Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19

Section headings NPOV

I don't know what interpretation of NPOV you have Thucydides411, but it is beginning to concern me. These are not merely allegations of disinformation and censorship, it is objective evidence of disinformation and censorship. It is not at all broadly disputed among RS. To make it seem like it is disputed is impartial and not balanced. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

All sorts of information that has nothing to do with misinformation is being lumped together under the label "misinformation". For example, there's a large section that discusses how the Chinese government said that its response to the pandemic was successful. How is that "misinformation"? You may disagree with the Chinese government's claims, but these claims are ultimately subjective. Some people will think that China's low death toll indicates success, while others won't. But it isn't as if one opinion is "misinformation" while the other isn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)to present

There is no part of the disinformation section that "discusses how the Chinese government said that its response to the pandemic was successful."

I do disagree with the Chinese government's claims, which are 100 percent WP:PRIMARY sources and unreliable for that very reason.

Regardless of what we think is object/subjective, there is what the majority of RS claims, and the majority of RS make absolutely clear thaat China has propagated a COVID-19 disinformation campaign. They've been spreading lies and propaganda since the beginning of the pandemic, RS dictates that. It's that simple. Have you read this article or any of its sources? ––FormalDude ^talk 06:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given what know of the Chinese government gag orders on Chinese scientists, extreme caution should be exercised when using Chinese scientific publications as sources for claims that are contested by other sources. LondonIP (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, we we're not going to disregard peer-reviewed scientific articles in leading medical journals because of the nationalities of the authors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"contained the crisis reasonably swiftly"

The intro mentioned praise of China for "containing the crisis reasonably swiftly." Per WP:WIKIVOICE, this definitely needs a counterpoint. This PBS documentary [1] shows, starting just before 1:13:30, a WHO employee stating that the chance to contain the virus was lost because they didn't know it could be transmitted from person to person until too late. I'm not sure the best way to use this, but I do feel it needs to be used. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The quote is "It was always going to be very difficult to control this virus, from day one. But by the time we knew that it was transmissible human to human, I think the cat was out of the bag. It had already spread. That was the shot we had, and we lost it." from an interview with Lawrence Gostin, a law professor specializing in public health law. It sounds like he is saying that human-to-human transmission was discovered too late for the virus to be fully contained. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this article, but it might be relevant to some other article about COVID-19. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Relevant because, as the documentary shows, China spent much of Dec.-Jan. of 2019-20 claiming there was no H-to-H transmission, even though local doctors knew otherwise. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

China spent much of Dec.-Jan. of 2019-20 claiming there was no H-to-H transmission, even though local doctors knew otherwise – can this claim be cited to reliable sources? If so, it should probably be mentioned in the article (the quote from Gostin doesn't say that though). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Much of December 2019? The first cluster of patients was only discovered at the end of December. This can't possibly be true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Li Wenliang warned his colleagues on 30 December. See his article. Therefore, he must have at least suspected that there was H-to-H transmission. The documentary I linked above (timestamp roughly 11-15 minutes) has doctors noticing a cluster in different locations in "mid December", but they don't specify a date. It has a sample being sent to a lab called Vision Medicals on December 24. Then it has a tech at Vision Medicals isolating a partial genetic sequence of coronavirus similar to SARS on 26 December. According to the documentary, a WeChat post about this was removed from the internet. Also according to the documentary (not sure the timestamp for this part), if a coronavirus can infect humans, H-to-H transmission is possible. These are the earliest instances known in the West. Again according to the documentary, China announced H-to-H transmission on January 20. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If the first patient test results came back on 26 December (I think it was actually a day later), the claim that China spent much of December denying human-to-human transmission can't be right. This is even if we unrealistically assume that the Chinese immediately understood a novel virus and its transmission properties. China's initial announcement on 31 December 2019 said that precautions were being taken to prevent transmission, but at the time, whether human-to-human transmission occurred was still anyone's guess.

In any case, the argument that China "contain[ed] the crisis relatively swiftly" is based on the fact that China successfully ended its epidemic in early 2020 and has avoided a second wave. Whether or not you personally think China responded poorly in early January is not really relevant. The various scientific articles calling China's response a success are largely based on what happened from 20 January onwards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

By "much of Dec.-Jan.", I was referring to the period from approximately Dec. 27 to Jan. 20. The lab tech's message did say that what he had found was a coronavirus related to SARS. According to the documentary, if a coronavirus can infect a human, it can be transmitted H-to-H to at least some degree. Hope that clears it up. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not so simple. The fact that a coronavirus can infect a human does not necessarily mean that it can be efficiently transmitted from person to person. If that were such an automatic assumption, then everyone would have known that there was human-to-human transmission the moment that China announced the existence of a novel coronavirus. There would have been no need for China to even state that there was human-to-human transmission. But of course, not everyone immediately assumed there was human-to-human transmission, because it's not so simple. Many people suspected there might be the possibility of human-to-human transmission, and Wuhan health authorities said they were taking precautions against transmission in hospitals. But knowing and suspecting are two different things. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• According to a very widely cited report by Nick Paton Walsh of CNN, the Chinese doctors knew about H-to-H transmission already in December, but were repressed by the government. The claim that China "contained the crisis reasonably swiftly" should be dated and attributed, and moved into the relevant section in the body. This claim contradicts what independent experts say in independent sources, so we should not give it undue WP:WEIGHT. LondonIP (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's an opinion source, which greatly weakens its usability. However, the documentary says the same thing in a lot of places, i.e. the 11:00-15:00 passage mentioned above. That we can use. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  The WaPo is an opinion piece, but the CNN article is a regular news report. I cited the WaPo oped as a secondary source on the CNN report. LondonIP (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove from lead per WP:GEVAL. Journal of Asian Public Policy is a little known journal and unsuitable for such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Most newer sources say the Chinese government's early response largely failed to contain the crisis. Gimiv (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't an exceptional claim. Cases in China peaked in early February 2920, and the outbreak was over by early April 2020. Many articles and editorials in scientific journals refer to this as successful containment:

  • "Vaccination strategy and challenges for consolidating successful containment of covid-19 with population immunity in China", An et al., The BMJ, December 2021.
  • "Successful containment of COVID-19: the WHO-Report on the COVID-19 outbreak in China", Salzberger et al., Infection, April 2020.
  • "China's successful control of COVID-19", T. Burki, The Lancet, October 2020. From this article: While the world is struggling to control COVID-19, China has managed to control the pandemic rapidly and effectively.
  • "Sustaining containment of COVID-19 in China", Editorial by The Lancet, April 2020. From the article: The quick containment of COVID-19 in China is impressive and sets an encouraging example for other countries.

  We include criticism of the Chinese government response in the lede, but we should also include the widely held scientific view that China's measures quickly contained the outbreak. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, this isn't an exceptional claim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In regards to this revert [2] by User:Thucydides411. The edit summary is misleading. We are citing NPR, not YouTube. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You are, in fact, summarizing a lengthy video on YouTube in your own words. We don't normally cite videos at all, whether they're from NPR or not.

Beyond that, for an epidemiological question, such as whether the original outbreak in Wuhan was contained quickly, we should look to the scientific literature, but popular media. We should not balance out scientific views with views from pop media. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Had it been contained, we would not be dealing with it today. It wasn't. This is getting into WP:BLUE territory. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If this were an article about the world's response to COVID-19, then the failure to contain the virus elsewhere would be relevant. The sources say that China successfully contained/controlled its outbreak. New infections were brought to zero throughout the country by April 2020. This is not an extraordinary claim, and it is repeated throughout the scientific literature on the subject. The lede should discuss it, because it's one of the most notable results of the government response in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think the summary of the video is inaccurate, you should improve it instead of deleting it, otherwise it may be considered disruptive. The question of whether the Chinese government's response to the initial outbreak was adequate is due for the lead, and there are a huge number of sources covering it, which must be representing fairly. We would not be in pandemic now if the Chinese government hadn't responded the way they did and silenced Li Wenliang and Ai Fen. LondonIP (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't normally use videos as sources, and this is one of the reasons. We're all left trying to give our own takeaway from a lengthy video.

Above, I listed 4 different scientific papers from high-quality journals that say that China successfully contained or controlled the initial outbreak. Pitting an on-air segment from the pop media against the scientific literature is false balance.

We would not be in pandemic now if the Chinese government hadn't responded the way they did: This is your personal opinion, which you're entitled to, but it should not color how we write the article, particularly when it clashes with what the scientific literature says. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine to cite a video from a reliable source, but we must be careful to stick to what the video actually says, not draw our own inferences (just like when citing text sources). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"is your personal opinion" Sources: Beijing acted against the coronavirus with stunning force, as its official narratives recount. But not before a political logjam had allowed a local outbreak to kindle a global pandemic.[3]

It was always going to be very difficult to control this virus, from day one. But by the time we knew that it was transmissible human to human, I think the cat was out of the bag. It had already spread. That was the shot we had, and we lost it[4] (1:13:30)

The coronavirus pandemic could have been contained if the authorities in Wuhan had notified the World Health Organization earlier and allowed an expert team to investigate in December 2019, according to Chen Chien-jen, Taiwan’s former vice-president, a renowned epidemiologist and health minister who made his name during the SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] outbreak nearly 20 years ago.[5] Adoring nanny (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any scientific sources that say that China did not quickly contain the outbreak? I've cited a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that say the outbreak was swiftly/effectively controlled/contained. Based on my reading of the literature, the dominant scientific view is that it was China's response that first convinced epidemiologists that containment and elimination was possible in the first place.

You keep quoting popular media. I'm sorry, but pop media is not terribly reliable when it comes to technical issues like epidemiology. When the scientific literature says one thing, but journalists without any scientific training or peer-review say something else, the scientific literature takes precedence. Newspapers are very bad sources for scientific questions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• China contained the crisis reasonably swiftly? Is this a joke? Remove. Francesco espo (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths

This is a question I've often wondered myself. If China is to be believed, they have one of the lowest fatality rates in the world and were one of the most successful at handling the pandemic. Currently our article contradicts itself: it has two sections about this, and one says they under-counted (Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths), and the other says they didn't under-count (Accuracy of official statistics). Can we get a discussion going about what the best sources say about this? Preferably academic sources. Let's discuss, get a consensus, then make the article consistent. Then we should look into updating in some other places to be consistent too: Undercounting of COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country, Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, high-quality sources say that China contained the virus very successfully by mid-2020.[6][7] Here's a study which used excess mortality data to assess whether deaths caused by COVID-19 went unreported in China outside of Wuhan, and did not find evidence for it: [8]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A source by PBS from earlier this year states that the speculation on China's death count is equally as probable (or at least comparable) to the speculation on Western country's death counts. There is no smoking gun pointing to a cover-up by China’s ruling Communist Party. But intentional or not, there is reason to believe that more people died of COVID-19 than the official tally, which stood at 3,312 at the end of Tuesday. The same applies to the 81,554 confirmed cases, now exceeded by the U.S., Italy and Spain. ––FormalDude ^talk 18:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid speculation in the popular media, and stick to high-quality academic sources. There are actual scientific studies that answer these questions, such as those highlighted by Mx. Granger above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that it's only a particular outdated journalistic source and that "the speculation on Western country's death counts" is also not speculation (there are reliable up to date sources on statistics), this only has historical value. If used it should be put in its actual context of media confusion with sources about that, so probably not very useful for this article today, —PaleoNeonate – 08:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: why should academic sources be preferred when Chinese academics are under government censorship on all COVID-19 related research? In a recent interview with Australia's ABC News, Dominic Dwyer says he is "intrinsically suspicious" of China's fatality rate, and many scientists were sceptical when China raised the death toll in Wuhan by exactly 50%. The NUDT documents leaked to Foreign Policy and 100Reporters also indicate the Chinese Government may be manipulating figures. Since China doesn't count asymptomatic cases, it's not surprising that the Economist estimates the real figures to be 17,000% higher than the official figures. LondonIP (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources tend to be better sources. This is supported by policy (WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:MEDRS) and it is also in my opinion the best way to cut through the political noise in this topic area. @Thucydides411, want to take a stab at answering this in more detail? You seem to have read the relevant academic documents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And why would we trust academic sources from a country where the government have imposed gag orders on academics publishing on the specific subject of this page? The gag orders was revealed by published by CNN and AP, and we have other RS like Foreign Policy, ABC News and the New York Times that quote experts saying there may be some fuckery with China's figures. Are we going to throw out those reports in favour of academic works to paint a rosy picture of the Chinese government's response, or present both sets of sources in context of possible censorship on the latter? LondonIP (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll let Thucydides answer this part. He's read the sources and seems confident in them. Not all academic papers on this topic are 100% Chinese, you know. Thucydides, what do you think of this argument that "all academic sources on this topic are tainted"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Highly respected scientific journals like The Lancet and The BMJ are clearly more reliable than news media speculation for epidemiological information. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We trust their editorial process more as well. That is the essence of WP:BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae and LondonIP: The NUDT documents leaked to Foreign Policy and 100Reporters also indicate the Chinese Government may be manipulating figures. No, the database does not indicate that. The database contains 640,000 "updates," not "cases," as the Foreign Policy article explains. Updates contain all sorts of information (not just new cases), and the Foreign Policy article explicitly states that the official numbers could be roughly accurate.

