Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 29

< Talk:COVID-19 pandemic
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 123William in topic RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Good article nomination?

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

The ORES algorithmically-generated predictions have some COVID-19 articles that I'd consider inferior to this one predicted to be FA-class, although this one is still predicted to be B-class (our use of excerpts may be throwing it off). What would folks think of a good article nomination here; are we ready? And the pace of editing has slowed considerably recently, so it's more stable. I think the page might benefit from having some of the high-level overview that the GA folks would bring. (Alternately, maybe we could ask for a peer assessment? I'm not too familiar with assessment processes.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait it out. Major statistics (number of cases, deaths, recoveries, etc) is still fluid and has not stabilized yet. The associated effects, e.g. in economics, are also ongoing. Brandmeistertalk 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
agree w/ Brandmeister--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It does not meet Good Article criteria currently. I do see the value of an important B-class article receiving a high-level review as you (Sdkb) suggest. In the not-too-distant future I would support a GA nomination, but it would be distraction right now.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
One thing that it needs to archieve GA for this article is that article needs to indefinite semi-protected. You must beware that after current semi-protected expired on 19 April, this article will vandalize by IPs to add rumours and misinformation to the article. So maintaining the article is stable and no IP vandalism is one things need to archieve GA as well as Feature Article rating. You see in Italian specific article, there are indefinite semi-protected, not temporary, particulary India Pakistan specific article is extend protected due to IPA discretionary sanctions. 36.77.78.48 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No COVID-19 article should be nominated for GAN while the epidemic is ongoing. The articles are all incomplete at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems irrefutable. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree things are changing too much, thus not stable for being a GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

EuroMOMO - Mortality monitoring in Europe

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following is one of the most revealing sources of death impact of the covid I know of:

I do not find it in the article. If someone knows how to make use of it in the article, it would be great. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that is an informative graph for an overview article.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

CT scan photos

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The Imaging section currently has no visual and could use a CT scan photo. We currently have a gallery with four scan images at coronavirus disease 2019 (see below). I'd prefer we use just two (or even just one) image to take up less space, but I don't know why they're paired and don't want to get out of my depth medically. Doc James or someone else knowledgeable, is it possible to use fewer images to get the point across, and if so, should we retain the left scans or right scans within each pairing? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The one on the left is less severe. The one on the right is more severe. I am not sure an image is really needed here. If people want to go with one either will work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: I gathered the less severe vs. more severe distinction, but why are there two images of the less severe patient and two of the more severe patient? Can't we just use one of each, and if so, which one should we choose? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes good point. They are different settings on the scanner. Agree one of each is fine and I have no significant preference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I added one! You or someone else would probably be able to improve the caption from what I wrote. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks adjusted a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Editrequest

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please change the sort key for the base category "Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to make this article the topic article for that category:

Change 

[[Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]]

to 

[[Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic| ]]

This will sort the topic to the top, and will not be sorted down if some other article comes around with a "1" in is first letter place.

-- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the new sort key you inserted doesn't make this the topic article of the category. You inserted
[[Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]]
Which is the incorrect sort key, as it sorts this article under "2". It needs to be a "space" after the vertical bar, which will WP:CATSORT (point #2) the article to remain at the top of the category listing.
Please change the sort key to " " (space)
[[Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic| ]]
Thanks -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Forgive me if it is just my system, but none of the notes on this page seem to currently work when you click on them or hover over them. Other wikipedia pages I've just checked all do.

Does anyone else have this problem? If not - please delete this message. Surfingdan (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@@Doc James:

The efn notes are working fine for me, but the references are also not showing tooltips. I suspect it's probably that the article got too big in some way and overflowed and something broke. Tech folks, help??? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes - sorry that's what I should have written, the notes (with letters) work fine, but the numbered references do not.Surfingdan (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It now works. Thanks to whoever fixed this!Surfingdan (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the bulk of the references by using the built-in <references> tag instead of {{reflist}} for that section. However later ones are still hitting the limit. This article desperately needs some trimming and removal of templates. the wub "?!" 11:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

yup...The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia has several parameters that limit the complexity of a page, thus limiting the amount of templates that can be included.--Moxy 🍁 13:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I have restored two columns or more for those on wider screens.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up references

