HistoryofIran (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
*:Whether something is undue weight is an entirely different argument to whether it is original research. I have no opinion on the former question. You folks can debate that till kingdom come if it pleases you. Saff V., however, is insisting that the disputed it is original research, and he is quite incorrect in this understanding. Saff V., you really need to recalibrate here. Our text makes it clear that the letter's authenticity is disputed, but its contents are not in question; the minister's own statement supports our version of what the contents were. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
*:Whether something is undue weight is an entirely different argument to whether it is original research. I have no opinion on the former question. You folks can debate that till kingdom come if it pleases you. Saff V., however, is insisting that the disputed it is original research, and he is quite incorrect in this understanding. Saff V., you really need to recalibrate here. Our text makes it clear that the letter's authenticity is disputed, but its contents are not in question; the minister's own statement supports our version of what the contents were. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::This is not the first time something plausible has been denied by the regime. The [[Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752|shot down of a civil aircraft]] is a good recent example. It should stay imo. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
:::This is not the first time something plausible has been denied by the regime. The [[Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752|shot down of a civil aircraft]] is a good recent example. It should stay imo. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::The first sentence in [[WP:UNDUE]] reads as such: {{tq|"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace '''fairly''' represents all '''significant viewpoints''' that have been published by '''reliable sources''', in '''proportion''' to the '''prominence''' of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."}} The user who is trying to insert this material should explain how a paragraph should be dedicated to this ''''minority view''''? --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Ahmad Amirabadi == |
== Ahmad Amirabadi == |
Revision as of 19:51, 2 March 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Persian calendar/Gregorian calendar
@Leshawna boxi: I did some copyediting (minor improvements) to this edit. You most likely mis-converted the Hijri dates: see Solar Hijri calendar#Solar Hijri and Gregorian calendars and look at the external links for some suggested convertors.
Comment: it's obvious that there is a huge under-detection/underreporting of cases: 6 deaths implies that in any other country, there would be about 300 (plus or minus 100 or so) lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. Boud (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
For tidying up automated translations: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus; coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the disease. Boud (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
WHO visit 25 Feb
A WHO team plans to visit Iran on Tue 25 Feb. It will presumably tell the Ministry of Health that 12/0.02 = 600 and that if there really are 50 deaths in Qom, then 50/0.02 = 2500; and that in places with more thorough testing, the naive case fatality rate is 0.01, giving 1200 or 5000 SARS-CoV-2 infections, respectively. Add in the spread in the virus beyond 24 February that is likely from the so-far undetected-but-should-have-been-detected cases, and the number of infected (and deaths) in Iran will very likely catch up to close to the Hubei levels if Iranian authorities implement WHO recommendations fully. Boud (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure lots of people are skeptical with the official numbers released by the Iranian government. If the case fatality rate is really between 1%-2% like in other countries, then 15 deaths imply about 700-1500 infections in Iran, not the paltry 95 it is claiming right now. Sad. Titus III (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The actual fatality rate in China is almost twice as 1%-2% rate. Currently hovering at 3.6%. Since China has a very being sample by far, maybe the case fatality rate aught to be adjusted. This epidemic is a totally unknown territory for the world given that this virus is NOT what we have seen before or NOT like anything we have seen. It is best we have a wait-and-see approach for all countries equally than passing judgements so early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoane Mogosoane (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair reasons are needed for reverting
@Ms96 , YOu just with 220 edits in English Wikipedia need to study wiki policies more carefully. I explained my reason for removing the material in edit summary "is n't supported by the source". But you reverted it with no reason. You have to know that only mentioning "disruptive edit" is n't enough. The WP:REVEXP asked editors to provide a valid and informative explanation for reverting.
- As I mentioned above the edit is n't supported by the source, Can you show me the sentences says that "Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement"?Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- The exact text you mentioned is naturally not in the source, it would have been WP:C-P otherwise. However, it clearly says that "Qasem Janbabaei, the deputy health minister, ... denied the authenticity of a letter published in the social media signed by him, in which 35 people are confirmed infected and 4 are declared dead, and asserted that "not even a single positive SARS-CoV-2 case has been reported so far". So it needs nothing but common sense to draw a simple conclusion: "According to some letters published in the media – the credibility of which was denied by the government – Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement", the exact sentence in the article. Also, please carefully read WP:PING. For any interested user, the mentioned letter is available here. MS 会話 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: the answer of Ms96 is original research, is n't it?Saff V. (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: I would prefer the word "authenticity" to "credibility", but that's a minor point; aside from that, what part of the content is not supported by the source? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: sources (1, 2, 3) don't support this part:
Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement.
