Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19

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.[7][8] 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: [9]. —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Considering that it's only a particular outdated journalistic source and that "the speculation on Western country's death counts" is also not speculation (there are reliable up to date sources on statistics),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 [10]. China has a dismal record on academic freedom, and many Chinese academics face harsh punitive measures when they step out of line [11] [12] [13] [14]. 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 [15]. 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: [16] [17] [18]. -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 [19] and Iran [20], 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 [21] 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 [22] or a tally [23] 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 [24] [25] and also this SCMP article [26], 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: [27]. 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)

@Shibbolethink: I was originally not opposed to moving the contents of the Accuracy of COVID statistics section to the International Reactions section, but when zero COVID was cited to "settle the question" directly below, it became clear what was afoot. Please show where "best available sources" refute The Times, CNN and AP and the many other RS clearly alleging undercounting of infections and fatalities. Please quote the exact text here. LondonIP (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is saying that the best available sources (academic research publication reviews) "refute" the lower quality news sources. That is a straw man argument, and besides, it is quite difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative. Rather, I have said the undercounting claims are not present in these academic sources, which take the chinese government counts at face value and do not question their authenticity any more than any other government's. See: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is saying that the best available sources (academic research publication reviews) "refute" the lower quality news sources. What? You obviously haven't read any of the many posts in the three discussions claiming exactly that. LondonIP (talk) 02:48, 13 February 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 [33]. 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 [34] and said that the virus may have originated outside of China [35], 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: [36]. 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" [37] [38]. 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.

Your point by point analysis misses the point that the allegations are all attributed. The allegation that the Chinese government has deliberately under-reported the extent of infections and deaths is also mentioned in the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, and countered by a few very dubious primary sources there too. Perhaps we need to file a motion restricting all primary sources in COVID-19 articles, or just for disputed claims. Pious Brother (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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)
• If I'm reading the room right, we have a consensus here to restore the accuracy section with content some of the above sources. With that, we can then end the dispute, or request a close of the RfC in RS/N. LondonIP (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I entirely disagree that such a consensus exists. Several editors above (myself included) have gone point by point and described how these sources do not support the claims that ScrumptiousFood is making. If you restore this content, you will be doing so without consensus, and I will happily revert (within any applicable limits and with BRD consideration) until such a consensus is clear, or an RfC is definitive. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I entirely disagree with your breakdown of the sources, and I could add another twenty sources to the list, all alleging that the Chinese government deliberately undercounted cases. One source even quotes officials from the Chinese CDC itself making the allegation, so I will ask you again to either provide sources that refute these claims, or read this discussion as a rough consensus to restore the section. This should not have been removed to International Reactions, to bury it as an accusation of the US and UK governments, when it came from one of their own. LondonIP (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Have you ever heard of the term "False dichotomy" ?

  You just asked what amounts to: 'either prove me wrong in exactly the way I want you to do it, or do exactly what I say.' I'm going to do neither, and wait for either A) a neutral 3rd party to assess the consensus in these many pending RfCs etc. or B) for a more clear consensus to develop, as there is no time limit on "finishing" the project. A consensus to restore or keep the status quo will develop based on the number of editors involved and the standing edit war revert limits. You can keep reverting to restore your preferred language if you like, but by my estimation, there are more editors who are in agreement that this text does not belong in the article in its current state than who think it should be restored.

  EDIT: To clarify, I am not recommending that anyone engage in an edit war. I am recommending that we discuss this, and recognize that a consensus exists when we have a substantial number of editors persuaded to one position, and many fewer persuaded to the other, which I believe we have. It's not a VOTE, but it is a situation where many editors in agreement would constitute a consensus. This is enforced by the fact that endless reverts would not help establish the minority position's inclusions given the standing revert limits. So please do not revert and edit war, instead use RfCs and discussion as I agreed below. Happy to answer any questions and explain further as I already do below.(edited 02:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Shibbolethink, please strike your comment openly advocating for edit warring [39]. There is a rough consensus here and on the China Pandemic page that sources questioning the accuracy of China's statistics are WP:DUE for inclusion. The RFC on RSN is relevant only as so much as if Chinese academic publications refute claims from these sources, which is not the case here. The Times is an excellent source and the quote from the Chinese CDC health official really settles the matter. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Where do I openly advocate for edit warring? I simply stated this was what he can try to do, but it isn't sustainable so we shouldn't do it. By my reading, I advocate against this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: your comment A consensus to restore or keep the status quo will develop based on the number of editors involved and the standing edit war revert limits openly advocates edit warring and reads as an invitation for others to revert and support your position. It is also not based on policy, as this article had a section on allegations of undercounting, which was removed by FormalDude, and that is this incredibly long discussion is about. WP:NOCONSENSUS says a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, which looks like the case here and on the COVID-19 page page. CutePeach (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for the confusion, but no I don't believe my comment reads that way at all. I was saying that part of the reason for the revert limits is to reduce edit warring, and that it also instills a de facto consensus because people cannot revert indefinitely. This is, of course, not the goal, and we should discuss here. It appears from the participants here that there is not consensus to restore your preferred version of the page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm here from RSN. After reading this discussion as well as the discussion on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, I see a consensus is to restore the section deleted from both pages, and update it with newer and hopefully better sources. To replace older sources with newer sources, editors must ensure that they are of equal quality in terms of WP:SOURCETYPES, and resolve discrepancies based on sourcing and attribution policies. As experienced editors, both you and ProcrastinatingReader are aware of the extreme caution WP:SCHOLARSHIP advises with primary sources, and the error of analyzing Lin et al to delete an early report from the CIA about a political cover-up corroborated by later sources. Trump is reported to have dismissed the intelligence report about China downplaying the outbreak [40] [41], believing Xi who told him that China had it under control [42] [43], and Lin et al says nothing of it. Pious Brother (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I see a consensus is to restore the section: I don't see anything remotely approaching such a consensus. I see a minority of editors arguing for that, without any strong argument why the accusations are not already adequately covered in the existing sections.

  delete an early report from the CIA about a political cover-up corroborated by later sources: The accusations exist, but they are not "corroborated". The US government's accusations are already described in the article. However, presenting them as fact would be a violation of WP:V.

  As for sources, you seem to be arguing that speculative news/magazine articles written by non-experts 2 years ago are more reliable than the mainstream scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  You have been warned of WP:NOFORUM. Any further interpretation of primary sources to supersede secondary sources will be reported in the appropriate venue. Pious Brother (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see @Thucydides411 interpreting any PRIMARY sources to supersede secondary ones. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, I haven't. I've been relying on the highest-quality available sources, such as background discussions in a public health journal (The Lancet Public Health) of the reasons for slow case confirmation in Wuhan in January-February 2020 (mainly the scarcity of PCR testing capacity). The article I've been discussing is a secondary source for this information (it also contains mathematical modeling, which is the original research contribution of the article, but that's separate from the background discussion in the article). Now, some editors are trying to rule out these highest-quality sources and insist that we rely only on speculative articles in popular media.

  The reason is clear: the highest-quality sources do not support the claims they are trying to insert in Wikivoice. We already discuss the accusations of undercounting or hiding cases in detail (maybe at too great a length). Putting them in Wikivoice or giving them even more space in the article would not be justified by the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  No one supported inserting claims in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  The contested edits [44] [45] do not make, or appear to make, claims in wikivoice, as Thucydides411 and ProcrastinatingReader claimed. Pious Brother (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  You are right about those two edits, but those edits introduce material that is WP:UNDUE and not in summary-style. It emphasizes particular criticisms instead of summarizing them. In context, this furthers a specific POV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Actually I would argue that this section has been disputed since the merge of the cover-up article with this draft. And so no, I do not think it would qualify as status quo, not in my reading. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I would expect some scientific publications for the claims. There's no good reason not to require it. There are studies in medical journals discussing the later outbreak in India and the underreporting of cases there, for example. If there is a serious dispute as to China's COVID numbers early in the pandemic, it should be a dispute that exists in scientific sources. If it only exists in media sources and commentaries, then maybe a clear mention is worthwhile, but it can't be left as an ambiguous statement or appear to be made in wikivoice. Just my 2c. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  In regards to Chinese_government_response_to_COVID-19#Accuracy_of_COVID_statistics I think the section as-exists is inappropriate. Specifically, citing to sources published in early 2020 is a problem. There was a lot of crap flying around then, on many issues related to COVID-19, much of it completely wrong in hindsight. If this is a real dispute it should be covered in newer sources. Use of older sources may be appropriate if the issue is confirmed in newer appropriate sources. See WP:AGEMATTERS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: WP:AGEMATTERS pertains to scientific and academic fields. Can you show where newer sources refute these older sources? I haven't seen any. CutePeach (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a scientific and academic field. Epidemiology. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is also politics. Wikipedia has never restricted sourcing on political controversies to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and we're not going to do it just for Chinese politics. CutePeach (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we should avoid relying on early 2020 speculative sources for this. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @ProcrastinatingReader: Personally I would expect some scientific publications for the claims. Why do you expect to see scientific publications for what are political claims? Since when do we require scientific papers to cover what science cannot see? What is censored cannot be seen. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like see ProcrastinatingReader's answers to these questions before restoring the section. Is WP:AGEMATTERS applicable to politics, and are there newer sources that have superceded these sources? I would like to check these sources. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Replying to both pings: It doesn't necessarily need to be new sources clearly refuting old sources. (Sometimes that isn't even possible.) It can just be a lack of discussion in newer sources, which was the fate of many 'controversies' early in the pandemic. That said, I would argue that later analyses of data that supports the numbers published by the Chinese government (such as Lin et al w.r.t. HKers/Taiwanese resident in the mainland) are, in effect, refutations of the political ideas. I'd also say that, even if we assume Bloomberg had accurate data and sources regarding the conclusions of US intelligence, given the nature of intelligence collection it's not exactly sound to think that the immediate conclusion of intelligence agencies at the time is still their conclusion now. Doubly so when we're dealing with 'unnamed intelligence sources'.

