as well). For the most extreme contrast, in Wuhan the health system is obviously overwhelmed. I think its fair to assume that patients are not being provided optimal care/treatment. In pretty much all the other countries with cases, you have just a handful, or at most a couple dozen cases requiring treatment (hardly a strain on the health systems), and that treatment is therefore likely close to the optimum. So you see how this might contribute to the different lethality rates reported for within Wuhan/Hubei vs the rest of China / rest of the world.
• As the death rate is basiclly "overall number of cases" / "number of case deaths", its heavily dependent on the number of cases reported. Again, in Wuhan, there are likely to be many cases that have not been diagnosed (plus of course, the asymtomatic cases!) (balancing this to an extent is that the number of deaths is likely also underreported...). In many other countries, after non-Chinese nationals were brought by their governments to the country they are citizens of, they were quarantined and / or tested for the virus, and so even asymtomatic cases were registered! (This has been pointed out elsewhere on this talk page I think).

Ok, so much for my thinking for now - hope that's helpful! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We wikipedia editors don't calculate the death rate ourselves, for a few reasons. First, it is not as simple as just dividing 478 deaths by 11,000 cases. Some of those cases are too recent to be included in the denominator. Calculating the death rate requires looking at cohorts who have had the disease the same about of time. There are other complications as well. Most importantly, however, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. We present the consensus as found in reliable sources. If you find published sources with a higher death rate, we should think about how to include them. Chris vLS (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's an article https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20203 I just stumbled over that talks about the different death rates that have been calculated, and some of the reasons for why that may be so (some overlap with my second and third points). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

How are we determining that the mortality rate is less than 10% or 2% or whatever. The 41 case lancet study showed 15% mortality but more importantly, most cases were still hospitalized (i.e. undetermined). The 99 case and 138 case studies show lower mortality, but again the same massive caveat applies. If we look at mortality from a resolved case point of view, then are we not looking at 910/(9190+3323 recoveries) = 21%? Gegu0284 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations out of control

Virtually every sentence in this article has a citation tagged to the end of it, which makes for a less than pleasant reading experience.

Is there any way we can consolidate some of these citations to the end of paragraphs, rather than at the end of every sentence?

Also, perhaps we can minimize the citations in the introduction, as much of the introduction information is often repeated later in other sections and then is cited again. See the intro for Donald Trump as an example of what I’m talking about. Ganymede94 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:INTEGRITY, citations should be placed close to the material they support (i.e. at the end of sentences). Reducing citations in the lead could be possible though. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. Also, in this era of fake news, and with a subject filled with paranoia, misinformation, and erroneous assumptions, all of which can be easily transmitted through widespread, fast and convenient internet access without risk of social suicide caused by being glued to a device for hours on end, i have this feeling that lots of citations are necessary to reveal and spread the truth. Pancho507 (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The citations in the lead can be trimmed considerably - citations there are generally not necessary since the lead is meant to be summary of what's already in the article. Within the body of article itself, it is possible to bundle citations, but not practicable for now since the situation is fluid (people are still adding/removing/adjusting content heavily), so citations after the sentence is preferable. I would however suggest trimming citations where there are too many of them after a single sentence per WP:OVERCITE. There is one sentence supported by 9 citations, and that is excessive. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Nine citations for a single sentence is almost certainly overcitation. But in general I agree with @Darylgolden and Pancho507:: compression of citations has to be done carefully, so that the burden on the reader who wishes to check claimed facts against references is not increased. Sometimes overzealous citation compressors make changes with the result that the claimed facts are no longer justified in the revised text, or the reader is forced to read through several citations because they're all bunched together. As for the lead, unless there is broad consensus to de-reference it like in the Trump case, I don't think that would be wise. The sentences in a summary can generally be supported by repeat references that summarise well. In any case, anyone willing to compress references seriously in the lead should preferably do it in small enough steps that others can agree/disagree with/fix individual edits. Boud (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this has never come up on WP before, but may I propose that if the number of citations on individual sentences is becoming overwhelming, then a new feature could be implemented that will default to hiding long sequences of citations, with a little box that can be clicked for readers interested in viewing them.
This would be in the same spirit as the [show]/[hide] 'links' that are sometimes used on certain sections (e.g. mathematical proofs, theoretical justifications, some information boxes) on WP already. Probably there's not really any reason to implement a 'hide' feature.