.Saff V. (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)- In addition there was just one letter no letters!Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there was one letter. Aside from that, the sources are clearly saying that according to the letter, the author, a deputy health minister (or equivalent) was making the President aware of the presence of Coronavirus. What part of that, I ask again, is not supported by the sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- There were actually more than one letter. In another one, signed by the interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, he urges the health minister Saeed Namaki to postpone releasing any information related to the outbreak until after 2020 Iranian legislative election in fear of low turnout. [1] MS 会話 07:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: i answered it yesterday. Also I repeated again, sources doesn’t say that “Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus but denied the presence of the virus”.Saff V. (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- There were actually more than one letter. In another one, signed by the interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, he urges the health minister Saeed Namaki to postpone releasing any information related to the outbreak until after 2020 Iranian legislative election in fear of low turnout. [1] MS 会話 07:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there was one letter. Aside from that, the sources are clearly saying that according to the letter, the author, a deputy health minister (or equivalent) was making the President aware of the presence of Coronavirus. What part of that, I ask again, is not supported by the sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- In addition there was just one letter no letters!Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: sources (1, 2, 3) don't support this part:
- El C I feel like I'm not getting through here; could you take a look? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Very simple, it does not support "Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus but denied the presence of the virus", but does support "According to some letters published in the media Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February". MS 会話 19:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- if you are sure, please provide the persian sentences that they confirm sources support above material ( according to the letter iranian officials were aware ... but denied).Saff V. (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have problem with "but denied" part, right? MS 会話 08:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I explained my problem for 2 or 3 times! Please provide persian sentences that u think support mentioned material ( iranian officials were aware of exact number of people inflicted by virus but denied it before announcing). @El C: I don’t know how many times I have to say the mentioned material isn’t supported by cited sources. And there is no fair objection ( it seems to be OR).Saff V. (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have problem with "but denied" part, right? MS 会話 08:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- if you are sure, please provide the persian sentences that they confirm sources support above material ( according to the letter iranian officials were aware ... but denied).Saff V. (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Vanamonde93, Saff V., Ms96. I'm afraid I'm unable to tell what's what with respect to the source (aside from the English in the url) since I can't read Farsi. El_C 15:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Translation (Google translate with minor edits):
- The Ministry of Health, insisting that there were "no cases of coronavirus" found in Iran, called the letter published on social networks by the ministry's deputy medical director about Corona's entry into Iran "fake." Deputy Minister of Health Qassim Janbabai says a letter recently released about Corona's entry into Iran is "fake" and "no case of the virus has been detected in the country so far."Mr Janbabai told IRNA on Sunday, February 16, "A letter recently published in the social media which which is signed by me, in which cases of coronavirus are reported to the president is fake and its publishers will be prosecuted." He explained that the letter was fake, the Department of Health has never had directly sent letters to the president, and all correspondence "was done through the ministry's office." He also said the letter number, the signature of the deputy treasurer, and the phone number included in the letter were incorrect and fake. In a letter posted on social media to the President of Iran, it is reported that in Iran "35 people have been identified with the Corona virus and four have been killed." The Iranian Ministry of Health has announced that the ministry's security center is demanding serious and legal prosecution of publishers of the "fake letter" and is pursuing the matter.(Some irrelevant issues about China deleted here) Previously, Iranian Ministry of Health officials denied any concealment of information about Corona. Alireza Raisi, the deputy head of the Iranian Ministry of Health, recently dismissed rumors that the Ministry of Health was not providing the evidence about the arrival of the disease in Iran and the death toll from the disease, saying: "If Need to be secretive, why was the Ministry of Health announcing the flu deaths weekly? "(Also some irrelevant issues here) Kianoush Jahanpour, head of the Iranian Ministry of Health's Information Center ... said that there had been no cases of the virus in Iran so far.
