This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talkpage banners | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To-do list for COVID-19 pandemic: | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
Current consensus
NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus in the article. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus]], item [n]
. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
"The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2]"Link 1
2. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. Link 1
3. The article should not use {{current}} at the top. Link 1 (informal), Link 2 (informal)
4. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. Link 1
5. Include subsections of the "Domestic response" section covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. Link 1 Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. Link 2
7. The infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. Link 1 (prevailing) Consensus is currently unclear on this issue.
8. The clause on xenophobia in the lead should read ...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.
Link 1
The first few sentences of the second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease.
10. The title of the article was decided to be "COVID-19 pandemic". It was also decided that the title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. Link 1, Link 2
11. The lead paragraph should use Wuhan, China
to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. Link 1
12. The second sentence of the lead paragraph should be phrased using the words "first identified" (not "originated") and "December 2019" (not "early December 2019"). Link 1
13.U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[8] (1:05 min)
- File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. Link to RFC
14. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. Link 1
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference
WHO2020QA
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bourouiba, JAMA, 26 March
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
ECDCQA
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
- ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
StableNIH
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Rogers, Katie; Hauser, Christine; Yuhas, Alan; Haberman, Maggie (24 April 2020). "Trump's Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
RfC: Should the sentence on xenophobia in the lead be removed?
Currently, the lead of this article includes the following sentence:
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.
Request for Comment: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?
Note: see the talk page discussion of this topic a couple of sections up. This RfC applies only to the lead, not to the body of the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support as nominator: As per the talk page discussion a couple sections up, I believe it should. While the material about xenophobia and discrimination should remain in the body of the article, it is no longer a prominent enough feature of the pandemic as a whole to be given a full sentence in the lead. The lead should reflect the globe's experience succinctly and without giving undue weight to parts of the pandemic that were important and prominent in February and March, but have faded from view over time. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The xenophobia thing is WP:RECENTISM and does not deserve a significant portion of space in the lead. The lead as a whole needs some rewrite, which I plan to after this discussion reaches a consensus of remove, or at least trim. If we're talking about "but they have an article!"-- well, there are alot of articles about COVID, and it's impossible to put it all in the lead. And I view that as a weak rebuttal to keep the xeno stance, especially for the fact that the discrimination is just an overnight thing; it has now died out. GeraldWL 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support either removal altogether, or at a minimum rewording to something like "the pandemic led to instances of discrimination against people perceived to be from harder hit areas, or those travelling for non essential reasons". The discrimination isn't limited to Chinese people, and the "being from areas with high infection rates" is the important part here, but it should be added that discrimination occurs against people travelling for non-essential reasons. The Chinese/asian aspect is recentism at its finest, and while it was appropriate to have in the early days of the pandemic, I think it should be removed now. I'll note that the "people travelling for non-essential reasons" discrimination isn't explicitly covered in the body of this article, but I think it should be, as the "cancel culture" around people not following guidelines is a big part of this pandemic around the world - but I can see if it can't be included in the lead just now because of that. Thus, TLDR, remove the explicit example of xenophobia/anti-Chinese racism, but leave the sentiment of discrimination/cancelling of people in general from "areas with high infection rates" and attempt to add "those violating rules/regulations/guidelines" if possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support - although I don't know why you needed an RFC. That's usually reserved for disputed edits. Your topic was getting responses from the editors already in the section preceding this on the talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- MartinezMD, it has previously being disputed, if you followed by editing history in this article. So I think it make sense. GeraldWL 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Might have been a little bit relevant when added (even if WP:RECENTISM) but certainly not any more. In the scale of the current crisis, this is a minor aspect that can well be mentioned in the article but is entirely undue in the lede. Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- support per Jeppiz--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Mostly because it is and was a key social aspect of the pandemic as a whole. It is something that still makes the news with some unfortunate regularity.[1] I also whole heartily disagree with the recentism argument, given that it has has sustained coverage though the whole pandemic. For instance Biden just signed an executive order specifically targeting xenophobia against Asians and others due in part to the pandemic.[2][3][4] Finally I am not seeing a benefit to the article to remove it. The lead is not to long and again it is a key social aspect of the pandemic. While uncomfortable we should not try to minimize racism. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- We wouldn't be removing it from the article, only the lead. MartinezMD (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I believe it should remain in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, wasn't sure if it had been made clear that it would still be part of the article. Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I believe it should remain in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think trimming is the best idea. We could mix the stance with other discriminations so that it becomes "discriminations arose" or stuff like that. It is a part of my COVID-19 lead rehaul to-do list. Nobody is trying to minimize racism, but it's a minimal aspect of the pandemic and doesn't deserve a full sentence. GeraldWL 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- See I have to disagree. I think it was a key aspect of the social impact of the pandemic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Two comments regarding the arguments you've brought up. One is that I agree, recentism probably isn't the issue at hand, and seems more a question of prevalence overall (about which there's disagreement). The other is that this paragraph of the lede currently summarizes section 7, Impacts. However, the paragraph also doesn't reference the 'other health issues' subsection. I'd suggest that both subsections (and possibly others) should be somewhat linked by a common rationale. If xenophobia is kept in the lede, other health issues should also be included for the same reason of completeness in summarizing the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- We wouldn't be removing it from the article, only the lead. MartinezMD (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal because it's reasonable to mention it. There's a whole subsection about this in the article, so it's not unreasonable to mention the word in the lead. I have no objection to making the sentence focus more on areas with higher infection rates or otherwise at risk of spreading the virus (mask refusers and people who are recovering from infection, maybe?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support xenophobia thing was WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Consensus?