This would look something like the following:

DEFAULT: "This virus was first publicly reported on by Xi^[11]. Since that initial report, international agencies have produced numerous reports and other updates^{[show citations]}.

EXPANDED: "This virus was first publicly reported on by Xi^[11]. Since that initial report, international agencies have produced numerous reports and other updates^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]}.

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

You can currently list multiple sources under one citation tag. That's one approach we can do now. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Unconfirmed deaths in North Korea

DailyNK reports that according to internal sources, five people in the Sinuiju area have died from disease with symptoms similar to those of NCoV. The reports are unconfirmed, is this worth mentioning somehow? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

i believe that we should wait for more reliable and trustworthy news sources to pick it up and confirm it. Pancho507 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The closed nature of the country means that it's unlikely to ever get official confirmation though. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tourbillon:Idk then. Has a version in korean, and source has its own wikipedia article so maybe it should be added. I don't want to have someone remove it though, because daily NK is the only available source. BTW, the daily NK wikipedia article seems to have an italicized name, so wikilinks don't work. Pancho507 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pancho507: I’m disagree, DailyNK is a South Korean pro-US newspaper, so maybe the information about North Korea is a propaganda published by the US. We should wait for WHO or UN reports. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DailyNK is in South Korea all right, but it's being run by people who fled from North Korea, and as far as I know, is not financed by the Republic of Korea government, but through donations. Wanting to be free is universal, not 'pro-US'. -Mardus /talk 23:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Night Lantern: has removed the confirmed status for the DPRK from the map, and I would concur - any and all South Korean sources are pure anti-Korean propaganda - it is relevant here because North Koreans seem to be rising from the "dead" quite often.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: The reason I revert my edit can be seen on Trung talkpage. Thanks.  Ṉight Ḻantern ^🏮 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

How are people recovering if there is no vaccine or medical drug available for this virus yet. I'm really confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.185.38 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The same way they get over the flu or other infection. The body's immune system learns to recognize the disease and counter it.

—WWoods (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The mortality rate for this coronavirus is below 10%, and people do have an immune system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A new table for cases outside China

The number of cases outside of China (not mainland) seem to be doubling every day. I think it would be interesting to see how this compares to cases in China, where it seems like infection rates are greatly slowing down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, i've noticed it too. but i haven't seen a single news article about it so it would require original research. BTW, In China, authorities are taking drastic measures like breaking mahjong tables and forcibly kicking people out of their homes, to put them under quarantine. Pancho507 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine vs. travel restrictions vs. outdoor restrictions?

The lead section has a total of people under "travel restrictions". There is a table of cities under "quarantine" that just includes Hubei cities. And there is a set of cities with "outdoor restrictions." I have questions...

• Is there a clear difference between the three? Is not being allowed to go outside except once per two days really different from a quarantine?
• How should we summarize them in the lead?
• Should the tables be combined?

Thanks Chris vLS (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. so what i have understood is: Quarantine: stay indoors, and avoid contact with others, Travel restrictions: the general public is banned from using private vehicles like cars and motorbikes, and you should only get out of your home if you need to see a doctor or if you absolutely need to buy groceries, and Outdoor restrictions: the general public is prohibited from congregating in parks, funerals are shortened, you have time limits on how long you can stay outdoors. hope this helps. Pancho507 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

update deaths

chart says one figure - yet total does not equal that. Please update chinese figure so it does. Deaths section says less than chart. Can these be made a rolling update? John Hopkins says 813: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and if we took it directly from here would be more updated and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

More of it: Total recoveries is 2736, which summaries from the regions and countries that is followed below as of now in same site.