Analysis can still be done on reliable data and see if more questionable numbers still make sense in light of that (c.f. Lin et al). This is an issue with a political aspect but that doesn't make the judgement of truth solely (or even primarily) a political issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The onus is on those seeking to insert this disputed content to show how it is the prevailing view of our best sources. At this point, I feel they have failed to meet that bar. Especially given that this is red flag content. Wikipedia tends to look down on anonymous sources, though there is no specific prohibition on them. The PAGs, however, explicitly discourage use of first-hand reporting, which this qualifies as. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source to refute and delete a slew of secondary sources goes against policy and the consensus in the RSN discussion. The Lyn et al paper uses terminology like "probably", "suggests" and "hypothesis", so it is not good for any statements of fact, and certainly doesn't supersede statements from heads of state [46] [47], Chinese government officials [48] [49], US intelligence officials [50] [51], and leaked documents [52] [53]. There is absolutely nothing - ZERO - in Lyn et al that refutes the veracity of these sources. Since the accuracy section was in the article at its start [54] [55], the WP:ONUS is on those of you wishing to remove it to provide sources that actually supersede its sources. Since this dispute effects is taking place over three pages [56] [57], we may need to hold an RFC on a noticeboard like WP:NPOV/N - asking the question: Should allegations that China undercounted infections and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic be included with attribution? CutePeach (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Should allegations that China undercounted infections and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic be included with attribution isn't really the area under dispute here. The allegations were made widely and so it would be a disservice not to mention them in some way. The disagreement seems to be on exactly how they're mentioned. Specifically, my comments above were made in the context of the section whose veracity depended entirely on the ~ April 2020 comments of unnamed intelligence officials who apparently spoke to Bloomberg, which obviously isn't appropriate. Further, I see an issue with using sources dated in early 2020 for a laundry list of reasons (c.f. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). I would like to see more current sources that discuss the issue more holistically from a more detached POV. Recall that we aren't a newspaper and should look for these kinds of more detached sources for reliable and holistic discussion of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Should allegations that China undercounted infections and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic be included with attribution isn't really the area under dispute here. That's just not true. I can show you 20 diffs from the monstrous discussion above where editors oppose the inclusion of these allegations, even with attribution. Your deletion of the section and its contents would be one of them, and the reason you gave is not based on policy (no newer sources dispute them), and certainly did not justify the deletion (WP:POVDELETION). This discussion is now so long that no uninvolved editor would be able to make heads to tail of it and I agree this should go to ARBCOM, but it should be bundled with the strange case of COVID-19 cover-up and how it got deleted (possibly also with a WP:DRV). The Times article I added (which you deleted) is just one of many which clearly states in the voice of the publisher that there was a cover-up. LondonIP (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Chinese government officials: In the articles you've linked, I don't see any quotes from Chinese government officials saying that the numbers were being faked. In the WSJ article, I see one quote from a China CDC official complaining that local hospitals in Wuhan weren't using a national tracking system for cases of pneumonia with unknown etiology. In the Times (UK) article, I see complaints about the case definition being too strict. What they're discussing is the requirement for patients to have a positive PCR test in order to be counted as a confirmed case. That's a requirement that exists pretty much everywhere in the world. The only place I know of that ever waived that requirement was Hubei province, China. During the height of the outbreak, in February 2020, PCR testing capacity was seriously overstretched, so the China CDC allowed patients without PCR tests to be counted as confirmed cases (the issue is discussed in this scientific article). This is the "clinically diagnosed" category that the Times (UK) mentions. In other words, China specifically widened the case definition beyond the definition that pretty much every other country uses, so that it could count more cases. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They're in the article, but not quoted. Even CDC staff and public health officials said the standards for confirming cases were so abnormal that they were convinced that testing was being blocked and the case count suppressed [58]. Your interpretation of this claim is OR, as usual. Cite your sources for your claims. WP:SOAPBOXING is relevant. LondonIP (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Cite your sources for your claims. I just cited a scientific article about this very subject. Here it is again: "Effect of changing case definitions for COVID-19 on the epidemic curve and transmission parameters in mainland China: a modelling study", by Tsang et al. (2020) in The Lancet Public Health. What Tsang et al. explain - but what the Times (UK) article does not clearly explain - is that diagnoses were delayed because the case definition early on required a positive PCR test (just like it does pretty much everywhere). This is why the case definition was loosened in Hubei province in February 2020, to allow diagnosis without a PCR test. As Tsang et al. explain, after the acute testing shortage was overcome, the case definition was tightened again, to require a positive PCR test. This wasn't some sort of conspiracy. There simply wasn't the necessary testing capacity to keep up in Wuhan in early February 2020, and as Tsang et al. explain, this motivated a number of changes to the case definition as the epidemic progressed. I'm not just making this up. This is all widely known by people who followed the events and who read the scientific literature on the Wuhan outbreak. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we prefer secondary sources, especially if you are trying to resolve discrepancies between them and secondary sources. Please do not give novel interpretations of primary sources. WP:NOTFORUM. Pious Brother (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tsang et al. is a secondary source for the information I'm discussing. The mathematical modeling section of the paper is WP:PRIMARY, but the background discussion on the case definitions in China is WP:SECONDARY. It's a far superior secondary source to a newspaper article (such as the one we're discussing in the Times), because it's written by experts who understand what cases definitions mean, why they're changed, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tsang et al is not a secondary source for the information we’re discussing. The background discussion on the case definitions in China you are citing from Tsang et al (April 2020) has no bearing on the standards for confirming cases that the Chinese government officials in The Times said were abnormal and surpressed - a full seven months later (Dec 2020). ProcrastinatingReader's Lin et al source is from May 2020, so it can't be newer or better than a Dec 2020 article, as per WP:AGEMATTERS. I'd like to see if either ProcrastinatingReader or Shibbolethink would like to concede a mistake or escalate it further. CutePeach (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the Times (UK) article. It's discussing case reporting in January-February 2020, not December 2020. Tsang et al. is a specialist article in a highly reputable public health journal. It's written by people who understand things like case definitions and epidemiology, and it undergoes rigorous peer-review and scientific editing. The Times (UK) article is written by a non-expert, and it hasn't gone through any such specialist editing or peer review. The background information in Tsang et al. absolutely is WP:SECONDARY. It is not original research by Tsang et al. The original research is the mathematical modeling, not the background discussion about the evolution of China's COVID-19 case definition and the problems faced in diagnosing cases early on. As Tsang et al. explain, the major factor delaying the confirmation of cases was the requirement that cases be confirmed with PCR testing - a requirement that is standard around the world, but which was specifically waived in February 2020 in Hubei province. Tsang et al. goes over all of this. The Times (UK) article does not explain this, and that's not surprising: it's an article from the popular media, and it cannot be expected to accurately describe technical issues like case definitions. All we have is that the Times (UK) paraphrases (it's not even a quote, so we don't really know what they said) unnamed officials as calling the standards (which specifically means PCR testing) "abnormal". On the other hand, we have an expert article from Tsang et al. that explains the motivation behind the standards, and how they were specifically loosened in order to allow more cases to be counted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader's Lin et al source is from May 2020, so it can't be newer or better than a Dec 2020 article, as per WP:AGEMATTERS.

That actually depends. If the events these sources are discussing occurred prior to May 2020, then the May 2020 source (as a scientific article) is still better per WP:BESTSOURCES. And I believe since most of the counting we're talking about occurred early in the pandemic, then yes Lin et al would be preferred. I don't know of any "new information come to light" that isn't anonymous gossip. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I echo ScrumptiousFood's request for ProcrastinatingReader to explain their WP:AGEMATTERS argument, given CutePeach has shown that the attributed statements quoted in the The Times article were published six months after the Lin et al paper. I ask Shibbolethink to show that the attributed statements from the Chinese CDC and public health officials are talking about the early in the pandemic as they believe, proving they are but anonymous gossip, as they claim. I request El C to keep this page protected till this dispute about the use primary sources is resolved here or on a noticeboard. The disputed section was deleted without sound policy reasoning and it did not put claims in wikivoice as claimed. Pious Brother (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In this request that you make here, who decides the dispute is resolved? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed the claims by the Chinese CDC and public health officials above. How can we simultaneously state that we distrust all Chinese sources and therefore throw out the several secondary sources I have provided, and yet trust the Chinese CDC and chinese public health officials when they make the claims you are referencing? Is it because we are only trusting these primary Chinese govt sources when they agree with some editors' POV? You cannot have it both ways. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're lumping (Chinese) confidential sources critical of the central government - together with academics subject to government censorship who may be tugging the government line, as if we reject the latter only for being Chinese citizens. Your Lin et al and Tsang et al papers are from April and May of 2020 and neither of them are secondary sources [59], while the The Times and Associated Press are secondary sources published half a year later, and the confidential sources don't give dates. El C how do you suggest we resolve this dispute? You know Shibbolethink won't drop it. CutePeach (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"You know Shibbolethink won't drop it" - This is a personal attack which assumes bad faith. Everyone here is trying to work towards a better encyclopedia through compromise and cooperation. Please strike that part of your comment. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read CP's comment as a personal attack, whereas your above comment sounded very much like call to arms, and ProcrastinatingReader's revert and the explanation violated WP:OR, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NPOV/BALANCE. CP's edit [60] was an improvement over LondonIP's edit [61] and your deletions look like edit warring [62] [63].

