Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019/Archive 1

Comments

• • I noticed the pageviews went thru the roof the day the AP story broke about the earlier French case. See here. The aim of a timeline is highly functional. It is a reader's shortcut to nailing down metadata and we should attempt to facilitate the reader. In short, its a table, a graph. The reader should be able to answer a quick query in regard to time. This redo is a solution in search of a problem. The reorganization muddles the purpose of the timeline. The subject does not matter. The date the action occurred is what our reader is seeking. Context is available elsewhere in more specialized Wikipedia articles or the sources that the timeline cites. Please help the reader by making the format as simple as possible. They will make their own conclusions. When you reorganize information in the middle of the pandemic, I fear, you are further destabilizing public confidence in a useful resource. In the absence of participation in this discussion, I hope you return to the more familiar format.

• • The academic preference for citations is understandable, but is unnecessary. Academic sources are not constant. They have to replicate the results in future research. Systematic review is much better in serving our readers with a history of research and conclusions. However, the nature of Wikipedia is self-correcting and better sources are evolving as we edit content. One of the rules of Wikipedia is there are no rules. Good references and good sentences will take the reader where they want to go in their own research. Lets not get too structured or rule-bound.

• • Seasoned wire reporters are as good as their sources...some are government and some are academic researchers. The author of the AP story on France's early case was a former PR staffer at WHO. We should not overlook their considerable contribution to readers of their respective newspapers or this encyclopedia. Reporters who cover the scientific beats cook down the scientific reporting for the general reader. Church of the Rain (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Church of the Rain (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Comingdeer, thank you for your response. I see we have a shared motive, in letting news reports be a part of Wikipedia. They are in the article, also in the rephrased version.

I appreciate your focus on the Reader, mostly because I consider myself as one. But then, it seems, Readers and Readers are two different things. We will have to go into particulars. So, when you compare the timeline to a visual presentation, I can well understand what you are writing. But how about the data? Answering a quick query with false or misleading or irrelevant data is not the way to go. There was a reason for the rephrased edit, and I can refer to the temporary page I set up. Even more in the particular, at the beginnings of the 'affair', now known as the COVID-19 pandemic, happenings (or, the data) were not as serial or consecutive or contextual. What this means in the retrospective view is that you look at an empty timeline. The temptation to simply fill in the blank dates with whatever might associate to this date, is also not the way to go. There has to be some criteria, some 'graph definition'. I both understand and respect the previous article text as a, grossly put, notepad, that has accumulated over time and represent various valuable perspectives, notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. That is an example of a criteria, the criteria of 'let it be'. I have chosen another line of thought. I did not write the article, but rephrased the text in accordance with the usual guidelines in Wikipedia and making the best use of the sources already present, and also adding an overview conceptualization of the text structure, a 'graph definition'.

The present issue, that of Prof. Cohen's statement, is a relevant matter. The controversiality of Prof. Cohen's statement is beyond what I can understand, personally and as wiki-editor, and potentially also as wiki-reader. It is an item of information grappling for context, and very much fits the inclusion in a timeline-formatted text. In a sidenote, also fitting the inclusion in a timeline representing the way the story was told, presented in the order of when the data was published. Currently this is also my view on Prof. Cohen's statement, that it most concretely and understable is something that is happening now, in May 2020. I cannot estimate the expertly scientific validity of his research. That is the trivial meaning of my comment: "Undue". If I had the extra energy I could launch a project or start writing up this timeline of news reports, exactly facilitating the Reader to access the very newest 'metadata', and providing some context via wikilinks - but it remains a vision. Sechinsic (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I have made an attempt to understand your rephrasing project of wholesale edits of this article, looking at the (27) sources you propose to delete and the various edits you have undertaken or will perform using your own software program, I assume. I object because it subverts the normal edit process of Wikipedia. Has a mass edit ever been done before? I saw the 7k deletion in this article body of a couple of days ago. Is that part of this project? Edits should be performed with a summary as I understand Wikipedia policy. I get the impulse to protect patient privacy, but this a global public health emergency and clinical details are crucial. Should a timeline article have a lot of detail? No. The date and the action(verb) is more important than the subject. Is the reason the action was taken relevant? Perhaps if its qualified properly. A clear sentence and a good reference is all the reader needs to benefit from the timetable article. A Wikipedia editor's software project to remove bias or irrelevant information from an important article is suspect.
    • Newspaper bias is always a problem, as is, conflict of interest in scientific reporting. However, Wikipedia editors are not newspaper editors. We, like all general readers in a free society, depend on proper journalism. Nor are we, as Wikipedia editors, scientific editors with privilege to edit manuscripts for publication.
    • I encourage you to become a more active editor. Its like mud wrestling sometimes, but if you know the policy guidelines and have a touch of diplomacy you can make the improvements you are seeking in this project. Church of the Rain (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@"Church of the Rain". I must refer to the temporary page I set up. I will be glad to respond if you have an exact question. Sechinsic (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sechinsic How much of this project of en mass edits which you proposed in your temporary page has been done? Church of the Rain (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional but semi-unrelated question: is there a consensus on what tense to use in this article? Present or past? Acalycine (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. From Sechinsic (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to my earlier question: "@Sechinsic How much of this project of en mass edits which you proposed in your temporary page has been done?" has not been given. The project to redo this article is