• Hubei, Mainland China: 1447
• Zhejiang, Mainland China: 185
• Hunan, Mainland China: 164
• Henan, Mainland China: 136
• Guangdong, Mainland China: 126
• Jiangxi, Mainland China: 72
• Anhui, Mainland China: 68
• Jiangsu, Mainland China: 61
• Sichuam, Mainland China: 60
• Shandong, Mainland China: 51
• Shanghai, Mainland China: 44
• Chongqing, Mainland China: 39
• Beijing, Mainland China: 37
• Hebei, Mainland China: 30
• Fujian, Mainland China: 26
• Shaanxi, Mainland China: 25
• Shanxi, Mainland China: 21
• Guangxi, Mainland China: 18
• Yunnan, Mainland China: 17
• Hainan, Mainland China: 15
• Gansu, Mainland China: 13
• Heilongjiang, Mainland China: 13
• Ninxia, Mainland China: 13
• Liaoning, Mainland China: 8
• Guizhou, Mainland China: 7
• Inner Mongolia, Mainland China: 5
• Jilin, Mainland China: 5
• Tianjin, Mainland China: 4
• Qinghai, Mainland China: 3
• Macau, China: 1
• Taiwan, The separated chinese region: 1

I included only Taiwan as a other country/region in this list of recovered chinese regions. They really need to update it thought. But they are updated deaths already, so i have to place it here anyway if someone want it. 91.207.170.251 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Same problem again TABLE updated, but Deaths section not - whoever updates can you do BOTH at the same time??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar

Can the article please be edited to remove incorrect references to "the coronavirus". It is often wrongly treated in the general media as though the virus is called "Corona", so that we would erroneously talk about a "Corona virus and a Measles virus".

The summary is that "coronavirus" should be used grammatically in the same way as "influenza" or "measles".

CORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the corona virus."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of corona."

CORRECT: "There has been a coronavirus/measles outbreak."

CORRECT: "Many people are concerned about the coronavirus/measles outbreak." (Used attributively.)

CORRECT: "The influenza/measles virus is quite contagious."
CORRECT: "The coronavirus virus is quite contagious." (Although it sounds sounds weird.)

Inserting "novel" doesn't change the above rules.

Current examples of incorrect grammar in the article include:

• "Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus has led the WHO to declare an "infodemic" on 2 February.[45]"
• "Chinese scientists were able to isolate a strain of the coronavirus "
• "social media posts deemed to hold negative tones about the coronavirus"
• "The CDC has directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to check individuals for symptoms of the coronavirus."
• "Jinyintan Hospital had initially been tasked with treating those with the coronavirus."
• "On 30 January, US President Donald Trump received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China."

And so on.

Exception: incorrect grammar (or spelling) within quotations should generally be retained. For example:
"US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People" on 24 January 2020 on Twitter, stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency" and declaring that "It will all work out well."[391]" (Emphasis added.)
Other options are to edit the text explicitly, or to add a note:
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain [coronavirus].""
or
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus [sic].""

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Another exception is if the strain/type of coronavirus has been specified earlier in the text.

Example:

CORRECT: "The Spanish laboratory cultured specimens obtained from a dozen patients, from which five viruses were identified, including coronavirus and measles. The coronavirus [that was cultured in that laboratory] was found to be killed by disinfectants X and Y."

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

This article should reflect common usage by reliable sources. So, we have The Hague as a non-standard usage of "the" and if usage regarding this virus also uses "the", then so should Wikipedia. We should not be grammar pedants. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your bikeshedding superpowers are awesome. Well done. 79.75.103.145 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

PRC Government issues new name for the virus

N.C.P. - Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia

There has been reports that the PRC Government has coined a new name for the virus. However, an official name has yet to be chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.

NYT Coronavirus Live Updates

I will leave it to others on how and where this might be included in this page. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a name for the virus, but a name for the disease. See 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 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: speedy/snow close. Another RM proposing exactly the same new title was closed literally a few hours ago. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – Current page title is disturbing to remain and there are 2 highly known sources refer this virus as Novel coronavirus. Regice2020 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

