Talk:Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus/Archive 1

Resolving copyvio claims

As the author, I would like to work to the claims made by Nikkimaria, towards their resolution.

http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTedros_Adhanom_Ghebreyesus&url2=http%3A%2F%2Faigaforum.com%2Farticles%2FHealth-and-the-MDGs-in-Ethiopia.pdf&minwords=2&minchars=13

http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTedros_Adhanom_Ghebreyesus&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichealth.yale.edu%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2011%2F108272_Bradley-et-al_Grand-Strategy-and-Global-Health-The-Case-of-Ethiopia_Fall-2011.pdf&minwords=2&minchars=13

Looking at these, I can see only one-two in each that are particularly problematic. The rest are either statistics or random phrases. They are properly cited. How may I go about resolving this? --Simfan34 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if they are properly cited, there can still be problems with paraphrasing because you're presenting phrasing from the source as original to Wikipedia. You should either make it clear that these are direct quotes, or reword the affected sections. See here for more details on how to deal with the problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick spot check confirms close paraphrasing issues. For example:

Source	Source text	Article text
[1]	On completion it is expected to produce 6,000 megawatts which will make it Africa's largest hydroelectric power plant. It is also expected to have a large reservoir of around 70 billion cubic meters which is scheduled to start filling next year.	...the dam is expected to produce 6,000 megawatts, which will make it Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant. The dam is expected to have a reservoir of around 70 billion cubic meters, which is scheduled to start filling in 2014.
[2]	Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan established an International Panel of Experts to review and assess the study reports of the dam. The panel consists of 10 members; 6 from the three countries and 4 international in the fields of water resources and hydrologic modelling, dam engineering, socioeconomic, and environmental. The panel held its fourth meeting in Addis Ababa in November 2012. It reviewed documents about the environmental impact of the dam and visited the dam site. The panel submitted its preliminary report to the respective governments at the end of May 2013. Although the full report has not been made public, and will not be until it is reviewed by the governments, Egypt and Ethiopia both released details. The Ethiopian government stated that, according to the report, the dam meets international standards and will be beneficial to Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. According to Egyptian government, the report found that the dimensions and size of the dam should be changed.	Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan established an International Panel of Experts to review and assess the study reports of the dam. The panel consists of 10 members; 6 from the three countries and 4 international in the fields of water resources and hydrologic modelling, dam engineering, socioeconomic, and environmental.[14] The panel held its fourth meeting in Addis Ababa in November 2012. It reviewed documents about the environmental impact of the dam and visited the dam site.[15] The panel submitted its preliminary report to the respective governments at the end of May 2013. Although the full report has not been made public, and will not be until it is reviewed by the governments, Egypt and Ethiopia both released details. The Ethiopian government stated that, according to the report, the dam meets international standards and will be beneficial to Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia.
[3]	The unmet need for family planning in Ethiopia has declined, and the contraceptive prevalence rate has doubled in 5 years. Based on the current trends, contraceptive prevalence rates will reach 65% by 2015 by reaching additional 6.2 million women and adolescent girls.	Under Tedros' tenure, the unmet need for family planning in Ethiopia has declined, and the contraceptive prevalence rate has doubled in 5 years. Based on the current trends, contraceptive prevalence rates will reach 65% by 2015 by reaching additional 6.2 million women and adolescent girls
[4]	The Ministry was somewhat beholden to a donor community that was vertically focused on HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs when Tedros first assumed his leadership position with a horizontal, systems-based agenda. With little economic surplus, the country lacked capacity to build its own health systems, and much of the Ethiopian human resources for health had fled the country.	The Ministry was somewhat beholden to a donor community that was vertically focused on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and malaria programs when Tedros first assumed his leadership position with a horizontal, systems-based agenda. With little economic surplus, the country lacked capacity to build its own health systems, and much of the Ethiopian human resources for health had fled the country- for example, there are more Ethiopian doctors in the Chicago metropolitan area than in Ethiopia.
	This ground was one of partnership built on engagement of complementary partners. Tedros brought to the partnership the leadership to sustain focus on the selected agenda, the political acumen to facilitate enabling legislation as needed, and first-hand knowledge of what was needed. President Clinton and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) brought to the partnership a commitment to work on Tedros’ priorities and their network, which provided sources money, expertise, and credibility.	This ground was one of partnership built on engagement of equal partners. Tedros brought to the partnership the leadership to sustain focus on the selected agenda, the political clout to facilitate enabling legislation as needed, and first-hand knowledge of what was needed. President Clinton and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) brought to the partnership a commitment to assist Tedros’ priorities and their network, which provided sources money, expertise, and credibility.[9]
[5]	Morsi’s top aide apologized for the “unintended embarrassment” and his cabinet released a statement promoting “good neighborliness, mutual respect and the pursuit of joint interests without either party harming the other.”... Morsi reportedly believes that is better to engage Ethiopia rather than attempt to force them.	Morsi's top aide apologized for the "unintended embarrassment" and his cabinet released a statement promoting "“good neighborliness, mutual respect and the pursuit of joint interests without either party harming the other.” Morsi reportedly believes that is better to engage Ethiopia rather than attempt to force them

This is enough to demonstrate that this article is built with a considerable amount of content copied from its sources, which is not permitted under our policies. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked documents.

I am blanking it, because it must be rewritten from scratch if we are to retain it given the pervasive copying throughout. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I debowled the article and removed the vast majority of the factual content beyond basic facts. This should really resolve the copyvio content- it is little more than a stub! --Simfan34 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Goodwill ambassador

Should there not be a remark that Adhanom Ghebreyesus proposed just of all Robert Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador for the WHO ?! WTH did he think?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.159.9.27 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Because that was added on 21 October 2017. Neil S. Walker (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has removed the section about Robert Mugabe, with an edit summary: "The coverage of Mugabe's nomination as good will is unnecessary as the decision was reversed within 24 hours." It was actually 4 days, during which time the appointment attracted global condemnation and news coverage, as well as criticism from multiple government bodies. Clearly a significant issue which should remain. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

libelous content

Saying there is a petition against Tedros is libel. REMOVE content! Tedros predicted a possible pandemic in 2018 so was VERY prepared!... read this speech he gave and correct article otherwise I'll correct it when I finish work tonight https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2018/pandemic-free-world/en/ Veryscarymary (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Before you attempt to "correct" anything, please consider familiarizing yourself with the elements of libel. Or at least the definition of the word. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia editing rules. You won't be "correcting" anything on this page without consensus. 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tags