@Doc James: There are currently a ton of broken references in the reference section. I saw you were making some adjustments earlier; is there a cleanup in process, or did you do something that's resulting in those? Is there a semi-automated tool for cleaning them up? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb have you refreshed your browser? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I must not have, since it's good now. Thanks for whatever you did! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Forget to remove this.[2] Good to hear it works now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

Latest comment: 4 years ago180 comments22 people in discussion

This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This still has no context. I am minded to end the RfC unless somebody addresses the situation soon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Country Polls

Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy - include
Italy
China - include
China
Iran - include
Iran
Spain - include
Spain
United States - include
United States
UK - include
United Kingdom
Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Germany - exclude
Germany
Netherlands - exclude
Netherlands
South Korea - include
South Korea
Japan - exclude
Japan
Singapore
User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
EU - Include
European Union
  • Include- how about creating something for the general European approach where we can group most other European countries except particularly noteworthy ones such as Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include - if a grouping of less-affected EU countries can be agreed. Magna19 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include Covers all other major EU countries except Italy, but must not include minor ones. Possibly titled "Europe" rather than "European Union". Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude -- until some grouping of "less affected EU countries" is formulated by experts and/or the media, this seems like OR on our part and entirely subjective. --Calthinus (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include As said by Magna19 — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning include under the name "Europe". While I'm sympathetic to the concern that the situation in Spain is not the same as that in Poland, and I honestly don't know how much coordination there is between EU countries, there are certainly a lot of similarities between them, and that should make it possible to turn this into a section. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe appears under-developed, so it doesn't give as much guidance as to what the section could look like as I'd hoped when I just checked it out. Perhaps someone should re-write the intro to that and then insert it as an {{Excerpt}} here. Sdkb (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include. In particular, failure in negotiations and lack of consistent response at European Union level had a high impact on reliable sources and is worth mentioning. European Central Bank reaction might also be worth mentioning. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK , EU, Spain

Exclude: Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, France

2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

@QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

  • European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems a bit early to do a summary when some of them have only a few votes. Would have waited a bit longer. Hzh (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Boris Johnson was hospitalised and is now out. Would that be considered notable enough for the UK to be mentioned separately? Not sure if Queen Elizabeth's speech on 5 April 2020 would be considered notable.

Ordering

Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s poorly worded because doc james wants it clear that it isn’t known to be airborne, but we agree to want to make it clear that it can be transmitted via exhalation in the lead . An alternative would be “primarily small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. These droplets can be transmitted through breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances “ Almaty (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Which maps to include

Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Section on Latin America?

I do not think any countries in Latin America currently deserve a section on their own, but Latin America as a whole deserves a section. In particular, Brazil is notable for Bolsonaro's relative downplaying of the threat (citation) (I haven't seen this in any large country other than Brazil). Ecuador seems especially ravaged on a per-capita basis. (citation). The only issue is that if we add a section on Latin America, we might as well add a section on Africa as well. Alternatively, we could split the section by continent as a whole, which could clean up the "Domestic responses" section. Nmurali02 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's really a global pandemic at this point, so I agree it might make sense toward having "Domestic responses" split into continents and then, if needed, countries, like we do for Europe currently. Questions that come up there is how we want to handle the Middle East and Australia.
Overall, this section is a mess, since the prevailing !votes on yes Singapore and no France aren't being enforced in the actual article, and there's some conflicts between different parts of this discussion e.g. on the UK. The article itself is looking okay, but the disconnect between that and the talk page here needs to be remedied. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Transition to excerpts

