Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 6

The article has an all deaths chart in it ..... [2]. It looks fine to me and is relevant. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 22:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg does not show individual years, only averages, which is much less revealing and also more processed. But let's have a look: how is it that the article can contain File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg; that is, why don't all the above arguments about synthesis, original research, etc. not apply to File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg? The chart is traced to https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths; is that not also "primary source"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ânes-pur-sàng: Something like what you link seems much more straight to the point and focused on the pandemic itself, could be put within the context of sources given in the article and would also be much more manageable (by a great deal). I'd favour something like this being done in a country-by-country basis, actually, if sources on analysis of these could be found (however, I'd say it would be fairly easy to find sources on analysis about excess deaths during the pandemic than what was the original topic of this thread).

I'm going to ignore Don Polansky's replies from now on unless there is anything new to say; otherwise, I defer any reply to what I've already stated in all of my comments above. My point has been made, really, and repeated again and again over the attempts to deliberately create red herrings away from the truly conflicting point. No, issue is not whether the original charts can be made smaller or whatever value a user may think on their own that these may have, but on a WP policy issue which, so far, is being refused to be addressed. Let's make this discussion constructive. Impru20^talk 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That is very convenient to ignore me, coming from an editor who has been extremely repetitive above. But there are new points: 1) above, why is File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg okay in light of all the arguments by Impru20, that is, what specific sources meet Impru20's requirements on sources and support File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg and 2) below, mortality.org does not look like a primary source, which challenges Impru20's dismissal of mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be really intent on explicitly refusing to even read my comments, do ya? I'd favour something like this being done in a country-by-country basis, actually, if sources on analysis of these could be found Literal quote from the very comment you are replying, containing the literal answer to question 1. Question 2: A source mirroring another or limiting itself to reproduce the datasets from another (without any additional information, context or analysis on those) is also regarded as a primary source.

Secondary sources

are those that contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. This is not what mortality.org is, and you are very aware of this, so please stop going around in circles.

Factually, all the answers you seek can be found within my comments above... but you must read them to find those. Unless you keep raising further unrelated points and concerns to keep refusing to address the primary (and only true) concern of this discussion, which was your data tables violating RAWDATA and NOTEVERYTHING (again: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject). As a result, ignoring you until you are actually willing to engage constructively in the discussion is not "very convenient": it is a necessity to ensure that a constructive result can be achieved. Cheers. Impru20^talk 22:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let us for the purpose of the argument assume that mortality.org is a primary source and have a look at the quoted Wikipedia:No original research: 1) "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I took the material found in the source and placed a chart made from it into the article; I did not put analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis into the article. And I used mortality.org as a reliable source on the relevance of the data and the chart to the covid pandemic, by quoting "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic [...]" above. Therefore, I did not engage in original research, and that is the point of the quoted policy. With the above Impru20's interpretation of the policy, I do not see how any chart could ever be included, and therefore, I ask again which specific sources support File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_E&W.svg, or if not that file, which specific secondary sources support any covid-related chart; since, descriptive charts are not "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On another note, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html is an example of a secondary source that has a chart similar to what I provided, but I do not consider NYT to be a reliable source, unlike mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh Lord, you really seem intent on

WP:RAWDATA from one of my comments above: (1) Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. But I can also quote: (1) To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.; (2) 'Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.; (3) Wikipedia articles should not be: (...) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Your charts are excessive. Your charts had no context. Your charts were confussing. You were asked what the purpose of your charts were, and you said (several times) that it was because you found them of supreme utility, which by itself is not a valid enough argument for including them here. You've been told this again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and you now getting to oppose all charts because yours won't be accepted is not a solution. On the NYT source you bring, it is from April and revolves around deaths on New York City, but it does provides an analysis for those (and it, not the charts, could be of encyclopedic value)... for New York City. is not even one of the article you edited lmao. So what? Are you telling us that this supports your claim of adding +50 kB of tables into all COVID articles on Wikipedia? It doesn't seem so. Impru20^talk