- It is also worth noting that the Iranian officials reported the first confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections on 19 February 2020 in Qom (This is actually the first line of the article) El_C You decide.MS 会話 16:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ms96, I tend to agree. Saff V., what is your response? Does the above satisfy you? El_C 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: thanks for attention.IMO, none of the translated sentences say directly that
According to some letters published in the media Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February
. It is just the original research of the user, actually the last sentence of Ms96!Saff V. (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: thanks for attention.IMO, none of the translated sentences say directly that
- Ms96, I tend to agree. Saff V., what is your response? Does the above satisfy you? El_C 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Saff V., Vanamonde93, and El C: I am a bilingual. The source starts with saying two officials from ministry of health denied any letters being issued by the minister of health on the true statistics of affected people. A fake letter appeared in social networks and it immediately faced official denial. Should it even be mentioned? How should the WP:DUE be applied here? --Mhhossein talk 19:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Whether something is undue weight is an entirely different argument to whether it is original research. I have no opinion on the former question. You folks can debate that till kingdom come if it pleases you. Saff V., however, is insisting that the disputed it is original research, and he is quite incorrect in this understanding. Saff V., you really need to recalibrate here. Our text makes it clear that the letter's authenticity is disputed, but its contents are not in question; the minister's own statement supports our version of what the contents were. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the first time something plausible has been denied by the regime. The shot down of a civil aircraft is a good recent example. It should stay imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence in WP:UNDUE reads as such:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
The user who is trying to insert this material should explain how a paragraph should be dedicated to this 'minority view'? --Mhhossein talk 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence in WP:UNDUE reads as such:
- This is not the first time something plausible has been denied by the regime. The shot down of a civil aircraft is a good recent example. It should stay imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Ahmad Amirabadi
The claim of Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani mentioning that "the COVID-19 death toll was 50 people from Qom" repeats for 5 times in the article. I am going to remove duplicated ones. On the other hand, I am against mentioning it into the lead which is the place for accurate and important information not questioning material.Saff V. (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: can you explain that why did you keep duplicated material in the article?
- The claim of Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani mentioning that "the COVID-19 death toll was 50 people from Qom" repeats for 4 times in the article:
- Lead :
Member of parliament for Qom Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed on the 24 February that the true number of COVID-19 deaths was 50 in Qom
- Timeline:
He denied parliamentarian Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani's claim that 50 people had died in Qom from COVID-19.
- Timeline, Note of table :
Member of parliament Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani claimed 50 COVID-19 deaths in Qom as of 24 February.
- Censorship claims:
Amirabadi claimed...that the true number of COVID-19 deaths in Qom was 50
Saff V. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)- @Saff V.: The part I added is necessary, it doesn't make sense if it isn't there. There are however two are places added by somewhere else which are not unnecessary - the second mention in Timeline (the paragraph about 25 February), and the note in table (it is not official statistics, therefore should not be given there, otherwise all kinds of claims may be added). You deleted the wrong part. The lead is a summary, therefore it doesn't really count, but you can remove it if you don't think it is important enough to be in the lead. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have deleted the two unnecessary ones. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I think if we want to remove the claim of Amirabadi from the lead, the balance of all pov s would be broken. Am I right?Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- We'll see how the situation develops. The mention in the lead can be shortened in the future - at the moment the claim and the minister's reply occupies half the lead, and such prominence given to one single claim may be unwarranted when other facts may need to be mentioned in the lead, for example how the government deals with the outbreak and the impact of the outbreak. I'm not saying that it needs to be deleted, just trimmed so that the claim is not given excessive weight. Hzh (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Good points. Now we have three different sources consistent with about 200 deaths nationally and around 20,000 cases (consistent with the lower range case fatality rates of around 1%): Amirabadi (multiply by four for other cities), BBC Persian, UToronto group. I restructured much of this part of the content. The idea is that the intro of Non-government estimates is a summary of the two sections - cases and deaths - and that the 2nd paragraph in the lead is a condensed summary of that summary. Boud (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- We'll see how the situation develops. The mention in the lead can be shortened in the future - at the moment the claim and the minister's reply occupies half the lead, and such prominence given to one single claim may be unwarranted when other facts may need to be mentioned in the lead, for example how the government deals with the outbreak and the impact of the outbreak. I'm not saying that it needs to be deleted, just trimmed so that the claim is not given excessive weight. Hzh (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I think if we want to remove the claim of Amirabadi from the lead, the balance of all pov s would be broken. Am I right?Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have deleted the two unnecessary ones. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: The part I added is necessary, it doesn't make sense if it isn't there. There are however two are places added by somewhere else which are not unnecessary - the second mention in Timeline (the paragraph about 25 February), and the note in table (it is not official statistics, therefore should not be given there, otherwise all kinds of claims may be added). You deleted the wrong part. The lead is a summary, therefore it doesn't really count, but you can remove it if you don't think it is important enough to be in the lead. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Again duplicated material
It seems that the following material are duplicated. Even as I explained here, one of them doesn't support by provided sources. Anyway I think, as wp:weight demanded, we should keep one of them. @Boud: and @Hzh: Am I right?