Woah, Sophivorus, could you slow down a bit? I endorse switching to excerpts, but the "domestic response" sections need to reflect a careful balance so as not to make this already-overlong article more bloated, as is reflected with all the discussion above here. Switching to excerpts for various European countries seems to be making the sections on a bunch of European countries way too long and switching the images to maps (which we don't want, since we already have a map of Europe, and we need some variety). (The edit history is pretty complex, so apologies if it's not your edits that are introducing the changes.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just undid the change to an excerpt for the Europe section, which introduced a bunch of redundant language. It's fine for the lead of the Europe article to state that the pandemic started in China, but not at all okay for the article here to state it in the Europe section where it has no relevance. There are similar issues in the other excerpts — please fix them or self-revert until a better way to implement the excerpts can be found. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I fixed the links to this article in the intros of the articles about Spain, Germany and France, which causes them to show as plain text here. It could be argued that saying "2020-19 coronavirus pandemic" in each case is still a bit redundant, but weighting the benefits of the excerpts against that tiny prose redundancy yields a clear answer, at least on my scale. I hope you'll agree? Else let me know. I also went through the three domestic response excerpts (Spain, Germany and France) and managed to condense the intros, but I think I'm reaching the limit. Each has approximately one paragraph about the arrival and early stages of the outbreak, one paragraph about the government response and general evolution of the drama, and one paragraph about the current numbers. Can any of that be left out, either here or there? Sophivorus (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sophivorus: Okay, thanks for the edits! Going through them now... The Europe intro paragraph looks much better from the perspective of this article, although I think the editors at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe might have reasonable concerns that the intro there is now too short. If they do, we'll have to reassess, since it's a tricky and possibly impossible balance — the proper length of the intro there is probably longer than the acceptable length of a section here. Also, do you know how we might be able to change the map back to a case count rather than a death count and make it larger? I'm personally fine with a death count, but I was overruled by a prevailing consensus here to continue using primarily case counts, and we need to respect that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sophivorus: Looking at the sections for Spain, France, and Germany, I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to use excerpts. There's a lot of lines like On 12 March, president of France Emmanuel Macron announced on public television that all schools and all universities would close from Monday 16 March until further notice. That's appropriate for the lead of the France article and shouldn't be removed from there, but it's just too much detail for here. If we announced every school closure in every country as big/bigger than France in that format, it'd take up a large portion of the article. Instead, what we were doing was condensing all the education info into the education section, which notes broad things like the percentage of the world population out of school, and mostly keeping it out of the smaller country sections. The France section is now four paragraphs with a map, which is just way too much; it was previously one paragraph with no map as of yesterday. Above, five out of seven editors !voted to have no specific section on France at all, and although that probably changes within the context of a section on Europe, such a major expansion severely infringes on that consensus. I could see some use for judicious fragments here and there, but wholesale replacements of sections with excerpted leads of other articles just adds way too much. This page is way too long as is, and we need to be slimming it wherever we can, not adding to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Pinging RealFakeKim: since this is a significant change, it'd helpful to have a third opinion, and if my memory serves me right you helped draft some of the country sections. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I changed Europe's map from the death count to the case count. As to the length of the excerpts of the countries, I think the intros can be condensed some more (of course editors there may disagree, but maybe not). However, if the requirement here is one paragraph per country, then the only way to keep excerpts would be to craft the first paragraph of each lead as needed here (which arguably would be useful there too, because the most important information should always go first, in my opinion) and then excerpt just the first paragraph. This would be doable, I think, or at least worth a try. However, maybe it's the wrong approach and we should rather improve the intros of the continents and excerpt only those. In any case, I'd like to mention that while doing what I did, I noticed several instances of outdated information, both here and in the subarticles, so we should also take that into consideration when deciding whether on not to give up on excerpts. Anyway, I agree, lets wait for a third voice. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • With your comment on outdated information if you use excerpts it's only one thing that's outdated not two, potentially with different information, so I think they are best for keeping information constant. Although the section might have a better flow if they are written to specifically fit the section not being the lead of a few countries. Overall I think excerpts worked fine in the section but you shouldn't rely on them in the article. Also, don't change too much in the countries article to suit the section. The article comes first! — RealFakeKimT 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sophivorus: As I said above, I think moving toward continents rather than countries is largely the right direction at this point. Regarding the overall situation, I'm still seeing a lot that needs to be remedied. Countries like Germany should not have a dedicated map, especially when countries like Italy do not; the wider variety of photos that used to be there were better (the article has plenty enough maps). And the map of Europe is still too small. I hope I'm not coming across as overly picky or grouchy — as you know from my engagement at the excerpt template page and use of them elsewhere, I support the work you're doing spreading them. But it's very important you understand that, especially for an article this heavily trafficked, there's a lot of work that's gone into fine-tuning the sections here. Just staying on the maps, yesterday, for instance, I requested and implemented a case map for Europe that was red, rather than blue, so it could be standardized with the other red case maps in this article. It's very frustrating to see that, along with many many other changes, undone in the course of a unilateral switch to excerpts, and to then have to put in additional work just to get the article back to where it was before. I understand that it's not always clear why things are the way they are, and I sympathize that this talk page is extremely long with a gazillion archives, but still, if you want to come in here and start switching to excerpts in a whole bunch of sections, it's incumbent on you to take more care to ensure that the excerpts will be at least as good as the sections they are replacing, and to come to talk to get consensus before switching to excerpts that introduce significant changes. I hope that's a reasonable ask. – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I changed the map at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe for the red version. Agree with the rest, cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sophivorus: I just added a transclusion to the middle of the lead where there was some nearly identical text between here and coronavirus disease 2019. It appears to have introduced an unwanted paragraph break between "two to 14 days" and "common symptoms", though. How do we resolve that? And any progress on getting the Europe map back to size? That's absolutely not an issue that can be safely ignored — it needs to be big enough that it's reasonably useful without needing to click on it, and right now the scale is miniscule and the smaller countries are hard to see (it definitely shouldn't be smaller than the China map). This issue has now been present for about 48 hours, which means that around two million readers have viewed the inferior version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And sorry to keep harping on the section lengths, but I just checked the number of page scrolls (the official section size counts above don't reflect excerpts), and Europe is about 3.5, whereas the entire rest of the world is 4.5. That's definitely way too much focus on Europe, even considering that it's the current epicenter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I just replaced the excerpted map for a not-excerpted bigger version. Regarding the section sizes, I don't know what to do. Sophivorus (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sophivorus: I think the ultimate solution for section sizes will be converting to continents rather than countries, but for now, I replaced the maps for Germany and France with photos, so at least that issue is resolved. For the unwanted paragraph break in the lead section, could we introduce a parameter to Template:Excerpt that uses span rather than div? I think that's the only way to solve it if I'm reading the code right. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: I added the parameter myself and fixed the paragraph break issue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Should India be added?

