Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. COVID-19 C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Pulmonology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Viruses C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 30 March 2020. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Current-events article is too unstable to copyedit at this time.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China, Not moved, 4 April 2020, Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Requested_move_27_March_2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article contains a translation of 2019年－2020年新型冠状病毒肺炎事件對中国大陆的影响 from zh.wikipedia.

• China didn’t warn public of likely pandemic for 6 key days April 15, 2020 Associated Press

X1\ (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X1\: What would be the exact text to be added? This falls in the category of "accusation of delayed response" which exist for many (most?) countries and might be due weight if the right in-text attribution, NPOV and balance is given. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what TQ your quoting, MarioGom? What about in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Response by the Central Government?

Or possibly in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Propaganda?

X1\ (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X1\: Sorry, I didn't mean to quote a comment, I have edited my comment to use quotes rather than {{tq}}. I think adding it as "Propaganda" would not be NPOV. As it would mean that Wikipedia assumes that an alleged delay in action would be a propaganda action. Maybe Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Chinese government and/or 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Controversies and criticism? --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Propaganda section would likely be inappropriate unless more RSs provide more backing for that designation.

Your sections suggestions seem appropriate. The reason you needed to ask What would be the exact text to be added? is I left it open, as I don't often edit here; but this appears significant in the sequence of events. There are various other RSs on this too. X1\ (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disease originated in China. It's most effective if an outbreak is detected at the earliest and contained. There was a delay of almost a month before human to human transmission was confirmed. People voicing concerns were silenced. They didn't put out information on time. Even if one argues it's not purposeful it's willfull negligence which in this case is nothing short of a crime. China has incentive to restrict flow of information as well and they actively engage in that practice. And the fact that China is a well connected country as well. By the time things became clear, plenty of people had travelled by air all over the world. Other countries didn't prepare early enough thinking it's a local issue in China. If the authorities were efficient much less infected people would have travelled abroad meaning less exposure for the rest of the world. Even after that the Govt of China didn't disclose information on time. All these had direct consequences on the number of cases. Hence it's fitting to be referenced in the main text. and further elaborated in Response section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejose1 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it without an account, but someone should write about the new lockdown in parts of Harbin, Heilongjian. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-harbin-china-s-new-wuhan-

-and maybe a general section on the current status of lockdowns would be nice. 87.164.239.21 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about Harbin. I agree that more details about lockdowns (and other containment measures) are needed in the article. I've had trouble finding good sourcing, unfortunately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To try to resolve the ongoing disagreement about whether to include the Bild criticism of international aid, I've replaced the quote with material from more reliable sources (the New York Times and the Carnegie Endowment) that makes roughly the same points (that the Chinese government is using aid as a geopolitical tool). What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted to allow for discussion at WP:ANEW and here. I would greatly appreciate other users' input on these edits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason why I mentioned Bild's criticism of international aid was because the initial editorial "What China Owes Us" (which some mistook as Germany sticking China with the bill for pandemic damages) drew a strong rebuke from the Chinese embassy in Berlin, otherwise I would have ignored it like Fox News. FobTown (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clarification is helpful. I don't really think that's significant enough to mention here (that's far from the only Chinese diplomatic mission to be involved in a minor spat like this recently). I can live with mentioning the incident, but in that case the focus should be on the editorial that drew the embassy's response, and the response itself. How about we briefly summarize the controversial editorial and indicate the embassy's response? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no further response, I have implemented the proposed compromise. If anyone disagrees, please join the discussion here and don't edit-war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. The problem is that the proposed compromise leaves out the essence of Reichelt's Trojan Horse accusation, so I suggest Reichelt's quote below:

Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" that was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, responded by criticizing China's aid saying "I suppose you consider it a great ‘friendship’ when you now generously send masks around the world. This isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse. You plan to strengthen China through a plague that you exported. You will not succeed.”^[1][2] FobTown (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That long quote would be WP:UNDUE weight. You said above that what was relevant about the Bild incident was that the first editorial drew a response from the embassy—the current description in the article covers that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your Bild blurb has nothing to do with the section "International Aid" as you completely omitted Reichelt's Trojan Horse quote: The German tabloid Bild published an editorial critical of the Chinese government titled "What China owes us", which drew a rebuttal from the Chinese embassy in Berlin.[350][351]

I can place the Reichelt's Trojan Horse quote as part of a paragraph in "International Aid", most likely after Jorge Guajardo's quote, rather than having it on its own in order to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. FobTown (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that quoting Reichelt's "Trojan horse" comments is WP:UNDUE weight, regardless of whether they're a paragraph on their own or combined with other material to make a longer paragraph.

I agree with you that there's not a direct connection with international aid. We could solve that problem by removing the material in question or moving it to another part of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should avoid the WP:UNDUE weight, by being placed as part of the last paragraph, while also expanding upon the congressional report.

A U.S. congressional report released in April concluded that "the Chinese government may selectively release some medical supplies for overseas delivery, with designated countries selected, according to political calculations."[336] Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" for the pandemic's cost to Germany which was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, suggested that China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks, saying "this isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse".[350][351] FobTown (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is still undue weight—please self-revert. If you want to expand on the congressional report, that's fine, but do it with high-quality sources like the ones I suggested earlier. I am really baffled as to why you keep trying to include this low-quality source.

Could another editor please weigh in on whether we should quote this editorial from a low-quality tabloid source? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed notices at WT:WikiProject COVID-19 and WT:WikiProject China to solicit input on this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FobTown: Amidst an ongoing discussion and without consensus, you’ve reinserted precisely the content that you were given a final warning at AN3 for edit warring over. Self-revert immediately. 15:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reverted. MarkH₂₁, thanks for taking sides right away. FobTown (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking that everyone follow the edit warring policy and not insert their preferred version amidst a discussion with disagreement is not taking sides. Let the discussion run its course, using dispute resolution if needed. This applies to all parties. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granger, the main dispute is over WP:UNDUE weight, but I can't cut the Reichelt quote any further or else it would lack context for the Trojan horse assertion.

I don't call it Bild low quality for this incident, since Reichelt got into a dispute with the Chinese embassy, and this spat (the original Bild editorial and Reichelt's rebuttal) received worldwide attention.[3][4][5]

The main point of Reichelt's inclusion in the "International Aid" section isn't the back-and-forth dispute (which was mentioned in passing) but rather the Trojan horse and Imperialism description of the masks aid. FobTown (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's undue weight to cover the "Trojan horse" claim at all. Why would we quote a tabloid editorial when we have much better sources available covering the same issue? (The Chinese embassy response is possibly an argument for briefly mentioning the "What China owes us" editorial, but not the "Trojan horse" editorial.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think its undue weight, its crucial context to why the PRC reacted the way they did... Its not everyday we see this sort of spat between a second rate publication and a superpower. Isn’t the PRC angry about a series of inflammatory pieces not just one of them? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do however agree with Mx. Granger that we can probally find a better home for this information than the "International Aid” section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye Jack: To clarify: the "Trojan horse" editorial was published after the Chinese embassy statement, so the embassy statement was clearly not reacting to that editorial. I've already indicated that I'm okay with mentioning the "What China owes us" editorial, which is what prompted the embassy response. And yeah, "International Aid" is probably not the right section to cover this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arent the Chinese still pissed about this? I was under the impression this was an ongoing incident. This article covers all three [6] as one incident. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the Chinese government is "still pissed", and I imagine you don't either – let's stick to what the sources say. The source you linked suggests that the Chinese government hasn't responded to the "Trojan horse" editorial, or at least hadn't responded when the source was published. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me our problem here is that we have an unreliable party (Bild) and a highly unreliable party (Chinese Government) going at each other so we need to rely on third parties even more than normal, if we decide that the conflict is notable enough to be on wikipedia we should decribe the full extent of the conflict and not just part of it. If we decide that the conflict is not notable enough to be on wikipedia we of course will cover none of it. Does seem like this conflict was notable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a limit to the extent that anything should be covered by WP:PROMINENCE, right? There’s no way one covers the full extent, so to speak. The conflict is worth mentioning, but shouldn’t the focus of this discussion be on whether the specific quote is due prominence?