WP:NPOV. It is disruptive as it removes the possibility of a revert and places too much power in the hands of the editor who undertakes the massive project and only makes changes based on their 'Objective scheme and catalog'. On the face of it, it appears to be a administrative or community-based project, yet it reads like the text of one, unfortunately. It is a gross violation of community principles and should be reverted. Church of the Rain (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@User:Comingdeer, I'm just a guy. There has been lots of corrections to my broken English, by fellow wikipedians. The old text simply needed a brushup, and well, a very comprehensive one, so I made the temporary page as an edit summary. I work with a plain text editor nvi to write a big masterfile and then use sed to filter this into the page text and also the doubled page text you see in the temporary page. It is slow (slow) work but it is what I am used to, and I have the time. Sechinsic (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between these two sections? Events, reactions and measures contains information already existing in Pandemic chronology. I propose that we merge these two sections and their respective dated sections into Pandemic chronology. Events, reactions and measures has useful information and we should be careful to include some of this information in any merge. Seeking consensus here. Acalycine (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Acalycine: I hope you have read my edit summary? I propose we keep the article as is, also seeking consensus here. - There is although a paragraph I keep thinking about, under 31 December in the "Pandemic chronology" where there is the quote from "South China Morning Post": Qu Shiqian talking about what happened this day at the Wuhan seafood market. I kept it there because it mentioned the disinfection, which I take to be a 'clinical' measure, in these special circumstances. But I also kept it because it felt right. The "Pandemic chronology" - here in this article - reflect the very immediate and concrete confrontation between the virus and the human, formally phrased as 'the clinical situation' and involving healthcare-workers (or similar) and patients. But then, the stress on immediate confrontation is also apparent, in the beginnings of the outbreak, where there is no routine or common praxis established yet. I think this line of thought ultimately leads to the idea of not having a timeline structured article at all, which, from looking over the text, might be an worthwhile alternative. I oppose to keep the timeline and merge the two main sections. The alternative idea, of skipping the timeline format, should not be bogged down with the current section structure ("Pandemic.."/"Events..") and should probably also have subsections in the date format. For the time being I suggest to keep the article as is. Sechinsic (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sechinsic, I'm just not sure what the point is of separating the two. Many details in the second section are missing/duplicated in the first, and vice versa. It would make sense to me to make this a truly chronological article. While reading the article, I was confused when I reached the second section and realised there was more information. The average reader would surely be confused by this too. Can you tell me what the difference is between the two sections, exactly? What are their individual purposes? Why does the first section contain specific measures by the authorities if those measures are meant to be detailed in the second section? Your suggestion/comment of the idea of not having a timeline structured article at all does not make sense to me, as the article is called a 'timeline'. Again, I think they should be merged - this article should be as simple and concise as possible, and be in exact chronological order. If I misunderstood your point, I apologise. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look again at my descriptions of this theme, in the #Comments, at the temporary page, yeah, here, there and everywhere! I am sure you are right in saying there are duplicated details, or, vice versa, detail facets of the same event or story, spread over the two head sections. I propose you give one or two specifics. Sechinsic (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, and I'm not entirely sure what your 'creative' direction for this article is meant to be. What is the specific reason for splitting this article into two? The chronology of a pandemic includes the events, reactions and measures taken within that timespan. I don't see a reason to divide the two.

You say that section 1 is presented as a chronology of virus progression and clinical measures, and section 2 is essentially politic and scientific activity, social reaction and media.. Yet section 1 contains things like Chinese state television CCTV channel 13 in their daily news broadcasts, and through the Weibo account "YangShiXinWen", also sent an alert about the unknown virus, adding that a team of experts from the National Health Commission would arrive in Wuhan.[21][22]

Here are some other examples of duplicate/similar information, which is redundant/able to be merged. I also note that a lot of this needs copyediting.

Section 1: Wuhan Municipal Health Commission sends a message to its affilliate institutions. Supervizing doctors shall hold fast on disciplin and create specialized team-units. General staff must be alert to the situation, especially keeping an eye out for patients with symptoms of infectious pneumonia. Statistical material must be gathered ongoingly and send to Wuhan Municipal Health Commission and Hubei Province Health Committee. Statistical material for the previous week, relating to patients with symptoms of infectious pneumonia, is to be send to Wuhan Municipal Health Commission before 4 o'clock, this day. Without permission from authorized personnel no one is allowed to spread information about the medical treatment

Section 2: Wuhan Municipal Health Commission sends hard-copy messages to it's affilliated institutions, containing guidelines in confronting a possible outbreak of infectious pneumonia.[19] Two scan-copies also found their way, the same day, to the Weibo QQ service - a social media platform.[24][25][26]

Section 1: Wuhan Central Hospital received a test report from CapitalBio Medlab, claiming an occurence of SARS. Multiple doctors at Wuhan Central Hospital shared the test report on social media, but, according to the news report (高昱[Gao Lu],26 Feb 2020), addressed to the collegial circle. The test result was - by the same news report - faulty.[13]

Section 2: Wuhan Central Hospital receives report from CapitalBio Medlab that their sample (obtained 27 December) contain SARS coronavirus. According to a Caixin news report, this is a mistake. Same news report alledge this sample was later sent on from CapitalBio Medlab to Vision Medicals, and that Vision Medicals could confirm the sample contained SARS-CoV-2, ie. identical to the first sample Vision Medicals had received (Gao Lu,26 Feb 2020,Caixin Online - ref. Weibo account "XiaoShanGou").[13]

When I think about it, I generally agree with a need to present two different sides of the pandemic within this article. I do not think separate whole sections is the answer though. Here's a proposal:

===25 December===

====Clinical measures and virus progression====

...

====Social measures, reaction from officials and media====

...

And so forth for 26, 27, 28 Dec. etc.

The titles of the subheadings can be revised, but I think this is a better solution than the existing solution. In my view, this ensures the article is truly chronological, which is the main purpose of a timeline. If we don't reach consensus on this, I think we'll need copy-editing and duplication-editing regardless. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question: what is the purpose of the summary section in Pandemic chronology? It contains information possibly more suitable for

Covid 19 pandemic, not a timeline of events. It also contains case numbers from 31 December, which are duplicated above. Perhaps some of it can be redirected into the lead, or the beginning of Pandemic chronology. Acalycine (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not a good idea - retaining the criteria split, but within subsections. That would be the most messy way of writing the article. I think we should be a little pragmatic, here.

