Talk:Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations

Equitable access

I stopped by to casually read this and wound up adding substantial critical content, because an issue with significant coverage was covered with "CEPI came under criticism for this by Médecins Sans Frontières, however," (MSF's criticisms are more on the order of concern about regulatory capture of the CEPI). The section had neutrality problems, both in the selection of sources and in how they were described. I have not gone over the other sections. It is easy to write unbalanced coverage on an emotive, high-stakes topic, and I'm talking about the sources here; as Wikipedia editors, we are also human and therefore need to take particular care with such topics (myself not excluded). Since the CEPI is a young organization and is currently performing a lot of important actions very rapidly, this article may not yet have the stability needed for good article nominations, though I think that the topic is an important one that deserves this level of careful review, and would clearly be a good candidate once it is more mature. HLHJ (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting points HLHJ. I saw the NYT article on this issue and added it but was not sure about the weight to give it was the NYT piece is an opinion and MSF were the only entity complaining (and I am not sure are experts in vaccine development, so might not have been practical in their approach). The other stakeholders in CEPI made no comment on it (e.g. Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation etc.). I did have a source to a BMJ article on CEPI noting tha their compromise was inevitable but I didn't seem to add as a reference. Am busy in RL now, and trying to devote my WP time to GA submissions I am completing. Good to see you expanding the article and I will come back to it later and discuss then. Best of luck with it. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Britishfinance. I've been working on it a bit more, and have added some content on the difficulties with sourcing this content. If you are an expert in this field , with a small range of potential employers, none of whom want to hire troublemakers, it's difficult to make statements that might affect the business model of your potential employers. According to the NYT, public health agencies (which have to negotiate deals with these companies) have similar problems. I note that the NYT quoted and cited anonymous sources. This is a difficult issue and I will seek more information on it. HLHJ (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, in these edits and these edits, you removed refs from existing content. This left some of the existing content uncited. Mention of the open-access provisions of CEPI's original content were also removed. The abbreviated section on the policy change didn't actually mention the policy change, which I think made it a bit confusing. It also didn't mention the criticism of the policy change, apart from the New York Times quote, though CEPI's response to the criticisms was retained. All the mentions of MSF, and all of the references to MSF sources, were removed. I assume that you consider MSF's criticisms non-notable. I am again concerned about balance, as I think MSF is a reliable source providing a solid independent perspective.

I have restored the citations that are needed to support the retained content in the article. I have restored the sentence saying that the policy was changed and why. I have added the sentence "The changes met with strong criticism, lead by Médecins Sans Frontières", cited to two new third-party non-MSF sources. I have also restored the sentence on open-access policies. I hope that these changes are acceptable to you. I have not restored the section on the market problems CEPI was founded to address; I take your point that it is somewhat long and off-topic. I have also not restored the details on MSF's critique, or your other changes, which I have not looked into in detail. HLHJ (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

redirect Richard Hatchett

Why is there a redirect from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Richard_Hatchett to this site? Is there any reason why there is no site for a men with this position, just a a redirect? --Struppi (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of an standalone article for Hatchett, his name is redirected here. He might justify a standalone article if there are sufficient standalone references that cover him as the main subject (e.g. WP:SIGCOV)? Britishfinance (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the redirect. What are the guidelines for a redirect? If I search him, it doesn't make sense that I'll land here. --Struppi (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Contribution to Moderna's Covid-19 Vaccine development

I read a press release that Moderna is attributing CETI with funding the initial clinical batch of it's Covid vaccine https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-longer-shelf-life-its-covid-19-vaccine mRNA-1273

"The first clinical batch, which was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, was completed on February 7, 2020"

Does this deserve a mention in the article? Seems important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnurkel (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article?

I was in the middle of deleting parts of the article due to PROMO (as tagged already) when I noticed its a Good Article' , perhaps a reassessment would be a good idea, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I read this and saw the tag, I don't know what makes an article good or otherwise, but it seemed pretty "dry" and not like an ad? It is comprehensive, but it is just a list of their actions and history, can't see how that is an ad. They have done some good things and seem like they were a part of the development of the vaccines so I don't think that should be interpreted as promotional given that their contribution is listed in good sources. 78.18.239.117 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)