07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Correcting myself since I saw you did edit the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City a couple days ago ([3]). Seems fun because it was a way simpler edit than what you intended for other articles (only a 3 kB table with limited data, rather than the massively-large and random charts you added in other articles). You did not give it any context though, but it could be given one through the NYT source you give. Impru20^talk 07:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(After e/c) We have: 1) mortality.org being possibly primary source being all right provided I do not insert my own analysis and the like, and thus 2) no original research as pointed out; 3) no problem with size as argued above (and yet we read "adding +50 kB of tables" above, again); 4) relevance of this kind of chart or data to covid established by reliable mortality.org and less-than-reliable NYT. Above we read "Your charts are excessive. Your charts had no context. Your charts were confussing", but that is mostly an assessment of the above editor based on their sense, common or otherwise, which only goes to show that without applying sense, common or otherwise, we get nowhere; my sense is the opposite of the above editor: the charts take little visual space when rendered, are illuminating and not confusing. Certainly the editors of the NYT article did not find this type of chart confusing and the number of years included excessive: their chart[4] starts in year 2000 and ends in year 2020. Now whether this kind of chart really should be in an encyclopedia is open to discussion, I admit; my position is that as long the charts showing absolute numbers of covid-coded deaths are included, it is vital to also include charts that show these deaths in context and in proportion, in relation to normal mortality levels and in relation to mortality peaks occuring in the past. What I just said is open to discussion, but it does not require a secondary source; in fact, even mortality.org cannot tell us whether this belongs to an encyclopedia, merely that it is relevant to the covid pandemic. The NYT source refering to other place does not detract from NYT's supporting the utility of this kind of chart; the above editor seems to insist on analysis and interpretation for each country, but that is exactly what I do not want to do, and what policies do not force me to do; after all, the daily new death charts do not require any textual analysis inserted below them, and I do not see why they should. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Now this is openly disruptive and a deliberate attempt to ignore the points of fact being discussed. You yourself acknowledge that this may not have a place in Wikipedia, so what's the whole point of your insistence on these charts? my position is that as long the charts showing absolute numbers of covid-coded deaths are included, it is vital to also include charts that show these deaths in context and in proportion No, it is not. There is no correlation between the charts already included and the ones you intend to add. If you try to argue that there is, you must provide sources for analysis (thus, secondary) making such a correlation and how it applies in each country (since you are adding these charts to many countries) as per

WP:RAWDATA

, not make it yourself out of thin air because you like the way the tables look or you are a fan of these data. Wikipedia does not care about your personal thoughts on the matter or what do you think about those.

On your concerns: 1) and 2) Original research is your consideration on your own that all of these charts are useful for inclusion in Wikipedia. They are not. You must provide sources for independent analysis that tell us how this data is being relevant and is being used for each country; those sourced analysis would have encyclopedic value, not these charts on their own nor your own thinking that these are "of supreme utility". 3) Problem is

WP:RAWDATA

, which once again you ignore. 4) That alone does not show "relevancy". The NYT analysis could be relevant for the New York City article. Not the tables. And not for other countries for which, so far, you have proven unable to provide any further data.

This I say is a reiteration of what has been said throughout the discussion already, which you seem openly unwilling to address, instead once again resorting to massive red herrings of unrelated stuff. You have been told what to do and how. You don't doing it is your call, not me. Also, the one arguing for "common sense" was you, not me, so do not manipulate the discussion, please. Cheers. Impru20^talk 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The above shows the general problematic pattern of claims that any argument must not be original research, where in fact it is only the content added that must not be original research. Surely editors can make original analysis as to whether and what policies apply. This problematic pattern runs through the discussion above. I am repeatedly asked to trace the obvious to secondary sources, which I do not think is a reasonable request; I need to trace added content to reliable sources, primary or otherwise. Despite that, I even provided secondary source NYT to support relevance.

As for "You yourself acknowledge that this may not have a place in Wikipedia, so what's the whole point of your insistence": That's obvious: I admit that it is open to discussion, while taking the position that it is good encyclopedic content. Kind of obvious.

There is no problem with

WP:RAWDATA

; the editor repeatedly talks of data tables and such when in fact we are discussing charts, which makes his arguments inapplicable. In fact, covid-related articles do often contain large and suspect data tables (and I mean data tables); and these do not contain any analysis, just data.

As for "You must provide sources for independent analysis that tell us how this data is being relevant and is being used for each country": as is yet to be demonstrated. Why would a particular kind of chart be relevant to New York City (NYT source), and not to other regions? That makes no sense to me.

As I am again and again trying to address things said by the above editor, I keep on finding arguments that I find weak, as per my above posts. I shall try to focus on the substance being discussed as far as possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly, this discussion got protracted and largely repetitive. I may need to consider to disengage and let other people chime in with their argumentation, but let us see. It is up to the reader to decide who ignored whose points and who addressed the points properly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the "above editor" (I will start addressing you as you address me, if you will) is either unwilling or unable to engage in constructive discussion. He claims that Surely editors can make original analysis as to whether and what policies apply. Well, no.