About the duplicates you mention: (A) The test report. In section 1 there is an impact affecting (seemingly) the participants in the clinical hospital-work, the doctors. It is a short note. The near duplicate entry in section 2 does run a little longer, with the profiling of Li Wenliang, who was later under prosecution. (2) The official message. In section 1 the official message is summarized, relatively lengthy, as showing, most probably, a consequtive realtime apprehension of an appending situation in the clinical environment. This is not a public message, but an internal document (documents). In section 2 it is still noted, because they, the two scan-copies, found way to the internet, notably a QQ account. (3) Your first example, the public message. This is admittedly not very consistent, apart from the case statistics, which surely belong to section 1. The quote you give leads to the paragraph with Qu Shiqian - mentioned above - and it is a good example of where the promised/projected edit-criteria is not kept. As far as I read the sources, I am still a little vague on whether the Beijing (?) team of medical experts had arrived, but if they were, they have been mentioned :). And then there is Qu Shiqian mentioning the disinfection activity at Wuhan seafood market.

I hope this was informative. As said, the article, as is, is the best layout and structure, also fitting, more or less to the

See also: Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic

RE:last question, -> Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_February_2020#Summary Sechinsic (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is little similarity between the summary you linked from the Feburary article and the summary here, which contains general information about the virology and a summation of the timeline's content. The February summary is simply a list of countries with known infections. I don't think such a table is needed in this article, as it had not spread beyond China (with knowledge) by this point.

Regarding That's not a good idea - retaining the criteria split, but within subsections. That would be the most messy way of writing the article, can you actually tell me why it would be messy, and why your solution is not messier? You have just stated it without arguing why this structure is better.

Regarding also fitting, more or less to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic, how is this true? That article is a list article which contains lists of timeline articles. It does have a subsection 'responses' which contains seperate articles specifically about responses, but that is clearly not what you are doing here. Please explain the relevancy of this comparison to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I understand some of your explanation of the duplications, but they are still duplications. It does not make sense to me why the same information would be in a timeline twice, even if it was from different perspectives. Ultimately this dispute comes down to the reason for a) splitting this up and thus duplicating info, vs. b) remaining chronological, stating both perspectives' info in the single date.

I completely echo the statements of Comingdeer here, who wrote:

The reader should be able to answer a quick query in regard to time. This redo is a solution in search of a problem. The reorganization muddles the purpose of the timeline. The subject does not matter. The date the action occurred is what our reader is seeking. Context is available elsewhere in more specialized Wikipedia articles or the sources that the timeline cites. Please help the reader by making the format as simple as possible. They will make their own conclusions.

This article should not be an essay, or an interactive story, or a special news article. It should be a timeline, and it should not have dates twice. Please argue your points as to why you disagree. Acalycine (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I hope this is not turning into a clinched infigth.

A series of date sections, with some(?) form of subsections, well, I do not think that is very fitting. And why? That would connect to the specific text content that pertains to the article topic. Actually I would prefer to evade your question, relevant as it is. The better focus is the article in its present state, and then you propose something different. You are welcome to do so, and I have made my points - also regards User:Comingdeer's idea of immediateness. I have already made my respons to that angle on contribution.

Let's just keep the article as it looks, and reads now. Sechinsic (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're refusing to explain why you made substantial changes to the page, which are not consistent with the rest of the associated timeline articles (besides one I believe you changed also)? Can you show me where you got consensus before making this structural change?

A series of date sections, with some(?) form of subsections, well, I do not think that is very fitting. And why? That would connect to the specific text content that pertains to the article topic. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The date sections *should* contain text content that pertains to the article's topic.

I'm going to make a RfC, as I don't understand why you cannot explain your changes, and I think we should get consensus on which structure is more apt for a timeline article, as this current one is duplicating information needlessly and would seem to confuse readers. Acalycine (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason as to why citation styles are doubled up? For example:

• According to an early preliminary study using phylogenetic analysis (Li et al., 27 Feb 2020,J Med Vir') - Li et al. are then referenced in a <ref>.
• As of May 2020, (PREPROOF: van Dorp et al.,5 May 2020) this estimate has been corroborated with a larger dataset, setting the origin to "6 October 2019 - 11 December 2019"[van Dorp;p. 6]. - van Dorp et al. are then referenced in a <ref>.
• A clinical study documents the index case, or patient zero - his symptoms started on 1 December (Huang et al., 24-30 Jan 2020, The Lancet, Fig.1B p. 500). - Huang et al. are then referenced in a <ref>.

These are just three examples. I propose removing the parenthetical references and only using <ref> citations. Both should not be used, as per

1st inline - because this is hte (the) early study. Strictly in accordance with the criteria, this emphasis - this inline citation - belongs to the February timeline.

3rd inline - this one has page reference. Given the overview style of the Lancet article I find it appropriate to highlight where to find the pertinent information.

2nd inline. Partly a mistake. The reference carrying a page reference is kept. This is appropriate, for both editors and wikireaders. But the gross parenthesis should be removed. Sechinsic (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These reasons do not conform to Wikipedia policy. It's either one or the other. Regarding the third inline, you can specify a page reference within a <ref>. Same with the second inline. Here:

Parenthetical referencing is a useful and appropriate style for many articles. If you choose to use this style, however, it should be used for all citations in the article, not merely a selected subset. For example, you should not use inline footnotes (using <ref> tags) for reliable sources that are websites, and parenthetical citations for those reliable sources that are books. (

WP:Parenthetical_referencing#Consistency

)

When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles, e.g., parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's

Yes: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog (Smith 2008:12, Wikipedia 2009).