India's entire country lockdown has been quite impactful and phenomenal, despite not having as many cases. NoNews! 03:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You can always add India to the list above and see if others agree or disagree with its inclusion. Personally I think not just yet, as cases reported are still low. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say not to add to this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is any mention of Taiwan being scrubbed?

The deletion of my Taiwan-related contributions and absense of any mention of Taiwan is quite apparent. Taiwan researchers were the first to notify the WHO of human transmittability, and it is significant to the timeline that on Dec. 31st the WHO had been thus informed yet ignored Tiawan's warning. The overall Tiawanese response has arguably been the most effective of any country.[1][2] This should be made known so that others can compare their country's response and perhaps draw some lessons. Although mention of Taiwan may be politically threatening to some, the facts should not be censored. I also want to point out there has been quite a bit of revisionist history-making occuring on this page with respect to the December timeframe which is aided by the absense of the Taiwan information. I've had a totally legitimate entry simply deleted by someone who claimed the VOA is a deprecated source and revisionist history put in its place, as well as several instances of bad editing done to my contributions. Forgive my going in this direction, but if we can make it clear that this kind of game-playing won't be tolerated, than I'll save administrators hours of time reviewing my vandalism reports. 123William (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Face mask wearing during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just to notify the authors: the sections about the masks was copied into a separate article draft about the face mask controversy of COVID-19 pandemic. I'm planning to add a timeline about how different countries introduced masking measures and shifted in their recommendations. Suggestions, additions and criticism are welcome there. --Amakuha (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuha: Sounds like a reasonable article to have. There may be folks at WP:COVID-19 who want to help. Once the article moves out of draftspace, be sure to integrate it by adding it to templates, using {{Main}}, etc. Also, be sure not to neglect some of the more generic articles on face masks, which are listed at the disambig page Face mask. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Someone created the article directly while I was drafting: Face masks during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic --Amakuha (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

Latest comment: 4 years ago83 comments19 people in discussion
RESOLVED
It appears unlikely that further discussion will yield more than the following rough consensus. The points that appear to have consensus include: "Asians" and "Southeast Asia" are too broad, but "Chinese" alone is too narrow; "perceived as being" is better than "of descent" because the discrimination is based on visual perceptions, not on genealogy; "hotspots" sounds disrespectful; discrimination is also against those perceived as "Europeans/Caucasians"; the text for the "other" discriminated people should avoid giving undue weight. The beginning "as well as" would not work in the present lead since the discrimination is not purely online, so I modified that. The consensus text for the lead of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is:
  • and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.
  • The first three references (2 China, 1 "caucasians" in Thailand) present in this version of 20:15, 10 April 2020 should be kept in support of the phrase. The Kenya reference is about one Frenchman in Kenya reporting an anecdote of discrimination against himself, and could be better replaced by a stronger reference.
Boud (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC) (uninvolved non-admin)

The following discussion 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.