_

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. Until we have an official name for the virus, I am afraid the current title is the best we can do. (That is ignoring the cumbersome options of 2019–20 outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019–20 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, in light of the virus being named 2019 novel coronavirus.)--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Refuted Per WP:COMMONNAME - CDC and World Health Organization set the virus name as Novel coronavirus - not Wuhan coronavirus.Regice2020 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC calls it 2019 Novel Coronavirus or 2019-nCoV. Same for WHO. That is not the same as Novel coronavirus which the name of any new coronavirus, not just this one that was discovered in 2019. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The adjective "novel" doesn't tell you anything about the virus. How novel should a coronavirus be to be called a novel coronavirus? What if scientists discover another coronavirus during the same period of time? "More novel coronavirus"? Lysimachi (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is some evidence that the virus could circulate indefinitely, like flu, so the inclusion of the 2020 date is problematic to me - unsigned 09:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.81.27 (talk)
• Oppose. Novel will soon be out of date, as in this context it just means "new". WHO is using "novel" because there is no established name yet, but this will have an established name soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This strain won't be "novel" for long. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This must be the quickest re-request to move I have seen after the last one closed. I would have thought waiting a period first to see if anything changes before requesting it again is the appropriate thing to do. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close - The move discussion was recent close by User:QEDK [12] at 07:59, 9 February 2020. Why people are opening it again? Just wait a time till we get a more stable name. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close on procedural grounds - see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 2 February 2020 which was just closed as no consensus a few hours ago. Wait at least a month (or for WHO to publish an official name) before any new rename proposals. Boud (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not this again. What's new from current event, and whose answers are unique from the last week? --91.207.170.251 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Japan divides infected into people with symptoms, and without.

So about one week ago, Japanese numbers of infected showed it as a sum of two numbers like this 94(26+68) with a sidenote stating Japanese divides infected into non-symptomatic and symphonic, however, this sidenote is gone now, leaving people confused about why there is this addition next to the number of infected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The +68 means the number of cases from 'Diamond Princess' ship, that's why. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext

--80.187.106.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This inclusion has already been rejected several times at several different articles, but as before, this is not about the 2019 novel coronavirus. I suggest taking this to Talk:Coronavirus if necessary, but the WHO has the idea of long-lasting viability of coronaviruses on surfaces listed as one of its myths in the "myth busters" section of its site on the virus. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Lack of testing in Indonesia

Should this be worked into the doc? Similar stories can be found for African nations. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/07/concerns-coronavirus-is-going-undetected-in-indonesia Excerpt:

... Indonesia said it had no confirmed cases of the coronavirus and that 238 people evacuated from Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, had not shown symptoms, although it said they hadn’t been tested.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The capacity for testing is there, including in dozens of countries in Africa, according to the WHO press briefings available online. I don't think there is anyone suggesting testing all non-symptomatic people in other countries either. Dekimasuよ! 15:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it should be added but i'm not sure, and maybe we should also take the opportunity to say that the Japanese goverment is/was in the process of testing people on the diamond princess. This source says that they're testing everyone who came into contact with the first man that tested positive and those that present symptoms.Pancho507 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus stabilising infection rate is not a sign of relief"

should we add info from this source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdNlVbJ4mS8

Yes, i know that it is on youtube. yes, i know that youtube is user generated and thus doesn't belong on wikipedia. but it was posted by the DW News channel, and that account is verified, so, does it still count as user generated? I've already tried searching for that story on DW's website, but i found nothing. Pancho507 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Don't, since verified accounts aren't always reliable sources. Wait for the content to be published in text form by a confirmed reliable source. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why PNG version of chinese map's legends are out-of-border?

How did you explain it, and may you fix it? PNG and SVG versions a little bit different, and it may be unpleasant because it lacks color for ocean as well.

--91.207.170.251 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Caves?

This article may be relevant if anyone wants to add it? https://nationalpost.com/news/world/cave-full-of-bats-in-china-identified-as-source-of-virus-almost-identical-to-the-one-killing-hundreds-today

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong-doing in government risk-communication to the population

Hello, I live in Korea, and the government is persisting to ask people to wear masks as the main line of defense (I can provide pictures of posters in streets, and screenshots of the alert-broadcasts we received; for this discussion, not for the article, for he article I could search official or secondary sources). The population is unaware of the problem and just follow along, while being totally frighten by the local media's very anxiogenic covering of the situation. Those government recommendation are going against WHO's guidelines, and I believe WHO made the recent videos about it as a response to this kind of situation, which may occur in other countries too.

I know the subject is half-political, however I do think a new section could be added to Management to document government mishandling (Korea being the only example I can personally document) both to raise awareness and for encyclopedic purpose.

