Talk:World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Trying to avoid an edit war about the criticism section.
Hi, you have twice changed the name of the criticism section to "China" or "Working with the Chinese government". I've restored it one time, but you have again changed the name of the section. "Working with the Chinese government" is not a good description of that section, it's about criticism of the WHO's response. In your justification for deleting my restoration, you've said "this section is entirely about China-related issues, and designated "Criticism" sections are discouraged - if other criticisms emerge, they can get their own sections". First, can you point to the Wikipedia policy saying sections about criticism are discouraged ? Second, it seems that making one section for every country which has criticized the WHO's response is a very bad idea. It should all be at the same place. MonsieurD (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CSECTION, not a policy but an essay. The problem with "Criticism" sections is that they easily lead to NPOV problems by focusing primarily on negative and not positive commentary, instead of describing commentary proportionally. How about we retitle the section "Reactions" or "Reception"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reception" would suit me. Thanks. MonsieurD (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for bringing up the issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WHO Joint Mission recommendations
I propose we add the main recommendations that WHO put in its report after visiting China in february. In particular, we should mention this recommendation (p. 39): "Additional effort should be made to find the animal source, including the natural reservoir and any intermediate amplification host, to prevent any new epidemic foci or resurgence of similar epidemics" because it implies that the issue of the virus origin is not settled.--Forich (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wu et al (2020, p. 696) also ask for a similar reaction: "Identifying and eliminating the zoonotic source remains an important task to prevent new animal-human seeding events". --Forich (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement style
By 7 April the WHO had accepted two diagnostic tests for procurement under the Emergency Use Listing procedure (EUL) for use during the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to increase access to quality-assured, accurate tests for the disease.[28] Both in vitro diagnostics, the tests are genesig Real-Time PCR Coronavirus (COVID-19) manufactured by Primerdesign, and cobas SARS-CoV-2 Qualitative assay for use on the cobas® 6800/8800 Systems by Roche Molecular Systems. These tests can also be supplied by the United Nations and other procurement agencies supporting the COVID-19 response.
 * This part is written like an advertisement and I don't think it is relevant on this timeline. We should consider removing it. -- Netha  (talk)  07:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New report about WHO officials frustrated at Chinese withholding of data in January
This report by the Associated Press featured in this Guardian article should be included somewhere, I think. MonsieurD (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a brief mention, but it needs elaboration. Feel free to help editing it.Forich (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Tweet and Atlantic pieces
The two Atlantic pieces are not sufficient for the claim, in Wikipedia's voice, that the WHO's tweet was false. The Gilsinan piece doesn't even say that the tweet (which was about the status of evidence) was false, but rather that a different claim by Wuhan authorities turned out not to be true. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gilsinan piece is referring to both the tweet and the bulletin as untrue. It is a fact based piece in a reliable source - nothing else is required to assert the claim as factual. Swmpshield2 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the reliable source, please? Johncdraper (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP: "The Atlantic is considered generally reliable." Swmpshield2 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Swmpshield2 In your opinion, is the op ed author alleging that the WHO was lying? Johncdraper (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gilsinan source says (of the information in the Wuhan bulletin) "This, we now know, was catastrophically untrue, and in the months since, the global pandemic has put much of the world under an unprecedented lockdown and killed more than 100,000 people." Obviously that's about the actual transmissibility of the virus (as underestimated in the Wuhan bulletin), but the WHO tweet was about the lack of evidence at that time.
 * It's also odd that you're calling it a "fact based piece"—the piece is making an argument about structural problems in the WHO. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the bulletin claim that "we have not found proof for human-to-human transmission" was catastrophically untrue, then so was the tweet on the same day that "Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". It's obvious from the context that Gilsinan is referring to both the tweet and the bulletin when she says they were untrue.