No: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog (Smith 2008:12).[3] (WP:Citing_sources#To_be_avoided)

I will be editing the article to remove the parenthetical citations and preserve the <ref> citations as per

WP:CITEVAR, which says Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006.... You appear to have made the changes which have caused both styles to be used on 9 May, so according to that Wikipedia policy I should take action and revert. Please seek consensus on the talk page if you wish to change the citation style to parenthetical for the whole article, not just mixed changes. If you have already reached consensus on this strict change prior, please inform me. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I've skimmed over the Wikipedia guidelines you have mentioned. Expressed in wiki terms I am focused on "text-source integrity". (in the following I use quotes to denote the Wikipedia terms) My first thought was that it looked as if you had gotten hold of the long end - and very regrettably, since "in-text citations" are very convenient for alerting the reader to a specific page/table/figure in the source, and, when used this way, they do not interfer or conflict with the "full reference". Looking closer to the guideline got me a little more optimistic, specifically the

WP:CITESTYLE, where I get the impression that "citation style" refer to those standard methods of representing a source: APA, ASA, MLA etc. I'm not so familiar with those, but rely entirely on using the 'Citation' template, aliased 'Cite journal', 'Cite news' or 'Cite web'. However, WP:Citing sources#To be avoided specifically contrasts "parenthetical referencing" and "<Ref> tags". The only argument that I can use is that it is the text-version I provided, as of 5 May that states the consensus. It's been awhile, and there has not yet been any suggestions to revert to the previous text, alias consensus - except if I have misunderstood your intent in the Rfc? In Wikipedia terms, this is called "the first major contributor", and that's what I'll consider myself to be. And really only because I am forced by circumstances. I think the label is ok, when you look at the diff [2]. I also think the Wikipedia guideline fails to address the issue of page references adequately. The most likely association to the consideration for "text-source integrity" mentioned at Help:References and page numbers is using the 'R' template

effecting a text-style seldomly seen and not at all readable. When I did the rephrase (5 May) I just slavishly followed the 'citation style' alias consensus, which I still find is extremely inconvenient. My preferred style/consensus is to have full references listed alphabetically - or in this context by date. The idea of using and reusing a full reference without giving page numbers is very convenient, and perhaps definitely also too convenient, but then there are articles where it seems almost to be ok - if I could just mention one. The great advantage in using full references in the footnotes is the mouse-over function that lets you quickly access the ressource.

I have severely normalized the "in-text citations" a bit in the text now ->#Update, twist & shout. Sechinsic (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just changed the "in-text citations" to short notation in footnotes. I think it is for the better - and also coming your way. Sechinsic (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this timeline article have two seperate sections detailing a) virus characteristics and clinical measures and, b) politic & scientific activities, social reaction and media? Acalycine (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sechinsic has made a structural change to this article (at least) without an apparent consensus. The change made was to fully separate the article into two distinct sections. Although Events, reactions, and measures appears to have been already present, it was not as expansive as its current version is, and I cannot find a consensus on the initial change/edit that implemented this section (perhaps it was initial). The change was, in their words:
  

The pandemic: Virus characteristics and clinical measures

The pandemic: Politic & scientific activities, social reaction and media

The above is from here. The user appeared to ask for consensus at the aforementioned page, and did get a response from user Comingdeer, which appeared to oppose the proposal (although this user can speak for themselves and I don't wish to prempt their thoughts).

I do not understand the need for this structure. When I read it initially, I was confused as to a) why information was duplicated, albeit with small additions, and b) what the difference was between the two sections, functionally. I asked Sechinsic for their reasons for this structure but I cannot understand their response properly. When I pressed them, they said: Actually I would prefer to evade your question, relevant as it is. I thus am seeking a request for comment from other editors so I can surmise a general consensus on what structure is best, and if this structure has any merits when compared to the established structure in these timeline articles: 1 2 3 4. All of these linked articles have seperate articles detailing the response to the pandemic in those respective months - could this be a solution for this article? Acalycine (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Acalycine Thanks for your edits on "15 December" and the ref. to Caixin Online. Now, I've just come through yet another proofread of the article, writing the edit summary and concluding the discussion on 'in-line referencing', so I am beginning to think it is me who should look for dispute resolution. I'll go for a short answer: I have not made a structural change to the article, in the sense you describe.

I have repeatedly appealed for commments to what I perceived as a lack of criteria for where - under which section - to include notable information. I'll agree that the text, prior to 5 May, was very nearly without structure - excepting the timeline format - and that the article structure looked more like layout. There were several examples of ill-fitting text-content - a detailed summary can be found at User:Sechinsic/page1#Details. This is precisely not the same as saying all text-content is of the same nature (genetic research, news media headlines, clinical circumstances, regulatory actions, international aspects) and so it is that the links to a Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020 must be complemented with a link to Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020, which is also a timeline-structured article. The two pages got split at 1 May, each of them having 250k+ of text. But 'our' article only has around 35k, of which there is about 15k of running text. Sechinsic (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to cover the widespread suggestions of COVID-19 being around prior to December (and indeed prior to the time we were aware of it in general). Even if these cases since have been discounted we should cover them.

• Hubei, 17 November. South China Morning Post
• France, 16 and 18 November NBC
• Sweden "probably" in November Telegraph
• Circulating "late last year" CNN "many patient zeros" Imperial College

How can this be? Well it would appear that the lineage predominant in Wuhan (A) was not what spread to the Atlantic which seems to be a mix of B and C. Some scientists believe that the origin of human infection was in southern China. See Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes for the phylogenetic tree.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This article text is just constantly on the move? It's been two whole days since the page moved from

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019. It was User:Buidhe

that concluded the move request. The request came from an ip-user, and the discussion had one participant. Obviously Buidhe decided to act, not so obvious is what made his decision. So, ok, there is material in the article prior to December. And the page can be moved back again - seems to be a very easy proces. Can't help being sarcastic about this, sorry.

Had a look at

WP:RS/AC

. Actually an exact perspective concerning media coverage during the pandemic. Perhaps a project to work on?

What is not yet included in

WP:NOTNEWS

is the media phenomenon of how the scientific press perhaps may manifest a likeness to the sensational press. But your above links mainly point to news media.