Since China doesn't count asymptomatic cases, it's not surprising that the Economist estimates the real figures to be 17,000% higher than the official figures. First of all, China does, in fact, count asymptomatic cases. I can even cite you the numbers from today: 15 asymptomatic cases, one of which is a domestically transmitted case in Wuxi, Jiangsu province, and the other 14 of which are imported cases in quarantine. As for the Economist's estimate, it's a black-box machine-learning model with incredibly wide error bars: it claims that China could have anywhere from -140 thousand (yes, negative 140 thousand) to 1.8 million excess deaths. The Economist is a popular magazine, and its machine-learning estimates are not peer-reviewed. Actual peer-reviewed scientific studies put the death toll at under 5,000 and the seroprevalence near zero outside Wuhan.

This brings me to my last point: no, we're not going to rule out peer-reviewed scientific research published in world-leading journals like The Lancet, Nature and The BMJ, simply because LondonIP doesn't trust Chinese scientists. I think the argument that LondonIP is making here is outrageous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government isn't a reliable source, whereas SCMP is. The could be roughly accurate quote contradicts many other statements in the article, including some in the paragraph you took it from. I would like to hear why you think Chinese academic sources should be preferred over regular reliable sources when CNN and AP have revealed Chinese academics are subject to gag orders on this subject. LondonIP (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The WP:RSP mention for SCMP says (emphasis mine): In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics.

We have no such current consensus on scientific publications published by Chinese nationals academics. For now, I do not believe SCMP would trump scientific journal articles (especially secondary review ones), regardless of who published them. (edited 22:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: are you saying that a Chinese government website is a more reliable as a source than the South China Morning Post? Note that my comment citing SCMP was about China counting asymptomatic cases as part of its official case tally, and Thucydides411 hasn't provided any sources from academic journals contradicting this. Besides for the SCMP article, this article from the BBC says that as of Dec 2020, China doesn't count asymptomatic cases for its official case tally. Please please don't copy Thucydides411's claim about Chinese nationals, as what I said was in reference to Chinese academics and Chinese government censorship on academic publications on this subject in specific. LondonIP (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh I must have misunderstood. My apologies. I don't think we should cite either the SCMP or official government websites about death tallies, except where we are explicitly stating "This is the official tally." Then I think we should probably cite the official site.

Otherwise I think we need to cite secondary independent sources. My apologies for using nationals instead of academics, I truly do mean "academics from mainland china" but I thought that is what you meant. I disagree, I think we can use publications from such persons. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe we can use Chinese academic publications when we know they must pass government censors, but you have made your position clear, and I won't respond further. If editors are not going to address the fact that the Chinese government censors Chinese scientists on COVID-19 research, we may need to have a policy discussion in RSN. LondonIP (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you stop judging scientific articles by the nationalities of the authors. These are not "Chinese academic publications." They are publications in prestigious scientific journals like Nature, The BMJ and The Lancet. The nationalities of the authors are irrelevant, and suggesting that we start ruling out publications because of the authors' nationalities is truly outrageous. You really have to stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP: as of Dec 2020, China doesn't count asymptomatic cases for its official case tally: China counts asymptomatic infections, and reports them separately from symptomatic cases (note that strictly speaking, an asymptomatic infection is not a case of CoVID-19, since CoVID-19 is the disease caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Above, I linked to the official daily count for 0-24 o'clock, 28 December 2021. As you can see, it counts asymptomatic infections:

31个省（自治区、直辖市）和新疆生产建设兵团报告新增无症状感染者15例，其中境外输入14例，本土1例（在江苏无锡市）；当日转为确诊病例7例（均为境外输入）；当日解除医学观察8例（均为境外输入）；尚在医学观察的无症状感染者496例（境外输入466例）。

This translates to:

31 provinces (autonomous regions and directly governed municipalities) and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps reported 15 new asymptomatic infections, of which 14 were imported from abroad and one was locally transmitted (in Wuxi, Jiangsu); 7 asymptomatic infections were converted to confirmed cases [my explanation: this means asymptomatic people became symptomatic] (all imported cases); 8 asymptomatic people were released from medical observation (all imported cases); 496 people with asymptomatic infection were still under observation (466 of which were imported cases).

That being said, I think we should definitely present both the official tallies and the results of scientific studies into excess pneumonia mortality and serology. We should make clear why these numbers are different: around the world, serology almost always gives much higher numbers than official counts, because not everyone who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 gets tested. The fraction of people who got tested early on in the pandemic, when testing was extremely limited, was even smaller.

Below, I've cited serological studies published in The Lancet Regional Health Western Pacific (this is the study referenced in the BBC article you linked to) and Nature. As far as I know, these are the best studies on the topic, and most of the authors are Chinese. We're not in a position to tell Nature that we know better, and that Chinese academics are unreliable. Top scientific journals with expert peer review have deemed this research to be worthy of publication in their pages. Also recall that Wikipedia is a global project, and a discriminatory sourcing policy that labels scientists of a particular nationality untrustworthy, regardless of where they publish, would be odious. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Again you link to a Chinese government website and papers from Chinese academics, contradicting sources like the BBC, SCMP, and even Caixin. I did not reject Chinese academics because of their nationality, but because they are being censored by the Chinese government on what they can publish on COVID-19, as evidenced by CNN and AP reports. I checked the Lancet and Nature articles you cited, and neither of them state that China's tally includes asymptomatic cases, therefore your claim is WP:OR. LondonIP (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Again you link to a Chinese government website: You claimed that the Chinese government doesn't count asymptomatic infections. The easiest way to prove that wrong is to link directly to the official daily tally published by the Chinese government, which reports asymptomatic infections. We're talking about what the Chinese government says, so quoting a Chinese government website is perfectly acceptable. In fact, that's the most direct way to see what the Chinese government is saying.

I checked the Lancet and Nature articles you cited, and neither of them state that China's tally includes asymptomatic cases, therefore your claim is WP:OR. This entire discussion about asymptomatic infections began with your WP:OR argument that The Economist's estimate of excess mortality is higher than China's official figures because of asymptomatic infections (again, note that The Economist is not a scientific publication, its estimate is not peer reviewed, and the estimate has enormous error bars that go down to negative 140 thousand - it's a machine-learning model that is crudely extrapolating from other countries with completely different policies to China). I pointed out that you're wrong about the counting of asymptomatic infections. They are counted and published. They're just published separately from cases, which are, by definition, symptomatic (this has to do with the distinction between the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19). But I agree that we should keep away from any sort of WP:OR in the article, and I haven't included any. We should just summarize what the best scientific sources say. That's what I've tried to do in the article.

I did not reject Chinese academics because of their nationality: Yes, you did. However you justify it, what you're saying is that we cannot cite papers published by prestigious journals like Nature, The BMJ and The Lancet if the authors are Chinese. That's an outrageous thing to suggest, and I'm shocked that you're making this argument openly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You claimed that the Chinese government doesn't count asymptomatic infections. No its not me that claims that. Its reliable sources like the SCMP, BBC, and even Caixin (which I wouldn't normally use for this topic, as they too are subject to the Chinese government censor on this subject).

The easiest way to prove that wrong is to link directly to the official daily tally published by the Chinese government. Not it most definitely is not. See WP:INDEPENDENT. This is a basic policy an editor with 18 years of experience like yourself should know.

This entire discussion about asymptomatic infections began with your WP:OR argument No, I have 1) provided three sources (ABC News, Foreign Policy, and the Economist) questioning the accuracy of China's official figures, and 2) provided three sources stating China doesn't include asymptomatic cases in its official case tally. Can you show me where any of your scholarly sources specifically state China does include asymptomatic cases in its official case tally? Please quote the exact text here.

what you're saying is that we cannot cite papers published by prestigious journals like Nature, The BMJ and The Lancet if the authors are Chinese. No, what I said was that Chinese academics are under government censorship on all COVID-19 related research. The Associated Press reports that under direct orders from President Xi Jinping, academics communication and publication of research has to be orchestrated like “a game of chess”, warning that those who publish without permission shall be held accountable [9]. China has a dismal record on academic freedom, and many Chinese academics face harsh punitive measures when they step out of line [10] [11] [12] [13]. For these reasons, we would also not accept scholarship from Chinese academics on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre or Traditional Chinese medicine where they contradict mainstream sources. LondonIP (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If we're discussing whether the Chinese government says X, then an official Chinese government statement saying X is absolutely a reliable source for the fact that the Chinese government said X (the relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF). You've said that the Chinese government does not report asymptomatic cases. I've directly shown you that they do, by citing the official daily report. Here are the numbers from today, from the official daily report published by China's National Health Commission: 29 asymptomatic infections. The Chinese government classifies asymptomatic infections differently from cases (which are symptomatic), but it does count and publish them. In any case, this whole discussion is a bit of a sidetrack. I don't see how it will alter the text of the article.

we would also not accept scholarship from Chinese academics on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre or Traditional Chinese medicine where they contradict mainstream sources: We wouldn't accept scholarship that contradicts mainstream sources (except, possibly to illustrate a minority view, in line with WP:WEIGHT), regardless of the nationality of the scholars. If a Chinese scholar publishes an article on the Tiananmen Square protests in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, then we absolutely would be able to use that article as a source. When work by Chinese scientists passes peer review at internationally renowned scientific journals like The Lancet, Nature or The BMJ, there's no question that we can cite that work. Frankly, Wikipedia editors are not in a position to overrule the decisions made by these journals about what is and is not good scientific research. If you think research by Chinese scientists can't be trusted, then write to the editors of The Lancet and make your case. At Wikipedia, we are not about to start discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to sourcing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF. No it is not. That policy says: self-published sources should only be used if it is not self-serving or an exceptional claim, and since I provided three high-quality sources (BBC, SCMP and Caixin) saying China's official tally does not include asymptomatic cases, you should cite WP:SECONDARY RSs of the same quality that counter the claim per WP:BALANCE, or we will have delete it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Frankly, Wikipedia editors are not in a position to overrule the decisions made by these journals about what is and is not good scientific research. At risk of repeating myself: Can you show me where any of your scholarly sources specifically state China does include asymptomatic cases in its official case tally? Please quote the exact text here. I couldn't find it, which is why I noted the WP:OR concern.

At Wikipedia, we are not about to start discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to sourcing. You have accused me of such xenophonia at least five times in this discussion. I have warned you against this on your talk page [14]. Please stop it. LondonIP (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

you should cite WP:SECONDARY RSs of the same quality that counter the claim: You want me to find a secondary source that says that the Chinese government report I linked to says what it says? I don't see what the point of that would be. We can both read the Chinese government document and see that it includes asymptomatic infections. They're listed separately from symptomatic cases, as I've explained, but they are listed.