The allegations are not made solely by foreign governments, hence the section should not have been moved to the International reactions section, which is actually the subject of this dispute. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign non-governmental actors are included under "international reactions". Are there domestic criticisms that you would like to include? Elsewhere you have argued that we should not include Chinese mainland sources as these are not "independent." [64] [65] [66] Have you changed your mind on this?

I'm not sure why you would interpret that as a call to arms, unless you feel this is a battle. It isn't. my comment was asserting that we should not continue to revert, as it does nobody any good, and will not help us achieve stability. Overall we should talk about the content dispute, and not about these uncivil issues. It does not help achieve consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh, domestic criticism was in the reverted edit [67]. Why are you repeating the asinine argument that Chinese government officials might not be considered independent, even though it was clarified for a five year old to understand how they are different from other disputed sources [68]. Earlier in the discussion, you cited the RSP consensus advising caution with using SCMP's coverage favourable to the CCP [69], which is completely irrelevant in a discussion about claims brought against the party. It is extremely difficult to tell if you are arguing in good faith, of if you are just trolling. Can you drop the WP:STICK and allow El C to release the page protection? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Where does that consensus about SCMP on WP:RSP advise caution only about CCP-favorable content? Could you provide a quote? My reading of it is more that we need more independent sources re: Chinese politics wherever possible. And scientific journal articles meet that bill. Please try to assume good faith and recognize that everyone here is trying to find the best sources and use the version of content shown by those sources. We appear to disagree about which sources are the best for this purpose so we may need an RfC here about this specific question. Before I thought a new RfC would be a bad idea, but I'm starting to see it may be the only way out of this mess. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would also agree that as is, the section is not suitable for the mainspace. It currently is just about the U.S government (which I believe no one disagrees that they do not like China) accusing China of fake stats, with some random quote from the Chinese CDC to make the section seem legitimate. There are legitimate concerns regarding how China's reporting of asymptomatic cases which could be used as a basis for a revamped section however. Jumpytoo Talk 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating that the allegations are just from governments? They are not just from the US government, or the British government or Chinese governments officials. The claims are also made by reliable sources like CNN, The Times with leaked documents and confidential sources. I agree to revamping the section, with a chronological order of claims, starting with the CIA report LIP added. CutePeach (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why were such sources not used in the section? In the most recent attempt, to quote the entire section: According to Bloomberg News, a classified report to the White House in March 2020, the US intelligence community concluded that China concealed the extent of the outbreak and under-reported both total cases and deaths. The New York Times reported that the CIA warned the White House since early February that China had "vastly understated its coronavirus infections" and could not be relied upon by the United States. The Chinese government rejected the allegations, saying the US wanted to shift blame for their own delayed response to the outbreak. The Times reported that China CDC staff and public health officials said that "the standards for confirming cases were so abnormal that they were convinced that testing was being blocked and the case count suppressed."

The section currently solely describes statements by 2 US government sources, and 1 Chinese government source. No independent analysis by journalists, and no analysis by scientific sources. It has been 2 years since the pandemic started. If there is such a coverup, there should be plenty of sources across a wide timeline in both media and academic to support this. I suggest what I mentioned earlier to revamp the section with a wide range of WP:BESTSOURCES on the basis of the asymptomatic case issue, and put it on the talk page first for review and to achieve a consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 04:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The section you are referring to was a revamp of an earlier section, and both of them were deleted for dubious reasons. For the third revamp, which secondary sources from the deleted sections and the list cited above do you propose to include with what claims? I propose this article from FT about what Xi knew. Pious Brother (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Restore the section or open an RFC. There was no consensus to remove it and no consensus means restoring it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiqaqazi844 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  We don't need to escalate everything to an RFC. And, indeed, doing so is a component of tendentious editing. EDIT: It seems that this discussion is approaching an impasse, and recommending an RfC was probably the right call. If editors would like to introduce content that is disputed here, they should write an RfC including drafts of the options, and write the introduction to those options in a neutral way, as prescribed in WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Otherwise this is not a very productive avenue to continue arguing back and forth. (edited 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree we don't need to escalate this to an RFC, but if we can't find the section in the article to put these allegations, it might be unavoidable. It definitely doesn't belong in the international reactions section. LondonIP (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Firefangledfeathers I see you removed the section [70]. Please can you help formulate an RFC if you think it necessary? I would prefer we improve the section rather than deleting it. LondonIP (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  @LondonIP: I haven't reviewed the section enough to have an informed opinion. An IP removed it before me, but swept up some unobjectionable gnome edits that I wanted to restore. I wouldn't be a good choice of person to formulate an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 00:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Restore deleted section or escalate to RFC. Gimiv (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Added to RfC due to a lack of consensus, as well as some bold editors jumping the gun. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Shibbolethink, ​​WP:NOCONSENSUS says a lack of consensus normally results in the content being kept so I have restored the allegations you again deleted. Editors wishing to remove the allegations can formulate an RFC to settle the question at a higher level. According to a new book from a Wuhan journalist, doctors were told not to put pneumonia on death certificates during the early outbreak [71], which is just the latest of many sources alleging undercounting. El C please can you protect the page again if this edit war continues? CutePeach (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  On wikipedia, we keep pages at the status quo (before any controversial additions) while discussion about the reinsertion continues. Does the status quo include this section? I don't believe it does, given that this section was part of a disputed merge: [72] [73]. The burden of formulating the RfC lies with those who wish to insert the disputed material. I have requested full protection at WP:RFPP — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  The two diffs you cite do not show a disputed merge, whatever that even means. The allegations are not made only by foreign governments, which was the argument made for moving some of the content the International reactions section and deleting the rest. The allegations are also not refuted by the BMJ, Lancet or Nature articles, and there are better sources we can use for WP:BALANCE. I created a draft for you to improve the text and you have not contributed anything to it. I see a rough consensus here to include these allegation in this article, with only minor disagreement is on sources selection and article structure, which do not justify the wholesale content removal. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why would I contribute to your draft when I think the version of the section with both criticisms and praise is more appropriate? When I think the version that was in the article before this recent edit warring is the best possible version? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which section with both criticisms and praise are you talking about? Are you confusing the of allegations undercounting with #RfC: first paragraph below? Pious Brother (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @CutePeach: Please stop re-adding the disputed material. We should keep the stable version of the article (without the disputed section) until consensus is reached here on the talk page. I think an RfC is probably a good idea. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT (rfc)