The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

  1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
  2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
  3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
  • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
@Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 the discrimination against what groups depends on were you are obviously Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
And looking at reliable sources and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article, the common theme is discrimination against Asians in a large number of countries. Some1 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes initially for sure. And in the English language communities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Source for "initially"? And also not "in English language communities" only, as you can see if you actually read through the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article (Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Philippines, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, just to list a few). Some1 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
So in China there is discrimination again foreigners generally.[20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, xenophobia is happening in other countries (that's why Option 2/the current lead includes others from hotspots); but the majority of the xenophobia has been directed towards Asians. Literally from the article you provided: "One of the most unfortunate twists in the ongoing COVID-19 emergency is the racism and xenophobia it has unleashed across the world. To be sure, much of this has been directed at Chinese and Asians generally." WP:WEIGHT Some1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Not "Asians". It's ambiguous. In the UK it means people from southern Asia, i.e. people of Indian or Pakistani appearance. The discrimination has been directed against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating. The word "Chinese" is important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

  1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
  2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
  3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
  4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
  5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

    "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
    — User:Sapah3

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))
I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See [21], [22], [23] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [24]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [25]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [26][27][28][29][30] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [31] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would remove Southeast Asian. The same argument against Asian would apply to Southeast Asian, since the vast majority of Indonesians and Malays don't look anything like the Chinese (same for many other Southeast Asians) and they form a significant part of Southeast Asians. Note also that Asians in Britain typically refer to South Asians. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for repeating that UK perspective. It seems a lot of people who think "Asian" is a nice way to refer to people from China and those who look a bit similar are completely aware that in Britain the word doesn't mean that at all. It means someone from places like India and Pakistan. It's like that with political correctness and euphemisms. They come into use without formal definition, and remain that way, with quite confusing results. In this global encyclopaedia we must not use "Asian" in any form to mean people who look like they might have come from China. And it's the latter characteristic that this is all about, people who look like they might have come from China. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say drop the subject and pick any sentence that is approximately accurate. How many covid-linked deaths from xenophobia are there? People are dying, economies including small businesses are taking a massive hit (possibly an unnecessary one), and we are discussing xenophobia? Come on, people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Currently, the last paragraph of the lead summarizes notable impacts of the pandemic (such as panic buying, closures, misinformation, xenophobia, and environmental impacts). The xenophobia/ racism part is relevant and notable, and its current placement in the lead is appropriate and fitting. In addition to the 3 links provided by Wtmitchell above and the links in my previous comment [32][33][34][35][36][37] above, here are some more coverage of xenophobia/racism (against Asians) by major and reliable news sources: [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] There's more examples at: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. As for "pick any sentence that is approximately accurate", the current wording/ status quo does the most decent job at summarizing all this. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
For most who care about human lives and livelihoods, xenophobia is under the radar screen. Let's get serious. Xenophobia is probably to stay in the article for the lack of consensus, but let's waste no more discussion time on things that, when related to the huge impacts, are negligible. And on the linked page I read "An online petition to prevent people from China from entering the country was signed by more than 18,000 people" as an example of xenophobia, which is ridiculous. Let's get real. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This xenophobia topic might not be a big deal for other editors (which can be expected since Wikipedia has diversity issues and the majority of Wikipedia editors are "white men" [49][50][51][52][53][54]), but we should go by what reliable sources state and reliable sources do establish xenophobia's relevance and notability (particularly against the Chinese and Asians) in regards to this pandemic. Some1 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, mainstream media are not reliable sources on epidemiology, and actually not much on anything. Mainstream media have been shown to systematically misreport on science, shown e.g. by Ben Goldacre, and people who know some science and are paying attention can attest to Goldacre's conclusion. I do not know how Wikipedia plays this game, but, as a matter of fact, fairly reliable sources on science are scientific journals, not mainstream media. Mainstream media are in the business of creating a constant stream of news and issues since this is how they earn their living; accuracy, balance and intellectual honesty usually suffers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure how useful what I wrote above really is. Mainstream media are fundamentally unreliable but they are used by Wikipedia, and they are probably more reliable on some matters and less reliable on other matters. Maybe Wikipedia needs a reform in that regard; I don't know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 10 April 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.

RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

Latest comment: 4 years ago83 comments19 people in discussion
RESOLVED
It appears unlikely that further discussion will yield more than the following rough consensus. The points that appear to have consensus include: "Asians" and "Southeast Asia" are too broad, but "Chinese" alone is too narrow; "perceived as being" is better than "of descent" because the discrimination is based on visual perceptions, not on genealogy; "hotspots" sounds disrespectful; discrimination is also against those perceived as "Europeans/Caucasians"; the text for the "other" discriminated people should avoid giving undue weight. The beginning "as well as" would not work in the present lead since the discrimination is not purely online, so I modified that. The consensus text for the lead of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is:
  • and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.
  • The first three references (2 China, 1 "caucasians" in Thailand) present in this version of 20:15, 10 April 2020 should be kept in support of the phrase. The Kenya reference is about one Frenchman in Kenya reporting an anecdote of discrimination against himself, and could be better replaced by a stronger reference.
Boud (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC) (uninvolved non-admin)

The following discussion 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.

The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

  1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
  2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
  3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
  • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))
@Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 the discrimination against what groups depends on were you are obviously Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
And looking at reliable sources and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article, the common theme is discrimination against Asians in a large number of countries. Some1 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes initially for sure. And in the English language communities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Source for "initially"? And also not "in English language communities" only, as you can see if you actually read through the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article (Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Philippines, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, just to list a few). Some1 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
So in China there is discrimination again foreigners generally.[72] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, xenophobia is happening in other countries (that's why Option 2/the current lead includes others from hotspots); but the majority of the xenophobia has been directed towards Asians. Literally from the article you provided: "One of the most unfortunate twists in the ongoing COVID-19 emergency is the racism and xenophobia it has unleashed across the world. To be sure, much of this has been directed at Chinese and Asians generally." WP:WEIGHT Some1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Not "Asians". It's ambiguous. In the UK it means people from southern Asia, i.e. people of Indian or Pakistani appearance. The discrimination has been directed against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating. The word "Chinese" is important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

  1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
  2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
  3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
  4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
  5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

    "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
    — User:Sapah3

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))
I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See [73], [74], [75] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [76]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [77]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [78][79][80][81][82] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [83] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would remove Southeast Asian. The same argument against Asian would apply to Southeast Asian, since the vast majority of Indonesians and Malays don't look anything like the Chinese (same for many other Southeast Asians) and they form a significant part of Southeast Asians. Note also that Asians in Britain typically refer to South Asians. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for repeating that UK perspective. It seems a lot of people who think "Asian" is a nice way to refer to people from China and those who look a bit similar are completely aware that in Britain the word doesn't mean that at all. It means someone from places like India and Pakistan. It's like that with political correctness and euphemisms. They come into use without formal definition, and remain that way, with quite confusing results. In this global encyclopaedia we must not use "Asian" in any form to mean people who look like they might have come from China. And it's the latter characteristic that this is all about, people who look like they might have come from China. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say drop the subject and pick any sentence that is approximately accurate. How many covid-linked deaths from xenophobia are there? People are dying, economies including small businesses are taking a massive hit (possibly an unnecessary one), and we are discussing xenophobia? Come on, people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Currently, the last paragraph of the lead summarizes notable impacts of the pandemic (such as panic buying, closures, misinformation, xenophobia, and environmental impacts). The xenophobia/ racism part is relevant and notable, and its current placement in the lead is appropriate and fitting. In addition to the 3 links provided by Wtmitchell above and the links in my previous comment [84][85][86][87][88][89] above, here are some more coverage of xenophobia/racism (against Asians) by major and reliable news sources: [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] There's more examples at: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. As for "pick any sentence that is approximately accurate", the current wording/ status quo does the most decent job at summarizing all this. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
For most who care about human lives and livelihoods, xenophobia is under the radar screen. Let's get serious. Xenophobia is probably to stay in the article for the lack of consensus, but let's waste no more discussion time on things that, when related to the huge impacts, are negligible. And on the linked page I read "An online petition to prevent people from China from entering the country was signed by more than 18,000 people" as an example of xenophobia, which is ridiculous. Let's get real. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This xenophobia topic might not be a big deal for other editors (which can be expected since Wikipedia has diversity issues and the majority of Wikipedia editors are "white men" [101][102][103][104][105][106]), but we should go by what reliable sources state and reliable sources do establish xenophobia's relevance and notability (particularly against the Chinese and Asians) in regards to this pandemic. Some1 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, mainstream media are not reliable sources on epidemiology, and actually not much on anything. Mainstream media have been shown to systematically misreport on science, shown e.g. by Ben Goldacre, and people who know some science and are paying attention can attest to Goldacre's conclusion. I do not know how Wikipedia plays this game, but, as a matter of fact, fairly reliable sources on science are scientific journals, not mainstream media. Mainstream media are in the business of creating a constant stream of news and issues since this is how they earn their living; accuracy, balance and intellectual honesty usually suffers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure how useful what I wrote above really is. Mainstream media are fundamentally unreliable but they are used by Wikipedia, and they are probably more reliable on some matters and less reliable on other matters. Maybe Wikipedia needs a reform in that regard; I don't know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 10 April 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.