About sourcing, as long as you say that we should disregard peer-reviewed scientific literature in leading journals based on the nationality of the authors, I will object. If you view that as a personal attack, I don't see what I can do, other than ask you not to propose objectionable sourcing rules. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking you to find a secondary source for the claim that China counts asymptomatic cases in its official case tally so that we can cite them in the proper context. I couldn't find anything specific in the Nature, The Lancet and The BMJ papers you keep on talking. Those papers aren't even about "Case and death count statistics" so we may have to find a new section for them. LondonIP (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You're using the term "case" very imprecisely, which I think is the origin of the confusion. "Confirmed case" in China means a symptomatic infection. Asymptomatic infections are a second category that is also published. I've already shown you the official daily reports, which clearly include asymptomatic infections, so it's a bit silly to cite secondary sources that confirm that the official reports include the information that we can all see they include (e.g., there were 45 new asymptomatic infections yesterday: 35 imported cases; 10 indigenous cases, of which 9 in were in Henan, including 8 in Zhengzhou and 1 in Gushi county, and of which 1 in was in Jinhua, Zhejiang). However, since you insist, here are a few news articles that discuss the official asymptomatic infection numbers: [15] [16] [17]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were going to show me text from the Nature, The Lancet, The BMJ articles, since you kept on mentioning them in this discussion. None of those three or the three new sources you're now citing actually contradict the claim of the BBC, SCMP and Caixin; that China does not count asymptomatic cases in its official case tally. Therefore, it would be WP:OR to claim they do citing your sources, and the third source is not usable, per WP:XINHUA. LondonIP (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to make an argument for a clinical distinction between "case" and "confirmed case" and how it relates to why China doesn't count asymptotic cases in its official tally, then please cite an independent source for that. LondonIP (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're arguing for here. The whole discussion about asymptomatic infections was based on your talk-page claim that China does not count asymptomatic infections. I was only trying to correct that incorrect assertion. On a talk page, it is fully sufficient to link to the official statistics, which do, as a matter of fact, include asymptomatic infections (the 6 January numbers just came out a few hours ago: 45 new asymptomatic infections in China, of which 3 are locally transmitted). That already proves that asymptomatic infections are counted in China, but since you asked for other sources, I provided a few different news articles that discuss China's publication of daily asymptomatic infection counts. And for the record, per WP:XINHUA, Xinhua is reliable for most subjects, and it is certainly reliable for reporting the fact that China publishes a daily count of asymptomatic infections. Hey, Xinhua itself regularly republishes the daily count of asymptomatic infections, as do countless other news organizations both inside and outside China. It's simply a fact that China publishes a daily count of asymptomatic infections, so I don't see what the point of our entire discussion here is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: since this discussion is veering dangerously into gish galloping, let me help you understand what you're arguing about. The point that LondonIP argues is that China does not count asymptomatic cases in its official tally - as reported by the BBC, SCMP and Caixin - while you argue against that, claiming there are better sources saying otherwise. Since you haven't shown where your supposedly better sources contradict LIP's stellar sources, and since the Chinese government and Chinese State media sources you provided aren't reliable in the context of verifying China’s official case tally, this discussion has reached its end. Either you cite your sources, or the statistics section need a major rewrite to make it more NPOV. CutePeach (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not just providing better sources, I'm directly linking to the official tally, where you can see with your own eyes that asymptomatic infections are tallied.

The statistics section is already based on high-quality scientific literature, and is written in a NPOV manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion may be getting a little bogged down. I've lost track of what the proposal is. If someone is proposing a change to the article, could they please clarify what that proposed change is? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to read this and from what I am understanding, the dispute is that if the sum of all cases ("official tally") includes asymptomatic cases or not? I believe it is pretty clear from the official government documents that asymptomatic cases are reported on a daily basis, but the question is that are these cases nicely summarized in the sum of all cases? Jumpytoo Talk 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an accurate summary of the dispute. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to what some RS say is the Chinese government's narrative and fudging of numbers. The link between China's supposedly low numbers and their so called Zero COVID strategy has been made by Novem Linguae in the #Zero-COVID section below, so we really need improve both articles as per WP:NPOV. To resolve the WP:OR concerns noted above, I propose we replace all WP:PRIMARY sources with high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. Chinese government and Chinese state media sources should not be used as per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. CutePeach (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We've essentially already come to the conclusion that China has low numbers, so there's nothing supposed about it. ––FormalDude talk 12:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems fine to use government and state media sources for reported case numbers and the government's strategy for controlling COVID-19. We use similar sources in articles about COVID-19 in other countries. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mx. Granger and FormalDude, as Jumpytoo and I have summarized, the dispute here is whether we can use Chinese government sources to substantiate whether the Chinese government's official tally includes asymptomatic cases; ergo, whether we go with them or with the sources which say they do not. I have the same concern for Russia [18] and Iran [19], and any other country where RS question the accuracy of statistics due to political censorship. CutePeach (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Chinese government publishes separate tallies of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. That seems to be confirmed by some of the sources listed above, such as [20] this one which notes asymptomatic cases being reclassified as symptomatic when the patients developed symptoms. Are there sources that contradict this? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That understanding would be WP:SYNTH. The Reuters report you referenced cites Chinese government "official data", so it cannot be used to negate the reports from the BBC, SCMP and Caixin that the Chinese government does not include asymptomatic cases in its official tally. So I ask you: do you have sources that contradict these stellar sources and put the claim that China does indeed count asymptomatic cases in its sum of all cases? If so, please provide them here, otherwise, this discussion is in danger of getting bogged down - again. CutePeach (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like we're saying the same thing in different words. Asymptomatic cases are not included in the tally of confirmed cases, but they are included in the tally of asymptomatic cases. I think all the sources I've seen confirm this, including the SCMP, BBC, US News, and Xinhua sources linked above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased we're trying to find common ground, but I do not see how you're saying the same thing. We have multiple RS saying China does not include asymptomatic cases in its official case tally, and that they are undercounting their cases, and no RS brought forward by you and Thucydides411 have been shown to contradict this. I do not consider the Chinese government or Chinese state media to be reliable, per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:INDEPENDENT. Your arguments to redefine the meaning of a case [21] or a tally [22] are tedious at best. I am disappointed that neither of you, or Novem Linguae have addressed the AP new report about the Chinese government censoring Chinese scientists on anything COVID-19 related. Its almost as if you are avoiding the question. LondonIP (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

From looking at the two links LondonIP provided, I do not believe there is any dispute that China reports asymptomatic cases separately (to add, here is a official Chinese government article describing their reporting criteria). While yes conveniently China only reports the total of the symptomatic category on the daily briefings, I can't see how this translates to China hiding cases. The data is still there, and anyone who is interested in the count including asymptomatic can do the math.

However, we should make note of this distinction in the article (as an example edit, change official statistics showed 102,083 cumulative cases to official statistics showed 102,083 cumulative confirmed cases and add a footnote saying something like The government only classifies cases as "confirmed" when the patient has symptoms or signs of pneumonia. Cases which are asymptomatic are reported separately and are not counted in official tallies.) for clarity purposes.

I also don't see the argument that we can discount high quality academic sources because some of the authors are from Chinese institutions, especially since no one here has provided any good quality academic sources that claim an opposing view. I agree with Thucydides that we can't be the ones questioning The Lancet and BMJ's editorial policies (and if we are, this is then a discussion for WP:RSN). Jumpytoo Talk 03:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo: I agree that we could note the definition of "confirmed case", and note that it does not include asymptomatic infections, which are reported separately. By the way, "symptomatic" in China does not necessarily mean pneumonia. I think the threshold for classification as "symptomatic" is far lower. If you read the detailed case-by-case description that Chinese health agencies publish every day on the provincial level, most cases published on any given day are, in fact, listed as "mild". We should write something like the following: ... when the patient has symptoms or signs of COVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Jumpytoo and @Thucydides411 here. We should describe how the statistics are different from other countries, we should describe the controversy, but we should not allege the conspiracy, nor should we cast doubt on Chinese academic publications simply because they are from China. We are not peer reviewers, we are not journal editors. We trust these people to do their jobs. We do not have high quality academic sources describing any reason to discount chinese academic publications. So we should not do so.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo: looking at the two links LIP provided [23] [24] and also this SCMP article [25], I see it clearly stated that China does not count asymptomatic cases in its official case tally, and I have not seen anyone provide any sources - good quality or otherwise - that claim an opposing view. I also don't see where it was argued that high quality academic sources should be discounted only because the authors were from Chinese institutions, so that must be an error on your part. I like your suggestion to distinguish how China counts cases but I would like to see it cited to secondary sources. CutePeach (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Expanding on what Mx. Granger wrote above, there are several scientific studies of both excess mortality and seroprevalence (i.e., the percentage of people who have been infected) in China. In particular, The BMJ published a scientific study of excess mortality in China: [26]. Some of the key findings:

• 4573 excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan: In Wuhan city (13 districts), 5954 additional (4573 pneumonia) deaths occurred in 2020 compared with 2019
• Outside of Wuhan, there was no measurable increase in pneumonia deaths: In other parts of Hubei province (19 DSP areas), the observed mortality rates from pneumonia and chronic respiratory diseases were non-significantly 28% and 23% lower than the predicted rates, despite excess deaths from covid-19 related pneumonia. Outside Hubei (583 DSP areas), the observed total mortality rate was non-significantly lower than the predicted rate (675 v 715 per 100 000), with significantly lower death rates from pneumonia (0.53, 0.46 to 0.63)

The initial outbreak in China was heavily concentrated in Wuhan and the surrounding cities. It had a measurable impact on mortality there. However, outside of that immediate area, there were actually fewer pneumonia deaths than normal, probably because the lockdown measures stopped flu transmission as well. The small number of COVID-19 deaths outside of Wuhan were more than offset by the large decrease in flu deaths.

There are also several studies on seroprevalence, which paint the same picture as the excess mortality figures. For example, a study published in The Lancet Regional Health Western Pacific finds that the initial outbreak was heavily concentrated in Wuhan:

• Wuhan had the highest weighted seroprevalence (4.43%, 95% confidence interval 95%CI 3.48%-5.62%), followed by Hubei-ex-Wuhan (0.44%, 95%CI 0.26%-0.76%), and the other provinces (<0.1%).
• The low overall extent of infection and steep gradient of seropositivity from Wuhan to the outer provinces provide evidence supporting the success of containment of the first wave of COVID-19 in China. SARS-CoV-2 infection was largely asymptomatic, emphasizing the importance of active case finding and physical distancing. Virtually the entire population of China remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2; vaccination will be needed for long-term protection.

Other studies, such as this one in Nature, have similar findings.

Since the initial outbreak was contained, China has not had a major outbreak on anywhere near the same scale as what happened in Wuhan. China had one serious outbreak (i.e., the first outbreak in Wuhan) that was concentrated in one province (and within the province, concentrated in one city), which peaked in early February 2020 and completely ended in April 2020. Since then, the country has followed a zero-COVID strategy (which you can read about in this scientific paper, for example), like New Zealand and Australia did for much of the pandemic. That's why the death figures are so low, in comparison to other countries that have pursued a very different strategy (mitigation). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a study from Nature that found "successful control in China was achieved through reducing the contact rates among people in the general population and increasing the rate of detection and quarantine of the infectious cases."