Swmpshield2 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear from context that the untrue claim from the bulletin was that "the risk of sustained transmission is low." I see no reason to assume this piece (what makes you say it's not an opinion piece?) is referring to both. If we want to state in Wikipedia's voice that the WHO's tweet was false, we need a reliable source that says that clearly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Swmpshield2 I see no evidence provided by the author for the claim that the WHO was lying. There is no associated evidence (memos, reports, emails) reported in the text showing that the WHO knowingly lied. Do you? Am I missing something, here? Johncdraper (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If that's false, then so is the tweet, which means contextually, her statement applies to both. I see no reason to believe that this is an opinion piece...what makes you think it is? Swmpshield2 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's making an argument rather than reporting the news. Anyway, I understand that this is your interpretation of the piece, but I don't think this interpretation makes much sense, especially in the larger context of what's known about the COVID-19 outbreak. For us to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice, we need a reliable source that clearly supports that claim, not one where it depends on a dubious interpretation or extra assumptions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

However I agree that another reliable source with clearer wording should be added before this can be asserted as factual. Swmpshield2 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Swmpshield2 The source is in the name of a person, not an organization, and so, without providing evidence is, by definition opinion. The WP position on The Atlantic is that it is, because of reasonable quality editorial oversight, generally reliable, implying exceptions are possible. I appreciate that the tweet is an issue in US media ranging from the Left to the Right, but it is not really an issue in other countries as the WHO has already agreed to a full independent investigation. Please contrast the Atlantic source with an AP report, which is not in a contributor's name but is based on e.g., access to emails, memos, anonymous but verified sources, etc. In other words, we treat the contributor as WP:Verifiability. In order to do that without tagging it, Granger's formulation seems optimal. That said, note that there is a separate subheading on Taiwan under the Reception main heading. If you were to develop a separate subsection on the US, that might better place this issue in the national context. Johncdraper (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A subsection on the US reaction seems like a reasonable idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck sock edits. Doug Weller  talk 10:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

New page on WHO Investigation?
Now that the WHO's team has arrived in China and the investigation is officially underway, I would like to create a new page to cover all details relating to the "terms of reference", the team members, and ongoing news reports. If any other editors object to this on grounds of WP:FORK or WP:NOPAGE, it could also be covered in this page as a section with subsections, but it will eventually become quite lengthy. I saw that there are standalone pages for other high profile investigations, such as Deepwater Horizon investigation, etc. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . Per WP:POVFORK, the accusation of "POV fork" should only be done under extreme circumstances, unless the accusing editor(s) themselves are prone to POV-based judgements. Also, essays such as WP:CRIT/WP:CSECTION should not limit editors from introducing materials that are well-sourced and with due weight. In my opinion, NPOV should always be evaluated case by case and with the specific article's context taken into account. Stealthy and subtle POV pushing is much more harmful than honest and balanced presentation of different views. Normchou   💬 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Would risk being undue, and targeting "ongoing new reports" might run up against WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:NOPAGE such material would be better covered here now. If it gets too big (unlikely) a split could be considered. Alexbrn (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's start it as a section in this page, but if at some point the investigation attracts a large number of RS to report on it, we should migrate it to an independent page.Forich (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WHO team delay in lede
I removed the sentences from the lede about the WHO team's delay in entering China, and replaced them with a single sentence about the team arriving in January:. reverted my edit, claiming in the edit summary, Unexplained removal of RSes. This edit summary is simply false. I explained my edit in my summary: Not notable enough for lede, and team has already arrived.