Please advise if the tags can come off this entry after recent edits? At least the one at the top. S T C Jones (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I went ahead and took the tags off as no one responded or objected. I think that the contributions to the page have made the tags unnecessary now, hopefully. Hope that's the consensus. Thanks so much. S T C Jones (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

The link to Soumya Swaminathan in the table listing the WHO office deputies should actually be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soumya_Swaminathan_(scientist) and not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soumya_Swaminathan 86.96.28.47 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. RudolfRed (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwanese

change ((Taiwanese)) to ((Taiwan))ese 2601:541:4500:1760:355E:D1B0:B8B8:D14D (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This fix is already done. RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Handling of Coronavirus

What on earth is going on here? This article is starting to look like a political hit piece. The accusation that "Tedros overlooked the Chinese government's attempts to suppress information" is backed up by a citation to an article that doesn't mention the WHO or Tedros at all. Incendiary statements like this surely must qualified, and if stated as bare fact must be backed up by some very good citations. --Tomthepom (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we have some information detailing how he's handling the Coronavirus outbreak? It's become a pandemic now -- as a layman, I don't know if he had any power to stymie its growth, (I do note that there is some controversy about coverups of outbreaks in Ethiopia while he was in charge there..). Is there relevant, qualified commentary that talks about this? 185.125.226.42 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect citation in this sentence "He faced significant criticism for what is seen as inadequate handling of the pandemic, including the late declaration of a public health emergency.". The Hill article cited is talks about criticism for a delayed declaration of a "pandemic". There is no such criticism of a delayed declaration of a "public health emergency". Moreover, the link is an opinion piece. I recommend the whole sentence is removed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.122.98 (talk • contribs)

The authors of the opinion piece in The Hill are given, and they are recognized specialists. Since the opinion is not expressed in Wikipedia voice, it meets our requirements of WP:NPOV. I can name the specialists if you would like, but in the body, not the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned that Tedros was criticized by "World leaders" but not that the EU came to his defense? He is used as a scapegoat to make people think about something else than that several governments, including those of the US and the UK whose citizens likely form the majority of editors at wikipedia in English, ignored WHO advice to take COVID seriously for weeks. The Guardian has an insightful article about the role of the WHO during the crisis. [6] Supsudelu (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Education

What is this guy's education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I suggest you start by reading the article, in particular this section. Porridge (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Was the article written by Tedros’s PR agent? Based in Beijing?

It reads that way. Up to the point where he was nominated to be WHO head, anyone would think he walks on water. He doesn’t now, and having entered the Ministry of Health as a member of the Marxist-Leninist TPLF, it’s highly unlikely that he did. Who’s to know whether that fact influences his admiration for Xi. Boscaswell talk 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Worrying Political Attack

There is a very worrying tone throughout this article which reads like a political attack on the individual. I want to raise alarm that this content, which is inappropriate, misleading and one-sided, is doing a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation as a source of neutral content. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia documents what the reliable sources say about the topic. There is nothing called "one-sided" in Wikipedia policies. If there are other "sides" please present them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are one-sided rules please see WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. I've rewritten it. I dropped the NY Times referenced that doesn't even mention the WHO or Adhanom, and added the second side of things from the same BBC article that was already linked and was much more balanced than our coverage of it. - SimonP (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean you have actually read the BBC article, but missed the remark:

Such comments [of "effusive praise"] sit uneasily with the knowledge that China arrested health workers who first raised the alarm about the outbreak.

I am afraid you can't drop the NY Times article, which documents China's suppression of information, which Tedros overlooked. And, what did you make of the Wall Street Journal article, which says among others:

"The WHO's message that no, don't anybody panic, keep travel flowing, keep the borders open, and then saying that we support the Chinese government is a mixed message," said Kelley Lee, a professor at Canada's Simon Fraser University who wrote a book on the WHO and co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health.

And, your addition of the NPR source is pointless, because it doesn't establish that the WHO "long [called] on countries to take greater action". It only gives Tedros's claim that he had been calling for action. There is no information about what he had been caling for. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Again I think your BBC article is well balanced. It notes that "there are virologists and epidemiologists, some of whom say the WHO's advice to member states to adopt "robust, aggressive" containment measures is too feeble, and others who say the WHO is over-reacting." For the politics it acknowledges that the decision not to criticize member states of the WHO might create as many problems as it solves. For the NY Times piece, the core issue is that while there is much speculation, there isn't yet any proof that China misrepresented what was happening. Early in the epidemic, at the same time the WHO was praising China, so were most western scientists. For example [7] - SimonP (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Tedros was widely criticized by the public". What public? You mean only people in the racist West are people, while people in the rest of the world are brainwashed automatons don't count? 2601:644:8100:7930:709E:E3AE:9CB:F446 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that most criticism currently comes from first world countries many of which tend to be majority white, as these countries have far more international travel leading to a more rapid outbreak. The opinion of the public in African countries will change once they experience vast numbers of deaths in the coming weeks.

″Meanwhile, Dr Tedros has warned that the virus is now spreading rapidly in other countries. He highlighted Africa, where he said the virus had reached rural areas. "We are now seeing clusters of cases and community spread in more than 16 countries" on the continent, he said. "We anticipate severe hardship for already overstretched health systems, particularly in rural areas, which normally lack the resources of those in cities."″ 2A02:C7D:7662:BC00:3437:7B65:4B65:D4D (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Tedros had to be diplomatic with China to get information. The Guardian describes the process and its history with the previous SARS outbreak in detail, China held back information, Teros Adhanom personally flew there and finally got access for WHO to important information, 30 January the WHO declared a public health emergency of international concern and began issuing prescriptions to countries around the world. [8] Trump said there would be no pandemic on January 22, Feb. 10: “I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine.”, Feb. 24 (tweet): “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”, Feb. 28: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”, March 9 (tweet): “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” [9] Supsudelu (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you trying to deflect with Trump tweets? That is... "interesting". 207.216.153.13 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Attributing secret underlying motives to others, absent any evidence, is not a good way to get to the truth. This shouldn't be a surprise, but it turns out that media outlets in "first world" nations are staffed by people of many races, and employ journalists in countries all over the world. Also, the credibility and accuracy of a source isn't affected by the race of that source. Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. As the Director of the WHO, Dr. Tedros' actions are not immune from criticism simply because he is Ethiopian. Before you reflexively malign reliable sources as racist, xenophobic, bigoted, or having an underlying bias, please do the rest of us the favor of providing evidence.