I have an impression of a formidable host of pertinent WP-links to your theme, but here I will emphasize just

WP:SYN

. In the event that there is substantial scientific material relating to some period prior to December 2019, then it is my fair guess that this material will be a source for further conjectures, and easily lead to "improper editorial synthesis of published material", even when this synthesis is in fact sourced via news reports. The even here signifies that this is still improper synthesis. I guess this argument should appeal to your sense of raison, since the WP-policies do not seem to exactly fit.

The conundrum of settling this article text is certainly not easy. But I strongly oppose resurrecting the "November" section as anchored. Sechinsic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sechinsic, I moved the page because there was consensus in the discussion to move. If you would like to see it moved back, please feel free to open another RM request. Since the exact origins of the virus are uncertain, a better title could be "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019". buidhe 21:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sarcasm tends to hang around once introduced. May be an anglo-saxon thing. Sechinsic (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone gets too excited for all the good and many possible names for this article text I have to say the current issue of this text is to let it settle. There is a whole context of not-yet-allocated digital bits out there, just waiting for a new article topic. Think about it - Sechinsic (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sechinsic: The reference I added 10 times does a review of the tMRCA, it gives the confidence interval (CI) of many studies, for example

       December 3, 2019 (95% CI November 16, 2019; December 17, 2019)

CI means confidence interval.

There is no study giving a 3 days interval, you are just misunderstanding the abstract, as many do, but not me.

The idea is very dumb : we have thousands of sequences, we estimate the mutation rate (2 nucleotides per month) and the genome of the common ancestor from which we can estimate its date (in late november +/- some error margin in weeks).

Please don't revert my edit, think about what I wrote, take some days/weeks to truly understand it, read some articles...

If you revert again : I already showed to you that you don't understand anything about phylogenetic, you are not legitimate to do any edit on those scientific topics, stop or I call an admin and you will be banned for a few weeks. Reuns (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of User talk:Sechinsic#Phylogeny and also #Update, twist & shout.

@User:Reuns. Hope you don't mind I've set this as a separate discussion. Things are sharpening up, so I find it ok to use full quotes, although lengthy. In your edit summary you write "The article I added does a review of the tMRCA - CI means confidence interval - please stop YOU ALL reading only the abstracts and editing on topics you don't understand". I'll break this down to a list:

• The article I added does a review of the tMRCA

no one is disagreeing with you here

• CI means confidence interval

I am proud to tell - no kidding - that I found that explanation, too, in the signature explanation for table 1 (p.18). Just shortcutting this discussion to the original theme this could be a more precise search term when trying to source the claim "margin of error of one month". I presume this is handbook stuff, but the overall term is actually wikilinked (CI), does not pertain specifically to genetics and does not signify a distinct temporal interval - basically it could mean anything.

• please stop YOU ALL reading only the abstracts and editing on topics you don't understand

so, what about the reader? If, and when editors are amiss in their comprehensions of a given article topic, then your intervention could be justifiable, without the versals. But the article topic here is broad. If you wish for detail, then ok, but take care of the text flow. I think our first compromise (7 May), using your wording "The given interval of confidence is controversial but generally smaller than one month", and sourced, is very worthwhile. However, both present sources (van Dorp, Infect. Genet. Evol.,table 1 on p.18 & Li J Med Vir) give date intervals overall longer than one month - Li does not apply the exact literal term 'CI' though.

Not to prolong this discussion, but it does seem to resemble a debate on the colour of the moon. Most trivially speaking, the distance to the moon - let alone the colour - is a shifting determinative. Might not be determinate at all, such as we know. In other words, your assumption "no study giving a 3 days interval" is sort of right, and only some may disagree or act surprised, when finding out - one way or the other - that this claim is not to be understood literally.

I'll let this rest for a day. Hope for your agreement - Sechinsic (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am, as far as possible, not going to 'let it be'.

Starting from May, there has been some renewed media coverage on the beginnings of the pandemic. User:Rich Farmbrough has brought to light an scientific article, slightly earlier, of 28 April - and still preproof - which also discuss matters. However, said article belong to a context of similar studies, and may not represent scientific consensus - which is, all the same, a vague notion in association to the emergency situation (I guess).

Divers soundings from the clinical milieu, plainly said, hospitals, concerning reviews of clinical samples, has found an outlet in the common press. In the overall impression, the storyline that is presented is not so precise, but it is the indications of SARS-CoV-2 being present just and simple earlier than expected that has emphasis. This dual process of scientific interest and public enlightenment is, evidently, taking place right now, in these days, presently. Not so evident, is that this also is a narrative sequence, a sequel to the first confrontation between SARS-CoV-2 and the (human) societies, a sequel to the realtime storytelling of the pandemic.

I profess no real knowledge of knowing the proper terms, but am only aware of 'epidemiology' as being the sought after key-term. I also presume it is not forthcoming to let this scientific term be the key-term in the Wikipedia context, specifically for the timeline articles. Our presentation is not so professional, or academic.

So, how to maintain the currently earliest timeline -

The short and abrupt answer is that the story of the pandemic and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has already been told. It is a story of how and when the (human) societies met with and handled taking care of patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

The information that is now available, should be considered expressions of recentism, specifically with due emphasis on source material from popular media. The timeline articles should also not be repositories of results from an ongoing process of scientific investigation - this wil lead to small pockets of excessive detail and, all things being equal, an unbalanced retelling of the chronology, in explitio a retelling of how the societies met with and handled COVID-19.

This point of view may leave the impression that something is not being told but is nevertheless only upholding Wikipedia guidelines,

• WP:TMI
• WP:RECENT
• WP:SYN
  )

What the investigations will lead to.. should maybe perhaps and probably be included, some day. My impression is that there is not presently enough substantial material for an article topic, although I say this with no real knowledge of the potential perspectives - epidemiology (COVID-19 pandemic#Epidemiology), genetics etc. A settled information status will also help to balancing the mentions - which (maybe perhaps and probably) are relevant in the timeline articles - vis-a-vis the story that has already been told.

