Talk:World Health Organization

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

See:

• How the 'bureaucratic' World Health Organization ended up on the hot seat over its COVID response   U.S. announces it's withdrawing from WHO, citing undue influence from China
• How China Deceived the WHO
• BBC: Covid: Serious failures in WHO and global response, report finds
• REUTERS: WHO's Tedros disappointed by end of U.S. abortion ruling Roe v Wade - Gwillhickers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 6 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. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GreatLeader1945 and 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. -- 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. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 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. Abortion is not even mentioned once in this article. To be fair, the WHO considers 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-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)