2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:4123:F108:D1BB:E331 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the OP about the tone of the article. However, contrary to that, I am concerned that why we have made no mention of his controversial relationship with China and/or handling of coronavirus on lead. There should be some content about this on lead. CodeSlashh (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

there definitely needs to be a mention of his reference to the (dis)information which emanates from the Chinese Govt, the cover-ups, etc, and not just in the main body of the article. It’s extraordinary that a whole para is given over to his use of Taiwan as a smokescreen to deflect criticism. Fancy him doing that! Boscaswell talk 23:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanaitized his connection to Marxist regimes

This article sanitizes his connection to brutal Marxist regimes and their practices.

Also who sponsored his position to the WHO? That is not mentioned at all. SOmething is being hidden.24.139.24.163 (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

All the critics removed

Why all the criticism of this person was removed? They can only be found in the article history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tedros_Adhanom&oldid=951129960#Controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.67.29.61 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The criticism was not removed, but rather was incorporated into other sections to help follow WP:NPOV, as encouraged at WP:CSECTION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tedros Adhanom position attracted conspiracy theorists & they assigned him fictional roles in their silly covid-19 conspiracy theories. ToddGrande (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

First sentence: "Internationally recognized Microbiologist"

This is an unsourced claim on both counts. The current source refers to what seems to be Tedros' public health Master's thesis, which is not even proximate to the field of microbiology.

What are the standards for someone to be "internationally recognized"? It doesn't appear that Tedros Adhanom known for his academic work; if he is merely recognized due to his current appointment in the WHO, a different source would seem to be necessary.2600:1702:6F0:1690:A58D:83DE:F2C6:7CFF (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the phrase "microbiologist and internationally recognized malaria researcher" with "public health researcher and official", which I think better summarizes the body of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The article has a promotional tone and reads like an advertisement (justification for the template message)

I have just added a template:advertisement message at the top of the article because it is too promotional in tone and substance, often reading like a public relations document, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Many sentences read like the listing of achievements featured in political documents, and rely on a small number of sources, often of political or quasi-political nature, including Tedros himself:

• Tedros_Adhanom#Early_career: this section mostly reads like a list of achievements, and cites one source, the Bureau of Health of the National Regional State of Tigray, which Tedros headed.
• Tedros Adhanom#AIDS : this paragraph paints a very positive picture of Mr. Tedros' action against AIDS as Health Minister by relying on a single reference, a news report from Ethiopian news organisation aigaforum.com. The paragraph features such wording as "The wide range of media campaigns to inform the public about the disease has definitely paid off as it has helped achieve behavioral change". This is not encyclopaedic writing.
• Tedros Adhanom#Tuberculosis: this paragraph says that Tedros' action "resulted in improvement of performance and the achievement of the TB MDG targets ahead of the target time." Again, the passage reads like a press release, and no citation this time.
• Tedros_Adhanom#Family_planning : this paragraph cites one source, a speech by Tedros himself !
• Tedros_Adhanom#Agenda_2063_of_Africa_Union : this paragraph includes no reference, while praising Tedros' actions in unencyclopaedic terms: "[Tedros'] leadership and skills in conflict resolution have also helped resolve regional disputes—such as the agreement between the Federal Government of Somalia and Jubaland Political Actors—which was critical to improving the delivery of health services and protecting the safety and security of Somali citizens".
• Tedros_Adhanom#Director-General_of_World_Health_Organization_(2017–present): "His election was historic".

These examples demonstrate a pervasive problem throughout the article, hence the template message. Hopefully the matter can be resolved in a reasonable time frame, given that the article isn't very long and receives a certain amount of attention at the moment. Fa suisse (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've addressed some of these issues, but work is still needed, especially in adding citations and removing anything that can't be cited. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at the first item (early career: selective highlighting of stats from a primary, not independent source, and WP:OR implication that the article subject has to be credited for these changes - a typical technique in promotional resumes of political and corporate leaders). A few others remain unresolved. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB, Fa suisse, and Mx. Granger: I removed the template, but HaeB added it back. Going through the article more thoroughly, I actually think the template is justified: this article isn't written in an encyclopedic manner.

That said, HaeB I strongly disagree with this edit on your part [10] that misrepresents the sources being cited and the record of both Adhanom and the WHO's response. For instance these Reuters and BBC sources [11][12] document some of the WHO's early responses: an "Emergency Committee of 16 independent experts" decides there's not yet a PHEIC on the 23rd while Adhanom states "Make no mistake, though, this is an emergency in China;" a week later with 98 cases but no deaths in other countries, the WHO declares a PHEIC. But HaeB the text you've added breaks down these events in a manner that suggests to the reader that the WHO was dragging its feet, and that Adhanom "stated afterwards" something to justify his decisions — insinuations that aren't supported by the sources.

Similarly, the text you've added cites this Reuters source [13] and emphasizes that Adhanom recommended against undue travel restrictions, but your text removes the second statement quoted from Adhanom: "We call on all countries to implement decisions that are evidence-based and consistent." Your text indicates that Adhanom and the WHO were somehow opposed to public health responses when both these recommendations are based on the International Health Regulations (IHR) instrument of 2005, the text of which was drafted in part by the United States [14]. So readers walk away understanding only half of what Adhanom said and without any explanation of them, likely having a false impression of the rationales behind the WHO's actions.

Then the text you've added cites this BBC article [15] to paraphrase from Georgetown professor Lawrence Gostin. In your text, according to Gostin "Tedros' strategy on China was a more politically strategic one, rather than a critical approach." However, this misrepresents Gostin's statements in the article. Quoting directly:

"His strategy is to coax China to transparency and international co-operation rather than criticising the government."

"I was one of the first to ask him to call a PHEIC. Having said that, it was only a short delay and I don't think the timing had any impact on the trajectory of Covid-19... I do worry quite a bit however that his effusive praise for China could in the long term tarnish the WHO's reputation as a trusted scientific authority willing to speak truth to power."

Prof Gostin believes Dr Tedros has become "the symbol of leadership" in the course of the coronavirus crisis. But, he warns, the WHO's "fundamental weaknesses are still there, including pitiful funding."

Relating comments from other experts as well, the BBC summarizes: "So while Dr Tedros may be political, a lot of that political effort seems to be spent reassuring authoritarian, opaque governments, in a bid to get them to work with the WHO to tackle diseases which threaten global health. When it comes to perceiving how that effort may be viewed by governments in Western democracies, his political skills may not be quite so sharp." The BBC's summary is far more accurate and nuanced than ours.

Lastly, the text devoted to Taiwan is way too long.