Looking at all the sources shown in this section, I think this paints a picture that the scientific consensus is China's death and case counts are likely not inflated and their government was largely able to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. If others agree, the next step is how do we go about making that clear in the article? ––FormalDude ^talk 00:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: there are certainly scientists who don't think there is any cover-up of figures, but there isn't a scientific consensus, and scientists aren't the only relevant experts for this subject. Scientists do not have psychic powers, so if the figures are being censored, and basing our position on their opinions would present a WP:WEIGHT problem. There is a broad consensus among all relevant experts that the reported figures from the early outbreak were wrong, and even the Chinese CDC have admitted that and adjusted those figures, but there is more ambiguity with more recent figures. China is the only country that doesn't count asymptomatic cases, which is reportedly part of a propaganda campaign to make the government look good. LondonIP (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that China does, in fact, report asymptomatic cases. There were 15 today.

the reported figures from the early outbreak were wrong: Define "wrong." Did China detect every case early on? Definitely not. No country even came close to detecting every case early on. Testing was extremely limited, and many (probably most) people with mild symptoms never even got tested. But thanks to seroprevalence studies (which I have cited above), we now have good estimates of the total number of infections.

even the Chinese CDC have admitted that and adjusted those figures: The China CDC didn't "admit" any sort of cover-up. In the first wave in Wuhan, when testing was limited, there were people who died without ever having a positive test. Those cases were investigated after-the-fact, and the CoVID-19 death toll was adjusted upwards accordingly. Similar adjustments occurred early on in US states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Making Accuracy of COVID statistics more NPOV

What changes can we make to this section to come closer to a neutrally written article? Thucydides411 has an issue with the due weight, and has tagged the section for fringe viewpoints. There's at least some objection to that, including partially from myself. I'm open to any ideas though for removing or adding content, so long as they're well justified and sourced. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We appear to have a consensus above that China is not fudging their statistics. Therefore I agree with the fringe tag. The section should probably be re-written with several paragraphs at the beginning stating how they are not fudging their statistics, with citations, then a paragraph or two at the end about how they have been accused of fudging their statistics but that this does not agree with the scientific consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer moving the claims of fudging to the "International Reactions" subsection, since they mainly come from the US and UK governments. Alternatively, we could rename the subsection "Case count and death toll", and refocus it on the official numbers and scientific results about mortality and seroprevalence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to be a step in the right direction. It's certainly fine to mention that some have expressed concerns without unduely promoting speculation or accusations. —PaleoNeonate – 12:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with such a move. If these claims are in RSes, which I believe they are (and not just SCMP etc), then they are WP:DUE. But they should be placed in the context of the countries making the claims, and attributed to those governments. We could have a subsection 'Case count and death toll' and I would agree it should be based in official sources and scientific papers. Not on aspersions cast by other governments. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and PaleoNeonate: the claim that fudging claims come only from US and UK governments is false. The claims come from Foreign Policy, BBC and SCMP and other well reputed media organisations. LondonIP (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some outlets may have claimed it too, but these should still be directly attributed to those making the claims and the governmental claims are the potentionally notable ones. (Also note, these claims are already featured in the article, so not sure what your proposal is) Xoltered (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The way we figure out how to treat claims on wikipedia is based on the nature of the sources which make those claims. We go with the version of the story which is described in our best available sources. In this case, those sources do not support the fudging claims. News agencies may have described the controversy. We should also describe the controversy. Some journalists may have alleged there was malfeasance. But that does not trump our academic sources. We should not put in wiki-voice claims that are not present in our best available sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I would not characterise the above discussion as a consensus that China is not fudging their statistics, and you didn't answer my question about the Chinese government's reported gagging academics publishing on this subject. I am not opposed to Thucydides411's idea to move the section, but I think it is more suited for the Censorship and Propaganda section. LondonIP (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving it to the "Censorship and Propaganda" section would imply that the accusations about much higher death tolls are correct. Yet those accusations are at odds with the results of scientific studies on the subject (see the above talk page section). Scientifically speaking, the accusations represent a WP:FRINGE view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I'd like Novem Linguae to reply here as they he deferred to you when I have asked them the Chinese government's censorship policy. Consensus has to be based on policy, not a counting of heads. As for the Censorship and Propaganda section, not all the claims there are stated as matter of fact. LondonIP (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've moved a portion of the section to International reactions. Please feel free to tweak my edit. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero-COVID

Alright, with the creation of the well-sourced zero-COVID article, I think this question is settled. China has half a dozen neighbors that did exactly the same thing (strict lockdowns in order to achieve zero COVID cases). The occam's razor here is that if a half dozen other nearby countries succeeded at it, there's no reason to believe that China wouldn't too. So absent extraordinary evidence to the contrary, I think we can move forward with changing this and other articles to reflect China's zero-COVID policy and the very low COVID case numbers it achieved and still achieves. And we can assume that these accusations of statistics fudging are simply political accusations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your zero-COVID article is a good start but I don't think it settles the question about the accuracy of China's official statistics. There is considerable disagreement between scientists on what exactly Zero-Covid is and if it is achievable or even advisable. Some scientists say it is aspirational and only achievable in a defined geographical area and only for a period of time. Vietnam, Singapore and Australia have given up on it and New Zealand has been able to keep infections and fatalities low due to its extreme isolation, travel restrictions and border control. Most scientists agree that SARS-COV-2 will continue circulating in the population just like influenza and herpes, and will not ever be fully eradicated. Most scientists also agree that vaccination is the most important measure for lowering the case fatality rate, and lower transmission rates by having less susceptible individuals. LondonIP (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP: My understanding is the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Australia still saw a zero-COVID strategy, despite the rest of the country abandoning it. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude. Good info. Can you do me a favor and look into this more, and if western Australia is still doing zero-COVID, add it to the lead of zero-COVID with a source? This will affect our DYK hook's factual accuracy. DYK hook currently says only China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are still doing zero-COVID. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: more than 90% of Australia's cases were around Sydney and Melbourne, so it made no sense for them to keep up with it, as the BBC explains [27]. I don't understand how China's Zero COVID propaganda proves that China isn't fudging its statistics, as Novem Linguae argues above - with an occam's razor. Looking at Zero-COVID#Views on the zero-COVID strategy, the only support it has left is from Chinese government scientist Zhong Nanshan, ​​who has promulgated lots of other disinformation and outright lies on behalf of his superiors. In light of Chinese censorship and propaganda on this subject, we should cite more credible advocates like ​​Deepti Gurdasani, and not use them for propaganda purposes. CutePeach (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I did not say the Zero COVID strategy proves China's statistics. See my previous comment: Looking at all the sources shown in this section, I think this paints a picture that the scientific consensus is China's death and case counts are likely not inflated and their government was largely able to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. The sources in the Case and death count statistics section are highly reliable and accurate. ––FormalDude talk 12:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude I didn't say you made that point. It was Novem Linguae's point, and I disagree with the reliability of the sources in the statistics section. The main problem here is source bias, as we do not mention any sources questioning China's statistics. We need to work together to make this section more NPOV by adding more high-quality secondary sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Zhong Nanshan is a scientist who is internationally highly recognized. I'll remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. When you make unsubstantiated allegations against living persons, you're skating on thin ice.

As FormalDude points out, the sourcing for the statistics section is very strong. Most of the sources are from peer-reviewed scientific literature. The view that China's death tolls are far higher than reported are WP:FRINGE at this point (and have been so for a long time). -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the Zhong Nanshan who promoted Traditional Chinese Medicine to treat COVID-19 [28] and said that the virus may have originated outside of China [29], so disinformation and outright lies is quite accurate. Anyway, we already have your comments above, so repeating them in every page section is WP:BLUDGEON. It looks like this section is about zero-COVID and how it relates to China's dubious statistics, so please stay on point. LondonIP (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Just going on publication and citation statistics alone, Zhong Nanshan is an extremely high-impact scientist, and is widely regarded as an expert both on the original SARS (he was very prominent in the development of treatments and public health response to SARS back in 2002-2004) and in SARS-CoV-2 (he's been on some of the major papers describing the virus - he's the corresponding author on this article, which has been cited a whopping 12,650 times as of the time of my writing). He's published many very highly cited scientific papers in leading journals (you can see a list here).

said that the virus may have originated outside of China: This is a mainstream scientific view. The closest known virus to SARS-CoV-2 was found in Laos. The 2nd closest virus was found in Yunnan province, China. Nobody knows yet where the reservoir for the virus is or where the spillover occurred. The idea that either could be in Southeast Asia is not far-fetched at all.

Anyways, Zhong Nanshan's views on the zero-COVID policy are highly relevant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't warn other editors of WP:BLP violations when the allegations are well substantiated. Despite his academic achievements, Zhong's promotion of TCM as a COVID-19 treatment, in line with Chinese government policy, makes him unsuitable for any statements of fact on this subject. There is no evidence that the virus spilled over to humans in Laos, though there are RS reporting that the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted research on coronaviruses from Laos, which is more relevant for the COVID lab leak and investigations pages. LondonIP (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP: That's a really strong take. I would ask for input from others at WP:RSN before ruling him out as "unsuitable for any statements of fact on this subject." ––FormalDude talk 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: did you not read the AP report about the direct order from Xi Jinping restricting scientists from publishing their COVID data and research? When we have multiple reliable sources questioning the effectiveness of China's Zero COVID policy, Zhong Nanshan's views do not WP:BALANCE the WP:NPOV concern. Just like his views on the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine as a COVID treatment, hs views should only be cited per WP:OPINION, not WP:BALANCE. I hope we can agree on this much. LondonIP (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Zhong Nanshan is one of the foremost experts in the world on SARS and SARS-CoV-2, and his views on the zero-CoVID policy have been very widely reported. As for reliable sources, a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable for all subjects. The NY Times has decent news reporting on many subjects, but when it comes to epidemiology or public health, The BMJ is a far more authoritative source. The BMJ is a scientific journal with peer review and scientific editors, and the papers are written by specialists in the given field. NY Times articles are written by non-experts, do not undergo peer review, and the editors do not have the same scientific background. Basically, if you want an analysis of the effectiveness of a public health strategy, go to the experts, not the pundits. The scientific literature has largely considered China's elimination strategy to have been a success, based on my reading. There's even an entire issue of The BMJ on this subject: "The world can learn from China's response to the pandemic, say experts". -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

He is not an independent WP:RS because he will only say what CCP wants him to and they are known for promoting false science. Fact that you can't understand this is ridiculous. TolWol56 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages. These sorts of unsupported attacks on living persons are not acceptable on talk pages. Zhong Nanshan is actually extremely famous in China for his courageous statements during the original SARS outbreak, and he's a highly cited research scientist who publishes in top-tier international journals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Zhong was speaking at a Oct. 13 ceremony in Guangzhou to launch a Baiyunshan banlangen project.

Ah, so he was just promoting it to make money off of it and to get grants from the companies that make it. That's pretty darn scummy. As far as I can tell, he's also done no actual research on banlangen and SARS or at least has never published anything about it. So that was just him blatantly lying. All he has is his 2015 study involving banlangen and influenza, where it just notes in it in a single sentence that the Chinese government claims it works against SARS. But that has nothing to do with Zhong actually researching it. So, all of that (his statement and any claimed research regarding it) is questionable at best. A top scientist just being a liar like that doesn't seem like a good thing. Silverseren^C 07:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Making Accuracy of COVID statistics more RS

There is a very long discussion above about NPOV, a policy which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

So here I have attempted to list all reliable sources questioning the accuracy of China's statistics so that we may see how to represent all the all the significant views as fairly and proportionately as possible, without editorial bias.

Important note: these RS question different statistics, including infection and death rates, case-fatality rates, and the methodology used to compile official case tallies. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RS questioning the accuracy of China's statistics

1. ​​PLOS: Analysis of the real number of infected people by COVID-19: A system dynamics approach
2. Foreign Policy: Leaked Chinese Virus Database Covers 230 Cities, 640,000 Updates
3. CTV: True toll of Wuhan infections may be nearly 10 times official number, Chinese researchers say
4. RFA: Pension Figures From China's Hubei Spark Doubts Over Virus Deaths
5. Bloomberg: Urns in Wuhan Prompt New Questions of Virus’s Toll
6. Time: China Says It's Beating Coronavirus. But Can We Believe Its Numbers?
7. BBC: Coronavirus: Europe 'wary of confronting China over deaths'
8. Economist: Covid-19 deaths in Wuhan seem far higher than the official count
9. Hindustan Times: What can explain the mystery of China’s Covid-19 numbers?
10. New Scientist: How is China beating covid-19 and are the reported numbers reliable?
11. Business Insider: Wuhan, the pandemic's first epicenter, may have had 10 times as many COVID-19 cases as were reported, a study from China's CDC suggests
12. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Coronavirus cases in Wuhan may be far higher than thought, according to China CDC study
13. Bloomberg: Wuhan’s Covid Cases May Have Been 10 Times Higher, Study Shows
14. CNN: The Wuhan files
15. Data fog: Why some countries’ coronavirus numbers do not add up
16. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: China's coronavirus death toll is curiously low. Can we believe the numbers?
17. Washington Post: A new report adds to the evidence of a coronavirus coverup in China (Editorial Board Opinion)
18. CNBC: China coronavirus case numbers can’t be compared to elsewhere, economist says
19. Business Insider: Experts are questioning China's reported coronavirus case and death counts. Here's why it's so important to get the data right.
20. Financial Times: China accused of under-reporting coronavirus outbreak
21. Boston Herald: Chinese government lying about coronavirus could impact U.S. business ties: Experts
22. China's Coronavirus Battle is Waning. Its Propaganda Fight Is Not.