Xenophobia

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This has been discussed at great lengths already at the RfC and a consensus has been reached. Please see: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think we should widen the mention of xenophobia/discrimination to not only being against asians, given it's now being reported that xenophobia against foreigners is manifesting in mainland China[107], perhaps transcluding or taking inspiration from the wording used in List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? --17jiangz1 (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology table

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
RESOLVED
Table text illegibility traced to interaction between gadget responsiveContent and other variables; turning off responsiveContent solved issue.

The following discussion 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.

 
This is how the Epidemiology section looks on my browser.

The way the table is formatted in the Epidemiology section results in a very narrow area for the text, rendering the text almost impossible to read. I would edit it myself, but I would probably stumble and bumble along for awhile before I got it right. :o| Thanks in advance to anyone with the knowhow to fix this. Thanks! [I'm on a desktop; Windows 10; Chrome browser, Version 81.0.4044.92 (Official Build) (64-bit)]   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is what it looks like on my browser, so you have a better idea of what I'm talking about. :)

Please feel free to remove the image after this issue is resolved or otherwise edit my post here since it's taking up a lot of room.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd; not sure what's causing that for you. Is anyone else experiencing this or know what's causing it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Works well for me. The technical people are willing to help. Fill out a phabricator ticket. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You might have more chance asking there : Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. I'm on win 10, chrome too and there is nothing like this even at various amount of zoom. Maybe you have an odd extension ? Iluvalar (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know—I'm actually glad it's just me, because that means the gazillion visitors to our coronavirus pages are not having a problem reading that section. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI, it was a gadget, responsiveContent ("Improved appearance for mobile, narrow and wide screens") that was causing the problem. I have no idea why I checked the box to enable the gadget since I rarely use the Wikipedia app (it's not that useful for editors), and I rarely visit Wikipedia on my little smartphone. ¶ I left a message on the gadget creator's talk page re: this bug. Thanks for your help everyone. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Final note: Just so folks don't get the idea it's a problem-prone gadget, it appears to have been quite unusual. As the developer explained, "I'm unable to reproduce with Chrome 81.0.4044.92. Possibly that means that it is a combination of modifications/gadgets that you have installed, or a fluke, or it requires very specific set of page content conditions." ¶   Resolved   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:44, 12 April 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.

Ayatollah's Photo in Misinformation Section

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
 
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has suggested the U.S. government is responsible for the spread of coronavirus.(citation)

With some regularity, a stock photo of Ayatollah Khamenei has been added by different users to the Misinformation section of this topic.