We need to represent these sources and issues accurately. I'm going to reinstate my earlier edits with modifications that try to address some of the concerns you listed in your edit summary. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article has had an interesting history, with some edits resembling a CV and other edits resembling an attack page or WP:COATRACK. I have tried to fix the worst of these problems, but more work is still needed. Thanks for working on it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank to all for the constructive inputs ! Fa suisse (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic section talk

@Thucydides411: Please explain how relaying what is directly stated in reliable sources is a "POV" addition. If there are other views to be added to the article, in favor of Tedros'/WHO's response, they should be added and I am not remotely opposed to them. But, simply deleting sourced data (that I carefully attempted to keep neutral, and stuck to the sourcing) doesn't seem proper. Is there a resolution we can come to here? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: How would you word the data? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I made what I thought was a compromise edit and only added back the BND report accusation and WHO response... this was again reverted with the claim it was a "POV" addition. This type of behavior is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere, and it in no way is working towards building consensus. I'm disappointed by these actions, as I gave User:Thucydides411 over 8 hours to respond to my request for a discussion here. Does anyone else see an issue with the edit? I'm entirely lost how presenting factual data, with both sides equally weighted, is considered in any way not neutral. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My objection is to focusing the CoVID-19 section almost entirely on various attacks made on Tedros Adhanom, with little attention to the general overview of what he (and the WHO) have done during pandemic. The section is looking more and more like an accumulation of attacks, which does not represent the general view of performance of the WHO by the public health community.

The addition based on the WSJ article has a number of problems. First, it gives the impression that public health experts generally criticize the WHO's statements on travel restrictions, when the WHO's statements are actually in line with the international consensus (based on the International Health Regulations of 2005). Representing these criticisms as coming from "many individuals closely familiar with the WHO," without mentioning the countervailing, dominant position in the global health community (opposing travel restrictions) gives an unbalanced view. Reactions among public health experts about the decision on 23 January not to declare a PHEIC were mixed (e.g., a top figure in the British public health community, Tom Solomon, gives a more nuanced view of the decision here), much like the emergency committee itself was split on the matter.

The addition based on Der Spiegel is highly questionable. Der Spiegel sources it vaguely to the BND, and the claim itself is implausible - the Chinese government announced human-to-human transmission before this conversation supposedly took place. For such an important - and dubious - claim, I'd like to see confirmation from other news sources. Preferably, these sources would not have an axe to grind (as in the case of Taiwan News). Again, think of the larger context of this section. It is supposed to describe Tedros' actions during the pandemic. The point of the section is not to detail a litany of accusations against Tedros, however marginal or implausible.

I think that criticisms of Tedros should be included in the section, but they should be precise, and the bulk of the section should give a general overview of what Tedros (and the WHO) have actually done during the pandemic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit about many individuals closely familiar with the WHO, comes directly from this line in the WSJ story:

Many people who work, or have worked, with the organization, and who study its operations, say that in not declaring a global health emergency earlier, the agency gave too much weight to China’s concerns that the move would damage its economy and its leadership’s image. By praising China’s response effusively, the WHO is compromising its own epidemic response standards, eroding its global authority, and sending the wrong message to other countries that might face future epidemics, they say.

In no way did I misrepresent that source. The WSJ is considered a highly reputable source, and your statements here about that somehow not aligning with some form of other international opinion appears to be entirely original research. So, I would ask you to present sources that show that "the countervailing, dominant position in the global health community" have been "opposing travel restrictions" (especially considering that almost every nation, including China's close ally Russia, implemented broad travel restrictions in response to the pandemic). I would also ask you to present sources that state experts believe the delay in declaring it a global health emergency was the correct course of action, if you can find those they should certainly be added alongside the WSJ data.

I also included multiple sources that covered the Der Spiegel story on the BND report, including the NY Post. Cherrypicking Taiwan News is highly a highly dubious way to claim this hasn't been covered. But if it's more sources you need, here you go: Indian Express, Asia Times, Daily Telegraph, The Week, Global Times (a Chinese publication even), Associated Press (do they also have an axe to grind?), Times of India, and the WHO itself. Those were able to be located within a search of less than 5 minutes. It is highly clear to anyone impartial that those are more than enough sources to include this in the article. It would be different if the BND report had only made an accusation about the WHO, but it specifically made allegations (that have been widely reported) about Tedros himself. I continue to believe this needs to be included, impartially with both sides (accusation and denials) given weight. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned Taiwan News because you cited it. I could equally have referred to the NY Post, which is a News Corp tabloid, or to the Australian Daily Telegraph, likewise a News Corp tabloid. The sourcing for this entire claim is an article by Der Spiegel, which vaguely cites the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).