Another perspective is, that these inclusions (maybe perhaps and probably) sets focus on the very rigid format of the timeline articles, specifically the timelines from February and onwards. These timelines are now split into what - literally - corresponds to sections "Pandemic chronology" and "Events, reactions and measures". Just a stray observation, the incident at Mulhouse in France during Easter is not recorded in the timeline, but lodged away in National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19 pandemic in France etc.), although this incident certainly looks relevant for the timeline article's claim of documenting "chronology and epidemiology". This is a fait accompli, simply a function of the variate interpretation of the pandemic, leading to the wall of information (~an excessive overload) that describes the pandemic. It may be a matter of providing the best possible ressource organization for selectively accessing information, but is, in my personal view, also and more explicit reflecting a normalization of the narrative - in a way, two sides of the same thing. However, the December and January articles have not, and cannot have, the same rigid content specification.

Today I have gathered the paragraphs with new information under a new section "SARS-CoV-2 outside Wuhan". A more solid understanding of the scientific background for the new material than I can provide, is necessary. But at least I am somewhat confident that these cases have not been recognised in the official statistics - ref. Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_France#December_27_case? Sechinsic (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update, laboratory confirmed

I am almost blindfold at this estimate, but have sought, and seemingly found some, information.

A recent contribution from User:Wwwiki10 sent me browsing to the less trivial site of ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Basically, I searched for a way to cite the source, given by Wwwiki10, but found this approach fundamentally entangled in concepts of data exchange - believe it or not. It seems there has been some activities here, in and outside Wikipedia regi, to accomplish a linked data scenario (ref. Linking NCBI to Wikipedia: a wiki-based approach), since 2010 - that's 10 years ago. So, why am I at a loss here for the trivial task of citing a GenBank ressource?

Wwwiki10 has chosen {{cite web}}, using title, url and archived url. But what is actually sourced here? The genome? Something else? It seems to me, that using a GenBank ressource for retelling a story - more in the particular, as a source lodged away in the running text of a Wikipedia article - is not as straightforward. Let's consider this ressource as a database entry, that just happens to be online and accesible. How does one cite a database entry? - and why? The new contribution is 'very good'. It was on my list of unresolved todos to find a link to GISAID/GenBank, since I could not find out how to navigate these sites. The new contribution is also very troublesome, since there is some (not too much) disagreement between the GenBank info - not the genome - and the Caixin news report used in article text.

The NCBI has some suggestions, concerning database entries cite db, and concerning NCBI ressources cite GenBank. Finally there is the accession number to consider, which is said to be unique. I have set up a template {{GenBank}} that can be used standalone, or as a value to |id=, mimicking the stamp-collection of blue-coloured numerics, in the citation templates.

{{Citation
|last1=Ren
|first1=L.
|last2 =Wang
|first2=J.
|last3 =Jin
|first3=Q. 
|last4 =Xiang
|first4=Z.
|last5 =Li
|first5=Y. 
|last6 =Wu
|first6=Z.
|last7 =Wu
|first7=C. 
|last8 =Liu
|first8=Y
|display-authors=3
|title= Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate BetaCoV/Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019, complete genome
|date=4 February 2020
|work=GenBank
|department=Nucleotide
|publisher=[[National Center for Biotechnology Information]]
|id={{GenBank|MT019529.1}}
}}

• Ren, L.; Wang, J.; Jin, Q.; et al. (4 February 2020), "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate BetaCoV/Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019, complete genome", Nucleotide, GenBank, National Center for Biotechnology Information, GenBank Accession number: MT019529.1

The essential item of dispute is a sampling date. I find this substantial, because I guess the sampling date has a scientific value, and of course also because the sampling date is what determines where to place the sourced information in the timeline. But regards the scientific value, and with a thought to the discrepancy of 1 day that there is, between the information coming from Caixin and GenBank, I note that the date notation is not overly specific. It does not state the hours, just the day. For the first upload to GenBank [https:/www/ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947 Accession number:MN908947], the sampling date is simply "Dec 2019", and I have seen other uploads, from France and Italy, that also only list the month. The point of this is of course that the information given should be reliable, and there is, in this fashion, no explanation for the time discrepancy.

In context of the article text, it is very unfortunate that there is not a precise (human associative) link between either the scientific article of Ren et al,11 Feb 2020,Chin Med J, the GenBank ressource or the storytelling Caixin report. And now entering an hour-long research to find this link, I have to give out a sentiment of dissatisfaction with natural-science inclined contributors - although fellow wikipedians. But time goes by, and the investigation must go on. What you will now see is only to be given on in the community, and has no relevance - in the explicit form - in namespace 0. Unless someone else chooses otherwise - possibly including myself.

• According to a web-page from the
  Chinese Academy of Science 7 Feb 2020
  , the China National Center for Bioinformation (CNCB) and the National Genomics Datacenter (NGDC) post 5 genomes to GenBank. On this page, same genomes are listed accessible at the database of the National Genomics Datacenter as project id PRJCA002165
• According to the NGDC database, online accessible project PRJCA002165, the earlist sampling date is 24 December 2019
• According to Ren et al,11 Feb 2020,Chin Med J, p.3, the study has published its findings at NGDC in project id PRJCA002165
• SUMMA: the link between Ren et al,11 Feb 2020,Chin Med J and the GenBank Accession number MT019529.1 is credible

The loose trail is still the Caixin storytelling report. But that's how it works, when using popular media. I trust the report to the extent that named interviewees contribute credible information. This is signified in the running text by a simple reference, and include the note of a BAL sample, taken 24 December. However, the link between the scientific article (Li et al.) and this very BAL sample is only alleged via a reference to a social media account, i.e. not a named interviewee, which is signified in the running text by way of a short notation.

