Jump to content

Talk:World Health Organization: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
rmv gibberish
Line 55: Line 55:
:::::* [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>
:::::* [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)
:::::::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)

== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law ==

OWEOEEI8E8383 [[Special:Contributions/5.82.168.31|5.82.168.31]] ([[User talk:5.82.168.31|talk]]) 14:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:21, 7 February 2024

Former good article nomineeWorld 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
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 11, 2020.
On this day...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.

No section about criticism and conspiracy theories

There has to be a section about the criticism and the conspiracy theories surrounding the WHO. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 undue weight issue waiting to happen. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mx. Granger & GreatLeader1945   Agree with Great Leader.   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? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See:
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. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]