— Preceding .unsigned comment added by ScrumptiousFood (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I just decided to go through this list, and here is what i found. I have to say, in summary, I am flabbergasted that you appear to be using this to defend the notion that China deliberately under-reported data, when these sources do not show that. And when they do, it is from right wing policy think tanks and pundits, or other non-epidemiologists. Where are the epidemiologists?

Detailed point-by-point analysis of these sources

1) Does not support any deliberate under-counting. This paper is about estimating the excess mortality and case counts with incomplete data. Not about any deliberate or intentional under-reporting. There is a Chinese academic on this paper as the senior author. And none of these authors appear to be epidemiologists. Additionally, this is a primary source. 2) This actually supports the official counts from China by showing they are "roughly" accurate, with a more number-by-number database that was leaked. It only theorizes that in the past, the Chinese government has not been forthright with data, it does not cite any actual evidence of this fact, and does not present the current coronavirus numbers as actually fudged. To interpret this source in that way is yellow journalism. 3) This is a TV news report that cites a WeChat post from the Chinese CDC about seroprevalence. They surveyed a bunch of chinese citizens, got their serum, and looked for antibodies against COVID-19. This type of test can have some limitations, as it is more prone to false positives when conducted on such a large population. As an aside, this is a seroprevalence study which roughly matched the official case counts the Chinese CDC put out beforehand: [30]. It shows the actual control of virus spread was actually pretty good, as only 2 out of 12,000 patients sampled outside of hubei at that time had antibodies against the virus. But, I would ask, what does it say about this list of sources if so many are actually from the Chinese CDC and other chinese academics? What does that say about how this list was gathered? 4) This article, at least, describes some possibly unreported deaths, but it does not provide any reason to believe there was "deliberate" under-reporting. Additionally, the "expert" cited in this article is "Transparency campaigner Liu Jun" who is a communications professor in Denmark. Not an epidemiologist, has no training in epidemiology or health or medicine. And additionally, is a pretty well-known activist with a POV. Additionally, per WP:RSP, this is a source which typically should be attributed for statements like this which are controversial and may not represent neutral reporting. I would also point out that they misconstrue a JAMA paper near the end, describing a paper about early circulation as though it proves a cover-up. And finally, it repeats a well known Falun Gong conspiracy theory about "cremation urns" [31] [32]. There has been no actual evidence in support of this theory, only misunderstanding of social media posts and propaganda. I am no fan of China, but we should have standards of evidence much higher than this. 5) again, this is the urns conspiracy theory, which is based on a social media post about "thousands of urns" stacked up in Chinese funeral homes. but as this quality journalism correctly states, we have no idea how many were filled with actual ashes, or in use, and how many were just in anticipation of a possible wave of death in the ensuing pandemic. It does not help us understand if there are uncounted deaths. No actual experts are cited in this story. 6) This article cites the following in support of the idea of undercounting: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (clearly not an expert in this or any type of epidemiology), The aforementioned "urns" conspiracy theory from radio free asia, a study from the University of Hong Kong (a preprint), which attempts to calculate the "real" number of deaths, but has not been peer reviewed, and interestingly, not published in the nearly 2 years it has existed. What does that tell us about the veracity of the claims in the paper? And finally, the Time story cites a few academics who are international relations experts, and have no training in epidemiology. The one person it cites who would actually be useful is a gynecologist from mainland China, who also believes the government is not being transparent. That, alone, is a useful expert to quote, and they are a mainland Chinese source. 7) Again, only international relations and politicians people are cited. No actual epidemiologists or statisticians. This is perhaps the most important quote of the piece: "It is impossible to know what the figures are in China. What we do know is the figures are very likely to be wrong," Tom Tugendhat MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told the BBC. They believe the numbers are wrong because they distrust China a priori. 8) This is essentially an original research piece by several reporters, attempting to figure out the "excess mortality" figures by extrapolating from three Wuhan districts to represent the rest of the city. This is bad science, and not supported by any actual evidence. it's like saying "okay, we know how many people got sick in Manhattan, let's use that % to predict how many are sick in Brooklyn" even though these two boroughs are extremely different geographically and population-wise. You cannot compare an apple to an orange and say they both taste like apple-sauce. And regardless, this would need to be covered by secondary authoritative sourcing. It's not a MEDRS, it should not be used like a MEDRS. 9) This is a blatant case of why WP:HEADLINEs are not useful. The article actually just covers a research article which attempts to figure out how China has been so successful in controlling the virus, it turns out it's because they focused on test, trace, isolate, and have done it remarkably well. Nothing to do with "fudged" numbers. 10) Again, this article does not cite any epidemiologists or actual experts. 11) This again cites the seroprevalence study from, you guessed it, the Chinese CDC. Why would they be hiding numbers if they're just figuring them out now using seroprevalence, and reporting it publicly? This makes no sense as a way to cite the Chinese government perpetrating a coverup, when it is the Chinese government who is telling us the numbers used to describe the cover-up...

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I don't know why you are so "flabbergasted" about a "notion" not "shown" by my sources when all I said is that they question the accuracy of China's statistics. Since this is political in nature, epidemiologists and statisticians cannot be the only relevant experts, but there are a few critical comments from scientists you missed, like Dwyer on China's CFR in the ABC article. We do not need to use all these sources and quoted experts, but the number of RS questioning the accuracy of China's statistics clearly show the topic surpasses the threshold for covering it on the page. There are some errors in your point-by-point analysis, but I just wanted to get this main point of the way, as neither of us have the facts. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I only see one scientific source in that list: source #1, from PLOS One. The rest of the sources are news articles.

For questions of epidemiology or public health, news articles are of little value. They're written by non-experts and don't go through any rigorous scientific editing or peer-review. We don't have to rely on these sorts of low-quality sources, because an array of scientific studies have established the level and geographic distribution of infections and excess deaths in China:

• The Lancet Regional Health Western Pacific: "Antibody seroprevalence in the epicenter Wuhan, Hubei, and six selected provinces after containment of the first epidemic wave of COVID-19 in China"
• Nature Medicine: "Seroprevalence of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in China"
• The Lancet Microbe: "Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong and in residents evacuated from Hubei province, China: a multicohort study"
• mSphere: "SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Seroprevalence in Wuhan, China, from 23 April to 24 May 2020"
• JAMA Network Open: "Seropositive Prevalence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China"
• The BMJ: "Excess mortality in Wuhan city and other parts of China during the three months of the covid-19 outbreak: findings from nationwide mortality registries"
• PLOS ONE: "Analysis of the real number of infected people by COVID-19: A system dynamics approach" (this is source #1 above, and its findings are consistent with those of the other scientific studies listed here)

Most of these scientific sources are already discussed in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add that the Radio Free Asia article linked above ("Pension Figures From China's Hubei Spark Doubts Over Virus Deaths") makes such absurd claims that their publication of this article calls all of their reporting on this subject into doubt (if the fact that they're US government media with an explicit mandate to advance US foreign policy isn't enough to convince one to view them with caution). The death toll of 150k that it proposes is basically impossible, unless you assume that everyone in Wuhan was infected (and that the virus was far more deadly there than elsewhere). This is contradicted by every study on seroprevalence, including among people evacuated from Wuhan to Hong Kong. It's not even a small difference: we're talking about a difference of 50x from every scientific estimate of the number of infections and deaths. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears we are still having the exact same discussion, speculation from popular media does not mean we should disregard nearly all scientific literature, which disagrees. Xoltered (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Accuracy of COVID statistics should be restored with citations to these sources for the article to be NPOV. These are high-quality RSs and unless they are putting claims directly contradicted by high-quality scientific sources, I see no problem with using them with WP:INTEXT attribution. The WP:INDEPENDENT concern should be discussed further on WP:RS/N. CutePeach (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

They are in contradiction with the scientific sources, how many different pages will you make the same, repeatedly responded to point on? As discussed above, there are reliable, peer-reviewed scientific sources which show china's statistics are as accurate as any other country's. Xoltered (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you ScrumptiousFood. These are high quality reliable sources offering a significant viewpoint which should be represented, per WP:NPOV. The Accuracy of COVID statistics should be restored section should be restored to cite these sources. LondonIP (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• To evaluate the sources provided by Scrumptious:

Extended content

1. The source makes no claim that China intentionally is hiding numbers. Unfortunately the study does not provide a total number of missed cases, so I can't compare them to the seroprevalence studies. 2. From the article: The dataset reports one case of coronavirus in a KFC in the eastern city of Zhenjiang on March 14, for example, while a church in the northeastern provincial capital of Harbin saw two cases on March 17. This seems to be a contact tracing map, not a map of cases (65k official cases in Hubei, so 9-10 places per person, which isn't unreasonable considering how detailed Chinese tracking is). In addition, according to the article: exploring ways to make the data available for researchers studying the spread of the coronavirus.. Are there any academic studies that are reviewed this database? 3. According to the article: according to a study by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. The seroprevalence studies which also claim a 10x the official count (~700k in Hubei, vs ~65k official reported) have been disputed because they are from Chinese scientists. And the study the article is based off is straight up from the Chinese government. So which is it? Are Chinese scientists reliable (in which case just use the scientific studies themselves), or are they not (in which this article is unreliable)? And regardless, because this is the Chinese government themselves making the 10x claim, I don't see any evidence of intentional hiding of cases. 4. This is pure speculation. It would be very undue to use this alone to make claims of hiding numbers. Thucydides already makes a good rebuttal, and I'll just redirect to what they said. 5. Gives a 404. If they pulled the article, likely means something. 6. A lot of the article is speculation. We have better scientific sources that Thucydide has mentioned. The article's point about asymptomatic cases and China's unusual case counting, we can mention about how this reporting method is controversial (for scientific literature about this, see this Lancet) 7. This article says US & Europe governments don't believe China's number, but worried about directly making that statement. Perhaps worth a mention, but not here (more of a "international relations" topic). 8. The article is based off a BMJ study by China's CDC, but uses different methodology to achieve a different result. But this is not peer-reviewed in a academic journal, so we shouldn't use this when we do have scientific literature (for example, the peer reviewed study this article is based off!) 9. From the article: But there is nothing to suggest that it has engaged in a massive cover-up to hide outbreaks in other parts of the country.. In fact, the article actually supports that China's outbreak was contained: China’s ability to stop Covid-19 in its tracks may have to do with its ability to manage the serial interval. 10. Paywalled, cant read article. 11. See 3 12. See 3 13. see 3 14. The article mainly speaks about the incompetence and issues experienced by the local government during a confusing, complex and chaotic [...] situation. And as far as I remember I don't believe there was much coverage by others, which is a hit against this per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Might be usable with attribution, but this is a very long article, so likely better to discuss this article as needed. 15. This is article about on a global scale, not just China. The part that is about China attributes the reason to the unusual case reporting and how it changed a lot during the early days, so see my comments on this on 6. 16. There is a lot of hedging in this article, for example it includes this quote: Due to the compulsory testing when there is an outbreak, the case numbers in China tend to include a lot of mild or asymptomatic infections that would never have been identified in other parts of the world. Don't think we can pull out a "China is hiding stats!" from this. 17. We can't use opinion as sources of fact. 18. This article is basically "one guy from a thinktank doesn't believe China's numbers". While it is technically usable with attribution, I don't see how we can use this. 19. Pretty much same story as 7. 20. The article attributes the underreporting to authorities were conducting inadequate testing and medical facilities were overwhelmed. Which seems normal as ground zero and how hectic things were back then. We also have better data now from the Chinese academic studies, which gives a harder number as to the undercount, 10x. 21. This is an speculation article about business rating China more risky because back in March 2020, it seemed far fetched that China could keep the pandemic just in Hubei. Well, it turns out that they could control the pandemic! So nothing we can pull out of this. 22. Lots and lots of speculation and early commentary. As I've said before, we have better scientific literature that providers harder data about the case accuracy.