The misunderstanding that sort of lingers in the background is that the article text is read by machines. The topic is controversial and debatable. But for the common good it must be obvious that the article text is primarily meant for reading, by humans - and not everyone naturally inclined to natural science. Sechinsic (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little too much to put an Rfc out on what to write in "See also". When there is now well over 1,000 article topics relating to COVID-19, almost any action, beyond full compliance, seem to be a little too much. And yet I post this discussion.

There is a 'prelim' to the discussion;

Prelim

At 5 May there were many changes to the article text, which has been summed up in the talk-page (#Rephrasings and some more) and at a temporary page. One of these changes concerned the "See also" section, where a list of wikilinks was replaced with only one wikilink. There was no voiced argument for placing that specific wikilink, but instead an argument for not having the list of wikilinks, since these were duplicates, already in place at top of page.

5 days ago, User:TheGreatSG'rean chose to remove the wikilink and reverting the "See also" section to the content it had before 5 May. The edit comment noted that these links were "links to other timeline articles". At the ensuing discussion, held at @TheGreatSG'rean's talk-page, I learned that this format-compliance referred to the series of timeline articles, including those with "Responses" in the article name. All these articles use the same and uniform content in the "See also" section - actually I haven't checked but the "Responses"-article for April, but I assume it is generally correct.

Followingly, @TheGreatSG'rean put the issue up for talk, at Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic#Duplicates for Timeline links in See Also, and, responding to my post there, voiced a sort of consent to the 5 May-version of the "See also" section. @TheGreatSG'rean's consent-like reply is cryptic, but I chose to understand the reply as an unwilling consent, and therefore phrased cryptic. I restored the one wikilink to replace the list of wikilinks, but this version did not last long, only two hours.

This was 2 days ago, when the wikilink was again removed and the "See also" section reverted to the content it had before 5 May. This time it was User:John B123, who put the note "Useful links" in the edit comment. The discussion was held at @John B123's talk-page, where it stranded - the post I am writing now is the follow-up.

The follow-up

It is relevant to return to the idea of format-compliance, introduced by @TheGreatSG'rean. In @John B123's oppinion, voiced at @John B123's talk-page, my edit contribution is taken to consequence, in some way, the 9 other articles in the timeline series. I find @John B123's oppinion awkward - certainly I have not written anywhere my intention to begin editing one of these 9 other articles, and it is currently also not my intention to do so. But perhaps more to the point, I find the idea of this format-compliance to be controversial. The "See also" section is specific to the article topic, wherein it is occuring. It is exactly not a template, but significantly a section. And the idea of duplicating section content across one or, in this instance 10 articles, does not comply with my understanding of proper wikistyle editing, and neither has @TheGreatSG'rean, nor @John B123 referred to such a specific wikistyle rule. What @TheGreatSG'rean and @John B123 choose to contribute to the 9 other articles, in the "See also" section or elsewhere, is presently not of my concern, and I seriously consider this an irrelevant aspect.

Finally, @John B123 has questioned my choice of wikilink, which point to social media in the pandemic -

I hope this can conclude the discussion. Sechinsic (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from

WP:FORUMSHOPPING

, I can see no reason for bring this up here. It has already been discussed at three other pages. I find it arrogant that you post your opinions and finish with "I hope this can conclude the discussion". That seems to me to be "Only my opinion matters".

@John B123, who has recently disambiguated 4 occurrences of Weibo in the article text, one of which is placed in a reference occuring yet 4 more times. The relevance to "See also" is? --John B123 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My request at

WP:3O was declined. @User:John B123: Your question confuses me. Are you not aware that microblogs are considered social media? Sechinsic (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As I predicted. Obviously I am aware

COVID-19 pandemic on social media in "See also" by virtue of the number of mentions within the article, then 17 mentions of Hubei, and 50 of its capital, Wuhan, provide a much stronger case for including COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei

in the "See also"

"See also is for relevant links, it's not a mechanism to try and make other articles more relevant to this one. I would have though the chances a link from this article to

COVID-19 pandemic on social media being made from this article, but wikilinking an occurrence of "social media" within the article text is far more appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Even though a remote possibility, it is not unusual to see a wikilink in a "See also" section, or, just simply a wikilink working as an encouragement to maintain the content of that wikilink - re your comment on that - and from that perspective, wikilinks, in a "See also" section and everywhere else, is well possibly making these link-contents more relevant to the articles wherein they are referred.

You have some point about mentioning Wuhan and Hubei. I suggest we could insert a wikilink to Hubei in section "1 December".

noted the first case was male, had not been to the

COVID-19 pandemic on social media. Can I ask you to say very clearly that you find this wikilink irrelevant, if that is your opinion? Sechinsic (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying

COVID-19 pandemic on social media. --John B123 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This will regrettably finish our discussion. You have not obtained a consensus, meaning that I am still convinced the version of 5 May is the better. You may wonder my abrupt statement of unwilling consent, and I can only offer seeing a limit to what Wikipedia can contain. Let us both work forward, as best we can, from here. Sechinsic (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Moving forward, I suggest both

COVID-19 pandemic on social media and COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei are linked to within the article text as outlined above. There may also be other covid related articles that could be usefully wikilinked to in a similar way. --John B123 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not the issue we are discussing. Or, should I say, were discussing?

I can offer you a comment. Your idea of inserting wikilinks into the article text should of course be primarily based on certain sentences, already present, that very obviously can accomodate doing so. It is sort of a beginners tip. Going the other way round, that is, adjusting certain sentences in the article text, just to be able to include certain wikilinks, is possible, but also a very secondary choice, unless of course you are adding notable content - which, by principle cannot be the wikilink, but instead, ideally some sourced information. The potentially worst edit case is to keep a phrasing, in the article text, and then 'shadowing' a wikilink, by using the vertical bar technique: [[some_link|some words]].

In keeping with the issue we are (or were) discussing I would prefer the wikilinks you have mentioned to be in the "See also" section - this section actually makes it possible to add wikilinks as notable content. Sechinsic (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

COVID-19 pandemic on social media

that I have made so many and long arguments for.