I would ask you to present sources that show that "the countervailing, dominant position in the global health community" have been "opposing travel restrictions" (especially considering that almost every nation, including China's close ally Russia, implemented broad travel restrictions in response to the pandemic). There is a contradiction between what the global public health community says about travel restrictions and how countries actually respond to pandemics. The International Health Regulations (2005) strongly discourage travel restrictions, and require all travel restrictions to be grounded in scientific evidence. The Lancet published a letter by public health experts on 13 February 2020 that explained how travel restrictions imposed by many countries violate the IHR: [16]. This is the context of the WHO's statements about travel restrictions. Tedros' and the WHO's statements were completely in line with the IHR - and that fact is widely acknowledged in the public health community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Murdoch owned tabloid style newspapers on their own would potentially not be sufficient. However, when combined with the entirely similar reporting in several other reliable sources, it is clear that the information is reliable and verifiable. The Associated Press is one of the most trusted news sources we use here, and Der Spiegel (the originating news org) is by no means an unreliable source either. In fact, Der Spiegel is listed at WP:RS/P as a source that has been found by community consensus to be reliable. There's also this coverage in The Telegraph (another source found reliable by the community at WP:RS/P), as well as this reporting by the NZ Herald (the most circulated newspaper in New Zealand). If the WHO itself (linked in my prior comment) even found this to be something worthy of responding to, and those very reliable sources found it notable to report, I don't think there's a good reason for excluding this data. If you want to propose a different way to potentially word the way we cover it, I'm all ears. But, I will note I think the version I had created was highly neutral and explained shortly what the BND claims their intel shows and how the WHO denied the accusation (including the date of their announcement of the human-to-human transmission). To me it seemed fair, but I'm still willing to see what ideas you might have. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The BND has not claimed anything about a phone call, to my knowledge. They have not released any report (as your version claimed), and they have refused to comment on the issue. Der Spiegel claims that the BND knows such a phone call took place, but how Der Spiegel knows this is unclear. The claim is implausible on its face, given the well-known timeline of when China announced the existence of human-to-human transmission (before the supposed phone call). The WHO's denial has gotten some coverage, which might make the entire thing notable, but in this short section, I think inclusion would violate WP:WEIGHT. Any inclusion would have to attribute the claim to Der Spiegel, and would have to include the context and the WHO's denials. By then, you're at three sentences, which is way out of proportion to the length of the section - all for one poorly sourced and dubious accusation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are entirely red-herrings. Der Spiegel is referencing an intelligence agency's assessment of a situation, based off of what the agency specializes in: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (and analysis of those). Der Spiegel didn't just source the claim to an unnamed individual, they sourced it to an entire agency... which is why it is plainly clear it was the product of an intel report. It would be no different if new medical conclusions to something were stated by the WHO, we would merely say the WHO said xyz. No one has to agree that the data from BND is correct for them to have produced such data, but claiming the source is unclear is a clear misrepresentation. If the Associated Press, Telegraph, and Der Spiegel was able to report on this, without your claimed confusion, I think you're trying to insert your personal views as sourcing the encyclopedia should rely on now. If you truly think AP, Telegraph and Der Spiegel are not reliable sources, I suggest you open up a new discussion at WP:RSN regarding them... because the current consensus is those sources are reliable, and should be trusted for data in our articles. "The claim is implausible on its face" is also absolutely you inserting your own opinions into this decision, and I'd ask you to stop doing that too. We are supposed to rely on reliable sources to decide whether something is factual, plausible etc... not our own personal whims. I think the AP, et al., entirely summed up both sides neutrally, and notably. It is up to readers to decide what seems the most plausible to them. But, as it seems you're entirely opposed to data being added about this regardless of how many reliable sources have discussed it, I think I'll be moving on to the next steps in the WP:DR process. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: I'm willing to work with you to improve the section on CoVID-19, which I think is in a pretty sorry state right now. I think some of the criticism of the WHO and Tedros Adhanom should certainly be discussed. I think, however, that the section should focus on a general overview of the actions and statements of Tedros and the WHO, and the criticisms should be presented in context (e.g., the International Health Regulations' rules on travel restrictions, which, although violated by many countries, were the basis for the WHO's recommendations). I can't do that much today, but I can work over the next few days on this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to work together on this. It definitely shouldn't become a coatrack of criticisms, but currently there's very little actual criticism in the section. I count literally only a single sentence currently, even though there are several reliable news sources [not yet listed in the article] reporting on different politicians and public health experts giving Tedros flak. Here's some of the reliable sources that should likely be looked at (in conjunction with the current sourcing in the article, or any additional sourcing such as Nature [mentioned below by Darouet]): The New York Times, The Atlantic, another article by Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, Nikkei, The Irish Times, Rolling Stone, CNBC, Vox. Almost all of those cover the differing nuances of what powers the WHO has, how Tedros has been defended and praised by some public health experts (and some politicians) for overall handling of the crisis, but has drawn criticism for the WHO's actions in their relationship with China (yet also some defenses or coverage on how China obscuring data is more to blame). So, I think there's a fair way to include more critical coverage of Tedros (and additional praises not yet mentioned), while also ensuring we cover the nuances of the WHO's political climate, and the complicated relationship Tedros has to navigate between the WHO and China covered by these sources (all context we provide should be directly drawn from the reliable sources the data is coming from, and without synthesis). I think we can accomplish that without making the section overly cumbersome (nor a coatrack), while keeping it fair and accurate to the level we like to aim for with BLPs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: I agree with Coffee and decided to separate sections so that criticism and praise are not overlapping.@Thucydides411: you just reverted his NPOV commit without coming to a concensus here. Is this an edit war? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: You've just reinstated a contested paragraph that is under active discussion. See the related discussion linked to below (Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#The_German_intelligence_information_about_Xi_Jinping_ordering_the_WHO_to_withhold_information). Short-circuiting the discussion and reinserting the contested material without consensus could be considered edit warring. You were just blocked for this behavior, and were unblocked on the understanding that you would avoid edit warring. I'll give you some time to revert yourself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: My bad It seemed that we were two people here agreeing against one and that it was the sensible way to go. I reverted my edits. Thanks for the notice. I just saw the time stamps of your last consecutive two reverts and it seemed like you did it without concensus on a NPOV paragraph. I hope I will be able to help you come to a concensus. I go away now, maybe we can talk about this is your talk page? I already left a message and didn't receive an answer.

@PhysiqueUL09: Thank you for self-reverting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I think I just unknowingly did my first BRD! Nice! I wanted to continue a bit in here because it striked me odd that you did two reverts back to back without trying to communicate here. It appeared to me that a concensus was not achieved but we need the discussion to move on. What I wonder is, because I am new, how could any resolution come in that case if there is always someone to revert the changes and ask for cencensus. It seems to me that little progress could be achieved if by example, out of the top of my head, someone where to cover multiple pages about a subject and reverting changes that disagree with his opinion and ask for a concensus that could never be reached because a friend is helping him with arguments in the same direction of his opinion? If that situation where to happen I think it would be bad for the natural process of wikipedia editing. What do you think a situation like that would imply? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: How would you deal with a situation where there is appearance of a concerted effort to preserve the status quo? Who would you need to contact in order to address such a problem? Thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this issue at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, here [17]. -Darouet (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect to the recent edits, I'll point out that a designated criticism section is usually not a good idea. Instead, positive and negative commentary should both be included, with WP:DUEWEIGHT. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely agree, and you'll not see me advocating for a lengthy list of criticisms either. I do think we should list both critical views and praise, however, in the section dedicated to coverage of him during the pandemic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I just changed a small bit because it was assuming that all African leaders approved Tedros, when only two did. And I don't think that the president of the AU spoke for all of the African leaders. I want to remind you that Morocco is not a member of the African Union. Please discuss before reverting. Maybe we could say that AU leaders did spoke for him. Rephrasing this sentence. But as I wrote it now, it is true. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted my edit, I found out that Morocco had rejoined the AU in 2017. I must admit that my AU knowledge was limited. I wanted to talk more about the POV issue. @Darouet: @Thucydides411: can you please re-state why do you think the german intelligence report and the multiple sources that Coffee can be seen as a point of view? From what I see, the requirement for criticism is pretty high, with the only criticism having something like 5 sources and the AU praise having only one. I think we should be removing this praise as there seems to be a lack of references compared to the criticism stated just before it. I think that, for now, we should at least put some space between those paragraphs because it looks like a counter argument when placed directly after which might be seen as a POV when placed that way. Also, can you tell me why the AU argument is not seen as a POV from the AU. I think it very much is, making your POV argument pretty weak. Please comment PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Include it See my thoughts Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, here [18]. @Coffee: do you agree with me? We should start defining the concensus now. If Coffee agrees, it makes two of us against @Thucydides411: because Darouet did not include any argument in this page. I also think that if the article passes on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic it makes it automatically legit here, a global concensus being reached. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I do agree entirely it should be included, as it is well and highly sourced, but I do want to wait a bit before declaring any form of consensus (that will need to be decided by an WP:UNINVOLVED admin at any rate). There isn't an urgent need to include the data, there's just an urgent need to discuss its potential inclusion. So, if there isn't more input from additional individuals within a few days, I'll be opening this discussion up to an RFC (where users from across the site are invited to participate). I do thank you for your input, and hope that we will in time come to a collaborative end to this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: Thanks, I am still learning about the concensus process, that's why I just asked you a question on the matter on your talk page. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Include. I also think that the information from the German and United States intelligence services about the phone call between Tedros and Xi Jinping should be included. David A (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was told that there is a discussion here regarding something that we talked about in the main COVID-19 epidemic page. Here are some articles regarding allegations from German and United States intelligence agencies:

