Talk:Food security during the COVID-19 pandemic

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiki0517.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

30 million projected deaths?
The lead mentions twice that 30 million people are expected to die from famine, and this number is also in the infobox. However, neither of the sources for the first instance mentions anything about 30 million, and the source for the second instance doesn't say 30 million deaths are expected; the only mention of 30 million is the following passage: "He said in the video briefing that WFP is providing food to nearly 100 million people on any given day, including “about 30 million people who literally depend on us to stay alive.” Beasley, who is recovering from COVID-19, said if those 30 million people can’t be reached, “our analysis shows that 300,000 people could starve to death every single day over a three-month period” — and that doesn’t include increased starvation due to the coronavirus." This implies that if World Food Programme is unable to provide for the 30 million people who desperately need their help, an estimated 27,000,000 could starve to death. That certainly is a terrifying prospect, but there's no indication WFP will suddenly go from 100% support to 0% support to cause this to actually occur, and even if it would, a possible 27 million is very different from, I quote the current lead, "it is almost certain that at least 30 million will die". Is there any source that actually says 30 million deaths are expected, or does this need to be adjusted? I'll tag the lines with citation needed tags for now. VDZ (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at seems to be coming from a press conference with WFP - this source quotes director David Beasley saying "If we lost our funding … a minimum 30 million would die. Over a three-month period, that would be 300,000 people dying per day" http://theglobeandmail.com/world/article-world-food-programme-warns-at-least-30-million-people-could-die-of/ and a similar headline here https://tbsnews.net/coronavirus-chronicle/30-million-people-could-die-starvation-during-pandemic-wfp-70339. Also not convinced of the "almost certain" phrasing as a result - although I note it qualifies the statement with "without significant support from western nations" at least once. I understand you initially wrote the section in discussion - is there another source you got your numbers from? Is there a chance the WFP could lose all of its funding? ArcMachaon (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now made changes to clarify these figures and removed repeats. ArcMachaon (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

USA is not in famine conditions
The United States in not in famine conditions and is not cited in the Global Report on Food Crises and therefore should be added to the list in that section. As it is not experiencing famines in any area it should not be listed in the in lead. As it is not listed in the cited source - the Oxfam report - it should not be added to the infobox. ArcMachaon (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Great Food Crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Great Food Crisis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic–related famines → Famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic – WP:CONSISTENT with Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I'm also just in favor of putting the subject / main noun as the first word (which in this case is "famines", not the adjective "COVID-19 pandemic-related"). It reads better that way. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above comments. jack chango   talk  20:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

photo of child
That photo of the malnourished child -- are we sure it belongs in this article? It's from 2007. I'd argue it's not helpful to readers trying to understand this food crisis. —valereee (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed several images from this article that are not from 2020. --LukeSurlt c 16:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic → 2019-20 famines – because these are multifactorial famines the article even says that repetitively. Investigatory (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article mentioned above should exist as there is merit for it, but the suggested target should also exist (with all relevant information from "famines..." page added to it). As such, I'm undecided. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the article is moved, or a new article is created, it should be at 2019–2020 famines. Use of the two-digit year in article titles is generally discouraged unless it is something that is perpetually recurring, like athletic seasons. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Title is way too vague. Which famine? Where? Buttons0603 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposed title is too imprecise. — Goszei (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the article title
In my view the problem with the article title is that it speaks of famines (at the time when it was created, it was based on warnings that there might be famines in the near future), and reliable sources say that there hasn't been one to date, (New York Times), or that it's been narrowly avoided so far (World Food Programme). At the same time it's clear that there are many people suffering hunger and that much remains to be done to counter the threat of famine. Any suggestions for a better title? --Andreas JN 466 17:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Food security and the..."? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Would work for me. --Andreas JN 466 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, how about Food security during the COVID-19 pandemic? --Andreas JN 466 00:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One potential issue might be who/WHO gets to decide when the 'pandemic' is over; say there is an ongoing issue somewhere that is uncontestedly per the sources primarily due to this situation (or the reactions to it), or say one year a country forbids its farmers from planting food and closes the borders, the pandemic then ends, and the next year everyone starves, would coverage be cut off/precluded by a more specific/restrictive title? Or if there's some new global structure/initiative launched during, would that need another ("after but relating to the") article for its early results? Otherwise, sounds good to me, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we'd cut coverage off; you could argue that the concept of security includes something being secure for some time ahead (feeling "secure" about food means that I can eat tomorrow as well as today). Moreover, the end of the pandemic is not in sight; and indeed, if there were to be widespread starvation, I think editors would change the title again to reflect that, because it would go beyond "food security" and mean that the efforts to maintain food security have failed.
 * The reason I asked was that I was wondering how we'd phrase the lead sentence, which usually contains the article title; "during" works better there than "and" ("Food security during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a major concern ..."). If you're alright with that, I'd say let's go ahead and do the move. --Andreas JN 466 09:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Summary - 'Spring 2020'?
Given this is a discussion of a global issue, and most of the areas marked as being at risk of famine are near to or below the equator, it might be a good idea to remove the reference to a hemisphere-specific season replace with 'early 2020'. 203.214.76.86 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is Crimea a part of Russia on the map „Covid 19 pandemic related famines“?
Crimea is a part of Ukraine but this above mentioned map implies that Crimea is a part of Russia, which is objectively wrong and against international law. I suggest changing this so that Crimea is marked as a part of Ukraine 131.246.71.132 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Renaming
Should we rename this article "Food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic"? Fourmidable (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)