- After a week of discussion, there have been no new comments in 5 days. I would say that there has been consensus that the sentence should be removed. PackMecEng has presented a contrary opinion in good faith, but all other editors who have commented see the matter differently so far. Unless there is strong objection and we need to wait a while longer or request a formal RFC close, I'm going to make the change to the lead tomorrow. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- As a non-participant, I agree it's fair to say consensus has been reached. It's not unanimous, but it is consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why not let the RFC finish? There seems to be almost no input from anyone outside the article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- As a non-participant, I agree it's fair to say consensus has been reached. It's not unanimous, but it is consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, there's no formal timeline required to 'finish' an RfC.
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration.
That said, after rereading your comments I think it's fair that your policy comments haven't been responded to directly, and can agree that additional time for further comment would be appropriate. I'm not sure it would make sense to wait the full 30 days for the bot if there's no other votes, but I would also like to see further discussion around the policy arguments you make. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, there's no formal timeline required to 'finish' an RfC.
Proposed new wording
Given the discussion, what do people think of this proposed new wording to broaden what the sentence covers?
The pandemic has raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, xenophobia, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.
This improves the lead by adding mention of two important topics that were not previously included, while continuing to include the issue of racial discrimination and xenophobia. Very open to other suggestions for rewording. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- This could work. The prominence of the content in question is diminished by being included in a list about social consequences, which I think will shed enough undue weight to make it due. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the last sentence of the lead given the further discussion here. Of course, further changes and improvements are always welcome, especially as I think the wording I proposed and implemented is a bit clunky. Thank you all for the good discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Restriction on adding unauthorized African and South American countries
Who added the note "Please get a consensus at the talk before adding a section for any new country here." to the article? There are 21 paragraphs in total about COVID-19 in Europe, 5 paragraphs about devastated South America and only one paragraph about Africa. Why is there a restriction on editors to get consensus before making edits to even this out? Gammapearls (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Citations needed
The Transmission-section is very undercited, the beginning of the Mitigation-section has an undercited second sentence, the WHO response measures has some uncited sentences. I have also seen some other tags such as "citation needed" and "speculation?" which are very ugly on a heavily visited article. These issues have to be adressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretchskull (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I originally tagged it and have now removed the speculative sentence. While it may be reliable that the person said it, it is not reliably correct. Per WP:Interviews "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said." If the mortality does unexpectedly increase by 30-40%, we can put it back in.
- Also, the issue of the Taiwanese President has been covered already, with the consensus being "The discussion has been open for quite some time, it seems keep is the common answer in terms of the image,thank you", so I reverted your edit. see the discussion in the archive Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_41#Removal_of_close-up,_civilian_face_mask_image_from_this_page MartinezMD (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Should the Infographics be updated?
At the moment some of the infographics and information are months-outdated.--Bakerloo 1972 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is something Fluffy89502 and Gajmar should be notified on, as map creators. GeraldWL 05:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't spend much time on this page but if any of you know of many maps that need updating just reply to me here with their file names and I'll try to update them. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021
Under "External Links" -> "Research Foundations," add "Outbreak.info by Scripps Research"
This source is an NIH and NIAID funded, open-source database. EH815 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. What do the regulars on this page think? Is this something worth adding? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Background section: Does it need updating?
Since the WHO has completed an investigation in Wuhan into the origin of the outbreak, should the Background section be updated to reflect or at least include the results of that? I'm only curious. PunkAndromeda (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021
Confirmed deaths per 1,000,000 population as of 9 February 2021 (update on Commons) 101.78.190.130 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)