Prior to the official announcement of 5 cases of SARS-CoV-2 and 2 COVID-19 deaths in Qom, Islamic Republic authorities had not provided any specific data on suspected cases of COVID-19 in Iran, insisting that there was no COVID-19 in Iran.
According to some letters published in the media – the credibility of which was denied by the government – Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Iran prior to the first public announcement of the virus and of COVID-19 deaths in mid February, but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement.
Saff V. (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- The two paragraphs refer to the same event, so merging them into one paragraph makes sense. Just delete the wording
but denied the presence of the virus prior to the official announcement
, and reword the rest of the sentence - it says "some letters", but is there just one letter? Also just say that the government said the letter was a fake rather than its credibility was denied. Give the dates for when the letter was written if known (also the publication date seems confusing) and government denial. Hzh (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)- @Hzh: All right, the best solution is merging. Yes as sources (1 and 2 ) say there was just one letter. The photo of the letter shows that it was written on 12 February 2020 and it was denied by officials on 16 February (4 days later). Unfortunately, I can't understand what is your idea for merging the material. I wonder if you provide the suggested material for merging here? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- The two paragraphs refer to the same event, so merging them into one paragraph makes sense. Just delete the wording
- I can try to give a suggestion on how to rewrite the paragraph, the problem is that I can't read Persian, so can only rely on Google to translate to get a rough idea of what is said in the sources. The dates also come out strange in the translation. I'm not sure what was "published on Tuesday, 18 February 2020" that was mentioned in the article, is this the same letter or another? I'll give the suggestion later, but it would need to be checked, because as I cannot be totally sure what is said in the sources. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Suggestion, but check if this is what the sources say -
The government of Iran had insisted that there was no COVID-19 in Iran before 19 February 2020 when the first cases were announced. However, a letter purported to be from the office of the President dated [12 February 2020?] that circulated on social media suggests that the Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths many days before the official announcement. Government officials said that the letter was a fake. Another letter dated [18 February 2020?] also circulated on social media; it was signed by Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli and sent to Health Minister Saeed Nemaki to request that the announcement of coronavirus outbreak be delayed until after the parliamentary election to avoid a low turnout of voters. The government has also denied this claim.
Hzh (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC) - I think the section should not be titled "Censorship claims" since it isn't really about censorship but about not releasing true information. Hzh (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: thanks for suggestion, i will check it asap! I thinks that “claims”would be better than “ censorship “ because that information was announced but some people or media think that they are not true. It isn’t called censorship!Saff V. (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's just a suggestion and I'm sure it can be worded better, although I think it may be clearer (if my understanding of the sources is correct) than the current version which is confusing. I'm not sure how to title it, but I think it could also be merged with the previous section on government response or another section. Not sure if it's useful, but here's Kamiar Alaei claiming that political decision had caused the outbreak because it coincided with the anniversary of Iran's revolution and the parliamentary election - [2]. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Thanks again for providing the text, I just remove the data of letters to make sentences shorter. I think that the content of letters is more important than the data. Do you agree with replacing it with to the first paragraph of censorship section?
The government of Iran had insisted that there was no COVID-19 in Iran before 19 February 2020 when the first cases were announced. [1][2] However, a letter purported to be from Ministry of Health to the office of the President that circulated on social media suggests that the Iranian authorities were aware of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths many days before the official announcement. Government officials said that the letter was a fake.[3][4][5] Another letter also circulated on social media; it was signed by Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli and sent to Health Minister Saeed Nemaki to request that the announcement of coronavirus outbreak be delayed until after the parliamentary election to avoid a low turnout of voters. The government has also denied this claim.[6]
Saff V. (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)- Seems fine to me, I'm not sure if the people who denied the claim need to be added in the last sentence, but you can decide. It can also be reworked if someone else objects to the edit. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: what is your opinion about merging the "censorship claims" into the "government response" with the title of "denied claims"?Thanks, do you mean that i shouldn’t replace above material to the article?Saff V. (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- You can replace the first two paragraphs in the "Censorship claims" section with the text above. Maybe we can leave reorganizing the article (merging sections) to another time. This sentence
Neighbouring countries Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain announced that it recorded their first coronavirus cases from people who came from Iran.
