Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea

Lede NPOV

There are no officially confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Korea, while some South Korean media outlets claim that there are actual cases. The lede currently assumes the version of these South Korean media outlets as confirmed, which is not WP:NPOV or due weight: The 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea is an ongoing disease outbreak in North Korea or the entrance of the virus into North Korea is not thought to come from South Korea. --MarioGom (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. The entire world's medical community assures us in the press that the probablility of NK having this virus under control is absolutely nil. No free press in NK and a dictatorship that strives to hide and misquide what is happening within its borders makes first-hand knowledge hard to come by, but the various intelligence agencies of the free world give us a pretty good estimate. Therefore, no NPOV issues exist. 50.111.23.84 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WPK flag

Takinginterest01: Why should the WPK flag be included in the article? Of course the article mentions the Government, governing party and government officials. Just as every 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. As far as I know, none of them adds flags of parties or officials just because they are mentioned. It doesn't add any meaningful information or context to the subject. --MarioGom (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this about "North Korea in the pandemic" or the "pandemic in North Korea"?

Regardless of whether North Korea has any confirmed, or actual cases — the current naming 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea does not imply anything that isn't also sourced in the article. A pandemic is by its very nature both specifically an "outbreak of infectious disease" and the social events and ramifications that ensue from the outbreak. A pandemic can also by definition never be a national event (and most often global, but ALWAYS at least continental). Seeing as there is a pandemic in the World(/Asia), and North Korea is part of the World(/Asia) — North Korea is in this pandemic, regardless of whether it has cases or not.

We document what the sources say, regardless of "official statistics". As a side note, relying solely on North Korean official reports is naive to the point that it is probably a sign of bad faith editing, and pushing such a view will likely end up at WP:AN where blocks or topic bans can be handed out. North Korea has a history of not reporting the existance of infectious diseases within its borders, with major bodies such as UNAIDS stating that this is not true (Health_in_North_Korea#HIV/AIDS).
 This post follows some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that's not true. If you look at that link you cited, UNAIDS has not said the North Korean statistics on HIV are not true. The WHO confirmed in 2018 there were no cases. I think the reliable sources emphasise that we don't know the effect of the coronavirus on North Korea. It's silly to dismiss it official reports and place reliance on rumours. In fact, North Korea has reported the existence of infectious diseases such as malaria, measles etc. There are two sides to this. North Korea has a history of being secretive, and the outside media have a history of being sensationalist and inaccurate. I certainly don't think threatening other editors is the way to go. With regard to the title, I think it does imply that the pandemic is "in" North Korea, which hasn't been confirmed. But perhaps we can live with that. I didn't get a chance to participate in the AfD discussion, but I think it was a game of crystal balls. We simply don't know what will happen. We could create articles about the pandemic in Antarctic, on the Moon, in Narnia etc. If this article is going to continue, we need to make sure it's factual, not based on visions from a palantir.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew someone might say that about the UNAIDS statement, but no — that's grasping at straws and a total misrepresentation of what everything I stated above. If you're going to suggest that the WHO confirmed that there were no cases (not only no officially reported cases) please do link that citation.
Also, I never said that we should "place reliance on rumours". You're right about the sensationalist points, which is why we should strive for neutrality and accuracy, and do like everywhere else: describe both reports and weigh in the reliability of sources per WP:RS & WP:MEDRS. If we find that North Korean official sources represent a minority and WP:FRINGE opinion, we treat them as such.
The difference between your examples about Antarctica, Narnia or the Moon, apart from being absurdist — are that there aren't any sources to create such articles. Here there are sources, and decently non-sensationalism and reliable sources at that. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are sources on Antarctica,[1] the Moon,[2] and the International Space Station.[3]...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Still working on Narnia.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Structure