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/corona-krise-bundesregierung-zweifelt-an-us-these-zur-entstehung-des-coronavirus-a-51add7cf-96b6-4d04-a2d0-71ce27cff69c

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/coronavirus-who-china-xi-jinping-tedros-adhanom-phone-call-6402951/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8304471/Chinas-president-Xi-Jinping-personally-requested-delay-COVID-19-pandemic-warning.html

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1187877.shtml

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-cia-believes-china-tried-stop-who-alarm-pandemic-1503565

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/05/13/covid-19-after-german-intelligence-now-cia-believes-china-tried-to-coerce-who.html

David A (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"connection between Tedros and the CCP" is getting into WP:BLP violation territory, don't you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I have reworded the text. David A (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

Change "On January 23, 2019, the WHO stated the novel coronavirus did not yet rise to the level of an international emergency, but that the organization was closely tracking the virus' evolution" to "On January 23, 2020, the WHO stated the novel coronavirus did not yet rise to the level of an international emergency, but that the organization was closely tracking the virus' evolution" Na gomes5 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Nature's reporting on Tedros

The scientific journal Nature has been a great resource to consult on coronavirus in the past few months, and since they host significant news and opinion sections that reflects the views of scientists internationally, I decided I'd see what they've been writing about the WHO director general. I think this is important in the context of a pandemic: sticking closer to WP:MEDRS and avoiding WP:MEDPOP that may "often convey wrong or misleading information about health care."

Besides containing a bio [19] that can help us clean up earlier sections of this article that I suspect are highly redundant, Nature also has dozens of articles mentioning Tedros and a news timeline that references him repeatedly [20].

Nature — Coronavirus: the first three months as it happened

• NEWS 22 APRIL 2020, [21]. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00154-w.

• 22 January, the WHO postpones deciding whether to declare a PHEIC, a step it reserves for events that pose a risk to multiple countries and that requires a coordinated international response. Nature explains that the WHO's decision is based on a convening of a committee of experts meant to respond to the crisis, and then cites Tedros. “This is an evolving and complex situation,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a press conference after the meeting.

• 23 January, the WHO does not declare PHEIC: “At this time there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China,” said WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “That doesn’t mean it won't happen.” The WHO committee that considered whether to declare a global emergency — the agency’s highest level of alarm — met for two days before issuing its verdict. The panel decided against the declaration in part because the virus’s rate of spread between humans remains unknown. According to the WHO and Tedros, this decision is based on the lack of known human-to-human transmission outside China. Tedros adds, “For now, it appears limited to family groups and health workers caring for infected patients,” Tedros said.

• 30 January, the WHO declares a PHEIC. The organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said his main concern was that the outbreak could spread to countries with fragile health systems. Nature explains why a PHEIC was not declared earlier: The WHO considered declaring the coronavirus a global emergency last week, but ultimately decided against the move. At that time, only one country outside China — Vietnam — had confirmed person-to-person transmission of the virus within its borders. The article then relates Tedros' praise of China in handling the outbreak: Tedros praised China for its handling of the outbreak, and recommended against restricting international trade with, and travel to, the country. “This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China,” he said. “This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.” Nature writes that experts consider the WHO's actions so far to have been correct: Alexandra Phelan, a global-health lawyer at Georgetown University in Washington DC, praised Tedros’s decision and message. “Historically, a PHEIC is seen as an alert to all countries,” she says. “But this focus on countries with weak health systems highlights the obligation of wealthier countries with stronger health systems to help them prepare for potential cases.”

• 12 February, the WHO announce global research priorities for handling COVID-19. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke about the importance of developing candidate therapeutics and easy-to-apply diagnostics for identifying active, asymptomatic and resolved infections... Tedros encouraged research into preventing the transmission of zoonotic diseases — which originate in animals — to stem future outbreaks of this type.

• 18 February, Tedros notes that new infections appear to be declining in China, but urges caution in interpretation of the data. “It’s too early to tell if this new reported decline will continue,” he said. “Every scenario is still on the table.”

• 24 February, cases in Italy, South Korea, and the Middle East are increasing. At a meeting two days earlier, Tedros expresses concern: “The increasing signs of transmission outside China show that the window of opportunity we have for containing this virus is narrowing,” he said. The WHO holds a press briefing where Tedros announces that COVID-19 is not yet a pandemic, a decision supported by Mike Ryan, the WHO emergencies program director. “Using the word pandemic now does not fit the facts, but it may cause fear,” said WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “For the moment, we are not witnessing the uncontained global spread of this coronavirus, and we are not witnessing large-scale severe disease or death,” said Tedros. “Does this virus have pandemic potential? Absolutely. Are we there yet? From our assessment, not yet.”

• 2 March, WHO raises its global alert for COVID-19 to "very high," a level just below pandemic. Nature explains that the assessment is based on the work of WHO epidemiologists who are monitoring the disease spread globally. Mike Ryan explains that by declaring a pandemic, the WHO will be concluding that efforts to contain and slow down the spread of the virus have failed, which has proved to be untrue in China, Singapore and other regions. Infectious disease researcher Nigel McMillan states The WHO is being overly cautious in not declaring a pandemic. According to Nature, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, said at the briefing that most cases were linked and could still be traced to known contacts or clusters, with no evidence of the virus spreading freely in communities. “As long as that is the case, we still have a chance of containing this virus, if robust action is taken to detect cases early, isolate and care for patients and trace contacts,” said Tedros.

