Talk:World Health Organization

This is essentially the same definition of health used by most branches of alternative medicine.

Not really. This is not the case for homeopathy, several forms of electrotherapy along with others others. Quite a few don't really have a concept of health as such. Perhaps what you are referring to is "holistic medicine". Whether WHO's definition of health agrees with that of some areas of alt med is not very important for an article about the WHO. It is probably of interest in some alt med articles though.

I believe that the definitions of palliative care and tradtional mnedicine are completely out of place here OR that they need to be accompanied by ALL WHO definitions of ALL types of medicine/therapies. However, User:Mr-Natural-Health is currently in arbitration over such edits, so I suggest keeping them until that process is completed rather than indulge in an edit war. The article currently stands as a testament to the unbalancing influence of the aformentioned user. Actually, I'll add a boiler. --bodnotbod 09:45, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Remove them. I put them in because MNH seemed to think defintions were nesscary and I was trying to be fair.Geni 12:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The WHO publishing drafts on homeopathy in a positive light is concerning. It wouldn't be if they investigated "alternative" therapies scientifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

structure

current revision of the page states that UN member states as of 2004 are 192, but that is wrong. They are 191. 192 are the WHO members, but not all of them are UN member states, and also not all UN member states are members of the WHO. Look at the link that I added at the bottom. Becouse of that number-mismatch-error I suspise that maybe the whole text is not correct: "UN Member States (..error..) appoint delegations to the World Health Assembly, WHO's supreme decision-making body". Someone to check all this? I will try to correct the members-error, but for the structural architecture of WHO I don't know anything... Why is Liechtenstein not participating? Are all WHO members sending delegations - including assosiated Cook Isands and Niue (as I have written) or only the regular state members? If all are sending delegations - what is the difference between regular and assosiated member? Why only New Zealand's self-governing territories are "independent" WHO members, but not similar territories of other states?

Alinor 12:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I checked the WHO constitution to clarify the WHO/UN membership issue. Hope the current text is clear. Rd232 20:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

budget of the WHO/partnership section

I don't think that half the budget of the WHO comes from Lucifer Trust. From what I understand the majority of the funding for WHO comes from its members countries - I don't think WHO receives much money at all directly from foundation and industry (or from individuals - though they do offer the possibly to donate with their website).

Also the public-private partnerships listed on this page work "with" the WHO but in most cases receive no financial support from WHO. Many are independent foundations - with no official links to the WHO. I think that the paragraph on partnerships is very misleading. It makes it look like the partnerships listed are part of the WHO.

I notice that this same information is repeated on the Public-Private Parterships page. I don't know enough yet about Wikipedia to suggest how to fix this - but a good source of some additional information on public-private partnerships related to health can be found at

http://www.mmv.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=27

I think this website above is not critical enough of private-public partnerships! Please compare with views held by Health Action International:

http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/PPI/seminar200011.html

male genital mutilation

I heard that this organization fights more against female genital mutilation than themale genital mutilation. Aren't men and women under the same laws? Shouldn't they be equal? Why the womwn should be more equal than the men. I think and I'm 1000% sure that this organization should fight against any type of mutilation. Circumcision is considered a mutilation. If some will say is for religious reasons, I say female circucision, in most of the cases, is done also for religious reasons. Why some religious reasons are above other? The believes of the people should be respected by everybody. What make some people that their religion can say what other's cannot? I ask every single man that read this is and was not, thanks God, circumcised, to tell me and other how they feel if somebody comes tomorrow at their doors and tells them they have to cut some of their dick skin (on live)? How about their children, how would they feel? If in some religious this what they have to do, let them do it, because most of you are doing the same thing with your children. You should let the kids decide what they want. Alexsensei 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)alexsensei

male genital mutilation

I believe that any kind of mutilation, not only circumcision, is just as bad as the rape. And I think it should be punished the same way.

last one was mine too. sorry for not signing.Alexsensei 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)alexsensei

The difference, Alex, is that male circumcision does not result in any sexual difficulties, or anything like that. FGMs, on the other hand, mean almost total loss of sensation for the woman, and possible health problems. That is why they are treated differently. Male circumcision is actually quite healthy, even though it is not necessary.Themalau 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but recent studies have shown that male circumcision result in a great loss of sensation for the man, because the lack of foreskin will dry that part of the penis.

List of WHO Representatives

I think a topic should be added, who agrees?--Eshcorp 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Pro-choice organizations

Category:Pro-life organizations includes the following description:

The following is a list of organizations that call themselves pro-life, or support this cause.

I added a similar description to Category:Pro-choice organizations to be consistent:

The following is a list of organizations that call themselves pro-choice, or support this cause.

