The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The articles on the current disease and the virus do not use the phrase "Chinese virus" at all, so would make poor redirect targets. The article's on Donald Trump's use of the phrase do include the term, but as pointed out are not likely to be the topic sought either. If content about the nomenclature is added to COVID-19, no prejudice in this close for redirecting there then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese virus

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Chinese virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ATP. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A similar discussion is taking place over whether the term should be included in the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Repeated_addition_of_"China_Virus" Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment there are several viruses named "China virus", listed at List of virus species; there are several more viruses that are named after places in China, so "Chinese virus" would be an appropriate search term for all these viruses. If this is deleted, then it should redirect to either List of virus species or List of virus taxa. But that already excludes the use of the U.S. President, whom is using "Chinese virus" to refer to the COVID-19 virus. Thus, if you ignore Trump's personal terminology, there is still actual use of this as an actual virus name (that is not COVID-19 related, and not human-virus-related either). -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious IP-sock. No real first-time user goes to an AfD to argue about criteria for deletion. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Donald Trump and British Columbia newspaper The_Province have used the name “Chinese virus” before[2]. And some similar names, such as “Wuhan virus”, “Chinese Coronavirus”, has been used by Mike Pompeo and Fox News host respectively[3][4]. Hence, “Chinese virus” and these similar names have been used widely.
  2. Donald Trump said that “It’s not racist at all”[5]. China's government reject US and said that it is “stigmatization"[6]. WHO official warns against calling it 'Chinese virus' and says 'there is no blame in this'[7]. Hence, “Chinese virus” has a wide dispute.
  3. In conclusion, “Chinese virus” and these similar name have been used widely. And “Chinese virus' has a wide dispute. Hence, we should be based on WP:NPOV to treat “Chinese virus” and these similar names, and WP:ATP should not be the deletion reason. Thank you. --SCP-2000 13:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a slur. The President of the United States receiving wide coverage for using it, has nothing to do with what people are using the word for. No one searching for the term on Wikipedia is looking for information on the United States President. It's a phrase that refers to a virus. They're looking for information on that virus. He did not invent it, and many people used it before him. Redirecting it to anything related to Trump would be ridiculous. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say above, I think this is best merged with and redirected to the overlapping disambiguation page Chinese flu; I don't have a strong opinion about which should be the primary name and which should be the redirect.
But I'm posting again to reiterate what Symphony Regalia says above. Under no circumstance should this redirect to anything related to Trump. I am no fan of Trump, but such a targeting would be a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers. Do any of you who are posting such suggestions really believe that a reader is searching on "Chinese virus" so they can read about Trump? Really? No. They're obviously trying to be educated about a virus.
Reasonable minds can vary on what virus-related target this should go to, but by no means should this be used as a vehicle to promote a political point of view. And I say that as someone who shares that point of view: full disclosure, I think Trump is a venal idiot. But that should not be reflected in the outcome of this discussion.
Come on. We're better than this. TJRC (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC: Do you have any sources to support this? As far as I can tell, this is just another Trumpian slur. While I know that the Google test is less that ideal, a Google News search for "Chinese virus" gives me 8.4 million hits, while "Chinese virus" -Trump gives me fewer than 78k hits. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you really believe readers searching on "Chinese virus" are looking for information on Trump, and not for information on the current pandemic? Really? Really? That's what they're seeking information on?
I don't know what you mean by "sources" in determining where a redirect goes. The idea is to get readers to the material they're looking for. The issue is not how often the term occurs ion media relating to Trump; it's what the readers using the term are looking for.