• 11 March, the WHO declares a pandemic. Tedros says this will not change the WHO's strategy for handling the virus. “WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction,” said Tedros... “Describing the situation as a pandemic does not change WHO’s assessment of the threat posed by this coronavirus. It doesn’t change what WHO is doing, and it doesn’t change what countries should do,” he said. “Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.” Tedros adds that the crisis will affect every sector of society, and that all people must be involved in stopping the virus.

Additional reporting from Nature

• News 25 February, [22], doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00551-1. This is a great article that I think can serve as a framework for how we approach the question of how and when COVID-19 should have been declared a pandemic. The spread of the new coronavirus could soon become unstoppable, say scientists who are concerned about a rapid surge in the number and size of outbreaks outside China. Some are even muttering the p-word: pandemic. The article describes the virus' spread so far, new measures that may be needed, and reiterates the WHO's reasoning in not declaring a pandemic at this point. But other scientists including Harvard professor Marc Lipsitch argue a pandemic has arrived. “Whatever WHO says, I think the epidemiological conditions for a pandemic are met,” says Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “Under almost any reasonable definition of pandemic, there’s now evidence of it happening.” A CDC director, Nancy Messonnier, says of impending community spread in the US, “It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen. Lipsitch and other scientists agree that China's containment measures have been successful, but Lipsitch and Ben Cowling, an epidemiologist from Hong Kong, fear these measures won't be feasible in other countries with fewer resources. Nature writes, The WHO’s decision to hold off describing the global outbreaks as a ‘pandemic’ was based in part on data showing that infections in China had peaked between 23 January and 2 February and that control measures, such as the partial lockdown of cities including Wuhan, where the virus originated, had worked to prevent new cases. David Heymann, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, states that "way too much" emphasis is being placed “...on a pandemic. I think what’s important is a basic understanding of outbreaks and how to deal with them.”

• Nature Briefing 11 March [23]. The WHO declares a pandemic and decries alarming levels of inaction by governments in what should be the effort to stop the spread of COVID-19. Tedros states: "There’s been so much attention on one word. Let me give you some other words that matter much more, & that are much more actionable: Prevention. Preparedness. Public health. Political leadership. And most of all, People.”

• Nature Editorial 17 March [24], doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00772-4. Nature calls on the global community to follow the advice of the WHO, cooperate globally, and put an end to secrecy in decision making. Nature notes that the US and UK have been making important decisions in secret, and that both countries have failed to follow the WHO's advice to aggressively test, track and isolate as many cases of COVID-19 as possible. Nature adds that no government can match the WHO’s cumulative on-the-ground experience — and lessons learnt — in dealing with outbreaks and criticizes the US and UK for failing to conduct testing. Nature then quotes Tedros. It is rare for the WHO to criticize member countries that are among its largest donors, but director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was unequivocal when he said last week: “The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.” He added: “You can’t fight a virus if you don’t know where it is. That means robust surveillance to find, isolate, test and treat every case, to break the chains of transmission.” This week, he reiterated the point: “The most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate. You cannot fight a fire blindfolded. And we cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected.”

• News 20 March, [25], doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00823-w. This article notes that US scientists are upset that the US is not aggressively conducting contact tracing and testing. Nature again quotes from WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stating that the world should be using contact tracing and testing. “We cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected,” he said. “You cannot fight a fire blindfolded.”

• News 3 April, [26], doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01010-7. The WHO declares that it wants more African nations to participate in international studies of possible COVID-19 treatments. Tedros describes the goal of the program, which is called SOLIDARITY.

• Editorial 17 April, [27], doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01121-1. Nature condemns the US decision to withdraw funding from the WHO, which Nature says for months has guided the world in how to tackle the deadly coronavirus. Nature notes that in the past, the WHO has sometimes been accused of acting either too slowly, or of overstating risks, during past epidemics. But Nature notes that in this case, it began its emergency response to COVID-19 the day after being informed of the pneumonia case cluster on 31 December. Nature notes that while the WHO issued many important guidances and has led critical programs to respond to COVID-19 since that time, the US has not followed the WHO's recommendations, even after "pleading" from WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Nature writes, But the Trump administration chose not to follow the WHO’s advice. Instead, influential lawmakers have been calling for an investigation into the WHO’s actions, claiming that the agency was too slow to sound the alarm and too deferential to the Chinese government. At the same time, they are implicating the WHO in wider questions being directed at China’s government. These include that China could have acted more quickly to lock down in the days after the first outbreak, and that public officials withheld important information. Such questions must be asked of China, but they are not for the WHO — which acts at the behest of governments — to answer. And they are not reasons to de-fund the agency.

Discussion

@Coffee, Thucydides411, and Sdkb: My recommendation is that whatever sources we cite, this section of the article follow the overall framework and editorial outlook of the journal Nature. The journal has written a lot about the WHO and Tedros' responses to the COVID-19 crisis and I think it's fair to say that their perspective will approximate that of scientific and medical professionals globally. -Darouet (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to follow WP:MEDRS for biographical information. However, I do think Nature's reporting should be a good resource for determining WP:DUEWEIGHT in this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should exclude non-MEDRS, but given the importance of MEDRS in our coverage of the pandemic, I agree that it offers the best resource for determining WP:DUEWEIGHT, and think it provides a strong rubric for determining appropriate point of view, and needed content. -Darouet (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This sourcing from Nature should definitely be included to a large extent somehow, but I don't think we as an encyclopedia have to follow a scientific journal's framework (or give them undue weight) in any biography. If we're discussing facts of the novel coronavirus itself or scientifically proven mitigation efforts/treatments/vaccines etc, MEDRS would play a large role in that coverage (even in parts of this article). But, coverage on Tedros' handling of the WHO during the pandemic and public response (or any other biographical information) in a non-MEDRS (yet still RS) should hold the same amount of weight as any MEDRS source that happens to discuss it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not plausible that a newspaper like the WSJ would have expertise equivalent to Nature when evaluating the efficacy of the WHO's actions or the soundness of their judgement when organizing public health responses in the face of a pandemic. -Darouet (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the WSJ article? It isn't an editorial opinion by the WSJ, they are sourcing the article from "many" individuals who "work, or have worked, with the organization, and who study its operations". Using your personal opinion, to decide Nature (or journal equivalents) is somehow more reliable when discussing biographical data and public responses to a person's/organization's actions, would appear to be a case of WP:OR (and something entirely not backed up by any current policy). If you have a reliable source that says only Nature (or equivalents) can be trusted for claims made about the WHO and individuals inside the org, please feel free to present it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: it's my impression that we're arguing past each other. Will reply more tomorrow. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: Yes I have read the WSJ article. I think it has a lot of valuable material should be used at the WHO article to cover a portion of this PHEIC timing controversy. I think it should be used here to cover other aspects of Tedros' response to the virus (per the WSJ article: Tedros' comments on IHR, on meeting with Xi, and his views on Chinese universal health coverage). I think the PHEIC controversy should also be in this bio, but I'm not sure the WSJ is the best source for that.

