The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
Well this article is a total train wreck. The introduction (the only thing in the article that isn't copy-pasted from elsewhere) has obvious NPOV issues, contains nothing but unsourced claims and misinformation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. Beside, most of the text copy-pasted here have nothing to do with the subject at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blådjur (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you could make specific edits and suggestions on how the lede can be improved and cleaned up, and how the content has nothing to do with the subject, instead of making generalized complaints. Love of Corey (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blådjur (talk·contribs), in response to your comments here, the lede was only worded that way because I wasn't sure if the content here would fit as the lede or under another section. Judging by my interpretation of how the government response was worded overall in the main pandemic article, I was under the impression that the topic was shifting mostly towards how Sweden's government response was different from those of most countries. Because I was on a time crunch at the time, I just decided to write my own lede based on what I've gleaned in the main article and worry about the rest later. However, I would like this article to be about the response overall. I would also like to know what you meant by "most of the content you removed has nothing to do with the response from the government." Would you mind clarifying that? Love of Corey (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, you could always just edit this article and make the necessary improvements. Not once have you touched the article directly, which is strange, because no one's stopping you. I may have created the article and am currently defending its standing as an individual topic of notability, but I'm open to any and all edits of improvement. Love of Corey (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On your introduction:
Introducing this massive subject with "Sweden's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been met with international scrutiny." would be like starting the article on Donald Trump with "Donald Trump is regarded as unfit for president and a threat to global security by many outside the US". Neither sentence has anything to do with why the subject is notable.
The government has nothing whatsoever to do with the strategy or any measures to fight the pandemic itself. They haven't been pursuing social distancing and they haven't imposed any restrictions on travel. They never decided not to impose "widespread sector closures and quarantining and lockdown measures". Which by the way would be impossible in Sweden as it would go against the constitution. At the very most you can quarantine a building. But even that wouldn't be a government response, it would be the response of one doctor in an independent region. The government's response mostly regards the economy, intended to save businesses and save jobs, and the healthcare sector with more resources (yes, they have passed a few laws related to the pandemic like the ban of gatherings, but only because they were asked to). I hope this answers your question. bladjur(talk)21:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you see an issue in a page that you are allowed to edit, it would be better if you made the edits yourself instead of going on the talk page, especially because the act of stating that something has faced criticism is not a political statement in itself, nor is it an indication of a point of view. Everything gets criticism of some type, and when there is sufficient criticism, that will be part of its notability; acknowledging the existence of this criticism is not the same as a "political agenda". While I do not know the governmental structure of Sweden, you should know that independently-functioning government agencies are still considered to be part of the government, and Swedish government health officials explicitly chose not to pursue quarantining, lockdowns, social distancing, or travel restrictions. Though, your point of view is very clear on this topic, so if I were you, I would approach this with caution.Birdn4t0r (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed this section as someone had given it a headline that had nothing to do with my comments. I've never suggested that this article needs a "cleanup".bladjur(talk)18:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
