Talk:World Health Organization: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:38, 29 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Health Organization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 2 months

World Health Organization was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 11, 2020.

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 7, 2007, April 7, 2008, April 7, 2010, April 7, 2013, April 7, 2018, and April 7, 2021.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance).

International relations: United Nations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 High‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WHO

Article about WHO 2409:40E7:15:B7B8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a@Abubakar A bukar 102.91.93.125 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Skip to talk}}
-{{Talk page header|archive_age=60|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
+{{Talk page header}}
 {{Article history
 |action1=GAN
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 }}
 {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|society=yes|society-imp=Top}}
 {{WikiProject International relations|un=yes|importance=top}}
 {{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=mid}}
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 |archive = Talk:World Health Organization/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-{{Ds/talk notice|covid}}
+{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}}
+== WHO ==
-== No section about criticism and conspiracy theories ==
-There has to be a section about the criticism and the conspiracy theories surrounding the WHO. [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 16:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
+Article about WHO [[Special:Contributions/2409:40E7:15:B7B8:8000:0:0:0|2409:40E7:15:B7B8:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40E7:15:B7B8:8000:0:0:0|talk]]) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
-:In most cases "criticism" sections are not a good way to organize article content, for the reasons described at [[WP:CSECTION]]. Instead, information should be organized by topic. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 20:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] That's absolutely not true. Criticism and/or conspiracy theories sections are often present in many Wiki articles about important organizations, people etc. [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::In most cases they shouldn't be. "Criticism" sections tend to lead to NPOV problems and interfere with logical organization of an article. It's better to organize information by topic like this article does, with criticism mentioned where relevant, instead of rearranging negative material into its own section. I have not often seen articles with a "Conspiracy theories" section, but that seems like an [[WP:DUEWEIGHT|undue weight]] issue waiting to happen. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 14:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::@[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] >"I have not often seen articles with a "Conspiracy theories" section [...]" I said "articles about ''important'' organizations, people etc.". There aren't ''many'' such articles that fit this category to begin with, thus you "have not ofteen seen" such sections tbh. [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
+a@[[User:Abubakar A bukar|Abubakar A bukar]] [[Special:Contributions/102.91.93.125|102.91.93.125]] ([[User talk:102.91.93.125|talk]]) 11:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
-:::::* {{u|Mx. Granger}} & {{u|GreatLeader1945}}  &nbsp; '''Agree'''  with Great Leader. &nbsp; Let's not try to confuse criticism with theories.  There is much criticism about the preoccupation of the WHO with abortion, as if abortion has anything to do with the health of the world. Abortion is not even metnioned here. There's also much criticism about their handling of the COVID crisis. It doesn't matter 'how many' other articles have criticism sections. The question is, is it warranted here?  -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::See:
-:::::*  [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/world-health-organization-who-covid-1.5641966 How the 'bureaucratic' World Health Organization ended up on the hot seat over its COVID response &nbsp; U.S. announces it's withdrawing from WHO, citing undue influence from China]
-:::::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ How China Deceived the WHO]
-:::::* [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505 BBC: Covid: Serious failures in WHO and global response, report finds]
-:::::* [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/whos-tedros-disappointed-by-end-us-abortion-ruling-roe-v-wade-2022-06-24/ REUTERS:  WHO's Tedros disappointed by end of U.S. abortion ruling Roe v Wade] - [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 21:34, 6 February 2024‎ (UTC)</small>
-:::::::Criticism of the WHO's response to COVID-19 is already covered in the relevant section of this article, and in more detail in the article [[World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic]]. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::{{ping|GreatLeader1945|Mx. Granger}} — The issue, here, is really about criticism in general, and while there's a dedicated article for COVID, this doesn't mean we can't summarize accounts of criticism, in an objective manner, in this article, with a link to the dedicated article, which is the common practice.. Aside from mention of criticism as concerns COVID, this article overall comes off like a promotional piece and is begging for a neutrality tag. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 17:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::This article currently discusses criticism about various topics (including the status of Taiwan, affiliation with Robert Mugabe, and the role of the regional offices, among others) in the sections where they're relevant. We shouldn't create a dedicated "criticism" section, for the reasons described at [[WP:CSECTION]]. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 05:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
-::{{od}}
-Yes, [[WP:CSECTION|'''WP:CSECTION''' says -- "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic, as well as one dedicated to accolades and praises is usually discouraged ..."]].. One section out of twenty +  sections by no means makes the article "dedicated to negative criticism".  There is more than enough criticism about this entity to warrant one such section. There are other significant criticisms not even mentioned here, starting with their position on abortion as a form of health care, when virtually all abortions are performed on those who simply don't want their baby. Referring to it as a needed form of "health care", on a global scale no less, is misleading to say the least and makes them a partisan organization. Abortion is not even mentioned once in this article. To be fair, the WHO considers [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation Female gentile mutilation (FGM)], openly practiced in many third-world countries, as an affront to humanity. Good for them The article would improve if this also was adequately covered, imo-- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 18:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
-:If there are reliable sources discussing the WHO's work related to abortion and/or FGM, I have no objection to adding those to the article, in whichever sections they're relevant to. I suggest you read [[WP:CSECTION]] again, as it discusses both "criticism" articles and "criticism" sections; both tend to lead to NPOV issues and are not usually the best way to organize content. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 04:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
-:::Yes, I read the material and I believe I quoted the most appropriate passage and addressed any concern about too much focus on criticism. Perhaps it would be best to name a proposed section as ''Performance assessment'', where this idea can be covered as it applies to the acclaim or criticism the WHO has received.regarding issues like abortion, human rights, FGM and so forth, rather than having this overall idea buried in the body of text.. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 23:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
-::::I'm okay with a "Performance assessment" section. That said, the WHO's activities are so complex and varied, I still think it may be more useful to put assessments of each aspect of the organization in the section about that aspect. 15:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)