I think this discussion is not exemplary. To know the outcome is not easy, and almost an interpretation.

Let me give my interpretation. Firstly, this discussion concerns the content of the "See also" section. I have somewhat summarized previous discussions at two different user talk pages plus the talk-page belonging to another article topic. Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic#November. I have mainly given arguments to the effect of making clear that @John B123's wish to post a series of wikilinks is not appropriate. Then the discussion veered off, by discussing the appropriateness of the wikilink I had supplied. In that part of the discussion @John B123 suggested this wikilink, and yet another, be added to the article text - though not the "See also" section - and the final post in the discussion is my position on that idea.

Since then, some 4 days ago, there was no reaction.

Unfortunately it seems now that @User:TheGreatSG'rean has finally read my response at Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic#Duplicates for Timeline links in See Also, with six days delay (2 June - 8 June), which just by coincidence happens to occur some hours after my final comment, here at this discussion. In those 4 days since, I actually thought @TheGreatSG'rean had acted in unison with @John B123, and restored the wikilink to social media during the pandemic - I just checked the article history, and the bytecount is really the same! I first found out today that @TheGreatSG'rean has instead supplied a wikilink Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, had @TheGreatSG'rean read the discussion here, things would not be so confusing. Sechinsic (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant how many times, and on how many pages, you state your argument. If others don't agree then repeatedly changing the See also section to what you think it should be is not acceptable. see

WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sechinsic: Could you please explain this revert? I browsed through the long essay that you referred to in your edit summary, but I'm not going to try to guess how that essay relates to my edit. Given that your English is not so clear, please try to give a brief, clear explanation of why you think that tentative evidence for the COVID-19 pandemic originating during August-November 2019 in Wuhan should be completely absent from this article. Please re-read your text before saving, and see if you can make your text clear. Thanks. Boud (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You describe this as tentative evidence for the COVID-19 pandemic origin. It is not absolutely irrelevant, but it is a contrast to the article lead-in,

This article documents the chronology and epidemiology of the

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

(SARS-CoV-2)

Your contrib conjecture SARS-CoV-2 presence in Wuhan, earlier than expected, and perhaps that's why you cannot see the relation to my longish explanation, titled "SARS-CoV-2 outside Wuhan"?

If your contrib, and the similar contribs, concerning SARS-CoV-2 presence outside Wuhan, earlier than expected, had the appearance of academic consensus -

WP:RS/AC

- then it would be time to reconsider how best to structure the article, to accomodate for these findings. If such an academic consensus ever becomes apparent. For the time being, I have made a fair judgment to include evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 presence, documented by the RT-PCR method, and the case evidence just happens to point to a location outside Wuhan.

I hope you will reread the longish explanation again, where it is described in more detail how to confront this hot topic of the beginnings of the pandemic. This is also mentioned in #November. It is regrettable that the most appropriate article maintenance exclude these histories of scientific research, and notably because their media exposure is very high. But, when the information content is assumed scientific in nature, then this content should be sourced by articles with some claim for academic consensus. Otherwise it is more rightly presented as a media event, which takes place now, starting from May 2020. Sechinsic (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason why this material shouldn't be included. It is being presented as the findings of a group of academics, not as a concrete fact of what happened. Alternative theories are perfectly valid for inclusion providing they are not given undue weight, which this wasn't, and in fact help to provide a far broader view of a subject. It must be pointed out that most of the "academic consensus" mentioned above started out with somebody's theory. To only include "academic consensus", is akin to a state-run publication only printing the "official line". --John B123 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:John B123: I am not sure if @User:Boud is convinced by your reasoning. I am certainly not. And please be specific when (or if) you are trying to refer to something already discussed. Use quotes for example. Sechinsic (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I convinced by your essays on the subject. I'm sure Boud can talk for himself. --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sechinsic and John B123: Sechinsic, there seems to be some confusion. To focus this discussion, and avoid a discussion of who thinks who said what, I will reformulate it with more structure, and make it easier for people to summarise their arguments. Boud (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: restore paragraph about Nsoesie+2020 tentative evidence

Proposal: restore the paragraph (about tentative evidence for the COVID-19 pandemic as having started in Wuhan during August-November 2019) that was removed in this revert.

Reasons: the material is on-topic, sourced, distributed by a highly reputable university (Harvard University) and of considerable relevance to the topic of the article. Please state either Support, Oppose and give your reasons. Disclaimer: I'm the person who wrote the paragraph. Boud (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (proposer and contributor of original text - see above for reasons). Boud (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Relevant to the article, reference from
  WP:RS --John B123 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Done Boud (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sechinsic's claim to be "the first major contributor" is unfounded. In regard to citations, the "first major contributor" is deemed to be the person who establishes a consistent citation style, in this article the citation style was set by

I would therefore ask Sechinsic to respect the basic principle of Wikipedia, that it is a collaborative effort, and stop blocking any efforts by other editors to improve the article.

Pinging Boud, TheGreatSG'rean, Kreggon, ReddyHakky1998, TheImaCow and Chris Capoccia as their edits have been reverted either fully or in part. --John B123 (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is cheap, and an insult, to me and to Wikipedia. You are calling a mob to do the arguing, and have no capacity to argue in a decent way. Sechinsic (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is fully illustrated by the "See also" section, where you disregard other people's opposition and change it to fit in with your views anyway. --John B123 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article needs to decide itself how on some kind of cite style. i would be avoiding the use of the via parameter except where it actually adds something significant. but in all the ones i saw, it just seemed to repeat part of the url for no benefit.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 16:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OWN

talk page and see if you can convince other people there to change the policy.

Whether or not John is valid in his concerns about

WP:AGF and consider John's point seriously. Thanks! Boud (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note with this edit I have removed text from the claim in order to strictly match that given by the WHO page at the archived date. -84user (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]