Please continue all discussion in the RFC discussion section below. Thanks everyone for your input!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, since it appears no one else would like to draft this RfC, here it is. You should edit the following draft at will, but do not weaken any arguments of a thing which you disagree with, and if you do, I will revert it. We are all about steel-manning here. Also, please remain succinct. I will condense any arguments which get too long, as RfC opening statements must be brief. And I especially welcome edits to the supporters section because I am not personally a supporter, so it is less easy for me to capture the best possible version of that argument. Edit: In the interest of not wasting anyone's time, I will convert this draft to a fully fledged RfC on Sunday March 20th. If anyone would like more time, let me know. (edited 21:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC))— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Draft RfC Should this section be added to the article? The views on both sides (neutral opening statement) Critics of this addition describe it as duplicative of the condensed § Case and death count statistics and § International reactions. Further, critics describe this as a WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:CSECTION which does not follow summary-style and over-emphasizes WP:UNDUE voices to raise the profile of critics & conspiracy theorists. Opponents point out academic sources (our WP:BESTSOURCES) [74] do not support the allegations, and the best available sources in support are opinion pieces in journalistic outlets, or based on anonymous sources [75], which are of lower quality [76]. Critics do not wish to eliminate criticisms, but rather summarize them in proportion to their mention in the best available sources. Finally, critics describe the "wuhan urns" theory as a conspiracy theory based on the fact that more cremation urns were seen in a photograph of a funeral home in the early pandemic. No evidence has been provided that these urns were in use, or simply purchased to pre-empt future deaths. As it has no representation in our highest quality sources, it should not be prominently placed in the article. Proponents of this addition describe these as WP:DUE criticisms which are in a higher proportion of sources [77] than statements supporting the Chinese government version of events, and that underemphasizing these sources (either through dispersal to other sections or through summary) is detrimental to the overall article. Supporters also allege that Chinese-connected academic sources are not trustworthy for this content. Supporters do not want to describe the criticisms in wiki-voice, but rather have them attributed with criticisms present in higher proportion, given the availability of critical opinions in journalistic RSes. Finally, proponents describe provided academic sources as biased or not useful, given that they do not directly address all of the theories in proponent sources. So what should we do? Options: A - Remove the section and keep this version of the article [78] B - Insert the section and maintain this version of the article [79] C - Merge some of B into A (please specify, and provide a draft if possible) Explanatory note: Given significant dispute, I will not be describing any version as "status quo" and any attempt to describe one of the above versions as "status quo" will be reverted. Thank you for understanding that stability and productive discussion are more important than winning. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Comments about the draft Tagging every participant in the above thread. Tag: @Novem Linguae, @Mx. Granger, @FormalDude, @Thucydides411, @PaleoNeonate, @LondonIP, @CutePeach, @Jumpytoo, @Xoltered, @Silver seren, @ScrumptiousFood, @Pious Brother, @ProcrastinatingReader. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC) --Removed-- SilverserenC 21:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @Silver seren you are misunderstanding. This is not an RfC. This is the draft of a future RfC, please contribute to the draft and remove your comments until such time as the RfC is actually introduced. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Ah, I see. That's...confusing. So we're just discussing the draft of the description you have above before doing an RfC with that description? I feel like that's going to just have people fighting anyways. SilverserenC 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC) We all need to agree (to an extent) on what the RfC will say before it is started. In fact, this is prescribed as the proper course of action in WP:RFC. It also helps us avoid frustrating situations where everyone disagrees on how the rfc should be worded, and thus disputes the result. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Inclusion of these allegations was also disputed on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China so this RFC should go on a noticeboard with pings to all participants of previous discussions. Pious Brother (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) As the disagreement is specifically about how to include the allegations, that would be inappropriate. Each article has different requirements for WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Are there any other versions of the section that could be put up in the RfC? In my opinion I would not support the currently linked proposal as there is WP:UNDUE focus on the urns conspiracy, but a different version could be more palatable and reach a consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 22:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Do you have a source showing the urn story is a conspiracy theory? ScrumptiousFood and CutePeach showed the story was broken by Caixin and reported by Bloomberg, The Daily Telegraph, South China Morning Post, France 24, Radio Free Asia, Strait Times, and Financial Times. Pious Brother (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Caixin did not mention the urns conspiracy theory. It provided the initial report that mentioned urn deliveries without speculating about larger death tolls. The report was about people picking up the urns of dead relatives after 76 days of lockdown in Wuhan. During that time, it is expected that tens of thousands of people died of causes other than COVID-19. In other words, the conspiracy theory does not come from Caixin. As far as I've been able to tell, the conspiracy theory was first cooked up on Chinese social media, and was then pushed by the US government (through Radio Free Asia) and Falun Gong (through its media outlets). Then, a few news sources (i.e., not reliable sources for epidemiology) reported on the existence of the urns theory, in a vague "people are asking questions" way. Then the story basically disappeared, and there was never any follow-up. Where are the family members of these tens of thousands of victims? Where's the follow-up coverage digging into these allegations? When individual people die in China because of COVID-19 control measures, it's major international news, but somehow tens of thousands of people supposedly disappeared without a trace in a highly international city like Wuhan. Meanwhile, every scientific study (based on serology, excess mortality, absence of deaths of foreign nationals in Wuhan) comes to the conclusion that the true number of deaths roughly matches the official count. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Do you have any sources directly contradicting Caixin's reporting and dismissing the urns story as a conspiracy theory or is that is that just your own opinion? There is no consensus that your primary sources refute allegations of deliberate undercounting. Our text says there were a number of people who died with COVID-19 symptoms but were not tested and were thus excluded from the official case-tally, which is backed up by accounts in Murong Xuecun's new book, also mentioned by CP above. Caixin quoted a lady called Wu Akou who says they're not allowed to post about their dead relatives, which should answer your question about the disappeared, or maybe you knew that already. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I am mainly concerned about how much detail we are putting into something that basically lasted a single news cycle and never got brought up again, failing WP:PERSISTENCE, yet it is by far the largest paragraph in the section taking up 4 lines on my screen (no other paragraph comes even close). Especially since the speculation is sourced mainly to social media speculation (as currently written). I could see it being discussed in a timeline article as "this is something that was speculated back then", or max one sentence about this was one thing that was used to base accusations off, but right now there is way too much focus on the urns thing for me to support the current proposed version as is. Jumpytoo Talk 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose this RFC statement. This dispute isn't about that particular text. The dispute is about whether the allegations should be covered with attribution and some editors (like Jumptoo) believe some (or all) of these allegation are "conspiracy theories" and should not be covered at all. I propose an RFC asking Should this article include the allegation that the Chinese government undercounted cases and deaths? with yes/no as answers. Pious Brother (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Narrowly focused RfCs achieve results. These are the options presented. The dispute has manifested in whether or not to revert this specific insertion. If you would like to propose a different version as a third option in this RfC, feel free to do so. But vague RfCs like "should the page include the allegations?" are useless, as we have always included mention of the allegations in some form and many editors (yourself included) appear to find the specific nature of that inclusion insufficient. Both of the above versions include description of the allegations. The question is not "should we include the allegations?" because we all agree they should be included in some form. The question is "how should they be included?" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Your RFC question is not narrowly focused as it asks about a particular version of text, when editors are willing to improve it with newer and better resources [80] [81]. When LIP and CP added newer sources [82] [83], you and PR reverted them [84] [85], so it looks like you are opposed to any inclusion of the allegations. I suggest you focus the RFC on the actual dispute. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Which version of the section would you like to be included in the RfC? With these new sources? The most effective RfCs give stark contrast of two (or more) versions of the text. For example: [86] As the users who you have said 'do not want to include the allegations' state that they do, that would be an inappropriate framing of the RfC. RfCs should present the best possible versions of each argument. I would urge you to not assume the intentions or opinions of other editors. Your statement, which I don't agree represents the critical editors accurately, weakens their argument by stating they are "opposed to any inclusion of the allegations". It is also inaccurate, speaking for myself and the arguments of others above. As such, I am not going to insert it into the critical editor paragraph. If you would like, I am happy to emphasize this argument more in the opening statement for those who support the insertion. Such as: "proponents of this text assert that critical editors do not wish to include the allegations at all." Let me know your thoughts, and edit the draft as you like. As an aside, I would be happy to include some version of those paragraphs from the diffs you link, but I would like to discuss them and work on a draft. Perhaps these could be a third or fourth option of this RfC. I reverted those insertions because they did not properly follow the BRD cycle, and framed the allegations as more substantive than they are. For example, this statement: "the US intelligence community concluded that China concealed the extent of the outbreak and under-reported both total cases and deaths" is based on anonymous sources and reports which have never been substantiated. On wikipedia, we tend to avoid reporting as fact things that are only based on anonymous reports. It's an age-old tactic of politicians to invent or exaggerate such things when leaking to the press. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) If you're not opposed to including these allegations, why delete the text instead of improving it? I added The Times article [87] and I was going to add more [88] [89], and I have many more. I don't think an RFC on the original text is necessary when we have so many newer and better sources to improve it. CutePeach (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC) I was opposed to the specific way they were being included, and preferred the current way prior to this insertion, as it is more summary-style and encyclopedic, and for the many other reasons listed above in the opening statement. If possible, I would like to stop arguing about the things for which we've long ago achieved a stalemate, and instead focus on this RfC. This is the best way to achieve consensus and move forwards, rather than continuing to talk past each other with fundamental disagreements. If you have a draft you would like to be considered as a more "up to date" or "better" version, then please provide it so it can be added as an option. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @Shibbolethink: being opposed to a specific way something is included is not a good reason to delete it, especially as it was in the article from the start, imported from another article. I am not opposed to summarizing the section as Jumpytoo suggests, but not for the reason they give, as WP:PERSISTENCE cannot apply to a subject as heavily censored as COVID-19 is in China. The only edit I made to the section was to add the Times article [90], and you reverted that too, so its hard to know what your position is exactly. I think we should workshop the section here and then ask Ad Orientem to release the protection once we have something ready. CutePeach (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC) It was deleted as repetitive with the new iteration of this section, which is not covered by POVDELETION (btw also not a policy or guideline). Given that the protection is only against ECP editing, which does not apply to either of us, that doesn't really solve the problem. Do you have any suggestions for the RfC? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Perhaps WP:POVDELETION isn't relevant because the reason given for deleting the section violated OR and not NPOV. Anyway, since there isn't really any disagreement about including allegations of undercounting, I don't see any need for an RFC, as per WP:RFCBEFORE. If we have a dispute about a particular allegation in the text, then we should make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues, and then post an RFC if that is unsuccessful. I will make time to work on the text this weekend. CutePeach (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC) There is considerable disagreement about how the allegations should be included, hence the need for the RFC. We have attempted to resolve these problems above several times, to no avail. I am opposed to the several iterations of the text already proposed. Do we agree the current version of the text is repetitive? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC) The considerable disagreement about the allegations is whether they be included at all. In these diffs, you [91] [92] [93] [94], ProcrastinatingReader [95] [96], Mx. Granger [97] [98] [99], Thucydides411 [100] [101] [102], Xoltered [103] [104] [105] [106] and Novem Linguae [107] all opposed inclusion of the allegations, and not how they were included. ProcrastinatingReader said only it shouldn't be made in wikivoice, which it wasn't. What exactly are your concerns with how the allegations are included? We should discuss those concerns before posting an RfC about merged text. LondonIP (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC) We have discussed these concerns many times. I have described in detail the arguments against inclusion in the neutral opening statement above. Each time we have discussed this, the argument has devolved into editors telling each other what they think or why they think it. At this point, this is not helpful for achieving consensus. As I said above, I'm opening the RFC today. If you would like to add options or alter the wording, you may offer to do so in that RFC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC) It seems discussion has stalled here, i have removed the new text while discussion continues to both maintain status quo (contrary to what some editors seem to think is status quo) and to hopefully promote discussion by forcing those who wish to add new text to come to an agreement. Xoltered (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC) By removing the text (for the fourth time [108] [109] [110] [111]), you are not helping with Shibbolethink's argument that editors only dispute how the allegations are presented. The text with the allegations was merged into this article from pandemic article at the very start [112], so unless you have good secondary sources refuting them, they should not be removed. Instead, you should provide those up to date secondary sources refuting these allegations, if you can find any. LondonIP (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) you are not helping with Shibbolethink's argument that editors only dispute how the allegations are presented - Since we already have representation of the allegations in the aforementioned section, this doesn't make much sense. Please do not continue to try and tell others what they think. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?