Any opinion on if and how we should add this ? Mikiael (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Characterizing it as mismanagement or wrongdoing is itself inappropriate for Wikipedia, particularly on the basis of personal experience or opinion. So yes, I would advise against adding this. A better outlet for your concern might be to contact journalists. If articles come out in reliable sources not only documenting this, but linking it to the WHO advisory, then it might be worth adding. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @199.66.69.88 for your input I will wait. I would like to quickly add that the Korean government giving guidelines going against the WHO's ones is not an opinion but a verifiable fact on any official website (such as Seoul's: http://english.seoul.go.kr/ 's index page). However, I have to say that some posters did got edited 3 days ago to fit the WHO guidelines. It took weeks, but it shows that the information about this mistake made its way. This is good news and I think we can drop the proposition. :) Mikiael (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you’re taking two different sources—Seoul’s recommendations and the WHO’s recommendations—and proposing we include the statement that Korea’s guidance is not in line with WHO’s. That would be wholly synthetic, see WP:SYN. And let’s face it, that implies a value judgment even if one is unintended, and we shouldn’t be doing that in Wikipedia’s voice. We aren’t WHO’s press desk. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@199.66.69.88 Interesting insight, thank you. Mikiael (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is several layers of misinformation about this virus and there is a lot of psychology involved. The WHO wants to gather good data about the virus, so they lie to everyone and still claim that it comes from Wuhan, but there is no evidence of that at all. The more the virus prove itself able to replicate and spread, the more likely it is that it was spreading for a while and the more dumb it is to believe we spotted the first case. The data gathered is always a mess because the sicker people tend to get tested and the one who do fine with normal flu symptoms never get tested. There is not even tests for everyone. By the look of it now, I'd estimate that in the worst case scenario, this coronavirus is about twice as deadly then usual. There is for instance about twice as much people who died of H1N1 in America that there is reported death of coronavirus in China for the same period. But we know by now that H1N1 is "just" a flu, and no one bother with it anymore. It's clear by now that the 2019-nCoV will have the same faith then H1N1. Killing eventually millions of people with no one really bothering to even test. In that context, if Korea want to lie and tell people they will be fine if they just wear a paper mask, it might be a great idea. Iluvalar (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes the facts (starting at the third sentence) are correct, except for H1N1 not being known as "the flue", but "a flue", and the mortality rate. The "flue" has a mortality rate bellow 50/100000 on average while ncov most likely lies above 1%. However,those facts are just not proving the conspiracy organized by WHO described in the first two sentences. About the last sentence: WHO is the reference in public health guidelines, unlike you, me and politicians. Mikiael (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

full recovered nations

is it time to add another category in this map in wich we can add nations where all cases were recovered?--Dwalin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Too soon to know. There may be countries that had known cases and have no known cases now, but it is fairly likely they may have unknown cases.--Eostrix (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the outbreak is ongoing. There is always the risk of new imported cases. We can always wait for WHO to declare as it had during the previous epidemics. robertsky (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

contents table out of screen

To me it seems not too nice to have the contents table out of the screen. perhaps another intro tag summarizing the first two paragraphs could be an idea 217.245.92.154 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

section impact - Germany, 13 cases, all caused by one person too

Since France (with "only" 5 cases) is covered - Germany might also be of interest. As in France it was one person only having introduced the virus to the country causing all the known cases up to now. In detail it was a female chinese citizen, the representant of the chinese subsiduary of the german company WEBASTO from Starnberg, near Munich. She was on a business trip from china to german location in Starnberg / Bavaria. She had no symptomes at that point of time and did not know that she had been ill. Shorly before the trip, still beeing in china, she had been visited by her parents from Wuhan. After the trip to germany when beeing back in china, she became ill and informed the german colleagues. After that detailled investigation in Munich showed that first one, later 4 and then 8 persons had been infected. In the meanwhile we have 13. The virus already had been carried over from the employes their wifes and children before having been informed. For the moment they seem to be pretty fine with only a low number of people showing symptomes. This case clearly shows, that infection might be progressed rapidly by people who appear sound at fist sight. (and it also shows that many people might be infected without being able to recognized it at all since they do not become sick significantly. The doctors currently report about a litte bit of chocking only, for 2-3 of them, most of them still have no symptomes 217.245.92.154 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korea Coronavirus Cases Hidden by Government