The WHO fits this description. WHO does not have to have pro-choice or anything similar in its name in order to promote or support abortion rights, which it does. Severa keeps removing it from the WikiProject Abortion. I think it belongs there. Thoughts, anyone? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my rationale at the WikiProject Abortion talk page. Input in helping to better define the criteria used for project categorization and/or inclusion would be appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The WHO, being a multi-lateral organization, must uphold health and healthcare standards that suit the needs of the majority of the people within its member states. It happens to be that the cause of pro-lifers is pretty well represented in the world; so much so, that often, in many countries, there are quite heart-rending and devastating abortion practices, that put the mother at risk. WHO people are doctors, they have to save lives, and more importantly here, prevent the majority of people from dying. If that means informing people on the availability of safe abortions, that just seems logical, and not particularly pro-choice.Themalau 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Why isn't Liechtenstein a member? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Montenegro been admited? - Privacy 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro yes; Liechtenstein - it is not on the official members list, so it appears to be a non-member, but I don't know why so... Alinor 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's most likely represented by switzerland 4.142.126.242 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)eric

Funding controversy

Removed this inaccurate and misleading section:

Funding Controversy

Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. She said WHO higher-ups routinely censored internal disagreements among staff members over drug-company influence on the agency.

This section was presumably based on an inaccurate and misleading June 26, 2005 Seattle Times article, New blood-pressure guidelines pay off — for drug companies that said:

In the 1980s, the agency turned its attention to noncommunicable diseases. But its ability to do meaningful work was limited by a budget that had been frozen at $450 million.

That's where drug companies stepped in.

The WHO solicits tens of millions of dollars yearly from companies whose fortunes it directly affects. In fact, the international agency now takes in more private money — more than $500 million a year — than it gets in dues from its 192 member nations.

Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. She said WHO higher-ups routinely censored internal disagreements among staff members over drug-company influence on the agency.

The article inaccurately and misleadingly says the WHO gets most of its funding from private sources, and by implication from drug companies. It does not. Since assessed contributions (dues) have long been frozen, voluntary contributions now provide over half of the WHO's funding, primarily from national and local governments, foundations and NGOs, and other UN organizations, with very little coming from private sources (drug companies and others).[1][2]

The Dec 23, 2001, six-page resignation letter by Daphne Fresle, a member of the WHO essential drugs and medicines policy group, was described in more detail in a May 4, 2002 article by Lancet editor Richard Horton.PMID 12047986 It was not protesting pharmaceutical companies contributing too much to funding of the WHO. 69.208.181.183 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

'Repairs'

The beginning sector of this page is in need of 'repairs'. The image doesn't show, the disambiguation link doesn't work and a lot of other sectors don't show. I'm no expert so a little bit of volunteering would help. Dorkules 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

World Health Report

The "criticism" in this section from an opinion piece violates WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, it is an opinion piece from someone who is not an expert on the WHO, the health report or even health policy. Secondly, the amount of space given to it matches the actual description of the report. I am removing this section. If a section wants to be included about criticism, it should have genuine secondary sources that describe the world health report being criticised for x and y. Not chunks of quotation from opinion pieces. Recurring dreams 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Controversy

I removed an expert tag that was inserted along with a claim that the WHO's policy on not hiring smokers is discriminatory as it was obvious POV. I did not remove the content. I am uncertain what expert help was being looked for and I do not know that this should continue to be listed under controversies, but left it to others more intimately familiar with the WHO. Cheers and happy editing, Into The Fray ^T/C 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Not hiring smokers is by very deffinition discriminatory and the downsides should be mentioned but only if given a decent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.180.132 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Directors General order

The first director general is listed at the top, but the incumbent is listed at the bottom.Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Operation Cat Drop

is there anymore information on this as it sounds fascinating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.70.232 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section is poorly sourced (references are to campaign movies, websites, and blogs) and does not assert notability, and is decidedly one-sided. It is also disproportionately large considering the rest of the article. I think this section is of quite minor relevance to the article and the WHO itself, so should be removed. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone is willing and interested to have a look on the German contribution for explaining WHO criticism and to translate it to English. I am not the one. My thesaurus of legal termini is quite small. After reading the article about the relations between the IAEO and the WHO in the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique I worked out this short review on the original agreement which is causing the criticism that possibilities of world-wide health education regarding any nuclear technologies is limited effectively. Secondary ressources like this newspaper itself were not accepted even with the literature ressources which are used within this articles!--84.56.209.22 23:43, 15. Oct., 2008 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.241.55 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a permanent protest in front of the WHO headquarters for the last 2 years, so it is a minor issue. There are numerous reports that the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster are not properly addressed by WHO, although these reports are obviously not from the establishment. Many references are provided to this section. Yann (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the WHO was gagged by the IAEA is obviously made by people who haven't actually read the agreement or any of the other agreements the WHO made, I've fixed that section.