Overall, while I do see a little bit of possibly usable data + the unusual reporting criteria which definitely needs to be added eventually (haven't found time for a deep dive on it), I don't see any reason why we can't just use the scientific data which pretty much says the same thing as the popular media but less WP:BIASED. Jumpytoo Talk 03:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yeaaaah, these news organizations are not reliable for analysis of epidemiological data. Not unless the sources are written by experts, which many of these do not appear to be... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Just like to add that (1) while some the media sources are described as high-quality RS, the scientific studies are even higher quality RS. (2) Most of the news articles just end up saying something along the lines of: China says A & B, but here are facts X & Y. What they do not analyse is whether & how X or Y is related to A or B. Anybody can say something like, for example: Johnson insists his policy regarding migrants is working, but there are hundreds more migrants to the UK this year, or that according to our interviews, 1 or 2 persons has been affected greatly. This kind of juxtaposition is not really analysis, just the casting of doubt. I remember back then stories coming out about how many mobile phone numbers were allowed to expire in China and suggesting that many more people must have died from COVID, instead of also explaining that due to the lockdowns, many small businesses were shut without renewing their phone contracts. If news outlets are reporting straight facts, then I think some of them could be considered RS; but if they're trying to reach some sort of new conclusion, then I wouldn't automatically consider them to be reliable. GeorgiaDC (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• These sources are reliable enough for the statement and more reliable than CCP-controlled studies that are being pushed against them. I also agree that the content should be restored since it is backed by these high-quality WP:RS. TolWol56 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Material not relevant to this article

The article currently contains the following paragraph:

During the pandemic, no reports of cases of the COVID-19 in Xinjiang prisons or of conditions in the Xinjiang internment camps emerged. Anna Hayes, senior lecturer in politics and international relations of Australia's James Cook University, expressed concern about possible spread in the camps.

This paragraph isn't about the Chinese government response to COVID-19, so it isn't relevant to this article. It seems to be left over from the merge from the "cover-up" article, which was to some extent a WP:COATRACK of miscellaneous negative material. I removed the paragraph from this article but was reverted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the concern of coatracking (this article has a very high chance of going that way), but I think that section is relevant here. After all, how they manage the camps during the pandemic (such as the information they produce of conditions there related to the disease) is part of their response to the pandemic, in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: If we can find sources about how the Chinese government has managed the camps in light of the pandemic, that would be worth including in the article, but the quoted paragraph doesn't discuss that. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How is it not related? Are the Xinjiang internment camps not a part of China? Of course they are, and of course they would be covered in an encyclopedic article about their government's response to a pandemic. All you've done is identify it as negative material, which is not alone a reason for removal. So please elaborate. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The camps are a part of China, but the quoted material is not a part of the Chinese government response to COVID-19. In contrast, if we had reliably sourced information about what steps the Chinese government has taken to avoid the spread of COVID-19 in the camps, that would be relevant to this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The source cited for those sections says the following (within the reference, which seems like bad practice and perhaps should be altered): No reports have emerged of conditions in the facilities since the outbreak began. But former detainees have previously described poor food and sanitation and little help for those who fell ill.{...}"According to my personal experience in the concentration camp, they never helped anyone or provided any medical support for any kind of disease or health condition," said Ms. Sauytbay, who fled to Kazakhstan two years ago, in a phone interview this month. "If the coronavirus spread inside the camps, they would not help, they would not provide any medical support."{...}Now the region is being jolted back to work. Labor transfer programs, in which large numbers of Uighurs and other predominately Muslim minorities are sent to work in other parts of Xinjiang and the rest of China, have resumed in recent weeks. The Chinese government's lack of medical care in these camps would be part of their response to the pandemic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be, if we had a reliable source saying that the Chinese government hasn't allowed medical care in the camps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But the passage you've quoted doesn't say that – it just reports speculation based on someone's experience in a camp long before the pandemic started. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not just speculation from someone's experience in a camp... it's speculation from subject-matter experts, people who have been studying both pandemics and the Xinjiang internment camps. ––FormalDude ^talk 23:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support including something about the camps and the lack of COVID-19 statistics coming out of them, as this seems like an obvious area where China is not being honest with their reporting. However, the cited source is quite unconvincing, as it is essentially some former detainee guessing about it. I wonder if we can find a better source, perhaps a human rights organization such as Amnesty International reporting on this issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Xinjiang has had very few cases at all, so the fact that there hasn't been any substantial outbreak reported in reeducation camps is unsurprising. I agree with Mx. Granger that this paragraph is out of place in this article. The information content added by this speculation is basically zero. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Xinjiang having almost no cases is pretty convincing. Do we have a source for that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

We have an article COVID-19 pandemic in Xinjiang, which says there were a total of 902 confirmed cases (out of a population of about 26 million) as of August 2020. Like most other provinces of China, this is a very low case count by international standards. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Large Covid outbreak in China linked to Xinjiang forced labour. More than 180 cases traced to garment factory where Uighurs must take up work placements. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

180 cases – a large outbreak by Chinese standards, but very small by international standards. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No doubting that. Still think it might be due weight for this article. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten a bit sidetracked talking about reported case numbers in Xinjiang, but the paragraph in question remains irrelevant to this article, because the paragraph isn't about the Chinese government's response to COVID-19. I suggest we move the paragraph to COVID-19 pandemic in Xinjiang. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will go ahead and implement this. Hopefully this will work as a compromise. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Good compromise, I support it. But I would also say that simply stating that there are no current statistics from the camps in this article would be WP:DUE. If we use the above sources to do it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. Please don't take silence as agreement. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean you agree about the compromise or you agree about due weight, but it seems to me this is not a due weight issue so much as a relevance issue. This article is specifically focused on the Chinese government response to COVID-19, not other information about COVID-19 in China. In any case, hopefully we can all agree that the material in question fits better in the article where it is now covered, and hopefully the compromise is satisfactory enough for us to move on from this issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise here. LondonIP (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Simply stating that there are no current statistics from the camps in this article would be WP:DUE" with a source directly supporting that, absolutely. —PaleoNeonate – 12:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How to summarize the Global Public Health source

@CutePeach and Thucydides411: There seems to be some disagreement about how to summarize the Global Public Health source examining the accuracy of the reported death toll. I'm starting this discussion to hopefully avoid an edit war. Let's see if we can find consensus for how to summarize the source's findings. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this section, Mx. Granger. Here is the relevant passage from the paper we're citing:

Political censorship and reliability of the COVID-19 statistics from China, the initial epicentre, has also been doubted. Four of the authors of this paper are healthcare personnel based in Hong Kong and wish to offer a perspective to serve as food for thought. Currently, around 1.5 million Hong Kong and Taiwan citizens are long term residents working in China, which comprise slightly over 0.1% of China’s population. Meanwhile, COVID-19 death toll from China is 4641 (Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, 2020; worldometer, 2020). This should theoretically translate into around five cases of COVID-19 death of such Hong Kong or Taiwan citizens. Should there be even one single case of COVID-19-related death for Hong Kong or Taiwan citizen living in China, it would be highly publicised because of political reasons. As a matter of fact, up to this date, there have been no such reports in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that there was discrepancy in the COVID-19 death toll during the initial outbreak for reasons discussed in previous sections, our hypothesis herein suggests that the reported Chinese death toll would probably be not far from the actual number.

The reasons discussed in previous sections are not political, but rather practical. One of the major reasons for discrepancies that the authors explain is that testing was limited early on:

Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming scale of the pandemic and insufficiencies of testing kits and hospital capacities in the first weeks of the pandemic, many suspected cases did not have the opportunity to be tested and recorded

The authors note that this happened not only in Wuhan, but in Europe and the US as well:

Such a situation happened in Wuhan, the epicentre of the pandemic, at the onset of the outbreak. Nonetheless, as the reach of the coronavirus extended across continents, countries such as Spain, the U.S. and U.K. which became hardest hit by the pandemic were eventually left in a similar predicament

Our present summary of this is accurate:

In May 2020, an article in the journal Global Public Health examined the possibility of inaccurate death counts due to alleged political censorship, but came to the conclusion that due to the lack of any known deaths of Hong Kong or Taiwan residents in Mainland China, which would be newsworthy, the official numbers probably do not form a particularly large discrepancy from the actual death numbers.

The one thing we could add is that the authors believe discrepancies are due to technical issues such as testing shortages in the initial weeks of the pandemic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The journal and the source both appear to be weak-ish. Not saying it's hopeless, but the citations are low, and the journal, while not predatory, doesn't look to be prominent. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that sources generally report political suppression of reports in Dec.-Jan. of 2019-20, and possibly the next few months. Not later. No reason not to report both this early suppression and the later lack of evidence off suppression. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This source looks fine to me, and it's in line with what other scientific research into both mortality and seroprevalence in China says: the official death toll is roughly accurate, and the seroprevalence is low (4% or less in Wuhan, and close to zero outside of Hubei province). See the statistics section for the references.

Any discussion of political suppression must be nuanced. Local doctors who published information on their own were silenced, but there was also official publication of key information (e.g., the official announcement of the existence of a cluster of patients with pneumonia of unknown etiology at the end of December 2019, just days after the first suspicious rest results). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is a weak source but I am fine with including it. However, the discrepancy it mentions with regard to the initial outbreak should not be omitted, and the fact that the conclusion is based on a hypothesis that suggests a probability should not be elided either. LondonIP (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  The version I quote above does discuss the discrepancy. If anything, the above version does not make it clear that the authors think any possible discrepancy is due to technical issues (like insufficient testing). The version that you've reverted to (below) does an even worse job of explaining this, and removes the reason why the researchers think the official figures are accurate:

  In May 2020, a commentary article in Global Public Health researchers in Hong Kong examined the possible inaccuracy of China's death toll due to political censorship and manipulation, concluding with a hypothesis suggesting that though there was discrepancy in the death toll during the initial outbreak (due to insufficient testing capacity), the reported figures were probably close to the actual figures.

  This is not an improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not to intefere with this discussion but it does seem pretty obvious to include the reason for their conclusion in the article, not sure why this discussion is still ongoing Xoltered (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Xoltered: I agree, the text should say how the authors came to their conclusion. The version that CutePeach and LondonIP have been advocating leaves that out. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Thucydides411: your version didn't discuss the discrepancy in the right light imo. It looks like MxG improved on my version [33] and LIP included an important point that it is an opinion piece proposing a hypothesis suggesting a probability [​​https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1064556696]. Please suggest edits for further improvement here on the talk page instead of reverting. CutePeach (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean by didn't discuss the discrepancy in the right light?

  an opinion piece proposing a hypothesis suggesting a probability: What does this even mean? This is not something any scientist would ever write. I'm not even sure it's English.