I stand by my statement, that you didn't directly address, that Nature is in a better position to evaluate the medical efficacy of the WHO's public health actions and declarations than the WSJ.

I'm also not sure if the reference to WP:OR is really appropriate for a talk page discussion of best sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that for non-MEDRS claims, both the WSJ and Nature are reliable sources and can be cited. For information about public health, Nature is probably more reliable. I also think that for making broad editorial decisions about giving WP:DUEWEIGHT in health-related articles, Nature should be a good resource. (That's not to say it's the only source we should cite—absolutely not! But rather, it's a good resource for deciding how to frame our summaries and how much weight to give various points of view.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that for anything related to public health, journals like Nature and The Lancet are more reliable than the WSJ (and other newspapers). There are quite technical questions involved in public health decisions, and reporting accurately on them requires familiarity both with scientific research (e.g., epidemiology) and with the details of public health bureaucracies/policies/treaties. Most newspapers do a poor job of reporting on these issues. You get much more informed coverage in scientific journals (sometimes in their editorial sections) and some news sources that specialize in public health. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So, from this discussion there is no consensus to treat Nature and The Lancet as more reliable than any other reliable source regarding biographical data. I think we should open this up to a broader audience with an RFC, because I don't think the majority of our community believes medical journals get some sort of preference over the WSJ or NYT when it comes to BLPs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite a summary of what's been written above. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears accurate to me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Genocide charge

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-chief-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-may-face-genocide-charges-2fbfz7sff Any idea where to best put this into the article? "An American economist nominated for the Nobel peace prize has called for the head of the World Health Organisation to be prosecuted for genocide over his alleged involvement in directing Ethiopia’s security forces." Mbsyl (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemma

Why is Ghebreyesus omitted in the lemma? There is no reason. A lot of other national versions do not do this. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Too much advertising

Much of the career chapters contain way too much about what he urged, wanted, promoted, asked, .... it's tiring. After a while, it felt like a pushing self-advert. - How about focus only on what he actually achieved ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.133.10 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Covering-up origin of COVID-19 at behest of PRC?

There also appears to be evidence that he is responsible for a cover up around Covid, essentially a puppet to China. None of this is reflected in the article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-the-who-and-the-power-grab-that-fuelled-a-pandemic-3mt05m06n Simonadams (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It would help expand our article if you could provide clear, unequivocal and reliable sourcing for that allegation. Our policy is that the citations need to be impeccable for negative material inserted in the biography of a living person. --01:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

Ghebreyesus name

I think some brief discussion or explanation of Tedros's name Ghebreyesus is required in this article. Every item listed in the section Selected works and publications, with three exceptions, is credited as "Ghebreyesus, Tedros Adhanom". The three exceptions all refer to him as "Adhanom, Tedros", and none use "Tedros" as his proper patronymic. This situation is confusing to readers who consistently find the name "Ghebreyesus" associated with the WHO or Covid in current news articles. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Further to this point,

• 1. it is obvious that in the infobox, although in Latin script his name is given as simply Tedros Adhanom, immediately below that in Tigrinya language script his full name is rendered Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; and
• 2. given that English language references to him much more frequently include the name Ghebreyesus, WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that the article title should properly be moved to include all three names - regardless of whether or not this may be "incorrect" in some sense.

I am tempted to move the page myself to include his third name, but prefer to get some feedback to these suggestions first. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally would have no objection to such a move but perhaps first canvas at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethiopia (where a list of active members can also be found) ? BushelCandle 09:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My impression from looking at a few news articles is that most sources use the full name ("Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus"), so on that basis I would weakly support a move. Asking at WikiProject Ethiopia sounds like a reasonable idea, though ultimately we should probably use the WP:COMMONNAME based on English-language RSs. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(arriving from WikiProject Ethiopia) I would support a page name change. Per Manual of Style/Ethiopia-related articles § Proper names: Ethiopians commonly use their fathers' given names as patronymics after their own, e.g. Abiy Ahmed means Abiy, the son of Ahmed. Sometimes their father's father's name appears in third place, but this style is usually for official documents; only in rare circumstances would Ethiopians adopt their grandfather's name as a last name for common usage. ... Ethiopians, especially in the West, will frequently adopt their own transliteration scheme for styling themselves, that does not always correspond to any of the various schemes employed by linguists. Whenever proper names become notable under such ad hoc spellings, they should be preferred as the most common searchable term. If his published works use the "G" name, then clearly he has adopted that style. Whatever he might be called by his friends and family would be irrelevant for a Wikipedia article where he would be known for his notability, not his home life. Platonk (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Academic Research. Biologist?

Citation #2 is his Public Health PhD thesis about the relationship between Malaria and dams, not a citation that supports the claim that he is a biologist. Two years ago, this page referred to him as a "microbiologist" which I pointed out back then is also wrong. 2603:8080:6C02:FEE2:840B:E220:E11C:92E7 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The article states "In 1986, Tedros received a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from the University of Asmara", which was inserted into the article 8 years ago [28] and doesn't seem to have been contradicted. The more recent addition of the word "biologist" [29] was in July 2020. The article also states he was engaged in research in the field of biology. Is not someone with a degree in biology who has done research in the field of biology a biologist?

And as for your complaint back in May 2020 [30] re "microbiologist", Tedros' public health Master's thesis, which is not even proximate to the field of microbiology sounds like nitpicking. Current content is degree in immunology of infectious diseases from the University of London in 1992... a Doctor of Philosophy in community health from the University of Nottingham for research on the effects of dams on malaria transmission in the Tigray region. Sounds kind of like the description from Microbiology and Medical microbiology articles. Do you have some personal beef with the subject? Platonk (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well reasoned, Platonk! BushelCandle 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate content

@HeinzMaster: You added at least three sections of duplicate content to this article. I reverted it all rather than picking through it with a fine toothed comb. Please work with what is already there in the article. Having content duplicated in two places — verbatim — is not acceptable. If some of your edit is novel, then please add that back in. Platonk (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch!

(Sometimes it can be difficult for conscientious editors like @HeinzMaster:, coming new to a large article, to realise that their well-meaning addition is duplicative or not novel without reading the whole, long article and Platonk's approach is entirely reasonable and appropriate.) BushelCandle 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, some of the non-duplicate material was not supported by the cited sources. Please make sure the material you add follows the sources, per WP:V and WP:BLP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)