I don't believe the Ayatollah's role in coronavirus misinformation is substantial enough to warrant making him the poster child for misinformation. We've also previously tried to minimize the focus on specific world leaders in photos used on this page. However, I'd like to get some additional input to help determine whether to remove or keep the photo. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: It looks like SharabSalam has removed the photo. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have boldly removed it. It's a BLP violation. It's giving undue weight to a certain point of view. As someone who is not American or Iranian I see that the U.S. and Brazilian leaderships have spread far more stupid misinformation regarding the coronavirus than any other nations (at least Ayatollah didn't call it a hoax). There is no clear representative images for misinformation related to coronavirus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam and Wikmoz: I commented below before seeing this. I don't particularly care whether the photo is of Ayatollah or someone else or something else, but I do think the section is long enough that it warrants a photo, and I think it's somewhat incumbent on those removing it to propose some better alternative. I disagree that "there's no clear representative image" — readers don't interpret a photo of a particular person to mean that Wikipedia officially declares that person to be the worst coronavirus misinformation spreader on the planet, and assuming the caption was accurate, the Ayatollah photo seemed fine. If we want to change it to Bolsonaro or someone, I have no objections, or we could use a screenshot of some website peddling miracle cure drugs (unless there are copyright issues?) or something like that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for joining this discussion. This topic already has 63 media objects and I think this section is generally short enough to keep image-free but no strong feeling. This image jumps out as a good option but then again false cures represent only a small fraction of COVID-related misinformation so that might not be the best one. I'd suggest leaving the section without an image. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Every time the WMF does user research, readers ask for more images, so I think it'd be nice. I like the snake oil photo a lot, so I just added it to false advertising, but I don't think it'd fit in here, since the pandemic is contemporary rather than historical, and we want an actual example of misinformation rather than something merely evocative of the general idea of misinformation. I don't share the concern others have expressed here that using a photo of a person is somehow unfair to them — if they didn't want to be featured on Wikipedia as an example of a high-profile figure spreading misinformation about the virus, they shouldn't have spread misinformation about the virus. But I'm willing to try to find a different picture we might be able to compromise on more easily (and would appreciate if others looked as well). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictures are great, for tangible and visible things. Or long and dreary abstract theory. But this is one block of text here, and what does lying even look like, if not some snake symbol or another? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobody should be the arbitrary or capricious illustration of coronavirus misinformation on a high-traffic page, it's a cheap shot. If you can't bear reading without pictures, picture an uncaring object. Or at least a non-human (pangolins are immune to defamation). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yah unless it has some direct relation to COVID19 not seeing a need for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, when I glanced at it, my actual immediate thought was that a narrative was getting spun there. It is undue to use an image that's specific for one small aspect of a very broad topic (which in turn is written as general overview). People have suggested not including an image in the section, I think I agree. --Cold Season (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Photo for misinformation section

I just noticed the above section. I'll comment there instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

@SharabSalam: You removed the photo of Ali Khamenei from the section, noting "The role of Ayatollah is not sufficient comparing to other nations like Brazil or U.S. leaderships". It's a big enough section that I think a visual would be good. Do you or others have any suggestions for an alternative? Lacking that, I'll probably restore the Ayatollah photo as the best we have. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:43, 10 April 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.

Adjusting cause sentence

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

To "The virus is mainly spread between people during close contact,[c] often via small droplets produced during coughing,[d] sneezing, or talking.[11][12][14] While these droplets are produced when breathing out, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious in the air over large distances.[11][15][16]"

Minor change. Any thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

seems appropriate...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we change "being infectious in" to "infecting through"? If so, yes! If not, fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we can just write "While these droplets are produced when breathing out, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Change "being infectious" to "infecting" and I'm in. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I think "infectious" is correct rather than "infecting" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
As an adjective, yeah. As a verb, "infecting" beats "being infectious". When contrasting the verb "fall", a different verb is highly appropriate. Awkward descriptors are jarring and wordy. I'm "arguing" this, not "being argumentative about" this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, both are wrong opposite "fall", let's go with "infect". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean "than infect over large distances" rather than "than infectious over large distances"? The later sounds right. The former does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Without "being", "infectious" is pure adjective, so even worse. Hope that's just a typo. But yeah, the droplets fall over short distances rather than infect over long ones; maybe replacing "infect" with "float" could sound righter? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/why-taiwan-has-just-42-coronavirus-cases-while-neighbors-report www.voanews.com. March 4, 2020
  2. ^ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/taiwan-accuses-who-of-failing-to-heed-warning-of-coronavirus-human-to-human-transmission/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_29&oldid=1144959910"