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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 & GreatLeader1945Agree 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]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 and makes them a partisan organization. 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)[reply]
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. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 04:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