There has been many cases in North Korea according to many anonymous sources in South Korea. The government has reportedly hiddent he cases, so maybe this should be included in some part of the page. Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to find reputable verified sources; otherwise videos from mainland China would be here as well. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 04:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There's some coverage related to North Korea, eg The Daily Beast a few hours agoAll of its neighbors have it, so why hasn't North Korea reported any coronavirus cases? 3 days agoThe Financial Times- looks like the annual parade was cancelled to deal with the virus Doug Weller talk 13:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Papers by Zhong Nanshan's team

Here: Clinical characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in China--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 05:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Out-of-place quadratic function in the Deaths section

In the Deaths section of the article, the second paragraph consists of the following text:

An approximate curve of the number of deaths in mainland China from January 21st to February 9th is 2.49692 x2 − 5.92262 x + 20.2789  and the coefficient of determination is 0.999808. There is nearly no noise in this model.

I don't have enough edits to do this myself (the page is currently semi-protected), but I request that the above paragraph is removed, for the following reasons:

1. This model's origin is not properly cited. The only citation given is an online calculator doing the linear regression on the given data. Given that as the citation, the only assumption to be made here is that it's original research, which goes against WP:NOR.

2. In addition to being original research, it is poor-quality original research. Infectious disease is not adequately described by a polynomial model. Disease propagation models generally include an exponential function (e.g. e^x. In addition, disease models are typically a lot more nuanced that just plugging the data into a linear regression..

3. Finally, the analysis of this model's accuracy is inadequate to assess whether it is an adequate predictive model. R-squared is generally inadequate on its own to determine whether a model has predictive power. Generally, you want to do something like bootstrapping or another subsampling technique, or holding out the tail end of the data, to get a good idea of that. In addition, this observation that "there is nearly no noise in this model" isn't significant: it's a polynomial, it's not going to have any noise.

VagueSpecificity (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• Looks like this has already been taken out. It seems too complicated for WP:CALC. buidhe 16:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Chinese statistics?

Can we rely on the Chinese statistics that are used for numbers of infections, deaths, etc? Reasons to worry about their reliability include stories like these [13] [14]

That said, these stories are not about the statistics directly; rather, they are about China suppressing other information related to the outbreak. There is also this quote from Mike Pence, which certainly suggests that China is telling the truth [15].

I don't have an opinion as to whether these statistics are reliable or not. I'm interested in what other editors think. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We need reliable source citations explicitly questioning the reliability of Chinese statistics if we are to say anything in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We only have the official statistics. And these may be limited by only counting cases in hospitals, by the period over which they are counted, and by the number of tests that can be done. You may be able to find sources that estimate true numbers, but don't expect anything accurate. You might want to compare with the 2018-19 flu outbreak which only tested a tiny fraction of those that caught it. But in US there were 2,100 deaths and estimated 4.6 million cases. This season 2019-20 estimates 21,000-30,000 deaths and over 210,000 visited hospital. Perhaps the flu is worse! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There are reasons to be suspicious of the numbers given by the Chinese authorities, take for example the number of flu deaths reported you mentioned, China reported remarkably few deaths from flu - [16] (56 and 41 deaths in 2016 and 2017 compared to the many thousands reported in the United States, which has a much smaller population). Some people say that Chinese doctors frequently attribute deaths to other reasons instead of flu because the elderly who died from flu often had other underlying health conditions (still recorded as death from flu in the West, but some believed this is not often done in China). Long before the Chinese authority decided that this is a crisis, people in various Chinese sites (forums and social media) were already reporting hospitals being overwhelming with patients, or seeing deaths in other cities reported as not having any cases. These assertions however are hard to verified without official statistics, so true or not, they cannot be treated as anything other than rumours. We are basically stuck with the official statistics, and there is very little we can say about the numbers apart from what's already given in the article.