Also, it’s a Bild editorial, not even a Bild article right? Both sides are highly unreliable, it’s not really important who’s more unreliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trojan Horse / Imperialism response quote and original editorial is notable as other sources have picked up upon it being "out of character" for German media which is usually not jingolistic while German politicians are passive-aggressive.[7] It also expands upon the paragraph of the congressional report suggesting that aid is a political calculation. FobTown (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the importance of the quote is that it demonstrates German jingoism or something similar, it would be better suited to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany article rather than here. As I said previously, if we want to expand on the political calculations in Chinese aid, that's fine with me—but let's do it with more reliable sources like the New York Times, as I suggested above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be equally relevant on both China and Germany pages. I'm all for adding the New York Times too, but Bild's position is another worldwide view on political calculations of China's aid. FobTown (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, FobTown, I don't think this reasoning is coherent at all. You say we should include the Bild quote because it is "another worldwide view on political calculations of China's aid." Obviously we should not include quotes from all publications worldwide that have commented on political considerations in Chinese aid—if we did, this already long article would balloon to several times its current size. We must have some selectivity in which sources we quote. There is no reason to report this particular tabloid editorial's views on international aid when substantively similar views can be found from higher-quality sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case its not the question of whether the Bild editorial/response was of high quality or not, otherwise other sources wouldn't mention Bild and nor would Bild have caused a dispute with the embassy.[8][9][10] And furthermore we want more than just USA sources on political calculations, of which in this case a normally-not-so-vocal German source actually stands out, in fact it was noted as the toughest response from any news organization or politician in Germany. Imperialism & Trojan Horse is also another observed viewpoint on aid too.[11] FobTown (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the last claim that in this case a normally-not-so-vocal German source actually stands out: the general German media is not generally vocal, but Bild is not a normally-not-so-vocal source. It’s a tabloid that is "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism", and this is an editorial from a single journalist (i.e. the opinion of a single journalist and not a regular news article) published by that tabloid. It’s certainly a normally-vocal source.