  The authors used data (the absence of any deaths among Taiwanese or Hong Kong people in mainland China) to come to a conclusion (the true death toll cannot be much higher than the published figure). They didn't "propose a hypothesis suggesting a possibility," whatever that even means. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Including the discrepancy is fine and I'd encourage someone here to write a version including both, but the reason is more important, also the version me and Thucydides favour is the original and should be kept until discussion is over. Xoltered (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Thucydides411 and Xoltered. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The authors clearly qualify their conclusion as a hypothesis. You can make their explanation more clear but please don't revert other changes, like the fact that this is a commentary piece. Francesco espo (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, given the comments above, I would suggest the following (changes are bolded):

In May 2020, a commentary in the journal Global Public Health examined the possibility of inaccurate death counts due to alleged political censorship, but suggested that due to the lack of any known deaths of Hong Kong or Taiwan residents in Mainland China, which would be newsworthy, the discrepancy between the official and true death toll is likely not particularly large.

I think this summary should be acceptable to everyone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an acceptable compromise to me. However, "concluded" or "came to the conclusion" was also fine. Do other sources present this as a hypothesis? If so, it'd still be a likely one, nothing extraordinary, it's simply a constatation (unless one also believes that these authors are conspiring, that Taiwan statistics are doctored, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by compromise. In which version is the reason not adequately explained? Here are the diffs [34] [35]. This is a primary source and without secondary sources, it should be presented the way the authors presented it, as a hypothesis. LondonIP (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Based on your suggestion, I've changed "suggested" to "concluded". Here's the latest compromise proposal:

In May 2020, a commentary in the journal Global Public Health examined the possibility of inaccurate death counts due to alleged political censorship, but concluded that due to the lack of any known deaths of Hong Kong or Taiwan residents in Mainland China, which would be newsworthy, the discrepancy between the official and true death toll is likely not particularly large.

It seems to me that most editors who have expressed an opinion support something close to this, so I'll add it in soon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this compromise. ––FormalDude talk 05:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems fine to me too, but we should qualify it as a hypothesis, making a suggestion about a probability, not a statement of fact. Francesco espo (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems fine, the hypothesis qualification is unnecessary as the claim is directly attributed in the article so isn't presented as a statement of fact but rather as that group's conclusion Xoltered (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this version as well. And given that it is the version available in our WP:BESTSOURCES and that we are already attributing it to the study, there is no need to further water it down using words like "hypothesis" The study concludes X, we report that its the study concluding X. We're not stating it in wiki-voice. No need to further hedge. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § AP: Xi Jinping restricts publishing of COVID-19 data and research

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § AP: Xi Jinping restricts publishing of COVID-19 data and research. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:V

This revert [36] flies in the face of WP:V. In particular, it restores a verifiably-false sentence to the lead. In particular, as I explained in my edit summary [37], the statement On 8 January 2020, a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was identified by Chinese scientists as the cause of the symptoms. is simply not true. The virus had been identified by January 5 at the latest. See the NPR source in my edit.[38]. There was a later announcement of the earlier identification, and a still later release of the viral sequence. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say regardless of how/if the lead should be changed....your edit introduced too much detail into the lead, which instead should be a very brief summary. It also editorialized and inserted POV criticism into the lead where not supported by the sources, and if it were, it would need to be done in an NPOV manner.

But as to your original question here, sequencing a virus is not actually enough to identify it as the cause of a disease. This is something people get wrong a lot, and especially about viruses. It was a big problem with the Mojiang Mine conspiracy as well. You can't just sequence a virus in somebody who's sick and say "This is the cause!" because people have all kinds of viruses circulating under the radar all the time! Often, they're clinically silent, and sometimes they're persistent!

You have to do a few other things to show it's really the cause of the illness: collectively, called "Rivers' criteria." These were fulfilled for SARS-CoV-2 later on. At the time, they were ANNOUNCING a virus that they believed to be the cause. it took the full publication of all the findings from Shi zhengli and George Gao's labs to really get to the "confirmation". [39] [40] [41] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that isn't YouTube? Would make it easier to support this suggested change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chinas-covid-secrets/transcript/ ––FormalDude talk 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: @Novem Linguae: The transcript is pretty good, and I use it myself at times. However, it unfortunately does not contain all of the information in the video. For example, see the messages reproduced on screen in the sequence from 12:27-14:10. The messages do not appear in the transcript. However, from the transcript, one does get the gist, namely that on December 26, 2019, Vision Medicals knew they had a fragment of a SARS bat-like Coronavirus. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a more NPOV version imo, but I think even my version should still be trimmed down. I think it's important we use the most up to date sources however, as you'll note that Zhang Yongzhen publicly disputes the version of events described above [42] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that Zhang was "in direct opposition" to the order. We need to be careful to follow WP:BLP here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Heard you loud and clear, and completely agree. I've now written it as "Unbeknownst to Yongzhen" is that better? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is funny, as an aside, to consider that, if Zongzhen had just received the samples in the mail like 2-3 days earlier, this entire thing would probably never have become an international controversy or fodder for hawkish posturing about government cover ups. Because Yongzhen's submission would have happened before the order from the NHC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Too many changes for me to keep up with at the moment. I may have time for a deep dive later. I will say that the Frontline at a minimum strongly implies, if not outright says, that Zhang was aware of the order. I'd encourage other editors to check that part of the source. Definitely don't say that he was unaware. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Some experts dispute the characterization you had in your original edit. Frankly we probably need a whole section on this. See below: [43]

And, in fact, Zhang insists he first uploaded the genome to the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) on Jan. 5—an assertion corroborated by the submission date listed on the U.S government institution’s Genbank....(Approached by TIME, Holmes deferred to Zhang’s version of events.)

It’s difficult to know what conclusions to draw. Dr. Dale Fisher, head of infectious diseases at Singapore’s National University Hospital, says he doesn’t think that any delay by the Chinese authorities was malicious. “It was more like appropriate verification,” he says. Fisher traveled to China as part of a World Health Organization (WHO) delegation in early February and says outbreak settings are always confusing and chaotic with people unsure what to believe.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better, though it may still need work. I'll try to take a closer look at this later. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

is there any way you could provide the quote from Yongzhen that shows he was unaware of the order/notice? I can't find that but I also haven't looked very hard... The edit about it on Yongzhen's wiki page uses this source: [44] which doesn't precisely say that, but does say that it was an order for local labs, and Yongzhen's lab was in Shanghai, not Wuhan. It says this: Holmes says the team had held off because of the government order, but Zhang says he wasn’t aware of the edict at the time but it also says Holmes disputed this to Nature, and he of course did not dispute in the Time piece as I described above. So I've just attributed to Zhang. We do need to put this somewhere in the body, per WP:LEAD — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, with multiple sources saying different things, it is probably a complicated question. Being aware of only one such source, I probably oversimplified it in my WP:IMPERFECT first attempt. I'll try to get back to this when I have more time. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I looked at the current version[45] of the article and at the Time and nature sources. The part about Zhang, I think, is confusing in one respect. The submission to GenBank was a release of the sequence beyond China. However, it did not, in and of itself, make the sequence public, because their review process takes time. The public release of the sequence was on 11 January. That's the key date the lead needs to contain. According to Time, that's what "sent shockwaves through the global scientific community." So I think that's the most important date to have in the lead.

I don't think the article needs to attack Zhang. I realize my earlier version probably appeared that way, which can simply be considered a mistake on my part. That said, I think the lead does need to say that the Government forbade the publication of the sequence, as this portion was a Government response, so it's part of the article topic. I also think it needs to say that the public release was on 11 January, and that this was not done by the Government.

Both Frontline and Time go into the fact that after the public release, Zhang's lab was closed for "rectification". I think we should mention this in the body but not in the lead. I'll hold off on any article editing for the moment. But those are my thoughts. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the Jan 11th date, my only qualm is that if we include only this date, it looks as though Zhang kept the sequence out of public view, when in fact he did not. If we have to pick one of these dates (and I think we should, for the sake of brevity), then I think we should pick Jan 5. The same day he got the sequence, he submitted it to GenBank. I think that's a very important part as well. Re: the rectification mention in the body, yes, I would agree it needs to be mentioned there. And it should be contextualized with Zhang's statements about it being taken out of context, that it was more about meeting biosafety concerns, and not punishment. He was pretty clear about this in the Time article! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For once I am in more-or-less complete agreement with User:Shibbolethink. I would only add that the article is about the Chinese Government, not about Zhang. It looks to me like the Chinese Government was striving to keep the sequence out of view, while Zhang was striving to get it released. We should not make it look like Zhang was trying to hide anything. His attempts to get it into public view don't really need to be in the lead, but they also could be, depending on how one juggles all the considerations here. How one does all of that with brevity I don't know. I may make an attempt. If it fails on any of the multiple criteria we are trying to fulfill, it's probably out of the difficulty of fulfilling all of them, not out of any fundamental disagreement. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

the article is about the Chinese Government, not about Zhang my only thing about this is that, even in non-BLP articles, we cannot write something that would be a BLP issue. We cannot, for instance, say that the first time the sequence was "released" was Jan 11, because that would be incorrect and would also not be fair to Zhang as a BLP. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, lol. I thought we understood each other on this one. It was first publicly released on Jan. 11. I don't have any problem with including the earlier non-public release, though it runs into brevity issues as we then need to make clear that the earlier release was not a public release. Having been reverted, I'm not going to try again right now. But I don't object if you want to. To me, the key point that does need to be included is that the public release was on Jan. 11. I also don't mind saying that Zhang sequenced it on Jan. 5. The sources are clear on that. But I would not say that Jan. 5 was the first time it was sequenced. The NHC order seems to imply that this might have happened by Jan. 3, and this (possibly opinion) piece also has an earlier date.[46] So there is confusion about what date was first. I still think we are pretty close. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would consider the idea of earlier than Jan 3 complete sequencing to be WP:OR given only those sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push the Jan. 3 date. We could sidestep all of that by saying that Zhang sequenced it on Jan. 5, but not taking any position on the question of whether or not Zhang was first. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The details of how the first genome was published, the lab that published it, etc. are too much for the lede. The lede should just briefly mention that a novel coronavirus was publicly identified by the China CDC as the causative agent on 9 January 2020, and that the sequence was published by Zhang Yongzhen on 11 January. The rest of the details (many of which are in dispute) can be covered in a subsection in the body. -Thucydides411 (talk)

Well Thucydes, I would tell you that he submitted it on Jan 5. I suppose if we say "released to the media" on Jan 11, that is still a fair and accurate statement. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is too much detail for the lead, though I'm not sure how best to summarize. It might be simplest to just say "January 2020" in the lead and discuss the complexity around the exact dates in the body. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and Mx. Granger: How about writing fully sequenced and published in early January 2020 in the lede, and leaving the details to the body? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes that would be fine with me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

For me, that does not work. The fact is that the Government of China withheld this critical information for approximately 1-2 weeks, depending on which portion of the genome we are talking about. The thesis of the FRONTLINE documentary I keep linking to is that the Chinese Government hurt the world's chances of containing the virus by this type of action. We shouldn't gloss over it, especially not in the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Frontline is not in a position to make that sort of determination. It's popular media: a TV show produced by non-experts. There are much stronger sources out there, such as the scientific literature on the epidemiology of the pandemic. Here's an editorial in The BMJ, commenting on China's response to the initial outbreak:

Just how effective the outbreak seems to have been contained is astonishing.

Later in the same article:

the success of the interventions demonstrates that strict and rapid response to an emerging epidemic can halt the spread of a new virus.

A news article in The Lancet leads off with this:

While the world is struggling to control COVID-19, China has managed to control the pandemic rapidly and effectively. How was that possible?

The article also quotes several experts, who say things like the following:

“The speed of China's response was the crucial factor”, explains Gregory Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, USA). “They moved very quickly to stop transmission. Other countries, even though they had much longer to prepare for the arrival of the virus, delayed their response and that meant they lost control”.

I don't see why we should be using popular media to characterize the Chinese government's response to COVID-19 at all. Popular media sources are low quality for information about epidemiology or public health. The main thing that popular media sources have to add on these subjects, beyond what the scientific sources already tell us, are various political and nationalistic biases (of the type you'd expect to find, say, in coverage of China in American popular media).