Hzh (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't trust them at all, and we should have some kind of disclaimer 98.228.51.213 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Aren't there already disclaimers in a way where there was studies performed that showed more people should have been affected with a 95% certainty. I don't believe any more changes are necessary. Dannelsluc (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pangolin suspected as direct source of coronavirus outbreak

Can we add the summary of this article? "After testing more than 1,000 samples from wild animals, scientists at the South China Agricultural University found the genome sequences of viruses in pangolins to be 99 percent identical to those on coronavirus patients, the official Xinhua news agency reported." Pangolin suspected as direct source of coronavirus outbreak [[17]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Coronaviruses almost exclusively come from bats, so it was probably an error. And considering pangolins are an endangered species, we wouldn't want to mistakenly cause culling of them, would we? Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Chinese are importing a lot of pangolins from Philippines so I believe it could be the link between Bats and Human. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's already added days ago. Hzh (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korean Death in late January

Apparently a women died in North KoreaDannelsluc (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC) https://www.dailynk.com/english/north-korean-woman-died-coronavirus-infection-late-january/

See #North Korea Coronavirus Cases Hidden by Government, what's in the reference cannot be counted as reliable information. But see 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory#North Korea Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

I would like to add the following paragraph to the Impact... Australia section. The references are listed below in numerical order.

Agriculture is also expected to be negatively affected and a number of produces have already seen price decreases,[1] including the normally struggling Australian dairy industry, which exports a significant amount of milk products to East Asia. [2] The fishing industry has been "devastated" by the turmoil with job losses and companies closing as well.[3] Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said “Farmers, fishers, [...] all told of lost business impacting now”.[4] A meat producer in New South Wales has already seen its orders drop by 10%.[5] Australian wine, which accounts for 35% of all Chinese wine imports, is also expected to suffer from sales losses. [6]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4322526-agricultural-commodities-moving-february-wasde-report

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12306045

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-04/coronavirus-devastates-australian-export-businesses/11925536

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/frydenbergs-response-to-coronavirus-not-good-enough-queensland-treasurer-says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-02-08/coronavirus-hits-nsw-meat-exporter/11942392

http://www.afr.com/companies/agriculture/wine-australia-warns-coronavirus-will-hit-china-exports-20200205-p53xv5 SomethingNastyHere (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for the contribution. Sleath56 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Sleath56: Be sure to mark these as done if you fulfill the request. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

The name "Wuhan coronavirus" in the title of this page should be changed for accuracy and in line with WHO recommendations. Please use "novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" instead. Cherchen (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Information on how to make this request is available at WP:Requested moves. However, please note that this page was renamed from "2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" less than a month ago following a discussion (archive located here). Once a permanent name is established, the article will likely be moved to that name. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And a requested move for basically just this was denied just a couple days ago. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• First of all, 'denied' sounds like it was a request to a higher power, which RN (and most Wikipedia internal processes) are not. Second, the move request (which I made, since I thought it was a plausible title change considering the now-international nature of the outbreak) was closed for having no consensus, meaning there was no clear preference for either name, so status quo was kept. But yes, this was not done before, so best wait for the official name that should be coming sometime this week. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

There is a source with R0 of 4.08. The coronavirus page says the highest R0 is 3.11.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.27.20018952v1.full.pdf UnknownInternetCitizen (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That article says R=4.08, not R₀=4.08. See page 2, paragraph 3; and page 3, paragraph 2. My understanding of that article is that those have different meanings, though I sort of understand it also to say that R should be smaller than R₀ (see page 2, lines 42-43), but the article also says R₀ should be smaller than R (see page 3, line 61). See also basic reproduction number: "The basic reproduction number [R₀] is not to be confused with the effective reproduction number R which is the number of cases generated in the current state of a population, which does not have to be the uninfected state." Considering this reference has been making the rounds for this claim for over a week, I would not be surprised if its use has been discussed and rejected before either here or elsewhere. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

The first few sentences and their following inline citations do not sound right. One citation is a wikipedia article. I can't see the article text information in the references. It needs a check over if anyone would like to have a go. I tried. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the self-reference, since citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia contravenes verifiability and reliable sources policies. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Notify Editor: A WP:SUBPOV forked version and AfD