211.27.74.147 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear 211.27.74.147, your text on the WHO/IAEA is biased and contains your personal opinions ('erroneously'), which nobody really required. In particular, it did not clarify why the controversy arose as you usefully forgot to quote the key paragraph 3 of article 1. Hopefully, my text will do a better job at presenting the controversy without the bias.--Gigoachef (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

During the 1980s wasn't Homosexuality a disease as far as the WHO were concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.130.2 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Activities

Opinionated and reads like PR. --Sabrown100 (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One little known activity

• Peace of Mind: The Silent Soul Bides its Time by Manoj Das. Here Manoj Das says: "In 1984, the WHO asked India's director-general of health services to discuss the possibility of a hidden fourth dimension of the human, from the physical and mental health point of view, in a workshop consisting of some of India's leading physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuro-scientists and students of mysticism, at NIMHANS, Bangalore. The brainstorming sessions concluded that it was time for medical and psychological healthcare disciplines to take note of Factor X, the unpronounced potency, the foundation of our life.2

I've never heard about that until now, and I'd like to read a report on the results of the workshop. Maybe something can be found with the help of NIMHANS (?).

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.237 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another little known activity

are the three WHO sub-organisations in Vienna monitoring/supervising drug and narcotics legislation in all or most countries. Haven't got the list handy, but you'll probably find them.

Why am I writing this? I have become somewhat tired of marijuana legislation advocacy which turns to national or State politicians. Today, in the 2012 presidential election campaign GOP candidate Romney replied to a question of medical marijuana that it was a State issue.

Even that man is ignorant where the nest is, i.e. in the international organisations in Vienna which answer to WHO. I got a little tired of seeing people barking up wrong trees. The right tree would be the UN Assembly passing a resolution to direct the WHO, to direct their sub-organisations to effect .... whatever change they want, if they want change. This perennial debate (since before President Carter) gets on my nerves for one and not grasping where the power structures and levers are is just so ignorant that I felt the need to write. 144.136.192.15 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage (HWTS) program

In the near future I am planning to add the HWTS to the list of programs and then add an article about it. --Tal Bee (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Namebox

Do we really need all these names in foreign languages within the namebox? As per United Nations, there should only be the official names given in the working languages of the UN (English, Chinese, Russian, etc.) and I barely consider Italian and Korean to be UN working languages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

i agree - i think it's really superfluous, and if people don't provide some reason to provide non-UN languages, we should take them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.58.106 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I too agree, and I have edited the page. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

191 or another number of representatives?

"Members of the WHO are 191 of the UN members, the Cook Islands and Niue." While list of sovereign states says "The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists all 193 widely recognised sovereign states, including all member states of the United Nations, plus Vatican City". I ask:

• UN has 191 or 192 members?
• Cook Islands and Niue are really sovereign? o_O

It's not my cup of tea but I think that looks like a problem to me... Vinne2 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Cuba not colored on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.39 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing notes

I did some editing with more references + inline citations, including moving some unsubstantiated claims to the "controversies" section and clearly pointing out some places where references were still needed.Guptan99 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Authority and mandate

The lede had described WHO as having authority and a "mandate", as if someone had put them in charge. This is the POV of those who feel that the UN ought to be a world government or function as one; or that it already is doing so. That POV is opposed by those who see it as doing some valuable work in coordinating national initiatives, but who don't recognize it is authoritative in any way.

Let's find a way to avoid exalting either of these viewpoints in the article. Either mention both, or ignore both. Considering that the 1st POV is not mentioned anywhere but the lede, I've opted for ignoring both - for now.

On the other hand, WHO is very influential in terms of rich countries giving aid to poor countries. Its pronouncements carry weight, simply because people listen to them. We might describe how its reputation developed. For example in malaria prevention campaigns, it used to say that DDT shouldn't be sprayed inside huts; then it suddenly changed its position (even though IIRC the science of DDT hadn't changed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:World Health Organization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FocalPoint (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC) A few notes: Several references lack date of publication. Based too much on information from WHO itself. Too big for my taste, but this is personal tase, not necessarily according to GA criteria. Membership section: Pleasant to read but mentions a few small countries - why these and not others? Overall a good article which can be better. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The above is not intended to be the only comment for this review. Others reviewers, feel free to continue. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