Should this section be added to the article? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The views on both sides (neutral opening statement)

Critics of this addition describe it as duplicative of the condensed § Case and death count statistics and International reactions. Further, critics describe this as a WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:CSECTION which does not follow summary-style and over-emphasizes WP:UNDUE voices to raise the profile of critics & conspiracy theorists. Opponents point out academic sources (our WP:BESTSOURCES) [113] do not support the allegations, and the best available sources in support are opinion pieces in journalistic outlets, or based on anonymous sources [114], which are of lower quality [115]. Critics do not wish to eliminate criticisms, but rather summarize them in proportion to their mention in the best available sources. Finally, critics describe the "wuhan urns" theory as a conspiracy theory based on the fact that more cremation urns were seen in a photograph of a funeral home in the early pandemic. No evidence has been provided that these urns were in use, or simply purchased to pre-empt future deaths. As it has no representation in our highest quality sources, it should not be prominently placed in the article. Proponents of this addition describe these as WP:DUE criticisms which are in a higher proportion of sources [116] than statements supporting the Chinese government version of events,[117] and that underemphasizing these sources (either through dispersal to other sections or through summary) is detrimental to the overall article. Supporters also allege that Chinese-connected academic sources are not trustworthy for this content. Supporters do not want to describe the criticisms in wiki-voice, but rather have them attributed with criticisms present in higher proportion, given the availability of critical opinions in journalistic RSes. Supporters also assert that critics of this text wish to remove any mention of the allegations. Finally, proponents describe provided academic sources as biased or not useful, given that they do not directly address all of the theories in proponent sources. (updated 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC))

So what should we do?
Options:

• A - Remove the section and keep this version of the article [118]
• B - Insert the section and maintain this version of the article [119]
• C - Merge some of B into A (please specify, and provide a draft if possible)
• D - Merge (v1), preferring MEDRS sources and removing anonymous reports/non-RS/opinion pieces. (added 18:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)) by Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)}

Explanatory note: Given significant dispute, I will not be describing any version as "status quo" and any attempt to describe one of the above versions as "status quo" will be reverted. Thank you for understanding that stability and productive discussion are more important than winning. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC) (edited 18:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC))

Tagging every participant in the above thread.
Tag: @Novem Linguae, @Mx. Granger, @FormalDude, @Thucydides411, @PaleoNeonate, @LondonIP, @CutePeach, @Jumpytoo, @Xoltered, @Silver seren, @ScrumptiousFood, @Pious Brother, @ProcrastinatingReader. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• A, then D as nominator. This discussion has gone in circles and circles and more circles. Insertion advocates have continued to disruptively insert the material claiming a consensus which is truly not apparent to me. (and disruptively editing this RFC: [120] [121] [122] [123]) Discussions have stalled repeatedly, and I have been asked for many explanations which have provided repeatedly. Instead of editing the current version of this section "case and death count statistics", many editors have instead chosen to continually reinsert their own preferred version, not merged, not altered, but repeatedly inserted as originally devised. This is duplicative, WP:UNDUE, and based on WP:OR and poor quality sources (anonymous, opinion pieces, non-independent, etc). It also creates a distinctly anti-Chinese POVCOATRACK which is incompatible with encyclopedic writing, ignoring summary-style. For all these reasons, this section should be removed in favor of improving the aforementioned more neutral existing section.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)(edited 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC))
• C the allegations should be updated with newer and better sources. This RFC is pointless as most editors already agree the section can be updated, and I tried to do so myself [124], which Shibbolethink reverted [125]. Nothing will satisfy those who wish to remove these allegations from these pages, no matter which section, or in which style. LondonIP (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Please provide a draft or list of sources you believe should be added. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see a need to formulate a draft along with my answer. I am opposed to this heavily convoluted RFC statement, especially as most editors already agreed to updating the text in question. It would be better for you to withdraw the RFC or post it on a relevant noticeboard, as it also effects COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, where editors are removing the same allegations. LondonIP (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Narrow RFCs achieve better consensus. The issue on this page is the continued edit warring to reinsert a particular version of the allegations based on low quality sources. I will happily post a notice on that page linking here. If you wanted to voice your concerns about the length of the RFC statement, you had plenty of opportunity in the 7 days during which I asked for feedback on that exact statement above, and you commented several times. Doing so now, after the fact, is pretty disruptive in my opinion. It definitely doesn't help us achieve consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't even a narrow RfC. You took an old text that most editors agree could be updated and asked the community if it should be deleted, kept or updated. Since most editors will likely vote to update it somehow, we will be back to square one in another month, when this RfC is closed. LondonIP (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then why would you continually attempt to insert that outdated text? If you have a specific way of updating it, or a list of sources to be used for updating it, I will happily add these as a separate option so that consensus can be better achieved and longer lasting, as you suggest. As an aside, this is also exactly how RFCs are supposed to work. They stimulate discussion, and if consensus is easily achieved during an RFCs run, the RFC can be withdrawn. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The real question is why you didn't collaberate on the draft I created on 22 February, and instead deleted the text four times [126] [127] [128] [129], after also deleting another attempt to cover the controversy [130]. You claim youre only opposed to the way the allegations are covered, but your RFC doesn't give uninvolved editors an option that covers it in the right way, and now you are putting the onus to do so on editors who were opposed to this RFC in the first place. I recommend withdrawing this RFC and making a reasonable attempt to resolve the issues as required by WP:RFCBEFORE. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Because as I said then, I saw no improvements. I do not get what content from that draft (which is (btw) in the wrong namespace - it should be in your userspace or talkspace, not draftspace -- fixed it: [131]) is beneficial or novel to the current section. What would you like to combine from there? What would you change? All I see is the original text, which was already modified into the current section as described above. We have discussed this several times, and met a stalemate, which is what RFCBEFORE requires. I then gave ample time for you to state your case or request edits to the neutral statement. No one suggested anything. The ONUS is on you to describe your argument, not me. I provided as steelmanned a statement as I could in good faith, not because I am required to do so. I am only required to provide a neutral description of the dispute, not to provide the steelmanned version of the argument I disagree with. I did that because I think it provides the best possibility of consensus. Do you want to achieve consensus? Because RFCs are one of the best ways to get there when no one agrees. Disrupting this RFC or attempting to get it withdrawn will not help us achieve consensus. And it will be a binding consensus when it is closed, regardless of whether you, in particular, participate. So why not make it the best possible consensus it can be? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In this post above, you objected to contributing to Scrumptious's draft, saying the section with both criticisms and praise and/or a version that was in the article before this recent edit warring. I asked you to clarify what section you meant [132], as it appeared you were confused with the text of the other RFC. About the before version, you seem to be unaware that the section was created nearly two years ago on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and has been on this article from the start [133], putting the ONUS on those wish to remove it. Pious Brother (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that section was also disputed from the start [134] [135]. And, besides, what is important is the merge with this page, as this RFC covers only this page. That section was from 2 years ago, and is likely very outdated now, as several others have said. Especially given that we now have some high quality academic sources to rely on. It really raises the question, why are a few editors edit warring to insert a version of this text from two years ago? instead of suggesting edits to the current section? Or providing drafts of any kind to this RFC? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No, those were issues were resolved, not a dispute about the entire section. The section was started two years ago but content was added without any attempts to delete up till now for some strange reason. The discussion here and on RSN found no academic sources that dispute the allegations, some of which come from Chinese CDC officials to Caixin, risking their own lives in doing so. What this discussion shows is that you are opposed to covering these allegations, and not just the way they were presented in the text. Pious Brother (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What this discussion shows is that you are opposed to covering these allegations, and not just the way they were presented in the text. Please do not continue to state what others believe on their behalf. It's the opposite of assuming good faith. I have warned you about this before. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• AGF is not a suicide pact. You pinged me to this RFC requesting my input and I gave it to you. I second Scrumptious's recommendation to withdraw this RFC as it will not resolve the dispute. Pious Brother (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notice: This RFC has been advertised on the following pages: WP:NPOVN [136], WP:FTN [137], WPChina [138], WPMed [139], WPSkepticism [140], Talk:Zero-COVID [141], and Talk: COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China [142]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've left a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• A per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Not only is the sourcing poor for the allegation of "deliberate" undercounting, but the section does not distinguish between deliberate undercounting and the type of inevitable undercounting that occurs in all countries (failure to include people who died of COVID-19 without having been tested for it, elderly people who died from multiple causes, and people who died indirectly from COVID-19 because of the sudden limited availability of care for non-COVID patients). The U.S. and British governments have a strong interest in promoting conspiracy theories about Chinese undercounting, so as to distract attention from the embarrassing fact that reported COVID-19 deaths per million population stand at roughly 3000 for the U.S., 2500 for the U.K., and 4 for China.NightHeron (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• B I'll just repost what I said before, I guess. I think the section reads fine and is a good summary of official and expert responses regarding the subject and concern of undercounting or misleading numbers, reflecting the sources available and also being perfectly WP:DUE based on the extensive coverage of the subject. The only change I'd suggest is moving the asymptomatic sentence to the end of the first paragraph, since those relate to the initial discussion of undercounting and then combine the final two paragraphs ("On 17 April" and "Blood Samples") into a single paragraph. Expounding on the issue in regards to coverage of the subject and the available academic vs news sources in this regard, there's one major issue with the former that I've brought up before. If the Chinese government is actively controlling and preventing the full data of infections from being available for perusal, including for their own scientists, then there's no way for any form of published academic study to be accurate, even if the authors believe they are working with the full data set. And we already know from previously discussed sources, and those in the section in question, that the government is indeed controlling what data info is allowed to be published.