I don't think we need a separate "timeline". I also don't think it makes sense to separate the "Response" from the "Impact". I would suggest a single chronological structure, perhaps divided by months.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would work—what about information that isn't specific to a particular month, like the overview of travel restrictions, concern among international organizations, challenges for defectors, and decrease in military activity? Our more mature articles about the pandemic, like the ones for Italy or mainland China, do not follow a purely chronological structure but rather have sections devoted to management, impact, response, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, all information is specific to a particular month. For example, when travel restrictions are introduced, when concerns are expressed etc. It makes no sense to say that an article published in January provides an "overview". Secondly, there is no clarity in the current structure. How to decide whether information belongs under a "Response", "Impact", or "Timeline"? The defector issue could belong under "Response" because it shows that quarantine measures are in place. Same with the military activity. Thirdly, those "more mature articles" are chaotic. But that's an argument for another place. Fourthly, we can adapt the structure when we receive more information. At the moment we just have a series of reports which we have basically randomly put under three different headings.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose by that reasoning any Wikipedia article could be rearranged into a purely chronological structure, but that's not necessarily the most useful or clear way to organize information. The defector issue and other examples I listed above do not fit neatly into a particular month. Maybe we should solicit input from other editors on how best to organize this article, for instance by posting at WT:WikiProject COVID-19. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, it remains unclear where to place new information.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If there's new information about the government response or about the effects of the pandemic, I would put it in those two sections. If there's information about something happening on a particular day, it could go in the timeline. If there's information that doesn't fit into any of those categories, we could add a new section, maybe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What if it's all three?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then put it wherever it fits best. If you can't decide, you could post it here on the talk page and we can collaborate to figure out how best to fit it into the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have been putting everything under "Response" because it concerns the response.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have merged all three sections into the Timeline. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a lot better than what was there before, which arbitrarily divided text between "Timeline" and "Response", with only a few things under "Impact". There was a huge amount of repetition, and I'm sure there still is. The problem that I raised in March only got worse because there was no outbreak to write about, unlike the articles about other countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

North Korea Coronavirus Cases is not reported yet

North Korea has 0 Coronavirus Cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.208.70 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing any specific changes to the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

North Korea is also a paradise on Earth where nobody is unemployed and lollipops grow out of the ground and everyone has a four-course dinner every day. If you have something to contribute to the quality of the article, feel free to step forward with said info. Fantasies are not going into the article.50.111.23.84 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1287141612703948802 86.3.102.123 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Read now also https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/world/asia/north-korea-who-covid-pandemic.html

Suspected case

For future reference, the South Korean government has confirmed Kim was a defector who return to the North: https://www.nknews.org/2020/07/military-failed-to-notice-redefection-recorded-by-surveillance-equipment-jcs/?utm .--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if he should still be listed as a suspected case. According to this, the infection has never been confirmed. Surely, any suspicions have been allayed by now.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the suspected case from the tally and removed it from the lead because it doesn't seem very important any more.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This could be added somewhere

This appears to be a development.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

In the May 2022 section, the information that was released in June should be moved to in its own section. Either that, or the section should be renamed to May-June 2022. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

21:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)ScientistOld (talk) In second paragraph: "though its cold chain vaccination program", there is a request to clarify. Add in this explanation: The ‘cold chain’ is a term used to describe the cold temperature conditions in which certain products need to be kept during storage and distribution (Figure 3.1). Maintaining the cold chain ensures that vaccines are transported and stored according to the manufacturer’s recommended temperature range of +2˚C to +8˚C until the point of administration.

This is a quote from a webpage and Figure 3.1 is available on that webpage also. ScientistOld (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ScientistOld (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have linked to the cold chain article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming this can be considered as  Partly done: by Jack Upland. @ScientistOld: If you don't like how this turned out, feel free to re-open this edit request. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

Change expatriate to immigrant 211.192.52.236 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source says "expats", that is not synonymous with "immigrants". Sam Sailor 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on February 12, 2024

change the "is" in The COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea is part of an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease (first line of the article), to was, as the pandemic is now over 108.49.72.125 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-is-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-2023-05-05/

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367

https://www.pfizer.com/news/announcements/global-and-us-agencies-declare-end-covid-19-emergency#:~:text=On%20May%205%2C%20more%20than,PHE)%20for%20COVID%2D19.

These sources back up the claim that the WHO stated the pandemic was over on May 5th, 2023 108.49.72.125 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done

P.S. Next time, please reply to the discussion instead of editing (as I assume this is what you did) so the people involved can be notified sooner. [ nm ]
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that lol, thanks, ill do that from now on ;) 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

At the categories,we should remove 2020 in North Korea and 2021 in North Korea because there were no COVID cases in North Korea back then 2A01:5A8:303:C65E:C429:D4B1:68E5:61D (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The article extensively covers lockdown measures in 2020 and 2021, this is more than enough to include these categories. Jamedeus (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)