If we have to resort to popular media to cover some aspects of this subject, I would be very cautious and steer clear of relying on them to make any claims about epidemiology (e.g., whether or not the virus would have spread out of China had the Chinese government responded any differently), the efficacy of public health measures, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me ("fully sequenced and published in early January 2020") as a concise summary that accurately reflects the sources. We can go into more detail in the body. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• The details relating to how the first genome was published are arguably very WP:DUE for the lead. While this wouldn't compliment the CCP's narrative of events, the closure of the lab that first published the sequence was widely reported [47], and Zhang Yongzhen cannot be used as an WP:INDEPENDENT source to dispute these reports - given what we know of Xi's "game of chess". It's really not clear which lab was first to sequence the virus and publish it, given all the censorship of COVID-19 data - but it is a very important matter on the subject of government response to a disease outbreak. CutePeach (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  He's not an independent source, but he is an RSOPINION, so his version of events should be covered. It would also be a BLP violation to show the view you're expressing but not Zhang's view. The view and facts expressed in the article that quotes him are RS-worthy, and help us understand the consensus version of events as well. These sources (e.g. Time) show there is disagreement also among experts about whether the lab closure was "punishment." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  My point was that the details of how the genome was first published are due in the lead, and since it was the government that issued the gag order on COVID-19 data and shut down Zhang's COVID-19 research, there is no BLP violation here (remember this?). I have no objection to using Zhang's response in his own bio, but I would object to using him as an independent source to challenge or refute a report from a secondary source in this page. Most respondents to my RFC on RSN agree Chinese academics are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources to be used in such a manner due to the COVID-19 gag order foisted upon them by the Chinese government. CutePeach (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Most respondents to my RFC on RSN agree Chinese academics are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources This is mathematically not true. As of right now, by pure tally, most respondents to the RFC have said that your question is loaded and overly broad, and should be closed with no action. Be careful drawing consensus about unclosed threads, and recognize that majority=/=conclusion. AKA don't count your chickens before they hatch.
• remember this? This is irrelevant, as we are talking about besmirching the reputation of an individual (Zhang), not an organization. We can't go around saying bad things about people (that his lab was closed because he was being punished) and not publishing what that person said about it in RSes (that it was not punishment).
• I would object to using him as an independent source to challenge or refute a report from a secondary source Well, then it's a good thing we'd be using a secondary independent RS (the Time article) to present his view, not his own self-published ideas.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s regime censored early reports that a new, deadly coronavirus had emerged in Wuhan and hid evidence of human-to-human transmission, thereby enabling a local outbreak to become a global calamity. What remains to be determined is whether COVID-19 emerged naturally in wildlife or was leaked from a lab — namely, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) [48]. ← all of this is due in the lead imo. Maybe not in the first paragraph, and maybe not with this source, but perhaps in the second or third paragraph with two or three of the many sources covering these details. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece. The claims made in that passage are extremely dubious, at best, and are not due in the article, let alone the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Which claims did you find dubious? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Every claim in that passage. The outbreak was announced within 3 days of the first suspicious test results, a novel virus was identified as the cause within less than two weeks, clear evidence of human-to-human transmission did not emerge until mid-January, and the lab-leak hypothesis is a scientifically fringe conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Which sources claim:

1. The outbreak was announced within 3 days of the first suspicious test results
2. The novel virus was identified as the cause within less than two weeks
3. Clear evidence of human-to-human transmission did not emerge until mid-January
4. The lab-leak hypothesis is a scientifically fringe conspiracy theory

If editors agree your sources are good, we can use them to balance the claims made in RS like SCMP [49] [50] [51] and Caixin [52] [53]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"hide information about" in the opening sentence.

I recently changed the opening sentence to read During the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, the government of China and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took various actions to prevent the spread of and to hide information about COVID-19. The part about hiding information was my addition. It has since been removed at least twice, and re-added at least once, with the result that it is no longer in the article.

I think it belongs. This article was started in part to contain information in the now-redirected article China COVID-19 cover-up allegations. The community felt that it was better to have the information in that article presented in this one instead. Fine. But if so, then this article should actually present the information from that article. Otherwise, it's not really a merge-and-redirect, which was the intent.

Furthermore, considerable portions of the article pertain to China's ongoing attempts to hide information. Some of these have now been deleted, and some of those deletions are questionable, which is an issue I will take up separately. That said, we still have a section on Early censorship and police responses, and a lengthy section on censorship and propaganda. Considerable portions of other sections, including the section on Xi's actions, Xinjiang, and virus origin investigations, also pertain to hiding of information. So per MOS:LEAD, it belongs. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The intent of the merge and redirect was to have a broader article about the Chinese government response to COVID-19, rather than one more narrowly focused on a particular point of view.

It seems to me that the main instance of "hiding information about COVID-19" that this article actually covers is the warning to Dr. Li Wenliang in the first days by local police not to post information on Weixin. This was in the days after the health authorities in Wuhan publicly announced the outbreak. Boiling this down to "hid[ing] information about COVID-19" is very partial, because the government also took many steps to spread information about the outbreak, and because it conflates actions taken by local officials with national government actions.

I don't know what is meant by hiding information about Xinjiang: data on cases in Xinjiang is published just like data on cases from all other provinces. This data is actually very granular, often down to the level of the neighborhood, age and gender of each person who tests positive, along with a list of the places they've recently visited. This is a typical example of such a report. I know we currently make a statement in the article about information from Xinjiang being uncertain. The statement is sourced to an article in an American popular magazine that couches the statement as a claim made by a human rights activist. We can't put such a claim in Wikivoice, much less use it as the basis for a Wikivoice claim in the opening sentence of the article.

In addition to that, I don't see why "Chinese Communist Party (CCP)" was added to the opening sentence. It has become fashionable in the US (particularly since Pompeo became Secretary of State, I believe) to constantly inject "Chinese Communist Party" or "CCP" (or both) into every discussion of the Chinese government, usually in a sinister tone of voice. On Wikipedia, it just does not come across as neutral writing. We're discussing the actions of the Chinese government. I think everyone knows which party rules China, and that can be mentioned in the body of the article where relevant.

Stepping back for a moment, I've actually felt for a while that the entire opening sentence is superfluous. I don't see what it adds to the article. Yes, just like almost all governments, the Chinese government took steps to prevent or slow the spread of the virus. I would be in favor of removing the first sentence entirely. If we do feel the need to include some pithy opening sentence to frame the topic, it should focus on the most prominent aspect of China's governmental response to COVID-19, which is the Zero-COVID policy. That is the policy that has dominated China's pandemic response over the last two years, and which continues to dominate it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, provided we bring back the cover-up article for cover-up-related information. Of course, that would take a community decision. We might want to retitle this article in such a case. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia is supposed to cover topics of encyclopedic value in a balanced way, and creating articles that specifically cover (or even promote) specific points of view on current events is not in line with that mission. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed we already cover information regarding this and creating seperate article for it should not be done as previous consensus indicates. Xoltered (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but the decision was "Merge and redirect", not "Merge then delete". If we don't want to revisit the existing "Merge and redirect" consensus, our opening sentence should remain consistent with both that consensus. And it should definitely remain consistent with WP:LEAD. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not put it as a separate sentence later on in the LEAD? Perhaps even as a partial attribution: Some commentators (e.g XYZ) have decried the actions of the Chinese government as intended to cover up the disease early on. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The "hide information about" does not need attribution. And I think it's parallel with the Government's attempts to fight the disease. This article was intended to encompass both topics. The phrase "Government response to" supports that, and I think the choice of title was deliberately made to do so. In light of that, I think it would be inappropriate to have the lead favor one aspect of the "government response" over the other. Both are aspects of the Gov't response, and the sourcing for both is overwhelming. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: The lede already has almost an entire paragraph dedicated to criticism of the Chinese government censorship:

Some have criticised the censorship of information that might be unfavorable for local officials. Observers have attributed this to a culture of institutional censorship affecting the country's press and Internet. The government censored whistleblowers, journalists and social media posts about the outbreak. During the beginning of the pandemic, the Chinese government made efforts to clamp down on discussion and hide reporting about it. Efforts to fund and control research into the virus's origins and to promote fringe theories about the virus have continued up to the present.

I actually think this subject might have too much weight in the lede, at the moment. This paragraph also contains somewhat inaccurate statements, particularly when it says, the Chinese government made efforts to clamp down on discussion and hide reporting about it. This seems to imply that the Chinese government tried to hide the existence of the outbreak, which is not true. The outbreak was announced in official news channels, including CCTV (state media), on 31 December 2019. What is true is that various levels of government tried to control the release of information for various reasons (e.g., avoiding causing panic, preventing preliminary/uncertain information from coming out). This paragraph needs some rewriting to make it clearer that existence of the outbreak was not kept secret, but that there were some efforts to control release of information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah.... I have no idea why this is not enough. I think this is a perfect proportionality to the coverage in our sources, agree it may almost be too much. It's basically 50ish% of the lead at this point, but not 50ish% of the sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is MOS:FIRST. The Chinese Govt response has had two main components. Other than the very beginning, one has been COVID zero. The other is information hiding. Both should be set out right at the start, before going into detail. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

status quo ante

Could someone please take a look at the history and decide what they think is an appropriate stable version of the opening sentence to use while discussion about it is ongoing. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the timeline I'm seeing:

1. Thucydides411 comment: If we do feel the need to include some pithy opening sentence to frame the topic, it should focus on the most prominent aspect of China's governmental response to COVID-19, which is the Zero-COVID policy. That is the policy that has dominated China's pandemic response over the last two years, and which continues to dominate it.

2. Adoring nanny comment: I'd be OK with that

3. Xoltered edit: added specificity to the first sentence by talking about zero-covid (as suggested on talk page)

So it seems you agreed to this? At least, it was proposed on the talk page. ––FormalDude talk 13:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

NO. The "Provided" in my answer was the critical part, and no one seems to be agreeing to it that I can see. For example, have you changed your mind on the delete/redirect of the cover-up article? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

the delete/redirect of the cover up article is settled consensus at this point, it should not be revisited unless something substantial changes in the sources, or a significant amount of time passes. Certainly it is too early to revisit at this point. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We all agree on starting with zero-covid but Adoring Nanny continues to try to undo the previous consensus regarding the cover-up article and related phrasing in this article. Xoltered (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No, please don't misconstrue my proposal of two linked changes as an agreement to do one of the changes without the other. I did not and do not agree with that. So the "we all" part of the above is simply not true. This is similar to the situation between me and another user elsewhere on this page. He thinks certain changes could be done, provided they are linked. I did some of the changes he wanted, but not all of them to his satisfaction. I have therefore not tried to push any change to the status quo ante prior to consensus, as it has not been reached. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, i see, i thought you were supportive of that since you said "I don't mind having covid zero early in the lead." in your edit summary but i suppose not. Xoltered (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Adoring Nanny has quite a history of disruptive edits regarding COVID and received a COVID origins topic ban somewhat recently, its not very suprising this discussion has ended up this way. Xoltered (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I actually don't think they have a TBAN, there wasn't consensus for the ban on ANI so it didn't happen. I agree there is disruption and they are not always collaborative, but neither are the rest of us 100% of the time :) I think as long as we are having these disagreements, the best way forward is to figure out the particular substance of the disagreement, drill down on details, and then have RfCs or pointed discussions, and then move forward on the basis of that consensus. In general, article talk pages are not the place for discussions of editor behavior (see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Oh, i thought they did, was it removed? Multiple editors mentioned it on the reliable sources noticeboard. Also they keep threatening me on my talk page, and are now claiming me mentioning their topic ban is a personal attack. I realise that talk pages are not the best place to discuss editor behavior but their actions on my talk page are essentially part of this discussion and originally shouldve taken place on this page anyway. I'd like to find the particular substance of the disagreement too, but this seems unlikely to happen. Xoltered (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC) This is the wrong place for this. But just for the record: If I'm under a topic ban, I haven't been told about it. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I believe it may have been removed or something like that took place, or as stated above perhaps it didn't actually go through, I'm not entirely sure. I agree its not the place to discuss it, but i do encourage you to reconsider your editing history either way. Xoltered (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)