But for whether the response to the rebuke to the editorial should be quoted, it does seem slightly out-of-prominence to quote the opinion of a single journalist in the subsection about international aid within the international relations section. Generally, international relations sections shouldn’t devote too much prominence to responses outside of official channels. Perhaps another section, maybe the Controversies section, would be more appropriate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never quoting straight from www.bild.de but instead from other sources mentioning the editorial/response. Going back to the beginning, the original concern of including the whole quote was WP:UNDUE so how was that not addressed by carefully truncating it? FobTown (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"otherwise other sources wouldn't mention Bild and nor would Bild have caused a dispute with the embassy" – the editorial that drew the response from the embassy is already in the article. I don't really think it should be, because this is a very minor incident in the huge scope of COVID-19 in China (and the incident didn't even take place in China!), but I agreed to mention it as a compromise to try to resolve this dispute. But I strongly object to the idea of quoting another editorial, which didn't get a response from the embassy, from the same low-quality source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do appreciate the compromise attempt but the initial editorial was about human rights & surveillance so it didn't fit in International Aid. The response was an answer to the embassy rebuke, and other international sources have mentioned the Bild response in suggesting that the aid is suspicious, indeed one source even suggested that Bild's response was also pushback against China's propaganda effort.[12][13] Of course the reception to aid would not take place in China but rather the host country that receives it, hence that is why we have the Mexican ambassador, Italian PM, Congress! The truncated quote is a fair compromise that not only gets out the viewpoint without WP:UNDUE, but also provides a European perspective towards having a worldwide view on aid political calculations (just a quick blurb on the Congressional report isn't enough, while have plenty material in the Propaganda section.) FobTown (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep giving different reasons for including this quote that don't have much to do with each other—it feels like you're throwing things at the wall and seeing if any will stick, so to speak. Now you say we should include the quote to provide "a European perspective...on aid political calculations". We already present European perspectives on international aid in this article; I don't see why we specifically need a European perspective on one particular aspect of the aid. That said, if you want to include a European perspective on this particular aspect, I don't object—but please find one from a more important or higher-quality source than a tabloid editorial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, we could quote this statement from High Representative of the European Union Josep Borrell, which I found in less than 10 minutes of searching. What do you think of that as a compromise? If not, you can keep looking for other sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Josep Borrell statement can be added the the "Propaganda" section, and there is undoubtedly some overlap between International Aid and Propaganda. However the Congressional report and Bild response go further than propaganda/narrative by citing political calculations and Imperialism, respectively, and such topics fit better in International Aid. [14][15][16][17][18] For instance, The Federalist has quoted the Bild response, a editorial in Welt am Sonntag, and the former head of MI6, in suggesting that Germany and the UK are hardening their stance against Chinese influence.[19] FobTown (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granger, how would you edit the following paragraph so it still contains the essence of what Reichelt says in his response: A U.S. congressional report released in April concluded that "the Chinese government may selectively release some medical supplies for overseas delivery, with designated countries selected, according to political calculations."[336] Bild editor Julian Reichelt, after writing an editorial titled "What China owes us" for the pandemic's cost to Germany which was rebuked by the Chinese embassy, suggested that China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks, saying "this isn’t friendship, I would call it imperialism hidden behind a smile — a Trojan Horse". FobTown (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Josep Borrell statement does talk about international aid, but if you don't want to include it, that's fine with me. As I've said many times now, it is undue weight for us to include the "Trojan Horse" tabloid editorial. I've already edited the paragraph to include what you said was the key part of this incident (the original editorial and the response from the embassy), and that's what's in the article now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more we discuss this, the more convinced I am that this minor incident is just not significant in the broad scope of this article. I think the best option is to remove Bild from this article altogether. We can still discuss the incident in the article about Bild. In this article, let's use high-quality sources for commentary on Chinese aid. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bild response has been quoted several times so its of sufficient significance, as opposed to being just another Fox News, so quality of Bild wasn't an issue for those other news organizations. And the Bild response is the relevant part to the International Aid section. FobTown (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we add Joseph Borrell plus the Bild "Trojan Horse", that would be less undue weight, how would you add truncate Borrell's statement? FobTown (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this has been mentioned in a few other sources is a reason to discuss the incident in the Bild article. But it's not a reason to quote a low-quality source's views on international aid in this broad article. Maybe the best resolution would be to cover the Bild incident in the Bild article (where we can go into more detail) and cover the views of higher-quality sources in this article.

In this article, if we include Borrell's statement instead of (not in addition to) the Bild quote, we could say something like

High Representative of the European Union Josep Borrell said that Chinese aid was part of "a global battle of narratives" about the pandemic, adding that "China is aggressively pushing the message that, unlike the US, it is a responsible and reliable partner."