A full explanation of the delay is far too much detail for the lede. It's already explained in the body (where I'm not even sure it's due), and an entire paragraph in the lede about the team being delayed for a few days is overkill. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it is accusation This edit summary is simply false that is false. You removed a large number of citations that resulted in cite errors in the article. Click on your own diffs and see what happened because of your reckless act of deletion.  Normchou   💬 18:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A bot will catch any broken references fairly quickly. The fact that something is cited does not mean that it is due. I explained my original edit in the summary, so saying that my edit was "unexplained" was false. If the only issue was the missing references, you could simply fix that (if you want to beat the bot to it) without reverting my entire edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You keep adding the detail about the arrival of some of the WHO team being delayed back into the lede: . This article is supposed to summarize the WHO's entire response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The few-day delay in the team's arrival, which was over in a single news cycle, is surely not due in the lede. Can you explain why you're adding this material back in? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Because that is the correct summary of the event. Per the cited sources, the arrangement was agreed upon in advance, so the block—not few-day delay—was an extraordinary event that could have important implications. Also, don't use bots as an excuse for your recklessness. You are the one who's responsible for ensuring every edit you make conforms to community policies and guidelines. Normchou   💬 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You keep on saying that it's sourced, but that doesn't make it due. The lede is supposed to succinctly summarize the body of the article. In the context of everything the WHO has done to combat the pandemic, the few-day delay is an extremely minor point. Including it in the lede just reeks of POV-pushing.
 * My edit didn't violate any community policies or guidelines. Your edit summary, however, incorrectly stated that my edit was unexplained. Please don't mischaracterize my edits in the future. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Quack quack quack, few-day delay, extremely minor, quack quack quack, POV pushing." Other editors will decide whether this part is due after reviewing the sources   . Meanwhile, if one indeed wants to treat this as a content dispute like they've nobly claimed, then simply move on.  Normchou   💬 20:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please edit your above comment to comply with WP:CIVIL. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Move to "World Health Organization's response to COVID-19"?
Thoughts on moving this to "World Health Organization's response to COVID-19"? It's more WP:CONCISE. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Looks like you reverted my move. Feel free to discuss your reasoning. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been like that for 9 months. I suggest going through an WP:RM. Starzoner (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2021

 * 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: No consensus (was relisted) User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic → World Health Organization's response to COVID-19 – Trying to make the title shorter and more WP:CONCISE. Other articles in this topic area have undergone a similar rename (COVID-19 misinformation, COVID-19 misinformation by governments). Using RM because an editor requested it. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Covid-19 and the pandemic are not entirely the same thing. Many articles are at "COVID-19 pandemic in Xcountry" and "Xcountry response to the COVID-19 pandemic". GPinkerton (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Better as Prose
I think that each month of the timeline would be better written as prose, as the list takes up a lot of space with all the indents. Also, some events happen close to each other and are related. I think it would be better to have each list of events in the month as prose. What do you think? 216.207.176.186 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)PlasmaEditer (don't have an account yet)

NPOV/attribution issues
The letter was based on a selective version of the pandemic, ignore or glossed over the WHO's clear warnings about the dangers of the contagion, and falsely claimed that Taiwan had warned the WHO of human-to-human transmission on 31 December. This is not an acceptable sentence as-is - "glossing over" and "selective" are judgements and per WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be attributed in-text to the source making them (i.e., The Guardian), rather than being presented in Wikipedia's own voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.37.85 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Page should be re-titled
It's not really an overview, it's a summary.

Summary of WHO's public announcements during early Covid-19, surely.

Jondvdsn1 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Jondvdsn1, I agree with you that the WHO's public announcements are a major component of this article, but in the timeline, and in the initiatives section, the article also describes activities that undergird the global effort to protect people against COVID. So not just dissemination of information (crucial in public health responses), but also the financing, procurement, and distributions of vaccines all over the world.
 * For these reasons we should keep the present title, "World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic." -Darouet (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That said - I think that Novem Linguae's suggestion to rename this article to World Health Organization's response to COVID-19 is a good one. GPinkerton: thoughts? I agree that the current title is more precise, but it's hard to consider what unintended meanings a reader might construe from the more concise proposed title. -Darouet (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton and Starzoner (the two who objected last time) appear to be indefinitely blocked. We can probably go ahead with the move to the shorter title, unless there's fresh objections. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Still a pandemic" 2023/2024
I passed on putting this on the main pandemic article in light of the "undue" discussions, but figured that I should mention this here. On December 31 Maria Van Kerkhove stated in an X thread "It's marked by reduced impact compared to the peak of #COVID19 a few years ago, but it's still a global health threat and it's still a pandemic...." (secondary source 1 secondary source 2). Now her account states "Opinions my own" as expected, but it's unclear whether she was stating an opinion or acting on behalf of the WHO. Notably, in a press conference 10 days later, she did not say the statement directly; however, in another one held two days after that (today local time as I write this), she stated "It's year five in the pandemic, but there's still a lot we don't know about it." (Secondary source press release). Again, though, it's a personal interview, so opinion and official capacity are blurred again. Mapsax (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)