Talk:World Health Organisation: China engaging in bird flu cover up

The first statement is a little strong. Reminder of the NPOV policy that we are not to advocate a side, we are to report the facts. --Mrmiscellanious 22:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC) "The People's Republic of China has withheld vital information regarding H5N1 outbreaks."
 * User was not informed of our policies before hand, I have since left a on talk page.  --Mrmiscellanious 22:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This sentence? It is true, the WHO has requested samples and China has not complied just like the SARS outbreak. 70.57.82.114 22:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But it violates our NPOV policy (link on your talk page). If the sentence were reworded to say (example): "The World Health Organization has made claims that the PRC has withheld vital information regarding...", it would be more suitable for use.  --Mrmiscellanious 22:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the new sentence better? 70.57.82.114 22:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And I get your point, I will ensure I record who said what in the future. 70.57.82.114 22:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was going to you but MrM got there first :-). The NPOV and cite sources are well worth a read, btw. Dan100 (Talk) 23:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

anti-china tone
I think an 'anti-china' bias is evident in a number of places in this artical. The use of 'illegal', for example, should be qualified. A number of 'facts' are presented, but with no references to back them up - which makes it sound like the personal opinion of the author. This means the whole article will be discredited by readers unless their opinion happens coincide with the the author's. Also, there is an overtone (eg the SARS reference) that China somehow needs to obey the WHO or other entities. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant; the result will be that the readers in China (and elsewhere) will discount the article as biased and, therefore, also the publication (ie Wikinews). Furthermore, the opinion that using the drug now (for example, to stop it before it affects humans beings) is somehow not better than using it later (after it has affected human beings) should be qualified. Apparently-biases articles such as this risk the whole publication being made unavailable to the people who most need to read it. Please consider adjusting the tone of this article.


 * Mr anon, thank you for raising these concerns here, but it's always better if you get stuck in and edit the article yourself :-). Dan100 (Talk) 13:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also raised my eyebrows when reading the word 'illegally'. Illegal is against the law, but the question is which law. Usually that is obvious, namely the law of the country at hand. So this suggests that China is breaking its own laws. If so, or if it's anyone else's law (if that qualifies as a law), that should be stated. I'll remove the word, but if anyone has more info please put it back and include that info. DirkvdM 13:08:42, 2005-07-25 (UTC)


 * Done. Brought over the Washington Post article about it. 70.57.82.114 17:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

More recent news
I would be good to get an article about these two items:

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/07250505/H5N1_Indonesia_Tangerang_6_H2H.html

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/07240505/H5N1_Sichuan_Ebola.html

Would it be kosher to just link recombinomics to http://www.recombinomics.com/whats_new.html ?