There are several unaddressed cleanup tags on this article: Wikipedia articles needing clarification (March 2012), Articles containing potentially dated statements (2002, 2009, 2010, 2012) I have asked the reviewer whether they plan to complete the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The potentially dated statements come from the use of the {{as of}} and while they show up in the cleanup listing they are most likely not required of a good article (although it could be a good idea to see if the older ones can be updated). AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry – I didn't notice this review had been undertaken. I'll get to it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone point out where clarification is requested? I can't find the tag. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not 100% sure but I think ot relates to In 1959, the WHO signed Agreement WHA 12–40 with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which some{who} and The nature of this statement has led some{who} pressure groups. The who tags are gone, but still relavent. AIRcorn (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded that section. As regards the "potentially dated statements", it's a voluntary tagging of statements which will become incorrect – clearly this ought to be most of any article on a current organisation, so it's just choice ones. I couldn't find any newer figures than 2002, but they give an indication, at least. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing this as a serious nomination. Just a quick glance reveals giant issues with the article: formatting is horrible, with content presented more in list-form than in proper prose, referencing depending almost exclusively on a single source, which is the organization itself. I don't think this should have been nominated at all; the improvements needed to get it to GA standard are just way beyond the scope of a GA review. Lampman (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick search: Kelley Lee's The World Health Organization (ISBN 0415370132) is not even mentioned in the article. It's available for preview on Amazon and Google Books, so there's really no excuse not to use it. Lampman (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly that's unnecessarily insulting and should not have been said the way it was. Secondly, it is not borne out by the Good Article criteria: 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources.... It might be you believe that the information presented is not representative of published sources (WP:UNDUE). Given the basic level of the information presented, I cannot see another "side of the story" which should receive attention. The criticisms section is already sourced to alternative sources because WHO's own pages wouldn't do a good job of that. Structural and procedural (eg. aims and methods) notes are not controversial, however, and therefore this isn't a problem. As to reliability, this fundamentally means doubting that the WHO's website is incorrect about details of WHO's operation. I think an exception has to be made here, and it isn't a major one. Per WP:SELFPUB: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Only the final part is even questionable of that test, and here about half the article is based on sources from WHO itself and suitable areas are demarcated (as above) where such sources would not be acceptable. If you doubt the World Health Organization's published information about itself, then I think seeking wider input would be suitable.

On the point of structure I was left with a difficult task. If you take the information presented in bullet points and put it in prose you get a long paragraph that is difficult to navigate. The article doesn't have the space to elaborate on each of the tasks, so a prose portion is likely to look the same. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists makes it clear that there are plenty of situations where a list might be appropriate and given these reasons I felt it was the best way to present the information.

If you could please drop the tone we can have a proper discussion about what might be the best way of improving the article, if necessary. I am well aware of the criteria and their application. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

I have looked at the first section Establishment and even without going into the references in depth it needs a lot of work. It doesn't really flow and lacks important information that would allow an average reader to follow it. Some specifics below:

• Needs some introduction to the League of Nations Health Organization. It currently redirects back to this article, but even if it had its own article it should still have a bit of an introduction here.
• Its efforts were hampered by the Second World War, during which UNRRA also played a role in international health initiatives. Expand UNRRA. I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Its efforts at what? What
• In February 1946, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations helped draft the constitution of the new body What is the new body. The WHO?
• The use of the word "world", rather than "international", emphasised the truly global nature of what the organization was seeking to achieve. How does world rather than international emphasise the truely global nature?
• The constitution of the World Health Organization had been signed by all 61 countries... What countries?
• The first meeting World Health Assembly finished on 24 July 1948, having secured a budget of US$5 million (then GBP£1,250,000) for the 1949 year. Is the World Health Assembly the name of the first meeting?
• Honorifics are to be avoided.
• Its first priorities were malaria, tuberculosis, sexually transmitted infections, maternal and child health, nutrition and environmental hygiene. Curing or something similar I hope.

I know the answer to some, if not most of these questions, but they should still be made clear in the text.

Other stuff from a quick glance:

• The lists are a serious problem. Not just because prose is preferred, but because they are too close to the source. The objectives are a copy paste of [3]. Of couse if you don't take it from the source it runs the risk of being WP:synth. Much better to have prose.
• Current projects is not a great header. It will constatntly need to be updated and runs a real risk of being incorrect.
• I have some reservations about the controversies having their own section. Sure there are controversies associated with the WHO and they should be mentioned, but they would be much better incorporated into the other sections.
• That brings me to another point, there should be sections on its projects (not just a list under current projects). That would allow the controversies to be presented along with each project. A much better way of structuring the article in my opinion.

It is an important encyclopaedic topic and I commend you for taking it on. FocalPoint (talk · contribs) has asked me to continue the review on my talk page. Unfortunately at this stage I will say it is a fail, but I will allow some time for other commentators on this page to respond. It is an artcile I would be personally interested in getting to GA standard so if you wish I may be able to contribute or offer opinions further down the line. AIRcorn (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Will fail it in its current state. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page when you re-nominate it and if I have time I will re-review it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that at its current state it does not satisfy the criteria of a good article. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

establishment of WHO

Your article states that WHO was established on 4/7/1948 when it was ratified by the 26th member state. The article in the New York Times, 2/8/1948, p. 44, says that WHO came into existence on 2/7/28, after the 29th UN country ratified its charter. These statements seem to conflict with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.224.98 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'World Health Organization' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)