WP:RAWDATA

is crystal clear both when it refers to any data (independently on its form of presentation, so the issue of tables/charts presented by the above editor is moot) and in its literal meaning: (1) Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (2) To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.; (3) Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.; (4) Wikipedia articles should not be: (...) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. I'm seriously unable to comprehend what is not being understood from here. This is WP policy, not some editor's petty qualms. The above editor was repeteadly asked about the purpose of the data being added, to which he has only replied with his own considerations that he thinks these are useful/valuable/adjectives-of-the-sort, something that RAWDATA explicitly forbids. I've attempted to look for ways to make this much more manageable since I cannot see what's the purpose of adding the whole dataset rather than a mere link redirecting to the main page, and no answer has been given. But there is no way for "original research on the interpretation of policy", really, that's an invention of the above editor to (once again) refuse to abide to the policy at stake.

I admit that it is open to discussion Well, then discuss it instead of keeping ignoring it. It's funny that I've been attempting to discuss the policy from the very beginning of the discussion whereas the above editor has ignored to do it. Now he claims that the issue is "open to discussion". Still waiting for the time he sees it right to actually discuss it.

Why would a particular kind of chart be relevant to New York City (NYT source), and not to other regions? That makes no sense to me. It may not make "sense" to the above editor, but that's how Wikipedia works. It's very plausible that excess deaths may have a strong relevancy in one place, and nigh to none at all in other ones. It's also perfectly plausible that not even the whole dataset is useful for one particular place. It must be proven how the inclusion of +50 kB of data is relevant to a particular place instead of keeping claiming that "it's relevant" or "its of supreme utility" just for the sake of it.

Wikipedia is not about everything

. Not every content one may find on the Internet is suitable for inclusion, and the above editor has repeteadly refused to address any of these concerns, instead constantly engaging on me personally and coming to the brink of outright patronizing in order to avoid answering very simple questions that were formulated from the very beginning of the discussion, which has led to this whole repetitive mess.

I may need to consider to disengage Hope so. I have been attempting to do this for a while already; sadly, to little avail. Let's hope that this is our last engagement here, since everything that could be said has been said already. Impru20^talk 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On another point, regarding arguments from Impru20: it is not obvious that mortality.org (HMD) is a primary source; rather, they get their data from the true primary sources, which are the data collectors in various countries. They take responsibility for publishing curated data and publishing meaningful plotting; they take responsibility for the relevant quote I provided. They are a collaboration of Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, University of California, Berkeley and INED, Paris; they are qualified in what they are doing. I could link to a mainstream media article showing all-cause charts for covid, but mainstream media are not reliable sources, unlike mortality.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How often are the charts updated? And where’s to death info for last week and the cases and death for this week? Smitttttt (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The figures for deaths has now been revised down by over 5000. The government will report two figures for England, deaths within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 result, and deaths that occur within 60 days with a positive test or beyond 60 days with a positive is they died with COVID-19 on the death certificate. The BBC says "The 28-day limit will, however, be the headline measure and will at least achieve consistency across the UK.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711. I assume that when gov.uk is updated to remove these 5000 deaths everyone will be in agreement that the revised figures should be used across this page as our main figures? Jopal22 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, once the official website changes to the new definition we ought to follow those numbers for consistency. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the comparisons in the graph in the Lifting Lockdown section you will see that the government reported figure comfortably exceeds the ONS figures since the beginning of June—completely opposite to the situation prior to that. That's what's been corrected. If I can find the day-by-day revisions I'll correct the graph. Chris55 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

These data are now available: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths. 2A02:6B61:214E:0:89E3:FFFB:CBE4:2269 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

this is now very out of date with many media reports and longhaul groups showing earlier cases Professor Manderlay49 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is already too long so I think a new wikipedia page needs to be created to accomodate more of the criticism of the governments response to the pandemic with just a link to it in on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that this probably deserves its own page. There will be no shortage of content to include on this that can be reliably referenced as criticism from both sides has been widely reported in the press. The main page could then include at most a couple of paragraphs on this with the main content on individual policies being included in the separate article.Tracland (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There is already an article

Government of the United Kingdom's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and expanded. This would be consistent with other national response articles at Category:National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Capewearer (talk

) 14:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this proposal. I would also recommend renaming the article to

UK government response to the COVID-19 pandemic or British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for brevity's sake and per consistency with existing articles of a similar nature, e.g. Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Love of Corey (talk

) 06:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this idea, but would prefer British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic to be the new name of the existing page. Info should be moved to that page from COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#Government response and a new page created for criticism of the response. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the move to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also think a separate article for criticism of the response is worth doing as there's plenty of information about this topic. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note, I have started preparing a list of all the legislation that has been passed by the UK government in connection with the pandemic. See Draft:United Kingdom legislation connected with the COVID-19 pandemic. Happy for comments on how this can be combined with the proposals above either as a separate article or merged into one of the proposed articles above.Tracland (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)