can be deleted or moved to the international spread section since it doesn't seem obvious that it should be in the censorship section. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- You can replace the first two paragraphs in the "Censorship claims" section with the text above. Maybe we can leave reorganizing the article (merging sections) to another time. This sentence
- @Hzh: what is your opinion about merging the "censorship claims" into the "government response" with the title of "denied claims"?Thanks, do you mean that i shouldn’t replace above material to the article?Saff V. (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me, I'm not sure if the people who denied the claim need to be added in the last sentence, but you can decide. It can also be reworked if someone else objects to the edit. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Thanks again for providing the text, I just remove the data of letters to make sentences shorter. I think that the content of letters is more important than the data. Do you agree with replacing it with to the first paragraph of censorship section?
- It's just a suggestion and I'm sure it can be worded better, although I think it may be clearer (if my understanding of the sources is correct) than the current version which is confusing. I'm not sure how to title it, but I think it could also be merged with the previous section on government response or another section. Not sure if it's useful, but here's Kamiar Alaei claiming that political decision had caused the outbreak because it coincided with the anniversary of Iran's revolution and the parliamentary election - [2]. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh: thanks for suggestion, i will check it asap! I thinks that “claims”would be better than “ censorship “ because that information was announced but some people or media think that they are not true. It isn’t called censorship!Saff V. (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Elham Sheikhi,an Iranian footballer is alive
Elham Sheikhi, an Iranian footballer didn't die and is not the same as Elham Sheikhi who died from the virus.are two different persons.. Be careful about the violation of wp:BLP.Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
flu or sars?
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/2/29/iranian-mp-dies-of-coronavirus-as-tehran-dismisses-rumours should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
International spread and travel restrictions
It seems that "International spread and travel restrictions" section contains the largest volume of the article, although there are more important sections in comparison with "International spread and travel restrictions". For instance, "Pakistan closed its borders with Iran" repeats 3 times in the section. On the other hand, the reliability of some sources in the section is questionable, for example gulfnews and civil.ge. @Boud: and @Hzh: what do you think about that?Saff V. (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- The spread from Iran is an important issue, and the relative volume of text is to some degree a side effect of Iranian attempts at censorship: there may well be more RS info on the effects of the Iran outbreak on the outside world compared to the outbreak in Iran itself. But it's also a real thing: there's a big section in the Italy article on the role of the Italian outbreak on the rest of Europe (and beyond). And this will be useful in the long term for people who wish to analyse the spread. In five years' time (even sooner), there will be many people (researchers, students) who wish to understand the history of the spread. Modelling of epidemics in general, and this pandemic (for talk page discussion we're allowed to say that) in particular, will build on the collection of this sort of information.
- But of course redundant info can/should be condensed - right now, per the text, we have several countries closing their borders on 23 Feb and then a second time on 24 Feb! Decoding "exact" information from the sources can be difficult, especially since "closing a border" is not done instantaneously and is open to interpretation. Probably 23 Feb would be a reasonable best interpretation, assuming that the info is extracted correctly from the sources, although I haven't checked them.
- Gulf News is a well-established UAE English-language newspaper and is WP-notable. It presumably self-censors for criticism of UAE key policies (or UAE human rights violations), but there are few countries where mainstream newspapers do not self-censor to some degree from criticising government and dominant corporations (while repeating ad infinitum that they're proud of their journalistic freedom of speech). So I think it would pass RS by Wikipedia standards (if we were strict, we'd have almost no sources at all).
- Civil Georgia is also WP-notable, though with very few references, and probably a less well-established reputation.
- I do see one source that is definitely unreliable ;) as a source for Wikipedia - "2020 coronavirus outbreak in Sweden", Wikipedia, 28 February 2020, retrieved 29 February 2020.
- Overall, go ahead and remove redundancies, but I think it's important to give clear edit summaries and links to WP:X guidelines so that newer Wikipedians don't feel that their work is being unjustifiably destroyed and so that they can learn more. Boud (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)