Which, unfortunately, gets tied up in the actual conspiracy theory nonsense involving "origins" of the disease, which all of the evidence does actually show to have been from a natural wild vector origin. And it's the conflating of these separate subjects by both proponents and critics of the case number subject that makes this discussion difficult. Some proponents are trying to tie this in to the origins topic and we shouldn't allow that conspiracy theory conflation to enter into the discussion or what we write in this section whatsoever. But critics are also trying to use those small numbers of people doing that to then claim any sort of bringing up of the case numbers issue is also someone pushing conspiracy theories. When they are unrelated subjects in the first place. Hence why we have such a conflict in discussion on this topic. Silverseren^C 19:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I have no idea what reference you're making with regards to origins theories. The reason I have personally referred to the Wuhan Urns theory as a "conspiracy theory" is these non-RSes which call it that: [143] [144] [145] I don't believe there is any connection to the origins debacle, and I don't see anyone else making that connection. I'm not trying to call it a conspiracy theory in wiki-voice, but I do personally believe it is one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. No attempt was made to identify and resolve the issues with the text by involved editors as required by WP:RFCBEFORE. There is also no neutral description of the dispute for uninvolved editors to understand what they are voting on, as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The text was on the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China page for nearly two years [146], and added to this page as part of a merge Trump famously [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/trump-lies-china-coronavirus-timeline.html trusted Xi more than his own intelligence service about China's early handling of the virus, so the allegations are WP:RS and WP:DUE [147] [148] [149]. Pious Brother (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  No attempt was made to identify and resolve the issues with the text by involved editors as required by WP:RFCBEFORE What about these extremely long and drawn out discussions? [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] What about this 7 day long period where I asked repeatedly for input on the neutral statement?

  There is also no neutral description of the dispute for uninvolved editors to understand what they are voting on, as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL What about this statement that I spent 7 days crafting and awaiting input on? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Diffs 150 to 155 are discussions about the allegations of undercounting and whether academic sources dispute them (they do not). The RFC statement is about the text with the allegations, which you have not suggested any improvements to, as is expected of you. If you want an RFC to resolve the issue, it should be about how to include the allegations, and not this particular text (which may be improved before the end of this RFC). Pious Brother (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  which you have not suggested any improvements to, as is expected of you 1) I have suggested improvements, see the draft. 2) I am not "expected" to do so. 3) Any new versions may be added as options to the RFC, as is customary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  You are expected to attempt a resolution before posting an RFC, as you are now doing on the draft (which I didn't notice). I will look at the draft tonight and comment there. Pious Brother (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer the original version, so I really have no need to edit your draft. I did so in an act of good faith. The onus is on those who wish to include disputed text. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I just had a look at your draft. You reduced six sets of allegations to two, creating WP:FALSEBALANCE between the WP:INDEPENDENT and Chinese government claims. All the allegations are reported by multiple RS and are DUE, and none are refuted by WP:NEWSORG or WP:SCHOLARSHIP, directly or indirectly. For example, no scientific study refutes the claim by the United States Intelligence Community that China deliberately concealed cases, a report that Donald Trump allegedly ignored, as I mentioned in my first post here [156]. If we are going thru with this RFC, I Support B, Oppose A and D, and give leeway on C for those editors interested in improving the section with newer or better sources. Pious Brother (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  no scientific study refutes the claim by the United States Intelligence Community that China deliberately concealed cases, a report that Donald Trump allegedly ignored, as I mentioned in my first post here - I think you misunderstand why I removed those claims. They are entirely based on anonymous reports from unnamed sources in one original outlet. This is a notorious method for disseminating political maneuvering, and generally is not what we would consider a high quality source for such a claim. Indeed, we have no independent or secondary verification that such a report exists, do we? All we know is that the CIA is "investigating." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to verify claims made by RS. Fact-checking is the job of RS like Bloomberg, and those that cite them, like CNBC [157], NYT [158] NYM [159], and SCMP [160]. Intelligence officials have to maintain their anonymity when talking to RS about classified reports, and their allegations here were corroborated by other anonymous sources, including those Chinese government health officials. Most WP:NEWSORGS have guidelines for using Anonymous sources but the CIA report covered by Bloomberg was corroborated by earlier [161] [162] and later [163] [164] inside sources, so it remains DUE. Pious Brother (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  The links you cite as "corroborat[ing]" the Bloomberg report (WSJ (161), WSJ (162), Times (163), SCMP (164)) do not have the words "CIA" or "intelligence" in them in any place as far as I can ascertain. So claiming that they "corroborate" inside CIA sources is disingenuous. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Since you questioned the reliability of Bloomberg's anonymous CIA source, I cited sources 161, 162, 163 and 164, which corroborate their allegation of undercounting. "Inside" sources was in reference to Chinese citizen and government sources, not CIA sources. Pious Brother (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thats all well and good, and I am perfectly fine with the claim being attributed that some sources (politicans, scientists) allege undercounting. But the claim that needs to be verified here is that the intelligence community as a whole wrote a report that agrees with this allegation. Not just that they're investigating, not just that it's possible, but that the entire intelligence community says there was undercounting. That's what we need a source on, and uncorroborated anonymous hearsay from a single article is not very credible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Bloomberg attributes it to the U.S. intelligence community, and unless there is another source contradicting that, I don't see any concern. I don't think its the most significant allegation, and like the urns thing, it can be summarized. I am more interested in the allegations from the medical community, like those comments from ​​Deborah Birx in that same Bloomberg article. Pious Brother (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• B per Silver seren and all the reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum in this discussion and the related discussion. I oppose options A and D as no good reasons were given for removing these fully attributed allegations that cite high quality RS and are DUE. C is only an option if newer sources are shown to be better, but that is not the case here as most of the allegations, and most newer sources only add new allegations [165]. CutePeach (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Inclusion of these allegations has also been challenged on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China [166], which led to a mega thread on RSN [167]. It's hard to keep track what the arguments are for deleting these allegations from these pages, and this RfC doesn't address them, so it looks like we will keep going in circles. LondonIP (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What about the opening statement doesn't address the arguments? Which arguments are unaddressed or inadequately addressed? Please advise so I can update the opening statement. This is precisely why I had the draft up for a week, asking for any and all constructive input, which you did not provide at that time. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The main points of dispute is if/how the allegations themselves are disputed by sources of same/similar quality. When you have sources like The Times saying that Chinese CDC officials added their voices to the allegations, then you need to have sources directly refuting them, and not just WP:PRIMARY sources like that BMJ article with a serology study. Looking at CutePeach's !vote in the ongoing RFC below [168], I see Chinese CDC officials also lent their voice to question the end of the pandemic in Wuhan in March of 2020, so clearly the concealment of cases went on for some time. An RFC can't address a subject as complex as this, and your statement doesn't cite any of the sources provided, and if/how they are refuted by other supposedly higher quality sources. LondonIP (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RFCs are specifically intended to distill complex disputes into a set of options for achieving more solid consensus, when discussions devolve so easily. I have described that part of the argument, in the critics statement, with: "the best available sources in support are opinion pieces in journalistic outlets, or based on anonymous sources". I have also included a sentence on the critical editors assessment that academic sources outweigh these journalistic sources. How would you have me include these things in the proponents statement? Where would you have me insert sources? Feel free to provide a draft of the proponents section (as I requested several times in the draft stage over the past week), and I will happily implement it. Here, you chastise me for not including enough links, and above you say the statement is convoluted. But you have failed to provide a draft or even specific suggestions on what you would change, when offered the opportunity to do so for more than a week. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RFCs very rarely distill complex disputes, and your options don't do that. The sources cited in the page and in the discussion above are mostly from news media (not Opeds) and the Chinese CDC officials wanting to be anonymous does not effect their reliability for attributed allegations, given the gag order on the subject from President Xi himself [169]. Since there are no academic sources directly contradicting these allegations of undercounting, I have no suggestions for you on how to update the RFC statement, as it won't affect the close. I replaced a bunch of academic sources with a New York Times article on the other page [170], which is an example of how news media can be better than academic sources. LondonIP (talk) 13:55, 20 March 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)

I think this is a perfect proportionality to the coverage in our sources ← There are many sources that have yet to be added to the page, like this critical report by Tom Mitchell of Financial Times [171] this revelational report by Nick Walsh of CNN [172] or this report by the staff of the BBC [173]. The lead of the article on the Chinese government's response to what it perceived as an overpopulation crisis in the 1970s is also largely critical, and there is no two ways about it. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the content in those articles is already sufficiently covered in #Early censorship and police responses, #Case and death count statistics #Xi Jinping's actions, and #Virus origin investigations. however, if you disagree, I would suggest that you first write a draft of how you would introduce these sources into those sections, and then provide that draft here for others to weigh in on.