How does that look? I'm also open to alternative phrasings. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think of it, Borrell's statement is more appropriately propaganda rather than international aid. It is a better idea to quote The Federalist instead for Imperialism and political calculations.[20] FobTown (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, quote Bild as reproduced in The Federalist. It seems this discussion is going nowhere. I'm starting an RfC, see below. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article cover editorials from the German tabloid Bild? If so, should the article only mention the editorial that drew a response from the Chinese embassy in Berlin, or should it also include a quote regarding Chinese foreign aid from another editorial in the same publication? See above for prior discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not include (or at most only cover the first editorial) – this brief spat between a tabloid and the embassy in Berlin is a very minor incident in the broad scope of this article. If it is included, we should just mention the first editorial and the embassy's response. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to quote the second tabloid editorial (from a source "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism") regarding international aid. (Of course, there is no problem with quoting higher-quality sources, diplomats, or officials regarding Chinese foreign aid, which is what I've suggested doing in the discussion above.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not include also noting the WP:RS/P comparison of Bild to The S*n. A minor tit-for-tat compared to the massive epidemic control efforts, adverse economic impact (and associated reduction in greenhouse emissions), among others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - the Congressional report and Bild response go further than just a brief spat, as some commentators have suggested political calculations and Imperialism, respectively, and such topics fit better in International Aid. [21][22][23][24][25] For instance, The Federalist has quoted the Bild response, a editorial in Welt am Sonntag, and the former head of MI6, in suggesting that Germany and the UK are hardening their stance against Chinese influence.[26] Note that I never quoted directly from bild.de and never had to. At this point when the Bild editorial and response is being widely quoted by others, it is not a question of whether Bild is high quality or just a tabloid. FobTown (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original criticism that Granger raised about the Bild response was that it was WP:UNDUE but I have shortened it. However, substituting the first editorial not only doesn't resolve WP:UNDUE (the proposed content is of a similar length and has its own paragraph) but it simply doesn't belong in International Aid. FobTown (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FobTown: Why don’t you want to use the talk page to follow up, as requested? You removed the official government response again on the basis of

because its a separate paragraph to him alone, while the other quotes are paraphrased and placed as part of a paragraph

Zhao Lijian is the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. It’s the government response, not an individual’s response. It’s like removing statements made by the White House Press Secretary on behalf of the current administration because it came from one person.

It’s absolutely due WP:PROMINENCE to add the Chinese government’s response to the controversy, and two sentences isn’t overgrown. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly undue weight to give a full paragraph to Zhao Lijian's statement alone, while the other quotes from African officials are paraphrased and placed as part of an earlier paragraph. Furthermore, Zhao Lijian's assertions were already stated in the earlier paragraph: Beijing initially attempted to deny such reports as "rumors" and "misunderstandings" spread by Western media. FobTown (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it’s a statement on behalf of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. It’s not a single person’s assertions.

The initial statement about "rumors" and "misunderstandings" also wasn’t from Zhao Lijian’s statements, it was from the police and public health bureau in Guangzhou on April 7 (and/or ambassador responses like this April 14 one). Otherwise you would find the quoted words in the referenced Zhao statements: April 12, April 13. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The police and public health bureau are saying essentially the same thing as Zhao Lijian. Further point to note that presenting Zhao Lijian's comments in a separate paragraph actually overshadows the actions of the Chinese officials/envoys in making PR visits and giving reassurances to African diplomats. I actually don't see anywhere else in that section where an official gets an entire paragraph devoted to their own statement, most if not everything is paraphrased. FobTown (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed to come back to this article and find that after a "final warning" at WP:ANEW. and another warning on this talk page, User:FobTown is edit-warring on this article again. @FobTown: Please self-revert immediately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of the statement and condemned, "the US had better focus on domestic efforts to contain the spread of the virus. Attempts to use the pandemic to drive a wedge between China and Africa are bound to fail” is a bit much and definitely WP:UNDUE. No need for us to give prominence to crazy even if that crazy comes from an official government mouthpiece. No reliable sources indicate that the US is using the Pandemic to drive a wedge between China and Africa. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote only shows what crazy position the Chinese government has. It’s not an assertion of truth, but the article should definitely cover what the Chinese government responds with.

It depicts the whole back-and-forth as reported by RSes: with initial reports followed by Chinese claims of rumors, in turn followed by African diplomat questioning/outrage, followed by a Chinese government response blaming the US, followed by officials making visits and giving reassurances. Omitting the Chinese Foreign Ministry compromises coverage of the event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavessey (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Paragraph 1 of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China[reply]

'Wuhan CDC' should be "Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Center_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention (So as not to confuse with the US CDC and make it absolutely clear.) Thanks for the fantastic article by the way. Regards Peter