I understand that most people who hear and use the phrase "Chinese virus" are likely Trump fans, and can appreciate the the schadenfreude in sending them to an article on Trump instead of what they're looking for. But is that really what you want to use Wikipedia for? TJRC (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC:I'm quite confidence that people searching for "Chinese virus" when they're trying to learn about Covid-19, just like people searching for "n*..." aren't actually looking for articles about black people. I don't believe that anyone is actually that stupid. But guess what - I'm basing my response here on policy, not on my faith in humanity. As for the rest of it? Schadenfreude? You've been here long enough to know that WP:NPA is policy. You're crossing a line with your insults. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All else aside, if you're trying to make a moral argument, there are two sides at play. Even if you're right, even if some people come here looking for Covid-19, the slur you're saying we should normalise is rooted in the kind of hateful bigotry that leaves us with this: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I don't believe that's your aim, but the logical consequence of having Wikipedia validate this slur is more racist and xenophobic attacks. Normalising this slur puts people's lives at risk. Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
I also want to point out that "chinese" is not a race it is a nationality, and "xenophobic" as a term is also largely useless in a global context (English Wikipedia is used in nearly every country on earth), so determining whether something "validates" xenophobia or not is also an exercise in futility. For example, and I do not mean to be flippant, China is perhaps one of the most xenophobic places on earth both as a matter of culture and national policy. Does Wikipedia having on article on China validate xenophobia? Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term "Chinese virus" even used to any significant extent outside the United States? In the context in which it is used, by right-wing American politicians, it is a xenophobic term. But even more to the point, "Chinese virus" is simply not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. It is widely called either by the name of the disease, "CoVID-19," or by the name of the virus, "SARS-CoV-2," or by the family the virus belongs to, "Coronavirus." -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to a "China virus." I don't see how The Guardian can use the phrase "China virus" and if some people use it is bad and if other people use it is good. By the way, I, for one, do not like French food. What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to say I have anything against France, a country I love, have lived in, and will return to literally a handful of days after it reopens its borders? XavierItzm (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: The latest source in your list is from 27 January, barely a month after the discovery of the virus. Back then, the virus was not yet known to have spread widely outside China. I don't see any sources nowadays referring to the "Chinese virus" or "China virus," except when quoting Trump or other right-wing political figures in the United States. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS lose no validity as time goes by. The 9/11 Wikipedia entry, for example, includes many citations from September 2001. Are you seriously proposing those reliable sources be deleted because they were written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can lose validity. The references you're citing are all from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name, and when the virus was largely confined to China. The virus now has a name, and it's not confined to China. In fact, China is now one of the less-affected areas of the world at the moment. I haven't seen any publication refer to "China virus" or "Chinese virus" in months now, except to quote Trump or other right-wing American politicians. "China virus" is not a name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that, you need a new Wikipedia policy stating that WP:RS cease to have validity by your own personal deadlines, and get on deleting all the September 2001 sources in the 9/11 article. Once the policy is in place, then we can have this conversation again. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy already exists, and is called WP:RS AGE. It specifically mentions changing vocabulary. All the sources you listed above are from 27 January or earlier. The disease was only named on 11 February 2020: [2]. Early reports didn't have any name to call the virus, because no name existed back then - it was only discovered in late December 2019, and only began to be covered by Western press in January 2020.
I'd also like to point out that you're misreading some of your sources. The France24 headline was "China virus death toll rises to 42 [...]" This is shorthand for "Death toll in China rises to 42," not "Death toll from the China virus rises to 42." The Washington Post said that "Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar." They're discussing the number of coronavirus infections in China, not the number of infections with "Chinese coronavirus." Remember that back at this early date, the virus had no name and almost all known cases were in China. Both facts have now changed - the virus has a name and the vast majority of cases are outside China. Nowadays, "China virus" or "Chinese virus" is a political slogan, not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME, and/or WP:POVNAME. WP:RS AGE clearly says: "Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." Please avoid WP:RECENCY. This is why the 9/11 articles have so many sources from the earliest days. Same principles apply here. XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS AGE also says, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." Every source you've cited comes from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name. It has a name now, and that name is not "Chinese virus."
I see no risk of WP:RECENCY in using the names "CoVID-19" and "SARS-CoV-2," unless you think that the world is about to adopt the phrases that Trump and his political allies have been insisting on using, "Chinese virus," "China virus," etc. "Chinese virus" is simply not the common name that the virus is known by. Who, outside of Trump and a few other right-wing political figures in the US, do you see using this phrase? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. I agree 100% with Thucydides411. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yay, must have missed The Guardian: China virus: ten cities locked down and Beijing festivities scrapped[12] and similar sources cited above. XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "current references." January 23rd is not current, especially in the context of SARS-CoV-2. You know that I'm aware of this reference, because I responded to you above, so I'd appreciate a bit less sarcasm and a bit more good faith. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent additions and certainly should remove any concerns. It is so rare to see so much animus towards deleting a mere disambig page. XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-chinese-virus-notes/
  2. ^ McDONALD, By JOE. "Province at China virus's center lets some companies reopen". WJAX. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  3. ^ Rogers, Katie (2020-03-10). "Politicians' Use of 'Wuhan Virus' Starts a Debate Health Experts Wanted to Avoid". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  4. ^ "Fox News host Tucker Carlson begins referring to 'Chinese coronavirus'". The Independent. 2020-03-10. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  5. ^ Mangan, Dan (2020-03-18). "Trump defends calling coronavirus 'Chinese virus' — 'it's not racist at all'". CNBC. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  6. ^ 陈蓓. "China rejects US' virus stigma - Chinadaily.com.cn". www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  7. ^ Gstalter, Morgan (2020-03-19). "WHO official warns against calling it 'Chinese virus,' says 'there is no blame in this'". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  8. ^ "Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar as fifth case is confirmed in U.S." The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 March 2020. ((cite news)): Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  9. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/coronavirus-panic-spreads-in-china-with-three-cities-in-lockdown
  10. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20200125-china-virus-death-toll-rises-to-41-more-than-1-300-infected-worldwide
  11. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51245680
  12. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/coronavirus-panic-spreads-in-china-with-three-cities-in-lockdown
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More