It is overall necessary to first introduce such things to the body of the article before making changes to the WP:LEAD, as the lead is meant to summarize the body.

We know such changes are going to be contentious, so the best way to avoid any edit warring or frustrating reverts (I know they can be quite frustrating) is to workshop the changes before mass introducing them. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: first paragraph

Please give your opinion as to which is a better first paragraph:

1. Option A: current wording: During the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, the government of China has followed a zero COVID strategy to prevent the spread of COVID-19. After discovery of a cluster of patients with pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, a public notice on the outbreak was distributed on 31 December 2019. On 8 January 2020, a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was announced by Chinese scientists as the cause of the new disease.
2. Option B: During the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, the government of China pursued a zero-COVID strategy to prevent the domestic spread of COVID-19. The government of China has also responded to the pandemic with censorship, secrecy, and misinformation.
3. Option Z: During the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, the government of China pursued a zero-COVID strategy to prevent the domestic spread of COVID-19. Aspects of the response have been controversial, with the zero-COVID approach being praised and the government's lack of transparency, censorship, and spread of misinformation being criticized
4. Something else (please specify).

Adoring nanny (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Option B is better in two ways. First of all, the timeline that is in the current version just doesn't belong. Secondly, per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence is supposed to

  tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

  Misinformation, secrecy, and censorship are a considerable part of this subject, both in terms of quantity (see the list below) and importance. The the opening of the article should reflect this. However, putting all those three, plus covid-zero, into the first sentence, would make it too cluttered. Moving the misinformation, secrecy, and censorship to the second sentence is therefore a reasonable way to handle it.

The importance is demonstrated by sources that wonder if the pandemic might have been prevented if China hadn't been so intent on controlling information during the early stages[174][175]. The list:

I am also OK with Jumpytoo's Option Z below.

Adoring nanny (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A for two reasons:

1. The most notable aspect of the Chinese government response to COVID-19, by a very large margin, is the zero-COVID policy. This is the policy that has continuously dominated the Chinese response to the pandemic for the last two years, and it has been continuously discussed in the media on a massive scale. In contrast, the allegations of censorship, secrecy and misinformation refer principally to a relatively small number of incidents in the first weeks of the pandemic, many of which did not even involve the national government (e.g., local officials in Wuhan reprimanded Dr. Li Wenliang for sharing preliminary information on social media).
2. The phrase, responded to the pandemic with censorship, secrecy and misinformation is an extremely selective rendering of events. As is well documented, Chinese agencies, officials and scientists also publicized the initial outbreak in Wuhan and published information about the virus extremely rapidly, compared what has happened in previous pandemics around the world. Local public health authorities in Wuhan began alerting hospitals to look out for pneumonia cases on 30 December 2019. The Chinese government publicly announced the outbreak in Wuhan on 31 December 2019 (including announcing it on national TV) and alerted the WHO. This was merely 4 days after the first suspicious test results came back in Wuhan (27 December 2019). The Chinese government briefed the US government about what it knew about the outbreak and the novel coronavirus on 3 January 2020. It publicly announced that a novel coronavirus was the cause of the pneumonia outbreak on 7 January. On 11 January, the scientist Zhang Yongzhen published the genome on virological.org and GenBank (he uploaded the sequence on 5 January, but it wasn't immediately published). The main arguments made in favor of characterizing the government's response as secretive are that local officials reprimanded Dr. Li Wenliang for sharing information on social media (around the time the outbreak was publicly announced for the first time), that the National Health Commission (NHC) placed restrictions on which labs could handle samples (based on Chinese biosafety regulations that kicked in once it became apparent that SARS-CoV-2 was a dangerous pathogen), and that the NHC required new information to be approved before publication (which could be seen either as censorship or a desire to vet information, or a mix of both). This includes allegations that Zhang Yongzhen was punished for publishing the genome without authorization. He himself disputes the claim that he was punished. Whether the several-day delay between sequencing the genome and publishing it was an unacceptable delay or "appropriate verification" ([176]) is up for debate. However, the picture is far more complicated than just "censorship, secrecy and misinformation", and headlining that simplistic formula in the lede is simply WP:POV.

Note that these issues are already discussed in the lede as-is. By my count, there are currently five sentences in the lede about censorship, secrecy and misinformation. The proposal above (Option B) is to give them far more prominence than they already have, by putting them right in the 2nd sentence of the lede.

Finally, I want to point out that the motivation that Adoring Nanny has given above for Option B is utterly unscientific. Adoring Nanny is suggesting that the pandemic might have been prevented if China hadn't been so intent on controlling information during the early stages. Scientifically speaking, this is extremely dubious. The virus had already spread beyond China by 8 January 2020 at the very latest, when an infected person flew to Thailand, and it is strongly suspected that it spread out of China earlier than that. The idea that China would have gone from discovering a novel virus (which had already been spreading inside China undetected for over a month, and possibly already outside of China) to completely preventing its spread in just over one week is fanciful, to say the least. Using that suggestion as a rationale for reformulating the lede is just wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you are taking far too harsh of a stance when it comes to assessing due weight. There are reliable sources that say China's response in the earliest days of the crisis may have made it worse. They also paint a somewhat different timeline: Li was forced on January 3 by police to sign a letter saying he spread “untrue speech” for warning colleagues about the virus. From the AP: Chinese government labs only released the genome after another lab published it ahead of authorities on a virologist website on Jan. 11. Even then, China stalled for at least two weeks more on providing WHO with detailed data on patients and cases, according to recordings of internal meetings held by the U.N. health agency through January — all at a time when the outbreak arguably might have been dramatically slowed.

Much of this is covered in the article in the Censorship and propaganda section. I think their censorship/propaganda, especially initially, is due weight for the lede. I don't think Option B is the way to do that, but I do think an fourth option is needed. ––FormalDude talk 19:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: It's not a question of whether issues like the silencing of Li Wenliang should be covered, but rather what weight they should have, and whether the coverage should be one-sided. The formula that China's response has been characterized by censorship, secrecy and misinformation is extremely one-sided and polemic. There is an entirely different view, which I also see expressed quite often in academic literature and public health journals, which is that China's response was very fast by international standards. For example, this is from a "newsdesk" piece in The Lancet:

“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”. The first reported cases of the disease that came to be known as COVID-19 occurred in Wuhan, Hubei province, in late December 2019. China released the genomic sequence of the virus on Jan 10, 2020, and began enacting a raft of rigorous countermeasures later in the same month.

The initial weeks after the first cases were discovered in Wuhan were extremely confusing and chaotic. This is also the time period in which almost all the accusations of secrecy come from. The story is much more complicated than an all-knowing Chinese government hiding information about the outbreak. Government officials were just as often in the dark. This is why, for example, the central government sent a team (led by Zhong Nanshan) to Wuhan on 18 January 2020, to try to determine what the true situation was. The team reported back to the central government that there was human-to-human transmission, and Zhong Nanshan announced that on national television the same day. That's what triggered the lockdown of Wuhan, which was an unprecedentedly drastic move at the time. Again, reducing all of this to censorship, secrecy and misinformation is one-sided and simplistic, and strikes me as more polemic than informative. These issues should be mentioned in the lede and discussed in the body, but putting such a simplistic formula in the 2nd sentence of the lede is just WP:POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option Z As I noted earlier in the pre-RfC discussion I have concerns with it being awkward from suddenly jumping topics, and noted how the lede is overall too lengthy (but topic for another day/WP:IMPERFECT). But to answer the RfC directly, here is my counter-proposal (noting that it would work better with the shortened lede proposal I noted in the pre-discussion): During the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, the government of China pursued a zero-COVID strategy to prevent the domestic spread of COVID-19. Aspects of the response have been controversial, with the zero-COVID approach being praised and the government's lack of transparency, censorship, and spread of misinformation being criticized.