Hi, since the move request has been closed as "No consensus", I like to raise a discussion on the ground of WP:SUPPOV with creating a forked version at 2019–20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak, and for driving consensus, I have nominating both pages for AfD. You are welcomed to join the discussion.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What is WP:SUPPOV? If you mean WP:SUBPOV then obviously no as there is no actual POV being expressed besides the slightly different name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Xinbenlv: This is a terrible way to do things. Please revert it to the redirect immediately, or someone else will. It doesn't even make sense. As Horse Eye Jack says, there is no alternate POV here. What is the SUBPOV you advocate? --99of9 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just revert it, man.Dannelsluc (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• AfD has been closed as Speedy Keep and xinbenlv's "fork" (which was actually just a copy-paste of this article) has been reverted to the redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please tag such copy-paste moves for speedy deletion next time. Xinbenlv's disruptive creation of a copy-paste move in order to forum-shop a requested move to AfD should be taken to ANI if anything like it occurs again. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear 199.66.69.88 you have an IP address so I don't know how to appropriately notify you. But this it my first time arguing with a SUBPOV fork. If you felt it's not the right way, I appreciate any education. When you assume I am bad faith, I felt sad. T.T xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

San Diego Coronavirus Case

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/first-confirmed-case-of-coronavirus-in-san-diegoDannelsluc (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 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: Speedy close. Do not keep reopening the same move request every few days—it is clear that it will take longer than that for consensus to emerge. Changing the suggested title slightly by removing "2020" and using unusual capitalization does not change the fact that it's the same discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak – This title about the virus is very disturbing. Stating "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is almost saying Wuhan citizens are the one that caused the virus on purpose. Stop users from using the speedy close/snow clause to cutoff voices. After reviewing there 2 reliable sources that had the stable name currently as 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Regice2020 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

____

• Speedy close: No new argument has been made here. This is not a page about the virus, it is a page about the outbreak. Please close this. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I reiterate that this should be speedily closed, particularly now that Regice2020 is selectively pinging individuals who were in favor of a pagemove in the earlier discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply Updated move request, @Doc James: @Goodtiming8871: and @Sleath56: responses on the previous move request gave me a better hint for a stable name and those point makes perfect sense.Regice2020 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Regice2020:, I share the similar view with you on this, but I'd like to remind you pinging only people in your same view could violate WP:CANVASS. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: Thank you for bring that issue to my attention. I am only crediting some users who made good point which led to me on requesting a stable move request. No intent to force a bias vote as many times they have voted against anyways. Regice2020 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Please keep this discussion open. The first MR Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 was intended to be a "temp" move, and I don't see the consensus there. and the second MR was no consensus. New information has since emerged as the WHO, Whitehouse and China health authorities are giving it new name. Please do not close when a name is in some of the arguer's favor while other people disagree with this. Please kindly wait for a consensus to emerge. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: the mover of Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 to help us understand why the original consensus was interpreted as such. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has complained about the outcome of that previous RM for nearly a month. At this point it is the status quo. You have no grounds to challenge it as improper at such a late date. Especially given we do have a RM that closed as no consensus less than a week ago. Your behavior, in creating a copy-paste move deliberately in order to forum-shop the RM to AfD, is disruptive and inappropriate. I suggest you disengage. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment What inappropriate is the name of the article and users try find way cut off "Supporters" voices when a current stable name set by the CDC and WHO. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• This all got litigated in the last RM. The outcome was no consensus. No consensus was emerging and no consensus is going to emerge in the near future. We aren't the press desk for the CDC or WHO. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak is currently set and stable name. Regice2020 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks the title should have the year, and the "where and what." It's currently fine: it's the outbreak of a coronavirus in Wuhan that occurred from 2019-2020. The proposed title is only refers to the virus, and does not make clear any of the specifics. If there theoretically was another outbreak of 2019-nCoV after this one, that title would not be precise enough. If anything even "2019-20 Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak" would be better although that isn't concise. Nobody is putting the blame on people from Wuhan, it's just where the outbreak started. Ev3commander (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't we at least say that it may go by different names. For example, China's National Health Commission recently called it Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia or NCP. This apparently was mainly to remove the stigma involving the fact that the current coronavirus outbreak isn't just in Wuhan. Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding Closure Note

This completely false saying it same rm discussion. Name came from the source and was not the same as the previous requested moves. A good clear source that was actually provided for a name change. Regice2020 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to engage in tendentious editing by attempting to wriggle through gaps and technicalities, this issue may eventually end up at WP:ANI. While it is preferred that users can be trusted with being sensible so that we don't end up with everything under firm lockdown, a decision may be made to enforce a hard time limit on future move discussions if such behaviour continues. This is clearly disruptive behaviour, please desist immediately. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)