Sources
References

Jumpytoo Talk 21:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes this would be acceptable to me as a compromise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would want to say, though "being criticized" adds very little here and just makes the grammar confusing. I think we should just end the sentence after "spread of misinformation" and then resume the previous paragraph's sentences in Option A. @Jumpytoo, thoughts? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"being criticized" is to fit in with the "aspects of the response have been controversial", so I don't think it'll be better by removing the "being criticized". Though, I went through a variation while drafting this, which was The zero-COVID approach has been praised as contributing towards an effective response[1][2], while there has also been criticism on the government's lack of transparency[3][4], censorship[5][6], and spread of misinformation[7]. Do you think some variation of this would be better? Jumpytoo Talk 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think that version reads quite a bit better. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option B. Option A or Z - Jumpytoo - I would perceive the sentence re: misinformation and secrecy as biased in favor of a certain Sinophobic POV. I believe the current wording covers the most important aspects of this topic in proportion to their coverage in our WP:BESTSOURCES. It includes the allegations, it includes some of the controversies, but it importantly does not put them in wiki-voice when we do not have a wide breadth of reliable sources making these claims. We only have a wide breadth of sources stating that the claims exist, not stating that they are true. EDIT: I would accept Jumpytoo's alternative proposal as a compromise (edited last 20:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: are you implying that those arguing that the Chinese government's response to COVID-19 was repressive, and that it should be included as such in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST, are Sinophobic? Do you think the Chinese government represents all Chinese people like myself? They do not. CutePeach (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say the sentence is an anti-Chinese Government POV. Most who are arguing this do not appear to be Chinese. Most who are arguing against it do not appear to be Chinese. Ethnicity probably has very little to do with it. Sinophobic can be either anti-Chinese ethnicity or anti-Chinese government. Per Anti-Chinese sentiment and [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The term Sinophobic can be either anti-Chinese ethnicity/culture or anti-China, being anti-government is not included in any of the definitions. This is made clear in the opening sentence of Anti-Chinese sentiment which you linked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your reasoning and choice of option seem inconsistent. Did you mean something different? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Fixed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A While the sentence about censorship and conspiracy theories belongs to that article, the by far most striking feature of the response was not the conspiracy theories or the obstruction of efforts to investigate the origins of the virus but the zero-COVID policy (and the quite frankly draconian measures that accompanied it) - at least this is the impression I have from reading media coverage of China during COVID-19. The wording in B (or any other wording that would include the words in the first paragraph) is also faulty as the "censorship, secrecy and propaganda" beg for elaboration (censorship of what?, secrecy about what? propaganda about what / for/against whom?) in the first sentence. Given that these were far from the main points of the public health authorities' response against COVID-19, this definitely does not belong in the first paragraph of the lead. We already have a dedicated one for that, which explains more than well the stuff that the OP seeks to introduce in the first paragraph of the lead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option B or Z. - The most notable aspect of the Chinese government response to COVID-19 is unquestionably the censorship and suppression, and an independent panel appointed by the WHO Director Geneal to review its pandemic response was critical of both China and the WHO's early response [182] [183] [184]. RS continue to cover this aspect of China's pandemic response, such as this January 2022 New York Times article remembering Li Wenliang, and this January 2021 New York Times article describing the Chinese Communist Party's initial and ongoing censoring of covid in vivid detail. A large part of this article covers this aspect and from a cursory glance, it is missing many details, like the underreporting (pushed into the International Reactions section even though it is attributed to Chinese CDC, Chinese public health officials, and netizens). Pious Brother (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  The most notable aspect of the Chinese government response to COVID-19 is unquestionably the censorship and suppression: Not the fact that China eliminated local transmission in April 2020, and has followed a zero-COVID policy for two years to prevent the virus from re-establishing itself in the country? What do you base your assessment on? There has been much more extensive media coverage of the zero-COVID policy than of any other aspect of China's response, and that coverage has been continuous over the last two years. This is the major policy that affects the way that 1.4 billion people in the country live their everyday lives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Z Jumpytoo's sounds good. 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• The whole lead could use some work. There's a bit too much detail about dates and the history of COVID-19, when the focus should be on the Chinese government response. I'd like to see the lead move toward a 4 paragraph format: P1 zero-COVID, P2 Wuhan and the initial outbreak, P3 criticism, P4 largest exporter. Sandbox example. I will also point out that the current paragraph 7 contains plenty of criticism of the Chinese government, and could be expanded if anything is missing, so I don't think it essential that criticism be included in paragraph 1. So I am in favor of Option A at this time. Although I could probably support a compromise that is somewhere between A and Z, if one materializes. My issue with Option Z is it is too negative, listing 1 positive thing and 3 negative things about the Chinese government response in the last sentence. China's response wasn't that bad. They quickly contained the outbreak to Wuhan, and got their country back to normal. My impression is that it was more successful than unsuccessful, and I think our first paragraph should reflect this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Re: option Z being too negative, I would agree. I think it's a good starting point. but we need an overhaul in general. We should, though, not let the perfect be the enemy of the good for now. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Z Seems to cover all significant viewpoints. A leaves those out, whereas B appears to imply that censorship etc was a response to the pandemic, rather than a byproduct of the system. From sources, e.g. [185] [186] [187], it's obvious that overall, throughout the entire timespan of the pandemic, zero-covid is the main guiding principle. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• B or Z with strong opposition to A. I'm just really not seeing the argument for whitewashing/censoring it... Especially when part of the content itself is about censorship and whitewashing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• B or Z per Adoring nanny and Horse Eye's Back. Oppose A as whitewashing. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• None of these are very good, but option A is the least bad. Options B and Z focus too much on the censorship and misinformation, which is basically a side issue (it should probably be mentioned in the lead, but probably not the first paragraph). Option Z is also a little misleading – the zero-COVID strategy has actually gotten both praise and criticism, not just praise. An additional problem with options B and Z is that they use the past tense ("pursued"), implying that the zero-COVID strategy is over, when in fact it is ongoing – we should use the present perfect ("has pursued"/"has followed") instead. All three versions are somewhat hard to evaluate because some of the references are undefined, so I'm not sure what sources are supposed to be cited for those. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Z first, then B It's important to mention the Chinese government's controversial practices because it has extensively been covered by WP:RS. I would like to point out and concur with the sources provided by Pious Brother. I agree with Pieceofmetalwork with his analysis of A and B. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Z first, then B. I don't have much to add to the discussion so far. A is least informative. B is most controversial. Z looks like a reasonable perspective. JonRichfield (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Z is helpful. – SJ + 21:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• A. per Mx. Granger. Chinese censorship is absolutely worth noting somewhere in the lead (and we do note it already), but it is not a defining feature of coverage or of the Chinese response; even the sources presented here for use in the lead treat it as an example of China's general tendency towards censorship and propaganda rather than something unique to COVID-19. Z is an improvement over B but still comes across as too stridently placing undue emphasis on a relatively narrow slice of coverage (compared to the overall scope of COVID in China as a whole.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• A. After my discussion above with Thucydides411, I do agree with them. Throughout this RfC, the reasoning against option Z has been more convincing than the supporting argument–mainly an honest analysis of MOS:BEGIN taking into account NPOV and due weight. Option A is the best way to start the lede because it is the most accurate summary identifying the topic of the article. The rest of the lede does need some work, as pointed out by Novem Linguae. ––FormalDude talk 12:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Z-2 The Chinese government's first response to the outbreak was to cover it up. I don't know about the MOS:FIRST argument because the cover-up requires too much detail for the first sentence. MOS:OPEN is more relevant and the cover-up should be detailed in the opening paragraph Gimiv (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Chinese government's first response to the outbreak was to cover it up. This is just factually incorrect. The Chinese government publicly announced the outbreak on national television on 31 December 2019, just days after doctors in Wuhan discovered the first cases. This is even before Dr. Li Wenliang was reprimanded by local police. Various levels of Chinese government (local, provincial, national) had different reactions, and there were attempts to control the flow of information that officials thought would cause panic (just as there were in the US - Trump later admitted to withholding information for this very reason). However, there was no attempt to cover up the existence of the outbreak, and in fact, the outbreak was immediately announced on the most-watched TV channel in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• First choice is B as per MOS:FIRST explained by Adoring nanny but I agree also with Gimiv on pushing to second or third sentence as per MOS:OPEN. Second choice is Z as per Jumpytoo, but the "praise" part is WP:UNDUE, as that praise was rapidly replace with criticism, as seen in this Guardian article [188] and this Washington Post article [189]. The WHO continued praising China even after that [190], and Associated Press explained that it was the WHO's way of getting China to cooperate [191] [192]. Even CNN criticised the WHO for praising China [193], and the Atlantic described how China deceived the WHO [194], while Trump overrode much of his early praise with criticism [195]. The only praise China got is for its later response, such as supposedly quashing the virus in Wuhan, but even that was questioned - by Chinese CDC staff no less [196]. I think these sources are of higher quality than the two sources provided by Jumpytoo citing the praise. CutePeach (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Since the RfC is solely asking about the first paragraph, then based on how the current lead section is written right now, Option A makes the most sense, as it is filled with dates and events, and can transition and flow smoothly to the next paragraph (which begins with "On 23 January 2020, the Chinese government banned travel to"...). But I agree with Novem Linguae's comment above and think the whole lead section could use some re-writing and restructuring in general. The sandbox that was linked in their comment is a good starting point on how the current intro of this article could be organized. Some1 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Z is my favorite of the options provided, although I think it needs further editing from here and should not be considered a "final" product. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Z agree with CutePeach and Compassionate727. The lead need further editing. LondonIP (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• A for the reasons stated by numerous editors already. Xoltered (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Journalistic opinions

Why was this “Journalistic opinion” section added it back?2605:8D80:541:667F:4DFD:EC42:1E57:5C1A (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Because we don't remove content subject to discussion (see above), because getting involved in discussion is much harder if the content in question is not easily accessible. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Kirbanzo that is completely incorrect, the bold edit was reverted 5 times during the above talk. As per WP:NOCON You should revert your Re-addition of a bold edit that has been contested from the beginning.2605:8D80:541:667F:A8A2:A293:781B:F57F (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Kirbanzo
  1) adding an rfc template is not starting an rfc. you have no neutral opening statement, no options provided...
  2) You are failing to follow BRD, and re-inserting disputed material.
  3) If concerned about preserving the content, why not do so as an option in a correctly formatted RfC? Or simply understand that every version of this article is available easily on the history page.
  4) It can also be commented out using invisible comments. There is no reason to keep disputed information on the page, we must return to the status quo while the RfC is underway. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll hold off. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 05:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)